[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13772-13805]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2003

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 257, I 
call up the bill (H.R. 760) to prohibit the procedure commonly known as 
partial-birth abortion, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 257, the bill 
is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 760 is as follows:

                                H.R. 760

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban 
     Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds and declares the following:
       (1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the 
     practice of performing a partial-birth abortion--an abortion 
     in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until 
     only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of 
     the child's skull with a sharp instrument, and sucks the 
     child's brains out before completing delivery of the dead 
     infant--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never 
     medically necessary and should be prohibited.
       (2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is 
     embraced by the medical community, particularly among 
     physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, 
     partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is 
     not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, 
     but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of 
     women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at 
     least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States 
     Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 
     105th, and 106th Congresses.
       (3) In Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 932 (2000), the 
     United States Supreme Court opined ``that significant medical 
     authority supports the proposition that in some 
     circumstances, [partial birth abortion] would be the safest 
     procedure'' for pregnant women who wish to undergo an 
     abortion. Thus, the Court struck down the State of Nebraska's 
     ban on partial-birth abortion procedures, concluding that it 
     placed an ``undue burden'' on women seeking abortions because 
     it failed to include an exception for partial-birth abortions 
     deemed necessary to preserve the ``health'' of the mother.
       (4) In reaching this conclusion, the Court deferred to the 
     Federal district court's factual findings that the partial-
     birth abortion procedure was statistically and medically as 
     safe as, and in many circumstances safer than, alternative 
     abortion procedures.
       (5) However, the great weight of evidence presented at the 
     Stenberg trial and other trials challenging partial-birth 
     abortion bans, as well as at extensive Congressional 
     hearings, demonstrates that a partial-birth abortion is never 
     necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses 
     significant health risks to a woman upon whom the procedure 
     is performed, and is outside of the standard of medical care.
       (6) Despite the dearth of evidence in the Stenberg trial 
     court record supporting the district court's findings, the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the 
     Supreme Court refused to set aside the district court's 
     factual findings because, under the applicable standard of 
     appellate review, they were not ``clearly erroneous''. A 
     finding of fact is clearly erroneous ``when although there is 
     evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire 
     evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a 
     mistake has been committed''. Anderson v. City of Bessemer 
     City, North Carolina, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). Under this 
     standard, ``if the district court's account of the evidence 
     is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, 
     the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced 
     that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have 
     weighed the evidence differently''. Id. at 574.
       (7) Thus, in Stenberg, the United States Supreme Court was 
     required to accept the very questionable findings issued by 
     the district court judge--the effect of which was to render 
     null and void the reasoned factual findings and policy 
     determinations of the United States Congress and at least 27 
     State legislatures.
       (8) However, under well-settled Supreme Court 
     jurisprudence, the United States Congress is not bound to 
     accept the same factual findings that the Supreme Court was 
     bound to accept in Stenberg under the ``clearly erroneous'' 
     standard. Rather, the United States Congress is entitled to 
     reach its own factual findings--findings that the Supreme 
     Court accords great deference--and to enact legislation based 
     upon these findings so long as it seeks to pursue a 
     legitimate interest that is within the scope of the 
     Constitution, and draws reasonable inferences based upon 
     substantial evidence.
       (9) In Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966), the 
     Supreme Court articulated its highly deferential review of 
     Congressional factual findings when it addressed the 
     constitutionality of section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 
     1965. Regarding Congress' factual determination that section 
     4(e) would assist the Puerto Rican community in ``gaining 
     nondiscriminatory treatment in public services,'' the Court 
     stated that ``[i]t was for Congress, as the branch that made 
     this judgment, to assess and weigh the various conflicting 
     considerations. . . . It is not for us to review the 
     congressional resolution of these factors. It is enough that 
     we be able to perceive a basis upon which the Congress might 
     resolve the conflict as it did. There plainly was such a 
     basis to support section 4(e) in the application in question 
     in this case.''. Id. at 653.
       (10) Katzenbach's highly deferential review of Congress's 
     factual conclusions was relied upon by the United States 
     District Court for the District of Columbia when it upheld 
     the ``bail-out'' provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 
     (42 U.S.C. 1973c), stating that ``congressional fact finding, 
     to which we are inclined to pay great deference, strengthens 
     the inference that, in those jurisdictions covered by the 
     Act, state actions discriminatory in effect are 
     discriminatory in purpose''. City of Rome, Georgia v. U.S., 
     472 F. Supp. 221 (D. D. Col. 1979) aff'd City of Rome, 
     Georgia v. U.S., 446 U.S. 156 (1980).
       (11) The Court continued its practice of deferring to 
     congressional factual findings in

[[Page 13773]]

     reviewing the constitutionality of the must-carry provisions 
     of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition 
     Act of 1992. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal 
     Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) (Turner I) and 
     Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications 
     Commission, 520 U.S. 180 (1997) (Turner II). At issue in the 
     Turner cases was Congress' legislative finding that, absent 
     mandatory carriage rules, the continued viability of local 
     broadcast television would be ``seriously jeopardized''. The 
     Turner I Court recognized that as an institution, ``Congress 
     is far better equipped than the judiciary to `amass and 
     evaluate the vast amounts of data' bearing upon an issue as 
     complex and dynamic as that presented here''. 512 U.S. at 
     665-66. Although the Court recognized that ``the deference 
     afforded to legislative findings does `not foreclose our 
     independent judgment of the facts bearing on an issue of 
     constitutional law,''' its ``obligation to exercise 
     independent judgment when First Amendment rights are 
     implicated is not a license to reweigh the evidence de novo, 
     or to replace Congress' factual predictions with our own. 
     Rather, it is to assure that, in formulating its judgments, 
     Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial 
     evidence.'' Id. at 666.
       (12) Three years later in Turner II, the Court upheld the 
     ``must-carry'' provisions based upon Congress' findings, 
     stating the Court's ``sole obligation is `to assure that, in 
     formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable 
     inferences based on substantial evidence.''' 520 U.S. at 195. 
     Citing its ruling in Turner I, the Court reiterated that 
     ``[w]e owe Congress' findings deference in part because the 
     institution `is far better equipped than the judiciary to 
     ``amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data'' bearing upon' 
     legislative questions,'' id. at 195, and added that it 
     ``owe[d] Congress' findings an additional measure of 
     deference out of respect for its authority to exercise the 
     legislative power.'' Id. at 196.
       (13) There exists substantial record evidence upon which 
     Congress has reached its conclusion that a ban on partial-
     birth abortion is not required to contain a ``health'' 
     exception, because the facts indicate that a partial-birth 
     abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a 
     woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies 
     outside the standard of medical care. Congress was informed 
     by extensive hearings held during the 104th, 105th, and 107th 
     Congresses and passed a ban on partial-birth abortion in the 
     104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. These findings reflect 
     the very informed judgment of the Congress that a partial-
     birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a 
     woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies 
     outside the standard of medical care, and should, therefore, 
     be banned.
       (14) Pursuant to the testimony received during extensive 
     legislative hearings during the 104th, 105th, and 107th 
     Congresses, Congress finds and declares that:
       (A) Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the 
     health of a woman undergoing the procedure. Those risks 
     include, among other things: an increase in a woman's risk of 
     suffering from cervical incompetence, a result of cervical 
     dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to 
     successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an 
     increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid 
     embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting 
     the child to a footling breech position, a procedure which, 
     according to a leading obstetrics textbook, ``there are very 
     few, if any, indications for . . .  other than for delivery 
     of a second twin''; and a risk of lacerations and secondary 
     hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp 
     instrument into the base of the unborn child's skull while he 
     or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could 
     result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of 
     shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death.
       (B) There is no credible medical evidence that partial-
     birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion 
     procedures. No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions 
     have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been 
     conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to 
     other abortion methods. Furthermore, there have been no 
     articles published in peer-reviewed journals that establish 
     that partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to 
     established abortion procedures. Indeed, unlike other more 
     commonly used abortion procedures, there are currently no 
     medical schools that provide instruction on abortions that 
     include the instruction in partial-birth abortions in their 
     curriculum.
       (C) A prominent medical association has concluded that 
     partial-birth abortion is ``not an accepted medical 
     practice,'' that it has ``never been subject to even a 
     minimal amount of the normal medical practice development,'' 
     that ``the relative advantages and disadvantages of the 
     procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown,'' and 
     that ``there is no consensus among obstetricians about its 
     use''. The association has further noted that partial-birth 
     abortion is broadly disfavored by both medical experts and 
     the public, is ``ethically wrong,'' and ``is never the only 
     appropriate procedure''.
       (D) Neither the plaintiff in Stenberg v. Carhart, nor the 
     experts who testified on his behalf, have identified a single 
     circumstance during which a partial-birth abortion was 
     necessary to preserve the health of a woman.
       (E) The physician credited with developing the partial-
     birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never 
     encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was 
     medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, 
     is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a 
     woman.
       (F) A ban on the partial-birth abortion procedure will 
     therefore advance the health interests of pregnant women 
     seeking to terminate a pregnancy.
       (G) In light of this overwhelming evidence, Congress and 
     the States have a compelling interest in prohibiting partial-
     birth abortions. In addition to promoting maternal health, 
     such a prohibition will draw a bright line that clearly 
     distinguishes abortion and infanticide, that preserves the 
     integrity of the medical profession, and promotes respect for 
     human life.
       (H) Based upon Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and Planned 
     Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), a governmental 
     interest in protecting the life of a child during the 
     delivery process arises by virtue of the fact that during a 
     partial-birth abortion, labor is induced and the birth 
     process has begun. This distinction was recognized in Roe 
     when the Court noted, without comment, that the Texas 
     parturition statute, which prohibited one from killing a 
     child ``in a state of being born and before actual birth,'' 
     was not under attack. This interest becomes compelling as the 
     child emerges from the maternal body. A child that is 
     completely born is a full, legal person entitled to 
     constitutional protections afforded a ``person'' under the 
     United States Constitution. Partial-birth abortions involve 
     the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere 
     inches away from, becoming a ``person''. Thus, the government 
     has a heightened interest in protecting the life of the 
     partially-born child.
       (I) This, too, has not gone unnoticed in the medical 
     community, where a prominent medical association has 
     recognized that partial-birth abortions are ``ethically 
     different from other destructive abortion techniques because 
     the fetus, normally twenty weeks or longer in gestation, is 
     killed outside of the womb''. According to this medical 
     association, the ```partial birth' gives the fetus an 
     autonomy which separates it from the right of the woman to 
     choose treatments for her own body''.
       (J) Partial-birth abortion also confuses the medical, 
     legal, and ethical duties of physicians to preserve and 
     promote life, as the physician acts directly against the 
     physical life of a child, whom he or she had just delivered, 
     all but the head, out of the womb, in order to end that life. 
     Partial-birth abortion thus appropriates the terminology and 
     techniques used by obstetricians in the delivery of living 
     children--obstetricians who preserve and protect the life of 
     the mother and the child--and instead uses those techniques 
     to end the life of the partially-born child.
       (K) Thus, by aborting a child in the manner that 
     purposefully seeks to kill the child after he or she has 
     begun the process of birth, partial-birth abortion undermines 
     the public's perception of the appropriate role of a 
     physician during the delivery process, and perverts a process 
     during which life is brought into the world, in order to 
     destroy a partially-born child.
       (L) The gruesome and inhumane nature of the partial-birth 
     abortion procedure and its disturbing similarity to the 
     killing of a newborn infant promotes a complete disregard for 
     infant human life that can only be countered by a prohibition 
     of the procedure.
       (M) The vast majority of babies killed during partial-birth 
     abortions are alive until the end of the procedure. It is a 
     medical fact, however, that unborn infants at this stage can 
     feel pain when subjected to painful stimuli and that their 
     perception of this pain is even more intense than that of 
     newborn infants and older children when subjected to the same 
     stimuli. Thus, during a partial-birth abortion procedure, the 
     child will fully experience the pain associated with piercing 
     his or her skull and sucking out his or her brain.
       (N) Implicitly approving such a brutal and inhumane 
     procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen 
     society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all 
     vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly 
     difficult to protect such life. Thus, Congress has a 
     compelling interest in acting--indeed it must act--to 
     prohibit this inhumane procedure.
       (O) For these reasons, Congress finds that partial-birth 
     abortion is never medically indicated to preserve the health 
     of the mother; is in fact unrecognized as a valid abortion 
     procedure by the mainstream medical community; poses 
     additional health risks to the mother; blurs the line between 
     abortion and infanticide in the killing of a partially-born 
     child just inches from birth; and confuses the role of the 
     physician in childbirth and should, therefore, be banned.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after chapter 73 the following:

[[Page 13774]]



                 ``CHAPTER 74--PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS

``Sec.
``1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited.

     ``Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

       ``(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or 
     foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion 
     and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this 
     title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This 
     subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is 
     necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is 
     endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or 
     physical injury, including a life-endangering physical 
     condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. 
     This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.
       ``(b) As used in this section--
       ``(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion 
     in which--
       ``(A) 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; and
       ``(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of 
     delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; 
     and
       ``(2) the term `physician' means a doctor of medicine or 
     osteopathy legally authorized to practice medicine and 
     surgery by the State in which the doctor performs such 
     activity, or any other individual legally authorized by the 
     State to perform abortions: Provided, however, That any 
     individual who is not a physician or not otherwise legally 
     authorized by the State to perform abortions, but who 
     nevertheless directly performs a partial-birth abortion, 
     shall be subject to the provisions of this section.
       ``(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time 
     she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the 
     mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of 
     the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in 
     a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the 
     pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or 
     the plaintiff consented to the abortion.
       ``(2) Such relief shall include--
       ``(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and 
     physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and
       ``(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of 
     the partial-birth abortion.
       ``(d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this 
     section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on 
     whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the 
     life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical 
     disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a 
     life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from 
     the pregnancy itself.
       ``(2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that 
     issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the 
     defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial 
     for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take 
     place.
       ``(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is 
     performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a 
     conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under 
     section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this 
     section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to chapter 73 the following new item:
``74. Partial-birth abortions...................................1531''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, it shall 
be in order to consider an amendment printed in House Report 108-139, 
if offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) or his 
designee, which shall be considered read, and shall be debatable for 1 
hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 30 minutes of debate on 
the bill.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 760.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 760, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, 
would prohibit the gruesome and inhumane procedure of partial-birth 
abortion that, unfortunately, we are all too familiar with. An 
abortionist who violates this ban would be subject to fines, a maximum 
of 2 years' imprisonment, or both. The bill includes an exception for 
those situations in which a partial-birth abortion is deemed necessary 
to save the life of the mother. An identical bill, H.R. 4965, was 
approved by this Chamber last summer by a 274-151 vote, but the then-
Democratic leadership in the other body chose not to bring it up for a 
vote.
  A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that partial-birth 
abortion is an unsafe and inhumane procedure that is never medically 
necessary and should be prohibited. Contrary to the claims of advocates 
of this gruesome procedure, the procedure remains an untested, 
unproven, and potentially dangerous procedure that has never been 
embraced by the medical profession. Unfortunately, two Federal bans 
that were passed by prior Republican Congresses and sent to President 
Clinton's desk were promptly vetoed.
  In June 2000, the United States Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's 
partial-birth abortion ban, which was similar, but not identical, to 
bans previously passed by Congress. The Court concluded that Nebraska's 
ban did not clearly distinguish the prohibited procedure from the other 
more commonly performed second trimester abortion procedures. The Court 
also held, on the basis of highly disputed factual findings of the 
district court, that the law was required to include an exception for 
partial-birth abortions deemed necessary to preserve the health of a 
woman.
  H.R. 760's new definition of partial-birth abortion addresses the 
Court's first concern by clearly and unambiguously defining the 
prohibited procedure. The bill also addresses the Court's second 
objection to the Nebraska law by including extensive congressional 
findings based upon medical evidence received in a series of 
legislative hearings, that, contrary to the factual findings of the 
district court in Stenberg, a partial-birth abortion is never medically 
necessary to preserve a woman's health, poses serious risk to a woman's 
health, and in fact is below the requisite standard of medical care.
  H.R. 760's lack of a health exception is based upon Congress's 
factual determination that partial-birth abortion is a dangerous 
procedure that does not serve the health of any woman. The Supreme 
Court has a long history, particularly in the area of civil rights, of 
deferring to Congress's factual conclusions. In doing so, the Court has 
recognized that Congress's institutional structure makes it better 
suited than the judiciary to assess facts upon which it will make 
policy determinations.
  As Justice Rehnquist has stated, the Court must be, ``particularly 
careful not to substitute its judgment of what is desirable for that of 
Congress, or its own evaluation of evidence for a reasonable evaluation 
by the legislative branch.'' Thus in Katzenback v. Morgan, while 
addressing section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Court 
deferred to Congress's factual determination that section 4(e) would 
assist the Puerto Rican community in ``gaining nondiscriminatory 
treatment in public services,'' stating: ``It is not for us to review 
the congressional resolution'' of the various issues it had before it 
to consider. Rather, ``It is enough that we are able to perceive a 
basis upon which the Congress might resolve the conflict as it did.''
  Similarly in Fullilove v. Klutznick, when reviewing the minority 
business enterprise provision of the Public Works Employment Act of 
1977, the Court repeatedly cited and deferred to the legislative record 
and factual conclusions of Congress to uphold the provisions as an 
appropriate exercise of congressional authority.

                              {time}  1730

  In addition to the health risks to women who undergo the partial-
birth abortion procedure, it is particularly brutal and inhumane to the 
nearly born infant as virtually all the infants upon whom this 
procedure is performed are alive and feel excruciating pain. 
Furthermore, a child upon whom a partial-birth abortion is being 
performed

[[Page 13775]]

will not be significantly affected by medication administered to the 
mother during the performance of the procedure.
  As credible testimony received by the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution confirms, ``Current methods for providing maternal 
anesthesia during partial-birth abortions are unlikely to prevent the 
experience of pain and stress'' that the child will feel during the 
procedure. Thus, claims that a child is almost certain to be either 
dead or unconscious and near death prior to the commencement of the 
partial-birth abortion are unsubstantiated.
  H.R. 760 enjoys overwhelming support from members of both parties 
precisely because of the barbaric nature of this procedure and the 
dangers it poses to women who undergo it. Additionally, the American 
Medical Association has recognized that partial-birth abortions are 
``ethically different from other destructive abortion techniques 
because the fetus, normally 20 weeks or longer in gestation, is killed 
out of the womb.'' Thus, the ``partial birth'' gives the fetus an 
autonomy which separates it from the right of the woman to choose 
treatments for her own body.
  Implicitly approving such a brutal and inhumane procedure by choosing 
not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not 
only newborns but all vulnerable and innocent human life. Thus, 
Congress has a compelling interest in acting, indeed it must, to 
prohibit this inhumane procedure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today opposing H.R. 760 and 
supporting the substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 760, the 
Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003.
  This is always an ugly and difficult debate. I am not comfortable 
with the notion of a pregnancy being terminated when a woman is in the 
last trimester.
  I doubt that many people believe a woman who is eight months pregnant 
should be able to just change her mind and terminate the pregnancy. And 
I really don't believe that that situation happens.
  But there are times when late term abortions are necessary to protect 
the life and health of the mother, or to save the fetus from undue pain 
and suffering due to irreversible birth defects.
  In those cases, we should make sure that women have access to safe, 
appropriate medical procedures.
  Unfortunately, the legislation we are considering today is almost 
identical to a Nebraska law that the Supreme Court found 
unconstitutional.
  In Stenberg v. Carhart, the Court found that the Nebraska law outlaws 
several procedures, including the safest and most commonly used method 
for performing pre-viability second trimester abortions.
  Second, the Court ruled that any ban on methods of abortion must 
provide an exception for women's health, and also struck down the 
Nebraska law for failing to include such an exception.
  H.R. 760 continues to flout the Supreme Court's rulings by continuing 
to ban certain procedures, and failing to protect the life of the 
mother.
  If we are serious about banning truly late-term abortions, than we 
should do what Texas did.
  My home state has a law which says that ``No abortion may be 
performed in the third trimester on a viable fetus unless necessary to 
preserve the woman's life or prevent a ``substantial risk of serious 
impairment'' to her physical or mental health or if the fetus has a 
severe and irreversible abnormality.''
  I supported this law when it passed the State Legislature, and 
support the Hoyer-Greenwood Amendment being offered today, which 
provides similar protections for women facing this awful choice.
  I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 760, and instead support the 
Hoyer-Greenwood substitute, which is similar to common sense Texas law.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank very much the ranking 
member of the subcommittee on Judiciary that is managing this bill, I 
want to thank him for the great work that he and the Judiciary staff 
have done in trying to bring some understanding to the significance of 
what we are doing here today.
  First of all, let us begin the discussion by recognizing that the 
term ``partial-birth abortion'' is a political term or a rhetorical 
term. It is not found in the medical journals. It is not found in the 
textbooks on medicine. The reason is that it was invented in the 
Congress. Okay?
  The bill before us is different from other bills that have attempted 
to ban abortion because this bill has now determined that they would 
get around the Supreme Court ban on these procedures which require the 
health of the mother be taken into consideration by saying, we have a 
bill here that has about 14 pages of findings, congressional findings, 
that now make it unnecessary to follow Roe v. Wade and the other major 
case that precludes these bills from being constitutional. They have 
been struck down repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly. But this bill is 
now going to be okay because we have congressional findings.
  Flash to the Congress. All congressional findings are not approved by 
the Supreme Court. Sorry about that, gentlemen. We have here, that I 
will put into the Record, and I hope we will have some discussion on 
it, the Turner Broadcasting case, Supreme Court case; the Morrison 
case, the Penhurst case, we go on and on with a long list of cases that 
say all findings are not findings and that therefore the Supreme Court 
is going to say, oh, okay, you had two or three doctors testify before 
your subcommittee and from this you draw findings and so, therefore, 
now all the Supreme Court decisions about the protection of the health 
and life of the mother are void. Not so.
  The reason is that H.R. 760 simply states that the district court 
erred in its finding of fact and law, but as a matter of fact, this 
bill does not add a health exception, but instead simply states that 
the procedures covered by the bill are not necessary and that therefore 
their use pose no risk to the mother's health.
  We listen to some doctors, we then determine that we have now 
exceptions and we pack them into this bill and we say, That's it. We 
don't need to determine that the health and welfare of the mother is as 
critical as the Supreme Court used to think because now we have 
findings, congressional findings. And the Supreme Court has got to 
follow congressional findings. Right? Wrong.
  It would seem that on the basis that this was done, it will be pretty 
easy for the Supreme Court to look behind this bill, H.R. 760.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan is right. The Supreme Court 
is not required to accept congressional findings. In the cases that I 
have cited, they have given great deference to congressional findings. 
Here in the Stenberg case, the Supreme Court accepted the findings of 
the district court. We believe the district court's findings were in 
error. That is why there are extensive findings contained in H.R. 760 
which we hope are substantiated by extensive hearing records and that 
the Supreme Court will give the same type of deference that it has done 
in the past in civil rights and employment cases.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. Partial-birth abortion is the termination of the life of a living 
baby just seconds before it takes its first breath outside the womb. 
The procedure is violent, it is gruesome, it is horrific, it is 
barbaric, it is infanticide.
  Proponents of this procedure will tell you a different story today. 
They want you to believe it is about politics or ideology. They will do 
anything to divert attention from the cold, hard facts about partial-
birth abortion.
  I want to remind everybody that we have seen these same tactics for 
many years and that the misinformation

[[Page 13776]]

touted by the abortion lobby was exposed as blatant propaganda back in 
1997. We might recall that the executive director of the National 
Coalition of Abortion Providers admitted that he, quote, ``lied through 
his teeth when he stated that partial-birth abortions were rarely 
performed.'' He went on to say that the procedure is most often 
performed on healthy mothers who are about 5 months pregnant with 
healthy fetuses.
  So as we debate this compassionate bill today, I ask that you 
remember the truth: Partial-birth abortion remains an untested, 
unproven and dangerous procedure that has never been embraced by the 
mainstream medical community.
  I would like to take a few minutes to discuss this legislation in 
more detail. Two years ago in Stenberg v. Carhart, the United States 
Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban which 
was similar, but not identical, to bans passed by previous Congresses. 
To address the constitutional concerns raised by the majority in 
Stenberg, our legislation differs from previous proposals in two areas. 
First, the bill contains a new, more precise definition of the 
prohibited procedure that, as expert medical testimony received by the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution indicated, clearly distinguishes it 
from more commonly performed abortion procedures.
  Opponents of this legislation claim that doctors will be confused by 
the definition of partial-birth abortion. Despite the assertions of the 
abortionists who defend this procedure, the new definition provides 
physicians anatomical guideposts so that there will be no confusion 
about which procedure is prohibited.
  Second, our legislation addresses the Stenberg majority's opinion 
that the Nebraska ban placed an undue burden on women seeking abortions 
because it failed to include an exception for partial-birth abortions 
deemed necessary to preserve the health of the mother. The Stenberg 
court based its conclusion on the trial court's factual findings 
regarding the relative health and safety benefits of partial-birth 
abortions, findings which were highly disputed.
  Under well-settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the United States 
Congress is not bound to accept the same factual findings that the 
Supreme Court was bound to accept in Stenberg under the clearly 
erroneous standard. Rather, as the Supreme Court explained in Turner 
Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, the 
United States Congress is entitled to reach its own factual findings, 
findings that the Supreme Court consistently relies upon and accords 
great deference, and to enact legislation based upon these findings so 
long as it seeks to pursue a legitimate interest that is within the 
scope of the Constitution and draws reasonable inferences based upon 
substantial evidence. That is exactly what we have done in this 
legislation.
  The first section of our legislation contains Congress' extensive 
factual findings that, based upon extensive medical evidence compiled 
during congressional hearings, partial-birth abortion poses serious 
risks to women's health, is never medically indicated, and is outside 
standard medical care. In fact, the district court's factual findings 
in Stenberg are inconsistent with the overwhelming weight of authority 
regarding the safety and medical necessity of partial-birth abortion.
  According to the American Medical Association, ``There is no 
consensus among obstetricians about its use, it has never been subject 
to even a minimal amount of normal medical practice development, and it 
is not in the medical textbooks.'' In addition, no controlled studies 
of partial-birth abortions have been conducted, nor have any 
comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its efficacy compared 
to other abortion methods.
  Leading proponents of partial-birth abortion also acknowledge that it 
poses additional health risks because of the many difficulties required 
in that particular procedure. It has even been called a rogue 
procedure.
  Partial-birth abortion is truly a national tragedy. Fortunately, the 
American people and the President recognize the horrors of partial-
birth abortion and are waiting for Congress to again take action. On 
March 13, 2003, the other body passed virtually identical legislation 
by a 64 to 33 vote.
  I urge my colleagues to support our bill and help end this barbaric 
and inhumane practice once and for all in this country. It is now time 
for us to pass this legislation. I feel confident that we will do so 
today.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we have a very bad combination, a combination of 
Members of Congress who want to play doctor and Members of Congress who 
want to play Supreme Court. When you put the two together, you have a 
prescription for some very bad medicine for the women in this country.
  We have been through this debate often enough to know that you will 
not find the term ``partial-birth abortion'' in any medical textbook. 
There are procedures that you will find in medical textbooks, but the 
authors of this legislation would prefer to use the language of 
propaganda rather than the language of medical science. This bill is so 
vague that it could be read to prohibit many common procedures used 
during the second trimester. This, the Supreme Court has said, Congress 
may not constitutionally do.
  The bill as written fails every test the Supreme Court has laid down 
for constitutional regulation of abortion. It reads almost as if the 
authors went through the Supreme Court's controlling decision in 
Stenberg v. Carhart and went out of their way to thumb their noses at 
the Court. Unless the authors think that when the Court has made 
repeated and clear statements over the years of what the Constitution 
requires in this area, they were just pulling our leg, this bill has to 
be considered facially unconstitutional.
  In addition, in just one example of an obnoxious clause, the bill 
allows the husband of a woman who seeks an abortion to sue her and her 
doctor if the husband did not consent to the procedure. This would 
include a husband who had abused the woman, punched her causing massive 
damage to the fetus, deserted her, and then allow him to realize a huge 
windfall after she is left alone to deal with the consequences of his 
wrongdoing.
  This is the position of people who call themselves pro-life? It is an 
obscenity and people who support it should not be proud.
  The Supreme Court has repeatedly said any restriction on the right to 
choose must have a clear exception to preserve the life and health of a 
woman at any stage of pregnancy.

                              {time}  1745

  The bill lacks an exception for the health of the woman. I know that 
some of my colleagues do not like the constitutional rule that has been 
in place and reaffirmed by the Court for 30 years; but that is the 
supreme law of the land, and no amount of rhetoric, even if written 
into legislation, will change that. Even the Ashcroft Justice 
Department in its brief defending an Ohio statute before the Court has 
acknowledged that a health exception is required by law.
  The sponsors say that findings in the bill to the effect that so-
called partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary will satisfy 
the constitutional requirement of a health exception to any limitation 
on the right to choose an abortion. But while the Court has made clear 
that it now requires Congress to support our legislation with findings 
of fact and that the Court has arrogated to itself the right to decide 
whether the facts established are sufficient to establish that the 
legislation is appropriate and proportionate to the evil to be remedied 
in order to render the legislation constitutional, that is an 
affirmative requirement within the power of Congress to legislate.
  It is not. The Court has said the opposite. The Court has not said 
where Congress has no power to legislate, such as abortion regulation, 
without an exception for the health of the woman, that findings of fact 
can expand the power to legislate. The fact

[[Page 13777]]

requirement is established by the Court as a limitation on Congress, 
not as an expansion of the power of Congress.
  Whatever deference the Court may have shown to Congress's fact 
findings, the Court has made clear it is the final arbiter of the fact, 
not Congress, even if we put so-called fact findings in the bill. I do 
not like that anymore than other Members of the House, but there you 
have it; and frankly, the contention that the findings in this bill 
negate the necessity for the health exception to make this 
constitutional is laughable, and I do not believe any Member who knows 
anything about constitutional law can seriously and honestly suggest 
anything other than that.
  While I realize many of the proponents of this bill view all abortion 
as tantamount to infanticide, that is not a mainstream view. The 
proponents of this bill are attempting to foist a marginal view on the 
general public by characterizing it as having to do with abortions 
involving healthy fetuses that are already viable. But, of course, the 
definition in this bill will go into second trimester abortions also.
  If they really wanted to deal with post-viability abortions and 
situations in which a woman's life and health are not in jeopardy, then 
let them write a bill dealing with late-term abortions. We already have 
such laws in 40 Sates, and they would not find much opposition, if any 
opposition, to that. But it is clear that the majority is not 
interested in a bill that could pass into law and naturally be upheld 
as constitutional. What they want is simply an inflammatory piece of 
rhetoric to start undermining the political support of Roe v. Wade. The 
real purpose of this bill is not, as we have been told, to save babies, 
but to save elections.
  We now have a President who has expressed a willingness to sign this 
bill. He may in fact get his chance.
  Perhaps here in the Halls of Congress the health of women takes a 
back seat to the most extreme views of the anti-choice movement. 
Perhaps the President does not care about the health of women. We will 
find that out, perhaps.
  Let us hope that this administration does not get the opportunity to 
pack the Supreme Court with fanatics who are also indifferent to the 
lives and health of women. Until then, fortunately, the Constitution 
still serves as a bulwark against dangerous, malicious, destructive, 
and misogynistic particular bills like this one. I am thankful for 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, what really amazes me when you listen to the 
debate on this bill is the huge disconnect between the rhetoric we hear 
and what the bill actually before us is about.
  This bill is not about choice, and this bill is really not about 
abortion. This bill substantively, when you look at it, is about one 
procedure, one procedure that is so painful to an unborn baby, so 
barbaric, so egregious, that even the most extreme proponent of 
abortion has to look at it and say it shocks even their conscience.
  The overwhelming testimony is that a partial-birth abortion is never 
necessary to protect the health of the mother. This procedure is 
infanticide, and its cruelty stretches the limits of human decency.
  This issue comes down to one simple question: Is there no limit, is 
there no amount of pain, is there no procedure that is so extreme that 
we can apply to this unborn child or this fetus that we are willing as 
a country to say that just goes too far and we cannot allow that to 
happen? That is what partial-birth abortion does. It goes too far. That 
is why it is so important that we pass this bill today.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, after commemorating the 30th anniversary of 
the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade just 6 months ago, we are 
reminded again today that the fight to preserve a woman's right to 
choose is far from over. We are here today considering a ban on so-
called partial-birth abortions for the ninth time in 8 years because 
the proponents of this bill disagree with the Supreme Court. They want 
to overturn Roe v. Wade and Stenberg v. Carhart and go back to the days 
when women had no options, when they left the country or died in back 
alleys.
  In reflecting on the long debate over this bill starting in 1995, I 
was struck by something Sandra Day O'Connor said on CNN recently. 
Justice O'Connor said that she was drawn to the law because she saw the 
role it plays in shaping our society. ``I don't think law often leads 
society,'' she said. ``It really is a statement of society's beliefs in 
a way.''
  The proponents of this bill and I would likely agree with Justice 
O'Connor, except I believe that Roe v. Wade continues to express our 
society's beliefs, and they do not. Roe said that the decision to 
terminate a pregnancy is private and personal and should be made by a 
woman and her family without undue interference from the government. I, 
and the American people, still believe that. Supporters of the bill do 
not.
  Roe and Stenberg said that a woman must never be forced to sacrifice 
her life or damage her health in order to bring a pregnancy to term. 
The woman's life and health must come first and be protected throughout 
pregnancy. I and the American people still believe that. Supporters of 
the bill do not.
  Roe and Stenberg said that determinations about viability and health 
risks must be made for each woman by her physician. A blanket 
government decree about medicine is irresponsible and dangerous. I and 
the American people still believe that. Supporters of the bill do not.
  The supporters of H.R. 760 disagree with the Court's reflection of 
our society and reject the principles embodied in its decisions. 
Holding their opinion is their right. Disregarding the Constitution is 
wrong.
  The Supreme Court's decisions in Roe v. Wade and Stenberg v. Carhart 
rested on precedent, including Marbury v. Madison, decided 200 years 
ago this year. Marbury was critically important to the development of 
our democracy because it established the Supreme Court as the final and 
ultimate authority on what the Constitution means.
  In 1803, the Supreme Court became in fact, not just on paper, an 
equal partner in government, co-equal with the executive and the 
legislature. But in 2003, this Congress has decided to ignore the 
Court. The Court made clear that a partial-birth abortion ban was 
extreme and dangerous because it limited safe options for women and 
failed to protect the health of women.
  Yet the bill before us contains no protection for the health of the 
woman, leaves no role for the physician treating a woman, and never 
mentions fetal viability. Congress ignores women, families, doctors and 
the Supreme Court, and makes all the decisions.
  Congress is wrong to pass this ban and the President would be wrong 
to sign it. I urge my colleagues to respect the law of the land, 
support American values in Roe v. Wade, Stenberg v. Carhart, leave 
decisions in the hands of families, protect the health of women. Please 
vote against this bill.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would kindly ask 
Members to mute electronic devices while on the floor of the House.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding. And I 
deeply appreciate both Chairman Sensenbrenner's and Chairman Chabot's 
courageous leadership on this human right issue.
  Mr. Speaker, slowly, but inexorably, the movement to reinfranchise 
unborn children in law as respected and cherished members of the human 
family is growing.
  The most recent issue of Newsweek, it is a cover story entitled, 
``Should a Fetus Have Rights; How Science Is Changing the Debate,'' 
absolutely shatters the myth that unborn children are

[[Page 13778]]

somehow less human and less alive than their born brothers and sisters.
  Indeed, a second Newsweek story also in this week's edition, 
``Treating the Tiniest Patients,'' notes that ``medicine has already 
granted unborn babies a unique form of personhood, as patients.''
  Newsweek points out that, ``Once just grainy blobs on a TV monitor, 
new high-tech fetal ultrasound images allow prospective parents to see 
tiny fingers and toes, arms and legs, and a beating heart as early as 
12 weeks. While these images make a parent's heart leap for joy, they 
also pack such an emotional punch that even the most hard-line 
abortions rights supporters may find themselves questioning their 
beliefs.''
  Mr. Speaker, let us hope so. May the questioning begin. We have lived 
in denial concerning the violence of abortion for far too long. We 
have, by our actions, or more so by our inaction, enabled and empowered 
abortionists to dismember, decapitate and chemically poison more than 
43 million innocent and precious babies since 1973.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, we can stop some of this violence against 
children. Today we can take one of those weapons out of the hands of 
the abortionist. Today we can tell America that partially delivering a 
baby, only to stab that child in the skull so that his or her brains 
can be sucked out, is the nightmarish world of a Hannibal Lecter, not 
American medicine or jurisprudence.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, if Members could actually wade through the 
absurd and fallacious rhetoric that is being bandied about today, it 
would not be difficult to see that this unconstitutional legislation is 
not actually about so-called partial-birth abortion; it is about two 
things and two things only.
  The first is the question of who gets to make the medical decisions 
about a woman's health, the actual woman, in consultation with her 
family and physician, or the agitated and hyperbolic politicians in 
attendance today? I vote for the woman.
  The second is the fact that passage of this bill is one more step 
down the path where a woman's right to choose no longer exists, and 
that is clearly what the House and Senate and White House have said all 
along.
  Do not be fooled. There is no actual procedure called this. So-called 
late-term abortions are quite rare, and they usually occur under the 
most difficult of circumstances.
  To pass this legislation is to elevate the rhetoric of politicians 
over the sound medical advice of doctors. To pass this bill today is to 
deny women a safe and legal procedure when tragedy strikes.
  If the other side really cared about these types of abortions, they 
would vote for women's health, which they do not. They would not pass 
an unconstitutional bill which is wasting this body's time, when we 
could be talking about child tax credits and other issues and not 
spending all of this money. They could really put their efforts on 
stopping unwanted pregnancies in general.
  I urge my colleagues to think rationally and compassionately and vote 
``no'' on this terrible piece of legislation.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, life, life is a precious gift. Life is a precious gift 
from God. Partial-birth abortion is a gruesome procedure that has no 
place in our society, has no place in a civilized society.
  Partial-birth abortions are performed in the U.S. They are performed 
thousands of times annually on healthy babies and healthy mothers. In 
1997, Ron Fitzimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of 
Abortion Providers, estimated that the method was used 3,000 to 5,000 
times annually. ``In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is 
performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or 
more along,'' Fitzimmons said.
  Not that polls are all that important on this issue, it is what is 
right or wrong, but in January of 2003 a Gallup Poll found that 70 
percent of Americans favored a law making it illegal to perform a 
partial-birth abortion except in cases necessary to save the life of 
the mother.

                              {time}  1800

  These folks recognize the preciousness of the gift of life. H.R. 760 
would prohibit the partial-birth abortion procedure unless it is 
medically necessary to save the life of the mother.
  H.R. 760 addresses the concerns identified by the Supreme Court when 
it struck down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban by a 5-4 ruling. 
The five-Justice majority thought that the Nebraska law was too vague. 
H.R. 760 contains a new and a more precise definition of the prohibited 
procedure.
  I thank my colleague for bringing this bill forward. I hope that 
today this House will join the other body in moving this legislation 
forward and, hopefully, moving it to the President's desk. We have 
passed similar legislation a number of times, but never have we been 
able to get it on the President's desk where the President will sign 
it.
  Let us move this bill and let us get it on the President's desk.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today for my annual statement in opposition to 
this bill. Republicans say they are for smaller government. In reality, 
they want to make government just small enough to fit inside our 
bedroom.
  This bill forces government to step between pregnant mothers and 
their doctors, interfering with the doctor's ability to make the safest 
and healthiest decisions for the mother, never mind that this bill is 
certifiably unconstitutional.
  Proponents of this bill should be ashamed to go home to their wives, 
their daughters, nieces, sisters, and women constituents and explain to 
them why they voted for a bill that not only blatantly disregards their 
health, but tries to claim that it is not an issue; explain to them why 
they voted for a bill that would criminalize the behavior of their 
doctors, who acted in their best interests, because the law said that 
their health did not matter.
  This bill is not about late-term abortion or even a so-called 
``partial-birth abortion'' procedure, which has no medical definition 
in this bill. This bill is about banning safe abortion procedures that 
sometimes are the safest method of previability, second-trimester 
abortions.
  For us to be true to the Constitution, to be true to the sentiments 
of equality and freedom, women must have control over their bodies. 
Instead, proponents of this bill, including the Bush administration, 
are using this bill as part of a broader agenda to take away a woman's 
constitutionally guaranteed right to choose.
  This assault on a woman's right to control her body and her health 
must stop. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 760.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the people who oppose this 
legislation that it infringes on Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade very clearly 
gives Congress and the several States the right to prohibit abortions 
on viable babies.
  There is one State in the Union, Kansas, that collects statistics on 
partial-birth abortions. Let me quote from page 17 of the committee 
report: ``The experiences of the State of Kansas, the only State to 
require physicians to report the performance of partial-birth 
abortions, are instructive on this point. Under its mandatory reporting 
scheme for partial-birth abortions, in 1998, 58 partial-birth abortions 
were performed, all of which were on viable babies and all of which 
were necessary to prevent a substantial or irreversible

[[Page 13779]]

impairment of a major body function, which was the impairment of the 
patient's mental function.
  ``Similarly, in 1990, 182 such procedures were performed,'' all for 
the same reason, and again, all on viable babies.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, let us all be clear: the bill before us is 
unconstitutional because it does not contain an exemption for the 
health of the woman who seeks to exercise her reproductive rights. 
There is no doubt about that. This is because the U.S. Supreme Court 
has already ruled on very similar legislation in Stenberg v. Carhart. 
Opponents of the right to reproductive choice should know that.
  This bill likely will not prevent a single abortion, but it does 
defeat the rights of women. I believe that equal protection under the 
law and the right to privacy should be freedoms enjoyed by women as 
well as men, but women will not be equal to men if this 
constitutionally protected right is denied. This bill infringes on 
those rights for women. That is why I will oppose it.
  Throughout my career, I have worked to reduce the need for abortions 
by preventing unwanted pregnancies through comprehensive sex education, 
birth control, and increased access to health care. I think that all of 
my colleagues would agree that we should work to prevent unwanted 
pregnancies that lead to abortions.
  I will continue those efforts, but the bill before us today is the 
wrong way to do that. Advocates of this bill who want to stand in 
defense of life would be helpful if they worked to support families 
with adequate child care funding, child tax credit relief for 
vulnerable families, and peace.
  For some, this debate is only about politics. The fact that other 
abortion legislation, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, has been 
advanced on the publicity of the Laci Peterson tragedy shows the 
unfortunate politicization of this debate.
  I know there are many who are sincere in their desire to reduce the 
need for abortions. In leading this Nation towards this goal, we must 
preserve constitutional rights. We must respect the freedom and 
equality of women. The best path for our country is not to escalate the 
divisiveness and political nature of this debate. Rather, it is to 
remember the principles of this Nation and refrain from undermining 
freedom of choice. We must respect the basic human dignity of women to 
make personal decisions.
  This House can do better to truly work to reduce the need for 
abortions while respecting the freedom of choice. For these reasons, I 
will oppose the bill today.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, partial-birth abortion is what some call 
getting away with murder on a technicality. By law, a baby who has 
taken a breath outside the womb is considered a human being, a person. 
No one would think of killing it. To kill him would be murder.
  To get around this technicality, abortionists turn the baby around so 
they can partially deliver the baby feet first, like a breech birth. 
While the baby's head remains in the birth canal, then they stick him 
in the back of the neck with surgical scissors and suck out his brain. 
Because the baby's head is held inside the mother's birth canal, the 
law does not count it as murder. Therefore, it is called getting away 
with murder on a technicality.
  This is one of the most disgusting ways of circumventing the law I 
can think of. How can we justify saying a baby who can live on its own 
is not allowed to survive simply because someone is holding its head 
inside its mother's body? We cannot, not if we believe in the dignity 
of human life.
  But we can stop this terrible procedure and save thousands of lives 
of healthy babies who are dying every year. Vote for this bill and 
close this loophole that allows people to literally get away with 
murder and infanticide.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise deeply troubled that the House is 
again voting on this ill-conceived bill to ban a medical procedure. Let 
us be honest: The underlying issue is really about whether or not a 
woman should have the legal right to choose to end a seriously flawed 
pregnancy.
  As my colleagues stated, the term ``partial-birth abortion'' cannot 
be found in any medical literature. Lawmakers have continued this 
misnomer, ``partial-birth abortion,'' and have succeeded in confusing 
the public's understanding of the issue.
  Federal law already bans procedures performed after fetal viability 
unless the mother's health is at risk. But this bill directly defies 
the Supreme Court because it once again lacks an adequate health 
exception, and it could outlaw procedures used in the first or second 
trimester before viability that can safely protect the health of the 
mother.
  By criminalizing these constitutionally protected procedures, 
physicians are left with limited options when treating a patient in a 
crisis. The ban would force a woman to undergo potentially more 
damaging, risky, and rarely performed procedures or otherwise continue 
a very unsafe pregnancy.
  Sadly, there are times when it may be necessary for a woman to 
terminate a wanted pregnancy. It is often impossible to detect fetal 
abnormalities before the second trimester, and it is at this stage that 
certain preexisting medical conditions exacerbated by pregnancy may 
worsen for a woman. At these unfortunate times, a woman, in 
consultation with doctors and families, must freely be able to 
determine the best course to preserve her life, her health, her future 
fertility.
  Congress is treading in dangerous waters with this legislation. In 
this Chamber we often insist that we should not be telling doctors how 
to practice medicine, we should not usurp the opinions of medical 
experts when considering patient safety, standards of care for 
diseases, and the administration of drugs.
  But with this bill today, Congress, comprised predominantly of 
lawyers, is entering into a hospital room, acting as a gatekeeper, and 
dictating what doctors can and cannot do in medical practice.
  For these reasons, I support the Hoyer-Greenwood substitute. This 
substitute clearly and in medical terms bans all post-viability 
abortions except in cases where serious, adverse health consequences 
could result to the woman's health, or the woman's life is at stake.
  This amendment would allow physicians to continue to make these 
critical medical decisions. I urge my colleagues to reject the 
underlying bill and to support the substitute.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important bill. 
Not one of us looks in society and we see the changes, the abuse 
against our children. Not one of us has stared in incredulity at the 
actions of new mothers who have disposed of their children in 
disposals, or placed them in a wastebasket and went back to the dance.
  We cannot overlook our treatment of the unborn, and especially this 
treatment of the unborn in a partial-birth abortion, and the changes 
that we find in society.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill and request our 
colleagues to support this gentleman's fine bill.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if there is one frivolous late-term 
abortion in America, in my book that is one too many. But this bill is 
a false promise for two reasons.
  First, it is clearly unconstitutional, since it has no health 
exception for the mother. Passing an unconstitutional bill will not 
save one child. That is a fact.
  Second, supporters of this bill have misled the American people to 
think the bill outlaws late-term abortions. It

[[Page 13780]]

does not. The truth is, this bill focuses on prohibiting one type of 
late-term abortion while keeping perfectly legal other types of late-
term abortion procedures.
  Let me state a fact that is going to surprise many Americans who have 
been misled regarding this bill. The truth is, this partial-birth 
abortion bill will allow late-term abortions to remain legal. 
Supporters of this bill have never really honestly answered this 
question. If they really believe a woman is a monster and wants to 
abort a late-term fetus for absolutely frivolous reasons, then why are 
Members just banning one procedure? That will just let her tell the 
doctor to use another procedure. They have not saved one child and they 
know it.
  Perhaps the real answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, lies in the 
statement of Ralph Reed, who said several years ago that this partial-
birth abortion bill is a silver political bullet. This bill is about 
sound-bite politics and campaign attack ads, not saving babies.
  In contrast, 16 years ago as a Texas State senator I worked with pro-
choice and pro-life groups to pass a constitutional bill that did not 
ban one late-term abortion procedure; we banned in 1987 all late-term 
abortion procedures. Then we worked with those groups in good faith, 
put in a constitutionally mandated health exception. We knew that 
health exception was necessary 16 years ago, and they know it is 
necessary today.
  I think it is a shame that the House leadership has put politics 
above policy. I hope some people will wake up to recognize that had 
that not been the case, we could have passed a ban on all late-term 
abortion procedures in this Congress and it would have been signed into 
law 8 years ago. Instead, we are voting today on a false promise.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard the allegation that this is about 
politics. This is about protecting innocent, unborn, little human 
beings who cannot defend themselves, and so, under this Supreme Court 
decision, it is necessary for Congress to take action. We believe that 
this bill does pass constitutional muster.
  We have also heard that these are generally seriously flawed 
pregnancies. We have heard earlier this afternoon time and time again 
that these were rare, and that they were done basically because there 
was a baby that was in jeopardy.
  The New York Times in a recent article dated April 22, not exactly a 
bastion of conservative newspapers, said, ``One aspect of the debate 
about partial-birth abortion has changed. When it began, some opponents 
of the ban,'' in other words, those on the other side of the aisle who 
are in favor of continuing to allow it in this country, ``said the 
targeted form of abortion was used only when a fetus had extreme 
abnormalities or the 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 
on healthy pregnancies.''

                              {time}  1815

  So there are some times when these are pregnancies that are in 
jeopardy, but overall the statistics now show that these are healthy 
mothers, that these are healthy babies. That is the bulk of the 
partial-birth abortions that are performed in this country. It is not 
about politics. It is about protecting those innocent human lives. And 
we have already heard the other side, again, who clearly stated in 
their own words, they were lying through their teeth when they 
indicated that these abortions are rare.
  Most of the experts say there are anywhere from 2,200 to 5,000 of 
these performed in this country every single year. These are lives that 
have a right to be born and they are destroyed. It is exactly as the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) said, this is murder, is what 
it amounts to. We need to protect these babies.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes the comments about an inhumane form 
of abortion, but of course, the fact is the gentleman would not support 
any form of abortion. He does not care that one form is more or less 
humane than the others. That is why this bill makes no sense at all.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time 
and I congratulate him on his extraordinary leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I first would like to respond to my colleague on the 
other side of the aisle who referenced an article in the New York 
Times. I would like to place into the Record the Times editorial from 
today, not only the New York Times editorial but the Washington Post 
editorial, both of which strongly came out against the Republican bill 
before us today.
  The bill is extreme, it is vicious, mean-spirited, antiwoman, and it 
is unconstitutional.
  We have heard a great deal of graphic rhetoric from the majority 
party today. But let me tell you what we have not heard and that is 
their true agenda, which is to roll back, chip away at a woman's right 
to choose. That is what this debate is about. That is totally what it 
is about. And since the Republican majority came to Congress in 1994, I 
have kept a score card on their antichoice votes. Today marks their 
202nd vote against a woman's right to choose. It is on my Web site.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues today to stand in defense of a 
woman's reproductive health and to vote against this bill which 
deprives women of safe, quality medical care at a time when they need 
it most. The right to choose is meaningless without the access to 
choose. And this bill is so broadly written that it would, in effect, 
undermine a woman's legal right to abortion in this country.
  When I go home, my constituents ask me about many things, but believe 
me, they have never asked me to be their doctor, nor do they want 
Members of Congress to be making medical decisions. It is 
unprecedented. It is wrong. It is unconstitutional. Vote against this 
Republican bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) on this bipartisan bill.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 760. The 
abomination of this procedure, the facts of it are undisputed. It is an 
inhumane practice. It cannot be tolerated in a civilized today society 
and it cannot be tolerated amongst people who value the sanctity of 
human life.
  It is often overlooked that partial-birth abortion can cause physical 
and emotional harm. Women who undergo this procedure can have 
difficulty conceiving children in the future and can experience gut-
wrenching guilt and regret.
  In 1993, a nurse practitioner named Brenda Pratt Shafer described 
such an incident in her testimony before Congress. She was a pro-choice 
nurse in an abortion clinic, who quit her job the day that she 
witnessed the grief of a woman who received a partial-birth abortion. 
She told Members of Congress, ``What I saw is branded forever in my 
mind. The woman wanted to see her baby after the procedure, so they 
cleaned up the baby and put it in a blanket and handed the baby to her. 
She cried the whole time as she kept saying, `I am so sorry. Please 
forgive me.' I was crying too. I could not take it, a baby boy with the 
most perfect, angelic face I had ever seen.''
  It amazes me that in the year 2003, the United States still permits 
this procedure, this act of death. Allowing partial-birth abortion to 
remain legal would be a tragedy for all. It would lower our standards 
of conscience and humanity. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting H.R. 760 and bringing an end to this era of suffering in our 
Nation.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have another story; it is 
one

[[Page 13781]]

that I have watched and heard and seen over the years that we have been 
dealing with this concept, political concept of partial-birth abortion.
  I have the story of several women appearing in the Committee on the 
Judiciary room some years ago. I believe at that time there may have 
been only two women on the Committee on the Judiciary, each of us 
having our own personal story of childbirth and understanding the 
enormous challenge, burden and emotion of that particular act or 
procedure along with family members encouraging and hoping for a 
wonderful live birth.
  We listened to women from around the country who came and said that 
had it not been for a procedure that allowed them to live, they might 
not have been able to procreate ever again. We heard women say that 
they had tried and tried and tried to retain the pregnancy, but that 
under the advice of their doctors in certain months, they were asked to 
have that particular pregnancy terminated.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a foolish nor is it a frivolous nor is it a 
political question. This is a question of privacy. We recently honored 
the 30th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision and that 
decision reaffirmed a woman's right to choose.
  I respect my opponents for they have their own reasons, but I will 
say that I respect life and I respect the right of a woman to make that 
decision between her god, her family, and her physician.
  Partial-birth abortion is not a medical term. The opponents know 
that. They know that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed a woman's right 
to choose. They also realize that it does not allow a health exemption 
which the Supreme Court unequivocally said was a fatal flaw in any 
restriction on abortion. They realize that this bill is flawed. They 
realize that it will not save lives.
  But most importantly, what we are doing here today is not promoting 
the sanctity of life, but we are saying to women that you do not count. 
They count. Vote against this bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is wrong. 
This bill will save lives. It will save the lives of viable babies who 
are subjected to this brutal and inhumane treatment. The gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) was not listening when I quoted the Kansas 
report that said of the partial-birth abortions that were reported 
under their State law, most of them were on viable fetuses.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about today is extending the debate 
that took place yesterday in the Committee on Rules on this exact same 
subject as we were rendering a rule about this debate that would take 
place today.
  I found yesterday, as I find today, that many of the speakers on the 
other side do not understand that there are three types of late-term 
abortions. One of those three is called a partial-birth abortion. There 
are two other procedures.
  Today, this bill is about partial-birth abortion. And for anyone to 
characterize this debate as it is not going to stop another abortion, 
it is not going to do anything, it is meaningless, that is simply not 
only untruthful, but it is disregarding the facts that are being placed 
before our colleagues today.
  What we are going to stop is a late-term abortion, and we recognize 
that there are two other types of late-term abortions that take place. 
There are some who suggest that as a result of Supreme Court laws and 
tests, that because those abortions would take place, in essence, in 
the womb, that they would not be legal.
  We, today, my party, this Committee on the Judiciary, this House of 
Representatives, is debating and will outlaw that which is known as 
partial-birth abortion.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, let me ask and I would like to have an 
honest debate on this. I appreciate what the gentleman has said. He has 
been very honest and straightforward about outlining one procedure and 
not two others.
  My question is, if we assume a mother is going to take a perfectly 
healthy baby later term and have that child aborted for frivolous 
reasons, why would she not go and use one of the other two procedures? 
What babies have you saved?
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation, not 
because of political ideology, not because I believe my wife, my two 
sisters, and my three daughters should have the right to decide when to 
bring a child into this world, but because I read the bill. I 
researched the history and I understand the real issues involved here.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 760, the so-called partial-birth abortion ban 
and, again, partial-birth abortion is not a medical term, distorts the 
issue. H.R. 760 is a broadly written piece of legislation that would 
outlaw some of the safest and most common abortion procedures and makes 
no exception to preserve a woman's health or her fertility.
  There are other so-called facts in this bill that are not supported 
by medical research. Contained in the bill, it is written that the 
procedure is never necessary to preserve the health of the woman. The 
key word here is never necessary. Well, I say ask Vikki Stella, a 
diabetic who, after examining all other options with her doctor, made a 
decision, along with her husband, to terminate her pregnancy of a much-
wanted son. Vikki's option to choose this procedure was believed to be 
the safest and most appropriate, leaving her the opportunity to live a 
healthy life with her husband and two young daughters, as well as the 
opportunity to bear the son that they later gave birth to, Nicholas.
  This bill distorts the truth and politicizes a constitutional right 
of all women in this country. And the in rulings of Roe, Casey and 
Stenberg by the Supreme Court, the Court stated that every abortion 
restriction must contain a health exception that allows an abortion 
when necessary in appropriate medical judgment for the preservation of 
the life or health of the mother.
  This bill does not do it. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
bill in its present form.
  Mr. Speaker, I come before this body with two purposes in mind. 
First, to discuss the demons I battled as I came to a conclusion 
regarding my position on the legislation before us today. Secondly, to 
hopefully educate those listening and watching this debate taking place 
before us.
  As I sat in my office yesterday evening confronting my long-held 
beliefs and realizing the possible collision that my surfacing position 
on this issue may have with my political ideology, I chose to delve 
deep into the heart of the issue and question my beliefs regarding 
abortion that I had never questioned before. As I further focused over 
the legality and morality of ending a pregnancy, the rights of a woman, 
and the rights of an unborn child pre-viability and post-viability, I 
came to the decision to oppose this legislation. No, not to oppose it 
because of political ideology. No, not to oppose it because I believe 
my wife, two sisters, and three daughters should have a right to decide 
when to bring a child into the world. But because, I read the bill, I 
researched the history, and I came to terms with the real issue. 
Unfortunately, H.R. 760, the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 
2003 distorts the real issue--preventing members in this body and 
constituents throughout the nation from truly understanding what is at 
stake.
  H.R. 760 is a broadly written piece of legislation that would outlaw 
some of the safest and most common abortion procedures, and it makes no 
exception to preserve a woman's health or future fertility. As the 
supporters of this bill incorrectly label the procedure of dilation and 
extraction, commonly known as D & X, but for the purposes of this bill 
as partial birth abortion, they vividly describe a procedure that they 
wish to ban in 2000 was found constitutional in the Supreme Court case 
Stenberg v. Carhart.
  First, I will address the manner in which this legislation describes 
the fetus as a child. Medical journals describe the object in the womb 
of the mother as a fetus until fully delivered. And I, like many of 
you, not being a member

[[Page 13782]]

of society who holds accredited medical credentials must follow the 
standards put forth by the medical society. The proponents of the bill 
truly attempt to be creative in its attempts to have readers of the 
language imagine an actual child going through this procedure. It 
almost worked on me, but that is when I looked closer at the language 
and focused on Section 2, subsection 5 of the legislation. There, 
contained in the bill, it is written that the procedure ``is never 
necessary to preserve the health of a woman.'' And here is where H.R. 
760 further distorts the truth. They key phrase here is never 
necessary. Well, this all depends on what one values as a necessity. 
Yes, one procedure could have an advantage over another in certain 
cases. Where one doctor may prefer dilation and evacuation, commonly 
known as D & E, which involves a doctor inserting an instrument into a 
woman's womb and dismembering the fetus, because it is the safest 
procedure to ensure the woman's life and health, that same doctor may 
choose D & X for another patient because it is the safest and most 
appropriate procedure for that particular patient to ensure the woman's 
life and health. Unlike the proponents of this bill, I will stand on 
this House floor today and admit that sometimes this gruesome procedure 
is a necessity for some women. For example, it was the only option for 
Vikki Stella--a diabetic who, after examining all other options with 
her doctor, made the decision along with her husband to terminate her 
pregnancy of her much-wanted son. Vicki's option to choose this 
procedure was believed to be the safest and most appropriate--leaving 
her the opportunity to live a healthy life with her husband and two 
young daughters--as well as the opportunity to bear the son she later 
gave birth to, Nicholas.
  My colleagues, this bill distorts the truth and politicizes a 
constitutional right of all women in this country. Incorrectly labeling 
the procedure and overriding the ruling of the Supreme Court as 
reaffirmed by the majority in Stenberg that a woman's health must be 
the paramount consideration, women across the nation are being denied 
their constitutional right. As a result of the ruling by the Supreme 
Court, every abortion restriction must contain a health exception that 
allows an abortion when ``necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, 
for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.'' H.R. 760 
does not do this. And for this reason, I find the so-called Partial 
Birth Abortion Ban of 2003 unconstitutional and unworthy of my support, 
the support of my colleagues, and the support of the people of this 
great Nation. I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill in its 
present form.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close general debate 
if the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) wants to use the rest of 
his time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler) has 1 minute remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thought I had 3 minutes remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) has 
1 minute remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, two key points to be made. One, if the real purpose of 
this bill is to ban late-term abortions with all the gruesome 
descriptions we have heard, you could do it very simply by including a 
health and life exception for the mother as the Supreme Court requires. 
No one would oppose it. We have such laws in 40 States.

                              {time}  1830

  That is not the goal here. The goal is a propaganda goal.
  Second point, the declaration by the majority here that they can get 
around the health exception requirement of the Supreme Court by saying, 
by a legislative finding that such a procedure is never necessary for 
the health of the mother runs into the observation by Justice Clarence 
Thomas in a different context that ``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 versus Board of Education found 
that segregated schools could be equal after all?''
  With reference to Ruth Marcus' column in The Washington Post, from 
which I just quoted, this morning she points out that Judge Posner, a 
distinguished conservative appeals court judge, said the purpose of 
this statute is that 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.
  That is the real purpose of this bill, not to protect babies, not to 
save lives, but to undermine Roe v. Wade, to undermine a woman's right 
to choose and to declare that fetal life is more sacred than the life 
of the existing woman.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman's time has 
expired.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the major argument that gets to the substance of this 
bill that the opponents have stated in the last hour is that the 
findings that Congress makes that are contained in H.R. 760 the Supreme 
Court will just completely ignore.
  I will be the first to concede that the Supreme Court does not have 
to accept congressional findings, nor does the Supreme Court have to 
accept findings that have been made by lower courts either that reach 
their own conclusions; but there is a string of cases in the last 20 
years or so that have indicated that the Supreme Court will defer to 
congressional fact finding, and they have been highly and historically 
deferential to Congress's factual determination, regardless of the 
legal authority upon which Congress has sought to legislate, as the 
following case quotes demonstrate.
  First, ``The fact that the Court is not exercising a primary judgment 
but sitting in judgment upon those who also have taken the oath to 
observe the Constitution and who have the responsibility for carrying 
on government compels the court to be particularly careful not to 
substitute our judgment of what is desirable for that of Congress, or 
our own evaluation of evidence for a reasonable evaluation by the 
legislative branch.'' That is Rostker v. Goldberg, 1981.
  Second, ``It is for Congress, as the branch that made this judgment, 
to assess and weigh the various conflicting considerations. It is not 
for us to review the congressional resolution of these factors. It is 
enough that we be able to perceive a basis upon which the Congress 
might resolve the conflict as it did.'' Katzenbach v. Morgan, 1966.
  Third, ``Here we pass on a considered decision of Congress and the 
President. We are bound to approach our task with appropriate deference 
to the Congress, a co-equal branch.'' Fullilove v. Klutznick, 1980.
  Fourth, ``The Supreme Court 'must afford great weight to the 
decisions of Congress. The judgment of the legislative branch cannot be 
ignored or undervalued. When the Court faces a complex problem with 
many hard questions and few easy answers, it does well to pay careful 
attention to how the other branches of government have addressed the 
same problem.''' Columbia Broadcasting System v. The Democratic 
National Committee, 1973.
  Fifth, ``Congress is far better equipped than the judiciary to amass 
and evaluate the vast amounts of data bearing upon an issue as complex 
and dynamic as that presented here.'' Turner Broadcasting System v. 
FCC, 1994.
  Finally, ``We owe Congress' findings an additional measure of 
deference out of respect for its authority to exercise the legislative 
power.'' Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 1997, which was the 
second case.
  What the opponents of this bill are saying is they do not agree with 
the findings that are contained in H.R. 760. That is their right, and 
that is their prerogative; but if this bill passes, they are in the 
minority, and the majority who voted for this bill will have disagreed 
with their conclusion on those findings.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, partial birth abortion is one of the 
more barbaric procedures of modern times. Doctors confirm it is never 
medically necessary. Never. So much so that it is not even taught in 
our nation's medical schools.
  Yet more than 3,000 healthy babies are subject to this horrible 
procedure each year. Too many of them are more than 5 months

[[Page 13783]]

old in fetal development--able to live outside the womb if just given 
the same chance as you and me.
  Today we have an opportunity to protect our nation's mothers.
  Today we can save the lives of precious babies too tiny to save 
themselves.
  Today we ban partial birth abortions and close this grisly chapter in 
America's history.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today the House considers a measure 
which will seriously impinge on a woman's right to choose a safe and 
legal abortion. A women's right to choose is a fundamental one, and the 
Congress should not tell a woman how to manage her health or 
reproductive care. Unfortunately, what should be a private matter 
between a woman and her doctor has become a political football.
  Each individual case is different and involves a variety of factors. 
The decision in each case should be left to the woman and her family, 
in consultation with her doctor. We must not pass legislation that 
curbs the ability to make a decision which might be necessary to 
protect the life and health of the mother.
  Moreover, we cannot exert a power we do not have. The Supreme Court, 
in Roe v. Wade, has determined that a woman has a constitutional right 
to choose a safe and legal abortion during the pre-viability period. 
Many people have been misled into believing that this so-called 
``partial-birth'' abortion bill is about banning late term abortions. 
It is not. It applies to all abortions in which a certain medical 
procedure is used regardless of when the abortion is performed. We 
should leave it to the doctors--not politicians--to determine what 
method is necessary to best protect the health of a woman. Limiting a 
woman's sovereignty over reproductive choice and restricting access to 
the best health options comprise the essence of this bill. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and collagues, I rise to voice my opposition 
to H.R. 760, the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban.
  This is a bill that immediately provokes strong feelings on both 
sides of the abortion issue. No one is in favor of abortion. I am not 
in favor of abortion, and in Congress, I am focused on making abortions 
less and less necessary.
  However, in a few situations each year, the procedure that this bill 
seeks to ban is necessary to protect the life or the health of the 
mother--or because of multiple abnormalities of the fetus, making 
viability virtually impossible.
  A woman, in this situation, has the constitutional right to an 
abortion, and there is a wealth of credible medical evidence that this 
procedure in some instances is much safer than other available 
procedures. H.R. 760 seeks to criminalize these safe, legal, and rare 
abortion procedures.
  A major problem with this bill is its name. The term, ``partial 
birth,'' is not a medical term. There is no medical definition of a 
``partial birth'' abortion. It is a loaded, political term made up by 
the anti-choice movement to inflame the debate. It is not helpful to an 
enlightened discussion of this issue.
  In addition, as I have said, the bill is unconstitutional. In 2000, 
the Supreme Court found Nebraska's ``partial-birth'' abortion ban 
unconstitutional in Carhart v. Stenberg because it prevented a women's 
constitutional right to choose by banning safety abortion procedures 
and because it lacked the constitutionally-required exception to 
protect women's health. The Court noted that ``the absence of a health 
exception will place women at an unnecessary risk of tragic health 
consequences''. These flaws are also present in H.R. 760.
  This bill definitely endangers women's health. Doctors will be forced 
to choose between providing care that is safe for their patients and 
going to jail. Despite repeated opportunities, anti-choice lawmakers 
refuse to include in their bills an exception to protect women's 
health.
  Finally, a majority of Americans agree that government has no place 
in private medical decisions that need to be made by a woman, her 
family, and her physician. Politicians should not be legislating 
medical care. H.R. 760 is an unprecedented intrustion into the doctor-
patient relationship.
  This bill is opposed by a large number of respected medical and 
health organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists, the American Medical Women's Association, the American 
Nurses Association, and the American Public Health Association, and the 
American Medical Association has withdrawn its support of these bans.
  As difficult as this vote may be, there is no way to vote for H.R. 
760. A vote for this bill would be a vote for legislation that is 
unconstitutional, that allows government to intervene in personal and 
private decisions, and that provides no protections for women's health.
  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.R. 760, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. However, I wish 
to submit this statement for the record to ensure that my position on 
this legislation is clear.
  While I am against late term abortions, H.R. 760 fails to make an 
exception for instances where the procedure was deemed medically 
necessary for preservation of the life or health of the mother. If 
enacted, this legislation would most likely stop physicians form 
performing lifesaving medical procedures when a fetus will not survive, 
or when a woman's life, health, or future reproductive capacity may be 
severely threatened. Therefore, had I been present I would have opposed 
this bill.
  However, I do support the compromise substitute amendment offered by 
Representatives Greenwood and Hoyer, which would prohibit all late-term 
abortions, irrespective of procedure, with exceptions only to protect 
the life of the mother and to avert serious, adverse consequences to 
her health. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of this 
amendment. Additionally, I would have voted in favor of the motion to 
recommit offered by Representative Baldwin to return H.R. 760 to 
committee to include exceptions for the preservation of the life or 
health of the mother.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
ongoing campaign to undermine the constitutionally established right to 
privacy, which threatens women's access to safe and comprehensive 
reproductive healthcare. The latest attack on these rights is H.R. 760, 
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003. The proponents of this 
legislation have consistently used vague language and shock tactics in 
an attempt to undermine the basic tenets of the Supreme Court's 
decisions in Roe v. Wade and Stenberg v. Carhart.
  In 1973, the Supreme Court handed down its decision, Roe v. Wade, 
which gave women a constitutionally protected right to an abortion. The 
Court allows a state to ban abortions after fetal viability (the point 
at which a fetus may survive independent of a woman, but not 
independent of technology), but only if the state provides exceptions 
for the protection of a woman's life and health. In 2000, in the case 
of Stenberg v. Carhart, the Court struck down a Nebraska ban on partial 
birth abortions because it did not contain an exception for the 
protection of the health of the woman, and utilized a vague definition 
of which procedures would be banned.
  Disregarding 30 years of established Supreme Court precedent, the 
Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003 contains the same flaws as the ban 
ruled unconstitutional in Stenberg v. Carhart.
  H.R. 760 fails to provide an exception to protect the health of the 
mother. Rather, this legislation presumes that the authors' findings 
overrule those of the Supreme Court. The very text of this bill 
audaciously promotes ignoring the Supreme Court ruling in Stenberg v. 
Carhart.
  The definition of the banned procedure in H.R. 760 is vague and could 
be interpreted to prohibit some of the safest and most common abortion 
procedures that are used before viability during the 2nd trimester. 
This legislation could have been written using precise, medical terms, 
and exemptions for procedures that are used pre-viability. However, the 
bill's unclear definition reveals the broad anti-choice agenda that 
this bill promotes.
  The Supreme Court's decisions have clearly, and correctly protected a 
woman's right to make personal, and sometimes difficult decisions 
regarding her reproductive health. In addition to a legal obligation 
established by the Supreme Court, we have a moral and ethical 
obligation to protect the health of the mother. Every woman deserves 
the honest, accurate, professional advice of her doctor, a right that 
is endangered by H.R. 760. There is no place for Congress in the very 
private relationship between doctor and patient.
  Furthermore, this ban is opposed by many groups of healthcare 
professionals who take their responsibility to preserve the health of 
their patients very seriously. These organizations include: the 
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the 
American Medical Association (AMA), the American Nurses Association 
(ANA), and the California Medical Association (CMA).
  Let me assure you that I grappled with the issue of partial birth 
abortion and determined that this procedure should be used only when 
medically necessary to protect the life and health of the mother. My 
decision to oppose legislation banning this procedure was based on my 
personal conversations with one of my constituents who faced this 
terrible situation and relied on the medical judgment of her

[[Page 13784]]

doctor to make the only medically sound decision that preserved her 
ability to have children in the future.
  I urge all of my colleagues to oppose H.R. 760 and vote against this 
harmful and unconstitutional legislation.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 760, the Partial-
Birth Abortion Ban Act, I strongly believe that the Congress must act 
now to pass this important bill. We should no longer allow the 
abhorrent killing of a partially-delivered baby to be lawful.
  Leading up to a partial-birth abortion, a pregnant woman's cervix is 
forcibly dilated over a three-day time period. On the third day, the 
abortionist pulls a living baby feet-first out of the womb and into the 
birth canal, except for the head, which the abortionist purposely keeps 
lodged just inside the cervix. While the fetus is stuck in this 
position, dangling partly out of the woman's body, and just a few 
inches from a completed birth, the abortionist punctures the base of 
the skull with a surgical instrument, such as a pair of long scissors 
or a pointed hollow metal tube called a trochar. He or she then inserts 
a catheter into the wound and removes the baby's brain with a powerful 
suction machine. This causes the skull to collapse, after which the 
abortionist completes the delivery of the now-dead baby. The corpse is 
discarded, usually as medical waste.
  H.R. 760 would ban performance of this heinous procedure except if it 
were necessary to save a mother's life. The bill would permit use of 
the procedure if ``necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is 
endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical 
injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or 
arising from the pregnancy itself.''
  According to Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National 
Coalition of Abortion Providers, partial-birth abortions are performed 
3,000 to 5,000 times annually, usually in the fifth and sixth months of 
pregnancy, on healthy babies of healthy mothers. It has also been used 
to perform abortions as late as in the third trimester, which is the 
seventh month and later. Many of these babies are old enough to survive 
outside the womb, and many of them are developed enough to feel the 
pain of this horrendous procedure.
  Most of us have seen the dreadful images of these near-to-term 
victims of an abortionist, and while recoiling in horror, we have 
resolved to end this painful outrage. Twice previously, both houses of 
Congress voted to ban partial-birth abortion, only for the bans to be 
vetoed. Now, with a president who values the sanctity of life and who 
will sign this important protection into law, we have the greatest 
chance ever to end this contemptible practice. We must pass H.R. 760 to 
ensure that partially delivered babies are protected and that the 
gruesome procedure used to perform partial-birth abortions is banned 
under law.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has accorded some 
deference to congressional findings as Congress is the legislative body 
representing the people. The Court has ruled that it is not necessary 
for Congress to present conclusive evidence when declaring findings, 
and Congress has the discretion to weigh evidence and make reasonable 
inferences.
  Nonetheless, the courts do not blindly follow congressional findings. 
In numerous cases, including Turner, Morrison, and Pennhurst, courts 
review evidence and look at sworn testimony that is subject to cross-
examination before coming to a conclusion. Thus, the implication in 
H.R. 760 that courts strictly defer to congressional findings is not 
correct.
  H.R. 760 cites Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal 
Communications Commission (``Turner I'') and Turner Broadcasting 
System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (``Turner II'') to 
show that the Court pays great deference to congressional findings. 
However, in Turner I and Turner II, the Court deferred to the 
overwhelming array of factual evidence presented by Congress. Evidence 
presented included extensive case law, Senate Reports, numerous 
hearings held by numerous committees and subcommittees, declarations, 
and reports. The Court paid great deference to the factual propositions 
Congress presented. The Court stated that Congress could weight the 
evidence it uncovered and make ``reasonable inferences based on 
substantial evidence.''
  The key difference is that H.R. 760 simply states that the District 
Court erred in its findings of fact and law. Gainsaying, no matter how 
presented, is not the same as fact findings. For example, H.R. 760 does 
not add a health exception but instead simply states that the 
procedures covered by the bill are not necessary and that their 
probation poses no risk to the mother's health. This declaration goes 
directly against the ruling of the Supreme Court in Stenberg and the 
findings of fact in the lower court. The ``findings,'' in effect, are 
an attempt to overturn Stenberg. Congress cannot simply refute findings 
of fact made by the District Court by presenting its own ``findings'' 
that are contrary to the evidence the Court depended upon to make its 
ruling.
  In Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, a patient at a 
Pennsylvania hospital for the mentally retarded challenged the 
conditions of the hospital. The patient claimed Pennhurst Hospital had 
violated the terms of Sec. 6010 of the Developmentally Disabled 
Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1976 (``DDABRA''). 
Sec. Sec. 6010(1) and (2) of the DDABRA was ``the bill of rights 
provision,'' and it ``grant[ed] to mentally retarded persons a right to 
`appropriate treatment, services, and habilitation' in `the setting 
that is least restrictive of . . . personal liberty.' ``In Sec. 6010, 
Congress made a series of findings that were repudiated by the Court. 
The Court found that Sec. 6010 ``is simply a general statement of 
`findings''' and ``does no more than express a congressional preference 
for a certain kind of treatment.'' The Court held that the ``bill of 
rights'' did not create a requirement for States to provide the least 
restrictive environment or to provide certain kinds of treatment to the 
mentally retarded.
  Likewise, in United States v. Morrison, the Court struck down a 
section of the Violence Against Women Act (``VAWA'') as a violation of 
the Commerce Clause in the face of overwhelming congressional findings 
that domestic violence affected interstate commerce. The Court stated, 
``[T]he existence of congressional findings is not sufficient, by 
itself, to sustain the constitutionality of Commerce Clause 
legislation.'' Therefore, although the Court defers to congressional 
findings, findings alone are not sufficient to make an unconstitutional 
act constitutional.
  As with Pennhurst, the ``findings'' in H.R. 760 express a 
congressional preference, and it is unlikely that any court would defer 
to the findings. The language in the proposed bill is similar to the 
challenged language in Pennhurst in that the ``findings'' include 
precatory language. For example, the ``findings'' include the statement 
that so-called ``partial-birth'' abortions are never medically 
necessary even though the Court in Stenberg concluded otherwise.
  H.R. 760 also purports to rely on the Supreme Court's holding in 
Katzenbach v. Morgan for the proposition that the Court will employ a 
``highly deferential review of Congress's factual conclusions.'' 
However, Katzenbach involved Congress's power under section 5 of the 
14th Amendment to craft a remedy to a 14th amendment violation Congress 
had identified. Congress went beyond what the Supreme Court had deemed 
required as a remedy by the 14th Amendment. In that case, the Court 
held that provisions of the Voting Rights Act prohibiting the 
enforcement of a New York law requiring the ability to read and write 
English as a condition of voting was an appropriate exercise of 
Congress's section 5 powers. Specifically, the Court said that while 
Congress could use its enforcement power to provide additional 
protections for a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, it could not 
narrow that right. H.R. 760 would do exactly the opposite of what the 
Court approved in Katzenbach in that it narrows, rather than enforces a 
right protected under the 14th Amendment; in this case, the right to 
choose as delineated in Roe.
  Moreover, in the intervening years, the Court has become far less 
deferential to Congress's enforcement powers under sec. 5, and to 
Congress as a finder of fact.
  It is unclear what types of procedures are covered by the 
legislation. Although some believe the legislation would apply to an 
abortion technique known as ``Dilation and Extraction'' (D & X), or 
``Intact Dilation and Evacuation,'' it is not clear the term would be 
limited to a particular and identifiable practice. For example, the 
American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists has noted that the 
definitions in the bill ``are vague and do not delineate a specified 
procedure recognized in the medical literature. Moreover the 
definitions could be interpreted to include elements of many recognized 
abortion and operative obstetric techniques.'' As a result, the bill 
could well apply to additional abortion procedures known as D & E 
(Dilation and Evacuation), and induction.
  In the wake of the controversies over partial birth abortions, a 
number of states have taken up similar legislation. Like the federal 
bill, most of the state measures are so vague and so broad that they 
cover a wide range of abortion methods.
  The overwhelming majority of courts to have ruled on challenges to 
state so-called ``partial-birth abortion'' bans have declared the bans 
unconstitutional and enjoined their enforcement. In the last three 
years, medical providers have challenged the state statutes that ban 
``partial-birth abortion'' in twenty states. In eighteen of those 
states--Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, 
Iowa,

[[Page 13785]]

Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, 
Rhode Island, West Virginia, and Wisconsin--the bans are currently 
enjoined, in whole or in part. In a nineteenth, Alabama, the state 
attorney general has limited the ban's enforcement to post-viability 
abortions. In only one state, Virginia, has a court considered the 
constitutional challenges but nevertheless permitted enforcement of the 
statute pending further proceedings. Six federal district courts have 
entered permanent injunctions against statutes that are virtually 
identical, word for word, with H.R. 760.
  The reality concerning quantitative data is that there is no national 
figures on the absolute number of D & X procedures performed. The two 
authorities which have the most comprehensive information on abortion--
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Alan 
Guttmacher Institute (AGI) do not compile data on the number of D & X 
procedures before or after viability.
  According to AGI, in the most recent year for which data is 
available--1996--the total number of abortions nationally fell to 1.35 
million from a high of 1.61 million in 1990. Of these, ``an estimated 
total of 31 providers performed the [D&X] procedure 2,200 times in 
2000, and 0.17% of all abortions performed in that year used this 
method.''
  Proponents of H.R. 760 also ignore the fact that most women do not 
simply elect to delay the time of their abortion or gratuitously choose 
the D & X procedure. The causes for delay are varied, including a 
dearth of abortion providers in many poor or rural areas, lack of 
availability of Medicaid funding, fear of violence at local clinics, 
teenagers fearful of notifying their parents or subject to delays 
caused by notice and informational requirements, and women who only 
learn of severe fetal abnormalities as a result of late term ultrasound 
or amniocentesis tests (which is subject to a mandatory wait for 
results). Physicians will not recommend a particular type of abortion 
procedure--D & X or otherwise--unless they believe it to be the safest 
for their patients.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose H.R. 760, the 
so-called Partial-Birth Act.
  I'd like to ask my colleagues, in what medical book can the procedure 
partial-birth abortion be found? Nowhere. This is a conjured up term 
used by opponents of abortions. ``Partial birth'' is a political term, 
not a medical one. At this very moment, Congress is legislating medical 
protocols that should be the determination of doctors and their 
patients. Most members have no medical training and are unequipped to 
make medical determinations of this nature.
  The medically accepted, rarely-used procedure that is being targeted 
today, which is so graphically described by the supporters of this ban, 
is nearly always used in the third trimester when the life or health of 
the mother is in danger. But this bill put forward by proclaimed anti-
choice proponents goes far further than that. Their ban would not just 
apply to procedures performed in the third trimester. It criminalizes 
numerous abortion procedures--including the safest and most commonly 
used methods of abortion that are performed in the second trimester.
  If this legislation passes, it opens a Pandora's box of restrictions 
on the rights of women and on the ability of doctors to practice 
medicine. Just imagine the country we will live in. In communities 
across the nation, law enforcement officers will be conducting sting 
operations in doctors' offices to arrest pregnant women and their 
physicians. Is that what we want for America? I certainly don't.
  This bill isn't about banning one procedure. Let's be honest. It is 
an attempt to re-ignite an anti-abortion campaign to eviscerate Roe v. 
Wade.
  Just 3 years ago, the Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart, struck 
down as unconstitutional a Nebraska law virtually identical to 
legislation before us today. Moreover, countless medical organizations 
disagree with this legislation--the American Medical Association, the 
American College of Obstetricians, the American Nurses Association, and 
the California Medical Association to name a few.
  H.R. 760 could ban what may be the safest choice to protect a woman's 
life and health. Once again, this difficult decision is one I believe 
wholeheartedly is best left in the hands of those who have the skills 
to make these medical determinations, and those patients and families 
the decision is affecting--not Congress.
  Vote no on H.R. 760.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned 
about abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious 
sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that 
permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and 
our careless attitude toward liberty. As an obstetrician, I know that 
partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a 
gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.
  Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or 
contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the 
importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a 
civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed 
on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. 
Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the 
people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised 
Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have 
occurred.
  The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would 
be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the 
several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is 
remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so 
that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus 
helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not 
only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though 
I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I 
fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life 
cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture 
and legal system.
  For example, 14G in the ``Findings'' section of this bill states, ``. 
. . such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will 
draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide 
. . .'' The question I pose in response is this: Is not the fact that 
life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life 
community? By stating that we draw a ``bright line'' between abortion 
and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea 
underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can 
determine which members of the human family are ``expendable,'' and 
which are not.
  Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate 
commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-
birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate 
commerce. The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the 
general welfare clause is precisely the reason our Federal Government 
no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons 
out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 760 inadvertently 
justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure 
through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.
  H.R. 760 also depends heavily upon a ``distinction'' made by the 
Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which 
establishes that a child within the womb is not protected under law, 
but one outside of the womb is. By depending upon this illogical 
``distinction,'' I fear that H.R. 760, as I stated before, ingrains the 
principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes 
them as it should.
  Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility 
of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, 
though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the 
opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today opponents of the proposed ban on 
partial birth abortion will levy a great deal of unfair derision 
against those of us who will stand today to speak on behalf of the 
unborn. These same opponents repeatedly deny the terrible facts 
regarding partial birth abortion despite overwhelming evidence. They 
fight against common sense efforts such as parental notification and 
demonstrate, through their actions, that the unborn are not worthy of 
protection in their eyes. I emphatically disagree.
  The phrase ``partial-birth abortion'' describes the process employed 
in this late-term abortion procedure. It refers to any abortion in 
which the baby is delivered ``past the navel . . . outside the mother's 
body'' and then is killed by any means effective. This method is 
usually employed after 24 weeks gestation at which point these babies 
have eyebrows and eyelashes and have shown to be sensitive to pain.
  It is difficult and painful for all of us to hear of the violence 
against these unborn children. It is mournful that any child has ever 
known such brutality and in this case with the permission of the law.
  Opponents of the ban have a difficult task before them because the 
truth of the matter is so painfully clear. They attempt to rationalize 
that if the baby's head and shoulders are still inside of the mother 
that it is worthless tissue to be discarded without regret. Is the line 
between murder and medical procedure really

[[Page 13786]]

only five inches!? Such an argument is baseless and preposterous.
  I am hopeful that this year's debate will be our last and we will 
finally ban this abhorrent procedure.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, as an original co-sponsor of the Partial-
Birth Abortion Ban Act, I want to express my strong support for 
outlawing the troublesome practice of partial-birth abortions.
  Opponents of the ban suggest that partial-birth abortions are needed 
to protect mothers with pregnancy-related complications, but this 
argument simply does not hold up to the testimony of abortion providers 
and medical experts. Former Surgeon General of the United States C. 
Everett Koop has said that there is ``no way'' he can see a medical 
necessity for this barbaric procedure. The American Medical 
Association's legislative council has unanimously supported the 
partial-birth abortion ban.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask you: What will future generations think of a 
society that allows this practice? For the moral health of our country, 
and for future generations, we should take action today to ban partial-
birth abortions.
  Congress has the opportunity today to do the right thing by banning 
partial-birth abortions. We have a duty to protect the unborn from this 
horrific procedure. I hope my colleagues will listen to their 
consciences and vote to make partial-birth abortions illegal once and 
for all.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. Again, 
we are facing a bill that deprives women of safe, high quality medical 
care at a time when they need it most. And yet again, this bill places 
undue burden on a woman's right to seek an abortion.
  Let's put this bill in perspective. Since the majority party took 
power in 1994, I've kept a scorecard. This is their 202nd strike 
against reproductive rights, and you can check the list at any website 
www.house.gov/Maloney.
  Language similar to this bill has already been struck down in 
Stenberg v. Carhart on the grounds that it fails to take the health of 
the woman into account.
  What this bill is about is the right to choose. The bill is extreme, 
it's vicious, and it's unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, The New 
York Times and the Washington Post agree, and I ask permission to place 
a copy of the Times and Post editorials in the Record.
  The fact is that this bill says it's banning intact dilation and 
extraction, a procedure acknowledged by the experts, the American 
College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, as safe to end late-term 
pregnancy--when it's necessary. The opposition shows horrible pictures 
and yells about how grotesque this procedure is. It is, but so are lots 
of medical procedures. But they're still good care. This bill flatly 
disrespects medical opinion.
  My constituents ask my opinion on important things--like low income 
women asking where their child tax credit went; like the Federal 
Communications Commission's ruling to consolidate access to news in the 
hands of a few. That's important, that's dangerous. But, I gotta tell 
you, not one of my constituents has asked me to be their doctor!
  The Supreme Court has said that neither the Court nor Congress may 
ban a medical procedure appropriate to save the woman's life and 
health. Period
  The blatant disregard for this fact and for the rights of women to 
choose is astonishing. I urge you all to vote ``no'' on this measure.

                [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

[[Page 13787]]

     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 jurists, 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.''

  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of a 
measure soon to be considered by this legislative body, H.R. 760, the 
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and to call to attention the moral duty 
of the United States House of Representatives to ban this procedure.
  It is not necessary for me to walk you through the gruesome steps 
required for a physician to commit a partial birth abortion procedure 
as you are certainly well familiar with it from the testimony of 
previous speakers today. While the means of the procedure need not be 
repeated, the end to these means must be restated. Simply put, this 
procedure results in the end of a human life. A life that was moments 
before on the path towards formally entering the world--a path leading 
toward a life of loving, dreaming, learning--a path of potential. No, I 
do not need to define for you the cold, methodical death procedure that 
is a partial birth abortion or the pain experienced by the fetus. A 
child is deprived of a future; that should be moral reason enough to 
suspend the practice.
  For this fetus, this baby, all rights are forbidden in order for the 
mother to exercise her right to personal privacy under the Fourteenth 
Amendment. In America, we do not hold the rights of one person over 
those of another; there is equal treatment under the law. This is of 
course with the exception of abortion, where restrictions cannot be 
made on an abortion procedure unless the potential life of the fetus is 
considered ``viable.'' Even though I do not personally require the 
fetus to be viable in order for a life to be significant, it is an 
important justifying factor to the Supreme Court that many partial-
birth abortions are performed on viable fetuses. A legal reason to 
suspend the practice.
  I do not believe that we, in Congress, are in any position to pick 
one life over another, which is why I believe that when the life of the 
mother is in danger, abortion should remain an option. Mr. Speaker, 
please know that I do not favor legislation that would decide for a 
family who should die, the mother or the child, but H.R. 760 is careful 
to address this issue. This measure includes a factual finding 
demonstrating that partial-birth abortion is never necessary to protect 
the health of a woman.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation not only protects the rights of the 
unborn, but it is also a carefully crafted piece of legislation that 
addresses the concerns of the U.S. Supreme Court expressed in Stenberg 
v. Carhart. For a few thousand children, upon whom the partial-birth 
abortion procedure will be committed in the next year, H.R. 760 is not 
just legislation; it is life. Mr. Speaker I urge my colleagues to pass 
H.R. 760.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
760. By debating this bill, this Chamber is once again considering 
anti-choice legislation that is unconstitutional and dangerous to 
women's health. As I have in the past, once again I oppose this 
legislation.
  We recently honored the 30th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade 
decision. This decision reaffirmed a woman's right to choose. H.R. 760 
is not only unconstitutional but it is yet another attempt to ban so-
called ``partial birth abortions.'' This is a non-medical term. The 
U.S. Supreme Court struck down a similar statute in Stenberg v. 
Carhart. The Court invalidated a Nebraska statute banning so-called 
``partial birth abortions.'' So, this legislation is at odds with the 
court's ruling. In Roe v. Wade, the court held that women had a privacy 
interest in electing to have an abortion, based on the 5th and 14th 
Amendments' concept of personal liberty.
  Despite the fact that the Supreme Court struck down legislation 
virtually identical to H.R. 760 in the year 2000, anti-choice Members 
of Congress continue to jeopardize women's health by promoting this 
legislation to advance their ultimate goal of eliminating a woman's 
right to choose altogether.
  H.R. 760 is unconstitutional for the same two reasons the Supreme 
Court found other statutes attempting to ban partial birth abortions 
unconstitutional. First, H.R. 760 lacks a health exception, which the 
Supreme Court unequivocally said was a fatal flaw in any restriction on 
abortion. Second, the non-medical term ``partial birth abortion'' is 
overly broad and would include a ban of safe, previability abortions. 
Banning the safest abortion option imposes an undue burden on a woman's 
ability to choose.
  There are several safe procedures at issue in H.R. 760: the intact 
dilation and extraction or dilation and extraction (``intact D&E'' or 
``D&X''), the dilation and evacuation (``D&E''), and induction 
abortions. The proponents of H.R. 760 claim the bill would ban only the 
D&X procedure, but medical experts argue otherwise.
  D&E is the most commonly used procedure for second-trimester 
abortions. Together, D&E and D&X abortions comprise approximately 96 
percent of all second-trimester abortions performed in this country. 
Induction abortions account for the majority of the remaining 4 percent 
of second-trimester abortions, require hospitalization, and are more 
expensive than D&E or D&X abortion. While induction is a safe 
procedure, for some women, it poses unacceptable risks.
  With the vast majority of second-trimester abortion procedures 
performed using the D&E or D&X methods or by induction, banning these 
procedures would ban virtually all previability second-trimester 
abortions in this country. If H.R. 760 passes, physicians will be left 
with very few options to protect the safety of their patients. 
Physicians will have to choose between performing practically all 
second-trimester abortions under threat of criminal and civil 
prosecution, changing their medical practices to the detriment of the 
maternal health and financial health of their patients, or stop 
providing second-trimester abortions altogether.
  Forcing physicians to choose from these limited options, prevents 
physicians from electing a procedure that is within the accepted 
standard of care, is safe, and for some women may be safer than the 
options remaining. The D&X abortion procedure offers a variety of 
safety advantages over other procedures. Compared to D&X abortions, D&X 
involves less risk of uterine perforation or cervical laceration 
because the physician makes fewer passes into the uterus with sharp 
instruments. There is substantial medical evidence that D&X reduces the 
risk of retained fetal tissue, a complication that can cause maternal 
death or injury. The D&X procedure is a safer option than other 
procedures for women with particular health conditions. Finally, D&X 
procedures usually take less time than other abortion methods used at a 
comparable stage of pregnancy, which can have significant health 
advantages.
  In fact, as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 
(ACOG) has concluded, D&X may be ``the best or most appropriate 
procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the 
health of a woman.''
  H.R. 760 would improperly put the legislature in the physician's 
office. Allowing physicians to exercise their medical judgment is not 
only good policy--it is also the law. In Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 
914 (2000), the Supreme Court rules that all abortion legislation must 
allow the physician to exercise reasonable medical judgment, even where 
medical opinions differ. The Court made clear that exceptions to an 
abortion ban cannot be limited to situations where the health risk is 
an ``absolute necessity,'' nor can the law require unanimity of medical 
opinion as to the need for a particular abortion method.
  The proponents of H.R. 760 have further compromised the medical 
safety of women by refusing to draft an exception to the ban on certain 
abortion procedures to protect women's health. Such an exception is 
required under the Constitution. The Supreme Court has concluded in 
several cases that a women's health is always the physician's primary 
concern and that a physician must be given the discretion to determine 
the best course of treatment to protect women's lives and health.
  The bill's ban on safe abortion procedures that are within the 
standard of care strips physicians of the discretion they need to make 
critical medical judgments. This will result in an unacceptable risk to 
women's health. Given the safety advantages of D&E, D&X and induction 
procedures over other abortion procedures, banning these procedures 
will necessarily harm women and deprive them of optimal care. As a 
physician and a woman, I consider this result unacceptable.
  The findings to H.R. 760 attempt to justify the fact that the bill 
directly conflicts with Carhart by suggesting that the Supreme Court 
must defer to Congressional fact-finding, even if Congress's so-called 
``facts'' conflict with the preponderance of evidence in litigation 
before the Court. But the drafters of H.R. 760 are wrong. First, a 
fundamental tenet of our constitutional structure, which establishes 
three separate branches of the Federal government, is that Congress can 
enact laws, but it cannot decide whether those laws are constitutional.

[[Page 13788]]

The power to decide what laws are constitutional is exclusively the 
Supreme Court's role.
  Second, the Supreme Court is not required to defer to Congressional 
fact-finding. Rather, the Court has the power and the duty to 
independently assess the evidence that is presented to it, as it did in 
Carhart, and has no obligation to defer to Congressional findings on 
``partial-birth abortion.''
  The drafters of H.R. 760 are clearly wrong in asserting that they can 
overrule Carhart through legislation. Prior attempts by Congress to 
undo disfavored Supreme Court rulings (such as Congress's attempt to 
legislatively overturn Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and 
Employment Division, Dep't of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 
U.S. 872 (1990)) have been soundly rejected by the Supreme Court. Given 
the utter absence of legal support for this bill, it must be seen as a 
purely political gesture, not as a serious attempt at legislation.
  The ACOG, whose more than 44,000 members represent approximately 95 
percent of all board-certified obstetricians and gynecologists 
practicing in the United States, opposes abortion ban legislation and 
has stated that ``. . . [t]he intervention of legislative bodies into 
medical decision making is inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous.''
  In addition to ACOG, other medical groups have opposed attempts by 
Congress to enact abortion ban legislation, including:
  The American Public Health Association, the American Nurses 
Association, the American Medical Women's Association, the California 
Medical Association, Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, the 
American College of Nurse Practitioners, the American Medical Student 
Association, the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, the 
Association of Schools of Public Health, the Association of Women 
Psychiatrists, the National Asian Woman's Health Organization, the 
National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Reproductive Health, the 
National Black Women's Health Project, the National Latina Institute 
for Reproductive Health, the National Women's Health Network, and the 
Rhode Island Medical Society.
  Mr. Speaker, the medical community has voiced wide-spread opposition 
to H.R. 760. Likewise, the Supreme Court has opposed the bans on 
abortion procedures proposed in H.R. 760. I join the medical community 
and the Supreme Court is standing up for women's constitutionally 
protected right to choose safe abortion procedures. I oppose H.R. 760 
and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 760, the Partial-
Birth Abortion Ban Act.
  I am pro-choice, but believe late-term abortions are wrong. Abortion 
is a very personal decision and a woman's right to choose whether to 
terminate a pregnancy subject to the restrictions of Roe v. Wade must 
be protected. In my judgment, however, the use of this particular 
procedure cannot be justified.
  I have personally spoken with doctors, both pro-choice and pro-life, 
who made it very clear to me that the ``partial-birth'' procedure is 
never medically necessary.
  The debate on partial-birth abortion has been difficult for me. I 
voted against the ban back in 1996 believing this procedure was rare 
and used mostly in cases where it was necessary to save the life of the 
pregnant woman, to prevent severe consequences to her health, or when 
severe fetal genetic deformities exist.
  After voting, I learned this procedure was not as uncommon as it was 
made out to be; rather than a few hundred partial-birth abortions each 
year, there have been thousands. Now, choice advocates acknowledge this 
procedure is often used for elective abortions of healthy fetuses.
  For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I have voted for the ban since 1997 and 
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 760, I rise in strong 
support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. By passing this 
legislation we will once again take a step towards banning the truly 
horrifying practice whereby an innocent life is taken in a most 
gruesome way.
  During this procedure, which is used in second and third trimester 
abortions, the infant's body is delivered, leaving only the head in the 
womb. At that point the abortionist pieces the back of the infant's 
skull with a sharp instrument and then proceeds to vacuum out the 
infant's brain tissue, thus collapsing the skull, allowing the now-dead 
infant's body to be extracted.
  This legislation makes it a federal crime for a physician, in or 
affecting interstate commerce, to perform a so-called partial birth 
abortion, unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother. Under 
H.R. 760, anyone who knowingly preforms a partial-birth abortion would 
be subject to fines and up to two years in prison. The bill provides 
that a defendant could seek a hearing before the state medical board on 
whether his or her conduct was necessary to save the life of the 
mother, and further provides that those findings may be admissible at 
trial.
  The House has passed legislation in each of the last four Congresses 
banning partial-birth abortions. In the 104th and 105th Congresses, 
President Clinton vetoed the partial-birth abortion bans. Both times 
the House voted to override the veto, but the Senate sustained it.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this very 
important legislation. Thanks to President Bush, this Congress has an 
opportunity to finally ban the gruesome procedure without the threat of 
a presidential veto. By passing H.R. 760 today, we will take a giant 
step towards protecting innocent babies who, through no fault of their 
own, have their lives taken.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the decision to terminate a 
pregnancy is one that should be made between a woman, her doctor, and 
her God. Ending a pregnancy is not done lightly; it is the most 
difficult decision a woman can make. As a Member of Congress, I do not 
believe that it is the role of this legislative body to make deeply 
personal, medical decisions for the women of this nation.
  Three years ago, the Supreme Court heard a case involving late-term 
abortion. In Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), the Court found a Nebraska law 
banning a specific late-term abortion procedure to be unconstitutional 
because the statute lacked any exemption for the preservation of the 
health of the mother. It also found that the law violated Roe v. Wade 
(1973), in that the language in the law was so vague that it may be 
applied to a common, safe, early-term abortion practice as well as a 
late-term abortion procedure.
  Today, we see on the floor an attempt to make this rare, life-saving 
medical procedure into a criminal act. The circumstances that make 
late-term abortions necessary are largely due to a tragic illness or 
event that compromises either the health of the fetus or its mother. 
This bill, H.R. 760, seeks to interfere with a woman's access to 
necessary health care services by making doctors criminally liable and 
subject to imprisonment. This is the punishment for performing a 
procedure that is in the doctor's judgement the best option for the 
mother's life or health.
  I cannot support H.R. 760; I stand by American women's right to safe 
and legal reproductive health care.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret that once again the time of 
this House and its members will be spent dealing with the so-called 
``partial birth abortion'' issue. I would emphasize that the term 
``partial birth abortion'' is not a medical term, but rather a 
political term which the sponsors of this legislation have created in 
order to shock people into supporting this legislation.
  I will not be able to cast my vote today when the roll call is taken 
on this pernicious piece of legislation, so I would like to take this 
opportunity to indicate my views on the underlying legislation (H.R. 
760) and on the Greenwood/Hoyer/Johnson (of Connecticut) amendment that 
will be offered to this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the amendment in the nature of a substitute that our 
colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Greenwood, is offering makes it 
unlawful to knowingly perform an abortion after the fetus has become 
viable, unless, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, it 
is necessary to preserve the life of the woman or to avert serious 
adverse health consequences to her. I am not in support of the Congress 
substituting its judgment for that of a physician in a matter of 
medicine and health, but clearly this amendment is a substantial 
improvement over the original text of H.R. 760. I want to commend our 
colleagues--Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Hoyer, and Ms. Johnson of Connecticut--
for offering this amendment. If I where able to be here for the vote on 
this amendment, I would cast my vote in favor.
  Mr. Speaker, even if the more reasonable and moderate language of the 
Greenwood Amendment is approved by this House, however, I would cast my 
vote against this bill if I were here when the House considers final 
passage later today. Even with the Greenwood language, the house is 
being asked to specify that a rarely utilized medical procedure is 
illegal. It seems to me that it is not particularly useful for the 
Congress of the United States to tell physicians how to practice 
medicine. The matter of terminating a pregnancy is a deeply personal 
and private matter, and it ought to be left to the woman and her 
physician. It is not a matter for the Congress of the United States to 
decide. I find it hypocritical that most members of the majority party 
in this body are anxious to keep the federal government out of the 
lives of Americans, but in the case of this most personal and most 
private of

[[Page 13789]]

decisions, they seek to have the federal government take over that 
decision.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 760.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, America has always been a nation which 
values human life. We have spent trillions of dollars, and sacrificed 
the best and bravest of our men and women in far-flung lands to prevent 
the destruction of innocent life. We as a nation fight for the right of 
every man and woman to live without tyranny.
  Our foundational document, the Declaration of Independence states 
``We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created 
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 
rights, that among these are Life. . . .''
  The issue before us today is not about choice. It is not about 
convenience. It is not about privacy. The issue before us today is 
whether the United States will live up to its responsibilities, its 
foundational principals, and protect innocent human life.
  I won't describe the brutal and barbaric practice of Partial Birth 
Abortion. What I will do, is urge every person within the sound of my 
voice to consider what allowing this practice to continue says about 
the American people.
  In the most prosperous nation in the world, we currently allow 4,000 
to 5,000 infants each year to be brutally murdered in this manner 
moments before they take their first, liberty laden breath.
  On September 11, 2001, more than three thousand Americans lost their 
lives. This tremendous loss of life led to tremendous outrage, military 
action, and was the most tragic experience this nation has ever faced. 
Yet each year we allow the brutality of between four and five thousand 
partial birth abortions to occur.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I 
am proud that the American people have said ``enough'' and elected us 
to represent them here today so that we can prevent any more needless, 
tragic, painful, barbaric deaths from partial birth abortion.
  I urge my colleagues to defend these innocent ones. I urge the 
Members of this House to support this ban on partial birth abortion.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
760, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. I would like to thank Mr. 
Chabot for introducing this important legislation and for his 
leadership in protecting the life of the unborn.
  As elected officials, banning this horrific practice may be one of 
the most important matters we will ever do. For years I have listened 
to the dislike opponents have for this bill and for this cause. And in 
all honesty, their concerns deeply disturb me.
  Throughout this debate, we have repeatedly heard the details of this 
so-called ``medical procedure.''
  Doctors have described to us how the baby is pulled partly out of the 
mother's body, only inches from a completed birth and how an 
abortionist inserts scissors into the skull creating a hole where the 
baby's brain can be suctioned out. We have all seen pictures of the 
lifeless body pulled from the mother and tossed away like trash.
  After seeing this, why is their even debate? Partial Birth abortion 
is murder. Anti-life advocates claim this is about a woman's right to 
choose. The are wrong. This is about a child's right to live.
  President Reagan wrote in his work ``Abortion And The Conscience Of 
The Nation'', that ``every legislator, every doctor, and every citizen 
needs to recognize that the real issue is whether to affirm and protect 
the sanctity of all human life, or to embrace a social ethic where some 
human lives are valued and others are not. As a nation, we must choose 
between the sanctity of life ethic and the quality of life ethic.'' For 
me, like our former President, the choice is simple. We must ensure 
that the sanctity of human life is never compromised. The unborn child 
has no voice and cannot protect itself. It is up to all of us to 
guarantee their voices are heard and their right to life is protected.
  I urge my colleagues to help protect the lives of the most innocent, 
helpless and defenseless among us and support the Partial Birth 
Abortion Ban Act.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as a physician, I find the 
practice of partial birth abortion extremely disturbing. It is an 
agonizing experience for the mother, a slow painful death for the child 
and is utterly unnecessary. Supporters of Partial Birth Abortions will 
say that these procedures are necessary for the mother, that it may be 
the safest procedure for some women in emergency situations. I ask them 
to consider the facts of the procedure. It is important to understand 
the procedure that we are banning in this bill.
  The woman is subjected to three days of slow dilation of the cervix. 
The feet, body and arms of the baby are delivered. Only the head is not 
delivered. Then the abortionist kills the child by puncturing the back 
of the child's neck and removing his/her brain. If the baby's head were 
three inches further out of the birth canal, this practice would be 
recognized as murder under our court system.
  The procedure is not in the best interest of women and even the 
American Medical Association has said that the procedure is ``not good 
medicine.'' In fact, it presents a number of serious risks to mothers. 
No woman and no child should be subjected to this gruesome and 
unnecessary procedure. In fact, this procedure is no troubling that 
scores of pro-choice Members of Congress have joined us in voting to 
ban this procedure.
  Opponents of this bill are attempting to add an exemption for the 
mother's ``health.'' I know and they know that the courts have defined 
the term ``health'' to include a definition of mental health so broad 
as to make any ban virtually meaningless.
  President Bush has said that he would sign a bill banning this 
practice. My hope is that the 108th Congress will give the President 
the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 for him to do just that. I 
urge my colleagues to do the right thing today and vote for this ban.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 760, the 
ban on the procedure known as partial birth abortion. I was appalled 
when I learned of the partial birth abortion procedure and have been 
working diligently to abolish it ever since. This heinous procedure 
involves partially delivering fully formed babies, and then killing 
them. It is one of the most horrible forms of abortion practiced. The 
difference between abortion and murder is literally a few inches. I 
believe that there is no justification for this brutal and heartless 
procedure, and only the most calloused among us can hear the 
description of this procedure and not react with disgust.
  We must act now to ban this appalling procedure and protect the 
innocent unborn from violent deaths. A vote in favor of H.R. 760 will 
stop the killing of innocent children and will send a message to the 
world that our Nation views life as a sacred and precious gift.
  The overwhelming majority of the American people want to ban partial-
birth abortions and no matter what your position is on abortion, this 
grisly procedure is indefensible in a civilized society. Thus, this 
vote on H.R. 760 gives all of us an opportunity to join together in 
protecting innocent children from this horrific and gruesome procedure.
  H.R. 760 is effective legislation to ban an unbelievably gruesome 
act. I urge each of my colleagues to support this legislation and to 
protect those who cannot protect themselves.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support the Partial Birth Abortion 
Ban Act, which bans partial-birth abortions unless they are necessary 
to save a mother's life. Partial birth abortion is a gruesome and 
inhumane procedure.
  The American Medical Association has stated that partial-birth 
abortion is ``not an accepted medical practice,'' is ``ethically 
wrong,'' and is ``never the only appropriate procedure.''
  A recent survey of abortion providers estimated that 2,200 partial 
birth abortions were performed in 2000. Most of these abortions are 
performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy. Infants then are 
usually viable--that is, if they are born premature at this stage, they 
are born alive and usually enjoy long lives. This makes the procedure 
even more disturbing.
  The Senate recently passed this legislation and the American public 
overwhelmingly supports this ban. A poll this year found that 70 
percent of those asked favored a law to make partial birth abortions 
illegal except in cases where needed to save the life of the mother.
  This bill is the same text that the House passed last year. Congress 
has twice approved a ban on partial-birth abortions, but both times the 
bills were vetoed by President Clinton. Hopefully, this time, because 
President Bush supports the ban, we will be successful in implementing 
a new policy.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. Speaker, this critical legislation would 
prohibit physicians from performing partial-birth abortions, a horrific 
and heinous procedure.
  Mr. Speaker, there is overwhelming evidence that shows that partial-
birth abortion is not medically necessary to preserve the health of the 
woman, but rather poses serious consequences to her health.
  Even organizations such as the AMA have said that this procedure is 
``not good medicine'' and is not medically necessary.
  Partial-birth abortion is a gruesome and inhumane procedure in which 
the child is forcibly pulled from the mother, with only the head 
remaining inside the cervical canal. The head of the child is then 
punctured at the base of

[[Page 13790]]

the skull, and the brain is removed with a powerful vacuum. This is a 
barbaric act that is a grave attack against human dignity and justice, 
and it must be banned. 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. They have not 
had the support and care that they so desperately need. Rather, 
abortion is the only option offered. There is increasing evidence that 
abortion causes extreme emotional and psychological damage. It has been 
determined that many abortions occur later in pregnancy when women do 
not want an abortion at all, but rather feel pressure to hide their 
pregnancy from their boyfriends or parents.
  We must strive to ensure that each and every person is guaranteed the 
most basic human rights, the right to life. Women deserve better than 
to endure the physical and emotional pain and suffering associated with 
partial-birth abortion, and children deserve the chance to live.
  I ardently support efforts to protect the dignity of women and 
children. As women, we have a unique role in society, to nurture and 
protect that dignity. Such dignity is only possible if it is promoted 
on every level.
  It is time for partial-birth abortion to stop. We must have the 
courage and the strength to fight against the greatest of all human 
rights violations--partial-birth abortion. Women deserve better than 
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.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
legislation offered by colleague, Mr. Chabot, to ban the procedure 
known as partial-birth abortion. Over the past 30 years, abortion has 
placed 42 million separate scars on America's soul. Each time, a mother 
was never quite the same. Each time, a nameless baby died a tragic and 
lonely death and all the gifts the child might have brought to humanity 
were lost forever. Mothers were impoverished while doctors were 
enriched.
  I recently read the story about Samuel Armas, a three and a half year 
old from Villa Rica, Georgia. Samuel underwent experimental surgery at 
21 weeks of gestational age to close a hole at the bottom of his spinal 
cord. An astonishing photo from this surgery shows Samuel's innocent 
and curious little hand emerging from his mother's womb during the 
surgery--an irrefutable example of just how precious and fragile a 
human life can be. The grasp of Samuel's five tiny fingers stunningly 
illustrates the miracle of life within the womb. The unspeakable and 
far-reaching cost of diminished respect for human life, born and 
unborn, is beginning to dawn in the hearts of us all. I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation to ban this horrific 
procedure, and oppose any amendment that would allow for exceptions. I 
commend my colleague Mr. Chabot for this gallant legislation made in 
the interest of children and humanity everywhere.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.


    Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Greenwood

  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Greenwood:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

        This Act may be cited as the ``Late Term Abortion 
     Restriction Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN ABORTIONS.

       (a) In General.--It shall be unlawful, in or affecting 
     interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly to perform an 
     abortion after the fetus has become viable.
       (b) Exception.--This section does not prohibit any abortion 
     if, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, the 
     abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the woman or to 
     avert serious adverse health consequences to the woman.
       (c) Civil Penalty.--A physician who violates this section 
     shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000. 
     The civil penalty provided by this subsection is the 
     exclusive remedy for a violation of this section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 257, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and a Member opposed each 
will control 30 minutes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Greenwood 
substitute and claim the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) will control the time in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 
minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for the purposes of 
control.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Debates as the one we are having today always focus on the 
differences between us; and there are, in fact, differences between us.
  We who offer this substitute amendment believe that the 90 percent of 
abortions that occur in the first trimester of pregnancy should be 
private and legal. The proponents of this bill do not. We believe that 
the 99.6 percent of all abortions performed in the country that are not 
affected by this legislation at all should be private and legal. They 
do not.
  But there are points of agreement. We all believe that abortions that 
might be performed post-viability, that are not done to protect the 
life or preserve the health of the woman, should be illegal. We agree 
on that; and now let us see which of these bills, theirs or ours, 
actually accomplishes this goal.
  Proponents of the underlying bill claim that their legislation will 
stop a particular type of abortion. They are wrong. It will not.
  Thirty-one States have passed this legislation and the United States 
Supreme Court in the famous case of Stenberg v. Carhart deemed those 
bills, which are essentially identical to this bill, unconstitutional; 
and fundamentally, they said that what was wrong with those bills was 
that they made no exceptions for when the woman's health was a serious 
issue. Our substitute, not the underlying bill, complies with the 
Court's requirement that there must be a health exception.
  Secondly, proponents claim that they want this dilation and 
extraction procedure, which is what it is actually called, they say it 
is being performed on healthy women. Yet their bill makes no exceptions 
for sick women. We have heard over and over again this procedure is 
done on healthy women with healthy babies. Then put a bill in, as we 
have, that talks about making the procedure illegal for women who are 
healthy, but allows it for those who are sick and need it.
  Third, the proponents of this legislation claim that they want to 
eliminate late-term abortions. Yet their bill fails to accomplish this 
not once, but twice. First, it does not limit itself to post-viability 
pregnancies, late-term abortions; but it reaches way back into the 
early second trimester. Secondly, it fails to ban post-viability 
abortions by other means, as has been said repeatedly. So women who 
seek post-viability abortions for important medical reasons, who would 
be denied access to dilation and extraction procedures under this 
legislation, would still be perfectly free to use other, albeit more 
dangerous, procedures.
  Our substitute bill bans all post-viability abortions by any means, 
not just one means but all means, unless the woman has a serious 
medical reason for needing that procedure. Our substitute substitutes 
policy for politics, and I urge its passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this substitute is identical to H.R. 809, and that bill 
is a

[[Page 13791]]

phony ban which would grant a giant loophole that allows abortionists 
to perform partial-birth and third-trimester abortions at will. The 
substitute, which would prohibit the performance of an abortion after 
the unborn infant became viable, would not prohibit any abortion, from 
the substitute, ``if, in the medical judgment of the attending 
physician, the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the woman 
or to avert serious adverse health consequences to the woman.''
  The proponents of this substitute admit that their measure would 
allow any abortion at any stage of pregnancy if the mother's mental 
health is at risk. Thus, by its own term, this bill would not prohibit 
partial-birth abortions, nor would it prohibit late-term abortions 
because it grants the abortionist, who has a financial interest in 
performing as many abortions as possible, unbridled discretion to 
determine whether a partial-birth or third-trimester abortion may be 
performed.
  Abortionists have demonstrated that they can and will justify any 
abortion on the grounds that it, in the judgment of the attending 
physician, is necessary to avert serious adverse health consequences to 
the woman. For example, Dr. Warren Hern of Colorado, the author of the 
standard textbook on abortion procedures who also performs many third-
trimester abortions, has stated, ``I will certify that any pregnancy is 
a threat to a woman's life and could cause grievous injury to her 
physical health.'' This is a man who has a financial interest in 
performing the abortion, and this is the physician who under the 
Greenwood substitute would be able to certify that the loophole is 
proper and the abortion can be performed.
  I will quote from Dr. Hern again: ``I will certify that any pregnancy 
is a threat to a woman's life and could cause grievous injury to her 
physical health.''
  The substitute sponsors have stated that even psychological trauma 
caused by the pregnancy could justify an abortion, including a partial-
birth abortion at any stage of pregnancy, including the third 
trimester.
  The substitute would also have no effect on most partial-birth 
abortions because the bill only prohibits abortions after the fetus is 
viable in the vast majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on 
babies 4\1/2\ to 5\1/2\ months in development. Before it can be proven 
beyond a reasonable doubt that a given baby is viable, remember we are 
dealing with criminal statutes here; and prosecution, if this bill 
becomes law, the substitute becomes law, must prove that the fetus is 
viable in order for the ban to kick in.
  The lung development of babies at this stage of pregnancy is such 
that most of them cannot survive if delivered from the mother's womb 
prematurely. Many of them can survive, but the percentages are such 
estimates of 39 percent of babies born at 23 weeks that it would be 
impossible for the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 
any given one of these babies would have survived in a given case.
  Given the substitute's failure to define the term ``viable,'' it 
would not be sufficient to show that the baby had a one in three or one 
in two or even a three in four chance of survival. Unless the baby was 
in the seventh month of pregnancy or later, reasonable doubt would 
remain as to whether that particular baby would have survived outside 
the womb.
  Furthermore, the notion that viability is a prerequisite for giving 
any legal protection to a child is misguided. Premature infants who are 
born before the third trimester with little or no chance of survival 
are fully entitled to the protections of law while they are alive. A 
person could not, for example, just walk into a neonatal intensive care 
unit and kill an infant who was born 23 weeks into the pregnancy and is 
in an incubator struggling to survive. That child has only a 39 percent 
chance of surviving, but his ultimate viability has no bearing on 
whether or not he is entitled to the protections of the law.
  In the same way, partially born children with little or no chance of 
survival outside the womb are entitled to the protections of law. 
Viability is simply not a prerequisite for legal protection of born or 
partially born children.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against the 
substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, first, let us stipulate, I hope, that no one on this 
floor is pro-abortion any more than George Bush is pro-war. I supported 
President Bush, and I am not pro-war. There are times, though, when the 
health of the mother, her life, and, yes, her psychological health 
require and dictate, and the Supreme Court has upheld her right to 
seek, the termination of a pregnancy.
  I do not believe that anyone here truly believes in his or her heart 
that abortion is a desired outcome to a woman's pregnancy. And I think, 
Mr. Speaker, without question, that this belief is even stronger when 
an abortion is obtained in the late stages of pregnancy. Yet the 
authors of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act cannot escape the 
indisputable fact that their legislation would not prevent one late-
term abortion or, I suggest, any other abortion at any other time, 
period. Not simply because the legislation they offer is undoubtedly 
unconstitutional, but also because there are alternative ways to 
terminate a pregnancy.
  If my colleagues' interpretation of their legislation is that it 
precludes all types of termination of pregnancy, then they ought to 
state it as such. If, however, as they state, it is simply the 
elimination of a procedure, with admittedly alternative procedures 
available, then it does not prevent any abortion.
  Mr. Speaker, on an issue of this magnitude, an issue that is fraught 
with emotion, that is susceptible to demagoguery and that requires us 
to balance a woman's right to personal autonomy with the rights of an 
unborn fetus, this House should seize what common ground exists.
  Common ground, we do not find common ground in this House very often. 
We ought to find it on this issue. That is precisely what this 
bipartisan substitute, the Late-Term Abortion Restriction Act would do.
  In short, this substitute addresses the very heart of the matter in 
this contentious debate, the termination of viable fetuses in the late 
stages of pregnancy. Unlike the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, this 
bill focuses on when abortions are performed rather than how they are 
performed. It would ban all late-term abortions. Hear me: It would ban 
all late-term abortions constitutionally. That is to say, the Supreme 
Court has articulated exceptions that must be in legislation; 
specifically, protection of the life of the mother and the health of 
the mother. Thus, this substitute comports with the constitutional 
requirements articulated in Stenberg v. Carhart.
  Recall that the Court in Stenberg struck down a Nebraska law 
prescribing partial-birth abortions because it, one, lacked the 
requisite exceptions, and two, impermissibly placed an undue burden 
upon a woman's right to choose. It is evident that where the Late-Term 
Abortion Restriction Act is constitutional, the Partial-Birth Abortion 
Ban Act, which deliberately excludes an exception for the health of the 
mother, is not.
  The authors of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act recognize the 
constitutional infirmity of their bill and thus seek to alter the facts 
upon which Stenberg was decided. Specifically, they reject the court's 
findings that partial-birth abortion may in some circumstances be the 
safest abortion procedure, and they state that partial-birth abortion 
is never necessary. But let me read to my distinguished friend a 
justice that I do not usually support the opinion of. In this case I 
think he is absolutely correct.
  Justice Clarence Thomas, in a different context, says if Congress 
``could make a statute constitutional simply by finding that black is 
white or freedom, slavery, judicial review would be an elaborate 
farce.'' It is not an elaborate farce and, therefore, we cannot simply 
state that this is constitutional or this is not necessary. That will 
be

[[Page 13792]]

subject to proof and the Court's determination.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this substitute, which resembles the 
law in 41 States of the Nation, including the chairman's State and my 
own. Let us not be driven further apart by our differences, but seize 
what common ground exists in this daunting debate.
  I would tell my friend that our statute is not a criminal statute. If 
my friend will read it, it is a civil statute, a civil penalty, and, 
therefore, the burden of proof would be much less. And I say that in 
this context: If the doctor is a charlatan, if the doctor is not going 
to follow the law, no matter what we pass will make no difference. 
However, it will make a difference in the final analysis because the 
court, the jury, the finder of fact and the finder of the law will in 
fact be able to make a determination that there was not the risk of 
serious adverse health consequences to the mother and, therefore, in 
that instance, a late-term abortion was not appropriate.
  I am not for late-term abortion except in an instance where the life 
of the mother must be saved or serious health care consequences must be 
avoided. But let me say this. Not all of my colleagues, some are, I 
think, intellectually consistent, but some give credence to an 
exception for abortion if it results from rape or incest. That, of 
course, is a psychological exception not a physical exception.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I was just thinking, an idle mind, I guess crazy 
thoughts go through your head. I was thinking of theme songs, and I was 
thinking for the pro-life people, ``People Who Need People Are the 
Luckiest People in the World.'' I think it is a great theme song for 
us, and I am trying to think of a funeral dirge that would fit the so-
called pro-choice people, but I cannot.
  My good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), said this 
is designed to undermine Roe v. Wade. Not at all. This is designed to 
say there ought to be civilized limits on the exercise of the abortion 
license. With 1.5 million abortions a year, one would think somebody 
would look at that and say, what can we do to stem that tide.
  We are talking about human life. We are talking about death. We are 
talking about abortion, which does not terminate a pregnancy, it 
exterminates a pregnancy. And we are talking about a particularly 
hideous, gruesome form of abortion called partial-birth abortion.
  Yesterday, we decided that flags were not for burning. I hope today 
we decide that little infants are not for killing. Partial-birth 
abortion is exactly what the pro-choice late Senator from New York said 
it is: infanticide.
  The substitute offered by my friend from Maryland is a tactical 
maneuver in the ongoing war between the quality-of-life people, who 
think if you cannot have a decent quality of life, life is not worth 
living; and the sanctity-of-life people over here who think every life 
is important and has intrinsic value.
  The victim is a nearly-delivered baby, four-fifths delivered out of 
the birth canal. The doctor takes a Metzenbaum scissor, jams it in the 
neck of the little baby, sucks out the brains and collapses the skull. 
How can we defend a process that we would not impose on a laboratory 
dog or a hamster? Cruel? Can we understand the pain that that little 
one must feel? Oh, my colleagues might deny it, but the medical texts 
are clear, absolutely.
  The law exists to protect the weak from the strong. I cannot think of 
anything weaker than a little baby, a little nearly born infant, with 
little legs flailing, little arms flailing waiting for the knife to hit 
him in the back. The people we pretend to defend, the powerless, those 
who cannot escape, who cannot rise up in the streets, those are the 
ones that ought to be protected by the law. The law exists to protect 
the weak from the strong.
  Let me just say this: The great Horace Mann said something 
interesting. He said, ``You ought to be ashamed to die unless you have 
achieved some victory for mankind.'' Well, I think if we can put 
partial-birth abortion into the torture chamber, where it belongs, and 
get rid of it, that may not be a major victory, but it will be a 
victory for humanity. I want to be on that side.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, and our theme 
song is ``We Trust the Women of America to Do What Is Right.''
  But to respond to my friend, the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, who argued that our health exception is too broad and allows 
loopholes. Their response is to have no health exception whatsoever. If 
the issue here is that we want to make sure that this procedure is only 
used where health requirements demand it, then we should be working 
together to create a very tight health exception not eliminating one 
entirely.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I want the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) 
to know that he is still my hero, and with a gentle heart, I rise in 
opposition to the position he outlined.
  Mr. Speaker, our goal is to end late-term abortions, and therefore, 
we must pass legislation that will be upheld by the Supreme Court. If 
we are to save babies, then we must do it effectively. When the 
underlying bill passes the House today, it will sit for 2 years while 
lower courts enjoin it, the Supreme Court reviews it and eventually 
declares it unconstitutional. So what is our goal, to end late-term 
abortions or to make a political statement?
  The Supreme Court of the United States clearly indicated in Stenberg 
that any law prohibiting late-term abortions ``requires that the 
statute include a health exception from the majority holding.'' H.R. 
760 does not include a health exception and goes far to declare that 
the procedure is ``never medically necessary.'' We are setting Congress 
up for a defeat at the hands of our highest Court, rendering the action 
we take today totally ineffective and the current law permitting late-
term abortions unchanged.
  I was not elected to Congress as a medical doctor and do not intend 
to tie the hands of physicians who should have the right to discuss all 
available options with their patients. Are Congressmen competent to 
regularly vote now on common medical procedures as never medically 
necessary? If we set this massive precedent to declare what a physician 
can and cannot do in their medical judgment, we give an awesome power 
to future Presidents and Congresses that will not share our gentle 
philosophy or our calm responsibility. Congressmen cannot suddenly 
declare they have medical degrees and are board certified to practice 
medicine. If my wife and I were faced with this dilemma, I would 
certainly hope that our physician was not hamstrung by distant 
Congressmen in Washington.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Greenwood substitute, which 
effectively bans late-term abortions. To do otherwise only serves the 
interest of pressure groups and lawyers that will make a killing as the 
Supreme Court strikes down the underlying bill. The Court in Stenberg 
gives us a clear direction. While the underlying bill cannot survive in 
the Supreme Court, the substitute offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) does.
  I oppose late-term abortions and will support effective measures to 
change the law and make the ban effective. Unlike H.R. 760, the 
Greenwood substitute bans late-term abortions in a way the Supreme 
Court will sustain. Passage of the Greenwood substitute would mean a 
quick end to litigation and a rapid change in U.S. law.

                              {time}  1900

  Failure to pass the substitute means continuing litigation and defeat 
at the hands of the Supreme Court.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, the Greenwood-
Hoyer substitute is not a real ban at all. It is a giant loophole that 
allows partial-birth abortions and third-trimester

[[Page 13793]]

abortions on demand. The substitute contains no definition of 
``viable.'' It imposes no objective criteria that would bind an 
abortionist. An abortionist has unconstrained discretion to define and 
declare whether or not any given child is deemed to be viable.
  If Members vote for this substitute, they might as well vote against 
the ban on partial-birth abortion. Why do so many Members want to ban 
this horrific procedure? I have never seen one. I would venture to say 
nobody in this room has probably seen one before, but one person did. 
Brenda Schaefer who was a registered nurse for Dr. Martin Haskell, the 
physician in Dayton, Ohio, who is credited with developing this 
horrible practice.
  She describes it as follows: ``Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and 
grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal, and 
then he delivered the baby's body and the arms, everything except the 
head. The doctor kept the head just inside the uterus. The baby's 
little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were 
kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, 
and the baby's arms jerked out like a startle reaction, like a flinch, 
like a baby does when he thinks he is falling. The doctor opened up the 
scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked 
the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. He cut the 
umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan 
along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used. I saw the 
baby moved in the pan. I asked another nurse, and she said it was just 
reflexes. That baby boy had the most perfect, angelic face I think I 
have ever seen in my life.''
  That is what Brenda Schaefer witnessed with her own eyes, and that is 
why so many of us want to pass this today, and pass it in a form that 
will really mean something; and that means passing it without this 
phony ban, without this substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, if Members vote for this substitute, they might as well 
vote against the bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Maryland for introducing this substitute along with the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
  I have voted for the ban on partial-birth abortion at every other 
point when it has come up. We are talking about a procedure that 
represents less than one-fifth of 1 percent of the abortions that are 
performed in this country. Every one of us wants abortions to be rare; 
none of us favor abortion. We would love to see not just the issue 
taken off the floor, but that option taken off the table so that every 
family could have a healthy baby and every mother could continue to 
live a full life.
  I am changing my vote, and I could suggest it is for legalistic 
intellectual reasons. I could cite the Stenberg v. Carhart decision in 
Nebraska where the so-called partial-birth abortion law was struck 
down. The Supreme Court has already deemed it unconstitutional. But my 
decision is not coming from the mind as much as the heart. It is 
because I have talked to too many families I know that I represent.
  These are devoted parents, loving partners that want their children, 
who place their family above everything else; but when a family finds 
that they have a seriously deformed fetus or where they find that the 
mother has a very serious illness, cancer, heart disease, any number of 
other possible illnesses, that couple sits down at the kitchen table, 
or lies together at night agonizing, as agonizing a decision as they 
could make, and what right do we have to barge into their bedroom, to 
sit down at their kitchen table and put our hands on our hips and 
preach to them what they should do.
  Do we for a moment think that they love their child in the concrete 
less than we do in the abstract? We are talking about the abstract 
here. They are talking in the concrete. We have got to respect the 
sovereignty of the American family. That is what this is about. They 
have the right to make this decision, and only they do in the context 
of their religion, their family, what is right for their family, what 
is right for each other. They know best; they know better than we do. 
Support the substitute.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the substitute and in 
support of the original bill, H.R. 760, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban 
Act.
  Supporters of the substitute claim it would restrict late-term 
abortions, meaning after a child is viable unless a physician 
determines that the abortion is necessary to avert a serious health 
consequence to the woman; but it leaves so many doors open to the 
exceptions that it will have no practical effect whatsoever. It would 
do nothing to ban the partial-birth abortion procedure which is what we 
are trying to accomplish today.
  As a sponsor of the substitute has stated, health consequences can 
mean almost anything, a level of mental health problem or a 
psychological trauma. The substitute also does nothing to ban a 
gruesome procedure known as partial-birth abortion which is shamefully 
legal in this country. It simply refers to late-term abortions. Seventy 
percent of the American people understand that this procedure is 
horrific, and they want it banned. The substitute ignores their pleas.
  If this substitute becomes law, partial-birth abortions would 
continue to be performed, which is especially troubling at a time when 
this procedure has become even more common. Since 1994, the Alan Gutt 
Marker Institute noted that the number of partial-birth abortions has 
tripled. In fact, the substitute places no restrictions on these 
abortions in the fifth or sixth month of pregnancy when the vast 
majority of these abortions are performed. The main health reason for 
performing these is mental health, but it is undefined in the law.
  Under Kansas law, abortion providers must report the reason for this 
type of abortions. Of the 182 performed last year, none of these were 
performed because of a problem with health of the mother or the child. 
It was simply and generically ``mental health.'' What does this mean? 
According to testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary, Dr. James 
McMann, who developed the procedure, said the most common reason for 
performing this procedure was depression.
  Finally, as the findings in the bill note, partial-birth abortions 
are a health risk to the mother. We have had endless testimony in the 
last several sessions stating this. Our bill will ban it; the 
substitute will not. In a country where we allow such things, we should 
be ashamed. We should take the opportunity now to support the bill and 
say no to the substitute.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would state that the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
(Ms. Hart) indicated that the people of this country are calling for 
this kind of a law. In the three States where this has been on a 
referendum, it has been defeated in each case.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Committee on 
Rules for making this amendment in order. This is a very important 
issue because it involves the balancing of conflicting rights, the 
right of the fetus and the right of the mother; and it is because 
balancing rights is the very hardest thing a democracy has to do that 
this is a constitutional issue. It ought to matter to the proponents 
that every single State law has been found wanting and been overturned 
because it does not balance these rights fairly. It does not allow the 
mother, the woman, to consider her health; but the system can only 
consider her life and every court has overturned every single State law 
for this constitutional deficiency.
  Some Members wonder why I am so passionate about this subject. I can 
tell Members it is not because I am pro-abortion. I oppose abortion. I 
do not

[[Page 13794]]

like abortion. But my husband trained as an obstetrician and 
gynecologist in this country when abortion was illegal.
  I do not know what song, Henry, you would like to have on your side, 
but I wonder what song you would sing to this family. My husband stood 
by the bedside of a woman, the mother of five children with her husband 
sitting there weeping as she died of an aseptic abortion because 
abortions were not legal and she could not get the care she desperately 
sought. But she and her husband, in accord with their beliefs and 
conscience, had sought a very early termination to preserve their 
ability to parent their five children.
  And, yes, he saw a beautiful young woman, 22 years old, single, die 
of an aseptic abortion.
  This bill, because it is so broad, will have such a chilling effect 
on the availability of abortions that there will be many forced to go 
back alley and will die as a consequence. I think that matters. I think 
there is a balance of competing rights here. That is why the American 
College of Obstetrics and Gynecology said D&X may be the best and most 
appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or 
preserve the health of a mother. A particular circumstance. We do not 
know that circumstance. We will not be in the operating room when that 
circumstance comes up, and yet we are going to tell the physician you 
cannot do this.
  Do Members know what the physician might do instead that would be 
perfectly legal? He can do a hysterectomy. He will have taken care of 
what he considers to be a life-threatening situation without running 
the risk of suit, which we are putting on him now; without running the 
risk of jail time, which we are putting on him now. This is not in the 
interest of the woman's life or her health.
  In my substitute, we take a very evenhanded approach. We balance the 
rights, we allow the exception for life and serious adverse health 
consequences. This is not lighthearted, and I think it is a slap at all 
women that anyone would put out that out of fear of open space, that 
that would represent an adverse impact on your health. That is 
ridiculous and it is demeaning to women. But in certain situations you 
need to be able to consider health as well as life. Our amendment is 
evenhanded. It bans all forms of abortion after viability and all 
procedures equally.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), whose name was taken in vain.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, my name was not taken in vain. The gentlewoman 
is incapable of taking a name in vain.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that it is tragic that that woman 
died from a bungled abortion; but every abortion is lethal and fatal to 
the baby, so that is a greater tragedy in my opinion.
  By the way, I thought of the theme song for the pro-choice people, 
``Mahler's Tenth.'' You ought to hear it. It will really make you feel 
sad.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the example the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) gave would have fallen under the exception 
that is contained in H.R. 760. The subsection which is the ban does not 
apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of 
a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical 
illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical 
condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

                              {time}  1915

  The real-life story that the gentlewoman from Connecticut's husband 
faced would have fallen under the exception and would have allowed a 
partial-birth abortion. That is why this bill should pass and the 
substitute should be defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the gentleman 
yielding me this time.
  As I looked at this situation, there were two things that jumped out 
at me that cried to be answered. One of them was, as I thumbed through 
the Washington, D.C., phone book, I came across, by accident, 
``Abortion Services.''
  And we talk about viability, there is ad after ad after ad in there, 
multiple pages, that advertise they will provide abortions up to 24 
weeks. It is in print, it is standard practice, and that is past that 
point of viability that has been talked about here.
  It is chilling to see that, for someone who comes from the Middle 
West where we do not have such a thing. There is nothing in any phone 
books that I have seen in the Middle West. But it shocked me.
  Another issue, as I sat in the Committee on the Judiciary and 
listened to remarks, and I am going to speak specifically to the 
remarks that were made by the gentleman from New York who said that we 
were cynical about this, that we simply wanted to ban partial-birth 
abortion for political reasons and that 41 States have banned late-term 
abortions, and that if we were serious, we would just go forward and do 
that. And that is what this amendment seeks to do. I rise in opposition 
to this substitute for that reason, because we know why it would not be 
effective and why it would gut this bill.
  I am not a lawyer. I grew up in a cornfield and rode out on a 
bulldozer, but I can tell you I know this much about law. How did we 
get here to this point? I do not think anybody has referenced it now, 
and that is the case in 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut, right to 
privacy, when Connecticut outlawed contraceptives and the Supreme Court 
ruled that the State of Connecticut had no business getting into the 
privacy of the family and, therefore, found their law that outlawed 
contraceptives unconstitutional. That is the foundation for right to 
privacy.
  Just a few years later, 8 years later, along came Roe v. Wade. That 
was the piece that said, well, that right to privacy extends to the 
woman's womb and in our declaration where it defines life, liberty, 
pursuit of happiness, those rights are prioritized except that the 
right of the liberty of the pregnant female takes priority over the 
life of the unborn. And then Roe v. Wade, of course, outlawed, though 
it did not make an exception for, late-term post-viability abortions.
  But same day, concurrent decision, Doe v. Bolton gave that definition 
that I think we have heard that addresses the health of the mother. It 
does not prohibit any abortion if in the medical judgment of the 
attending physician the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of 
the woman or to avert serious adverse health consequences to the woman, 
a hole you could drive a truck through. That is also what this 
amendment seeks to do, and that is another reason that I oppose it.
  Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed Roe v. Wade. That is what it 
looks like to this fellow who did not go to law school, but does read 
the cases and that precedent of right to privacy takes us to the floor 
of this House Chamber tonight to debate something that would be a 
chilling concept to us if we had been confronted with that in the 
environment when we were children.
  And so Stenberg v. Carhart. I will just say this, it is a ghastly, 
ghoulish, gruesome procedure and that child is one inch from screaming 
for its own mercy. If ultrasound could hear the silent scream, we would 
not be in this debate tonight.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I support the Hoyer-Greenwood amendment for 
two reasons. First, this amendment makes illegal all late-term abortion 
procedures, unlike the underlying bill that only outlaws one late-term 
abortion procedure while, amazingly, allowing all other late-term 
abortion procedures to be left perfectly legal.
  Second, passing an unconstitutional bill is not going to save one 
child's life. Not one. We know what the Supreme Court decision has 
said. It said it June 28 of 2000. The Supreme Court said, even in 
italics, that if you do not have a health exception, the bill will not 
become law. To put it in italics by the Supreme Court makes it about as 
clear

[[Page 13795]]

as we can make the English language be.
  I find it, Mr. Speaker, amazing that those who say their goal, and I 
trust their convictions, is to save babies' lives, why would you not 
want to ban all late-term abortions? If you assume these women are such 
monsters that just seconds before a perfectly healthy childbirth they 
would want to kill that baby, then I guess you could also assume very 
understandably she would just ask the doctor to use one of the other 
late-term abortion procedures.
  Sixteen years ago, as a member of the Texas Senate, I was not 
interested in sound bites or partisanship. I was interested in banning 
all late-term abortion procedures, because no matter how a baby dies, 
if he dies frivolously late term, that is morally wrong in my book. But 
we knew then what we know today and that is, if you tonight have a 
health exception, your bill will not be law.
  I ask once again, to the supporters of this bill, the question that 
has never been answered. If you assume a woman wants to kill a baby in 
the last seconds before a normal childbirth, why are you allowing her 
to do that under your bill just using other procedures?
  This bill is a false promise. Vote for the Hoyer-Greenwood amendment 
and we can stop all late-term abortion procedures.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) who knows more about delivering babies than 
practically all of us.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
substitute amendment. The Greenwood-Hoyer substitute, make no doubt 
about it, will gut this bill to ban late trimester pregnancy 
termination just as surely as the procedure itself barbarically guts 
the life out of nearly born healthy children.
  There are physicians who, unfortunately, and for a generous 
consultation fee, will readily certify that a woman's health is 
endangered by the pregnancy. In fact, the coauthor just a few minutes 
ago said that health exceptions would include psychological syndromes 
such as, you name it, extreme anxiety, as well as nebulous physical 
syndromes, such as chronic adult fatigue. So, in essence, the mother's 
health exception could be claimed literally in every one of these cases 
if we approved this substitute amendment and we would have no bill.
  You talk about the fact that the Supreme Court could possibly rule 
this ban on partial-birth abortion as unconstitutional. If we vote in 
support of this substitute amendment, the bill dies right here tonight. 
In fact, the so-called consultant that I mentioned theoretically could 
come into the delivery room and declare the woman's health to be 
endangered within minutes of a spontaneous live birth.
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut talked about sepsis. I have actually 
seen these tools that are used to perform this abominable procedure 
called partial-birth abortion. And you talk about the risk of sepsis 
developing after that type of a procedure. The gentleman from Virginia 
talked about the loving parents who would want to terminate the life of 
a child who was not going to be born perfect. A loving parent will 
allow that child an opportunity for life no matter how short it may be.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I ask this because I believe it is the nub of the debate. Does the 
gentleman from Georgia believe there is a procedure to terminate a 
pregnancy that is more humane or more appropriate than the partial-
birth abortion?
  Mr. GINGREY. If the gentleman will yield, will the gentleman mind 
repeating that question?
  Mr. HOYER. Do you believe there is a procedure that is more humane or 
more acceptable than partial birth for the termination of a pregnancy?
  Mr. GINGREY. The gentleman from Texas earlier talked about other 
late-term pregnancy termination procedures other than this one we know 
as partial-birth abortion. I do not know exactly what he or you are 
referring to.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, and obviously I do not have more time, 
I wish I had more time because this is an important debate. My question 
to you is, A; let me ask you this, yes or no, if you can. Do you 
believe the only way to terminate an abortion is late-term, the 
procedure referred to in this bill?
  Mr. GINGREY. I do not believe there is another way to terminate a 
pregnancy in late term.
  Mr. HOYER. In late term than this? Is that correct?
  Mr. GINGREY. I am sorry. I am not understanding you.
  Mr. HOYER. In late term, this is the only way to terminate a 
pregnancy?
  Mr. GINGREY. It is the only way to terminate a pregnancy without 
delivering a live born child. These pregnancies can be terminated by 
injecting saline or they can be terminated by performing a cesarean 
section, but the problem there is it is a live child.
  Mr. HOYER. In which case, reclaiming my time, the child would not be 
live; am I correct?
  Mr. GINGREY. In those instances, the child would be alive.
  Mr. HOYER. You believe that that is more humane.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Hoyer-
Greenwood substitute. As a pro-choice, pro-child Member of Congress and 
mother, I believe that abortions should be safe, legal and rare. For 
more than a quarter of a century, the Supreme Court has drawn a very 
clear line on this issue. As Americans and lawmakers, we are bound by 
the Constitution and we must realize that a ban on a specific late-term 
procedure that fails to include the life-and-health-of-the-mother 
standard the Supreme Court established in Roe and upheld in both Casey 
and Webster will be overturned by the Supreme Court.
  What is wrong with the underlying bill? First, it does not take into 
consideration the health of the mother. Second, it bans an overly broad 
class of medical procedures that are also useful during pre-viability 
stages.
  The Hoyer-Greenwood substitute gives Congress an opportunity to do 
the right thing. This bipartisan bill would prohibit all late-term 
abortions, but it makes the constitutionally required exception for 
when it would be necessary to save the mother's life or avert serious 
health consequences. Congress should leave a decision as deeply 
personal as whether to have an abortion to a woman, her family, her 
doctor and her God.
  My colleagues, this vote is a test. Are we interested in banning 
late-term abortions? Or are we just wasting everybody's time and 
beating our chests just to pass something that we know will be 
overturned by the Supreme Court?
  Let us do the right thing. Let us ban these procedures in late term. 
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Hoyer-Greenwood substitute.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Speaker, all of us love this Nation. But how can all 
of us love this land unconditionally when there exists a law on the 
books that allows partial-birth abortion?
  In America today, an abortionist begins partial-birth abortion by 
causing a woman to go into labor. Involuntary contractions begin that 
push a pre-born American child into the birth canal. This law, as shown 
on this diagram, then allows an abortionist to reach into the womb and, 
with the baby in the breech position, begin to pull the baby out by its 
feet and legs. The law and the amendment we debate today allows an 
abortionist to pull the baby almost all the way out of its mother, and 
as shown here on this diagram, insert his scissors into the base of 
this pre-born American child's brainstem and vacuum out its brains.
  This is abuse of pre-born American children. This is violence against 
pre-born American babies. This is the torture and murder of future 
American patriots who deserve this Nation. And it is a corrupt law 
forced upon the land by the Supreme Court. This amendment says that an 
abortionist may continue to conduct this violence if he

[[Page 13796]]

is trying to avert serious health consequences. This exemption is so 
big that it is nothing but a giant loophole. It once again allows the 
abortionist, the very menace to the child that is waiting to be paid, 
to define what averting serious health consequences means.

                              {time}  1930

  Think about it. The possibility of serious pain, serious stress, the 
possibility of serious health consequences, is what women endure in 
labor and in giving birth. Therefore, the very act of childbirth under 
this amendment would trigger the exemption. Those who have written it 
so broadly, so loosely defined, allow the possibilities of that which 
is endured during the very act of childbirth itself to be enough of a 
standard by which this amendment would allow an abortionist to continue 
his horror.
  As the father of 12 children, I want to teach my children to love our 
Nation unconditionally, to revere her, to respect her laws and to be 
drawn into complying with the laws of this Nation, because her laws 
represent goodness, because they are filled with integrity, and because 
we are bound by a moral sense of obligation to abide by them.
  Let us love our Nation unconditionally by removing these decrepit and 
immoral corrupt laws from the same books that contain our sacred rights 
and liberties. Stop the torture and infanticide of our preborn American 
children and our future patriots which this Nation needs to be born. 
Let them have life. Oppose this amendment.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker used very good words. 
Unfortunately, the bill that he advocates will not ban the procedure he 
abhors. Our amendment will.
  The previous speaker talked about the broadness of our health 
exception. If the proponents of this legislation wanted to make sure 
that no healthy woman could ever get a late-term abortion, they would 
be advocating legislation that would require a second doctor's opinion, 
a clearly defined definition or list of medical conditions. That is 
what they would be doing if they were serious about that. But because 
they are opposed to abortion under any circumstances virtually at all, 
they cannot go there.
  Now, they are very good at describing the gruesome details of 
abortion. Let us talk about the gruesome realities that sometimes make 
abortion necessary.
  In March 1995, Tammy Watts from Arizona and her husband Mitch made 
the agonizing decision to end a wanted pregnancy at 28 weeks gestation. 
It would have been their first child. The fetus, however, had 
extensive, ultimately lethal, anomalies related to a genetic condition 
known as trisomy-13.
  The Watts daughter, which they had already named McKenzie, was 
missing chambers in her heart, her brain was severely damaged and her 
skull had not formed in the back. Her liver and kidneys were oversized 
and already failing irreparably. Her bowel, bladder and intestines were 
formed on the outside of her body and had grown into a non-functioning 
mass of tissues. Doctors also told the couple that Tammy's health was 
at risk from a continued pregnancy, especially if the baby died in 
utero.
  They decided to terminate the pregnancy, and Tammy and Mitchell were 
able to conceive again and announced the birth of their daughter, 
Savannah Whitnee, last July.
  These are the realities that American women confront with their 
physicians, and that is why, in cases where their life or their health 
is at risk, this is none of our business and we do not belong in this 
decision.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
opposition to the substitute amendment to H.R. 760, the Partial-Birth 
Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
  The partial-birth abortion procedure is a brutal and violent act that 
kills a living baby just seconds before it takes its first breath 
outside the woman. We must call partial-birth abortion what it really 
is, the murder of a baby during delivery.
  Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has stated, ``Partial-birth 
abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or 
future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a 
significant threat to both.''
  The substitute amendment being offered today includes a so-called 
health exception to the partial-birth abortion ban. Yet this broad 
definition, according to the Supreme Court, includes factors such as 
physical, emotional and psychological issues. All of these factors 
relate to health. Subsequent testimony has clarified that this health 
exception includes age, depression and even a fear of open spaces.
  Mr. Speaker, this substitute is a facade. It is a ploy designed to 
gut the intent of the ban on partial-birth abortion.
  The future of our Nation depends on decisions such as this. Does 
America have the moral and ethical fortitude to protect the most basic 
of human rights, the right to live? We as a civilized culture cannot 
stand by and allow defenseless, innocent children to be killed. We are 
not savages. We are not barbarians. We are human beings. Partial-birth 
abortion is insane, and this killing must end.
  I am proud to offer my support for the partial-birth abortion ban. I 
urge my colleagues to reject this substitute amendment and pass the 
underlying bill, H.R. 760.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct the 
record to some extent. It was said that the case examples that I gave 
would have been covered under the underlying bill. I want to make clear 
that they would not have been covered, because those women were dying 
of the infections caused by being forced to get back-alley abortions 
under unsterile circumstances. If they had been allowed to be in a 
hospital and get the legal treatments that are available under our law, 
they would not have gotten the infection and they would not have died. 
But this underlying bill denies them that right because its definition 
is so broad. It reaches way down to fairly early decisions to 
terminate. So I do not accept that those women's lives would be saved 
under the underlying bill.
  I also regret that one of my colleagues, a very skilled colleague who 
himself has a lot of experience, maintained that there were no other 
techniques other than late-term abortions that could be used. There are 
other techniques that are just as harsh, they look just as bad on a 
poster, and the underlying bill does not ban them.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the underlying bill and to 
strongly oppose the substitute amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that this substitute amendment 
is built on two myths. The first is the myth that this specific 
procedure we are talking about is somehow medically necessary in 
certain circumstances. It is not.
  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states, 
``There are no circumstances under which the procedure would be the 
only option to save the life of the mother and preserve the health of 
the woman.''
  In 1995, a panel of 12 doctors with the AMA voted unanimously to ban 
the procedure, calling it ``basically repulsive.''
  As one of my colleagues mentioned, former Surgeon General C. Everett 
Koop says that this procedure is ``never medically necessary to protect 
a mother's life or her future fertility. On the contrary, this 
procedure can pose a significant threat to both.''
  So if we want to follow medical advice, let us do that and admit this 
procedure is never medically necessary.

[[Page 13797]]

  The second big myth is that somehow this exception in the substitute 
amendment will in fact allow a real ban, and it will not. The health 
exception, you can drive a truck through it. That is clear in 41 
states, and it will be no ban whatsoever.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the last speaker just read part 
of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' statement. 
He said that they could identify no circumstances under which the 
procedure identified above could be the only option to save the life or 
preserve the health of the woman. Then he stopped. The rest of it is, 
``However, it may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a 
particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of the 
woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based on 
the woman's particular circumstances, can make that decision.''
  We just want the whole statement in the Record.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the AMA opposes this bill. The Organization of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, you heard their statement. We are 
speaking past one another and we are not speaking to the American 
public.
  Your bill is unconstitutional. You know it. You tried in 17 or 18 
pages to restore it. You cannot do it, because you do not include what 
the Supreme Court requires, protecting the health of the mother.
  Our bill is constitutional, and, except for the premise that you make 
that doctors are charlatans and will not be held accountable for 
breaking this law, which has to be proved only by a preponderance of 
the evidence, you say this law does nothing. In fact, it is the only 
statute on this floor which will preclude abortions at late-term being 
performed by any procedure; by any procedure.
  Now, I tried to get the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) to 
respond. He would not respond. Why would he not respond? Because my 
friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), for whom I have 
unrestrained respect, believes the termination of a pregnancy, the 
taking of a life of a fetus, is wrong, however you do it. He is shaking 
his head affirmatively. That is an intellectually honest position. I 
respect it.
  Partial-birth as described is an awful procedure. Abortion is an 
awful procedure. I accept that. And I personally oppose late-term 
abortions. When I am accused of being for abortion on demand at the 8th 
month, 29th day, I am not. We ought to protect those lives. But we have 
to balance it. That is what the Court says, that is what the 
Constitution of the United States says.
  Support the Greenwood-Hoyer alternative. It is the only legislation 
that will be effective in trying to make some sense of this issue that 
so vexes America.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, why are we here? Are we here because we are about to 
vote on a piece of legislation that will become law? No, we are not. It 
will not. It has been abundantly clear. The Supreme Court has voted on 
this issue. It has nullified every identical state law, and, as sure as 
God made little green apples, if this bill goes to the United States 
Supreme Court, by a vote of 5 to 4 it will be discarded.
  So we have engaged in a political issue. I know what the political 
issue is. The political issue is to try to make those of us who are 
pro-choice appear to be extreme. Good politics, lousy use of this 
Chamber. It is a lousy use of this Chamber.
  If Members who propose this legislation were serious about limiting 
late-term abortions and joining us in that effort, what would they do? 
They would help us create a tight, tight law that makes it clear that 
healthy women with healthy fetuses cannot get late-term abortions. We 
would all be in agreement. We would get something done.

                              {time}  1945

  We would make sure all of this talk of a loophole big enough we can 
drive a truck through would be gone. We would settle that.
  But they cannot go in because they do not believe in a woman's right 
to choose at all, so they cannot craft reasonable legislation that 
would take care of the late-term issue. They cannot do that. So all 
they can do is go to the extreme, create the most exaggerated 
circumstances, and point to the most gruesome photographs and drawings.
  I submit that this is an exercise in futility and urge Members to 
support the Greenwood-Hoyer-Johnson substitute.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman bringing this bill 
to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, as I have watched the debate, and it has been a good 
debate, what I have heard from the proponents of the substitute are two 
factors.
  One is that this is unconstitutional, theirs is constitutional, and 
they have made a decision for the courts. I did not come to the House 
to make a decision for the courts. I came to the House to pass very 
strong, important legislation and then to fight in the courts for my 
position. I do not let the courts decide what direction I go. I do not 
make those decisions in this Chamber. If Members want to make decisions 
for the courts, then go down to the White House and get a nomination 
from the President.
  The second is that their amendment will end late-term abortions, as 
if they are more pro-life than the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). 
It is amazing to me. If we took this substitute and put it out here 
freestanding as a bill, which we may get the opportunity to do, they 
would vote against it and their outside groups, their pro-abortion 
groups and pro-choice groups, would be rallying outside these doors 
against their substitute.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we have, though, a chance today to make the world a 
little less cruel for the defenseless. Opponents of this bill have 
condemned it to the top of their lungs, but we will not mistake volume 
for veracity. Despite the howls of extremism, all this bill really says 
is that even in this violent world, we can still tell the difference 
between right and wrong. We can still recognize that the inhumanity of 
this procedure has no place in a moral society. We can still recoil at 
brutality.
  We should set aside the politics for a moment and just close our eyes 
and try to imagine what it is we are talking about. Think of the grip 
of the doctor's hand, like a vice, pulling a frightened baby, pulling 
on a frightened baby's legs out of the womb and into the world. Think 
of the frantic wriggling of that little body in that gloved hand. Think 
of that moment of pure terror when those sanitized scissors puncture 
the baby's neck. Then ask yourself, is this the best that we can do for 
unborn children, however unwanted; for pregnant women, however 
desperate; for the American people, however divided?
  How can anyone think so? After all, women do not ask for partial-
birth abortions. No, its violence is unleashed for the convenience of 
the doctor, not the health of the patient. Women who undergo the 
procedure run the risk of infection, future pregnancy difficulties, and 
infertility. Yet its defenders tell us that this cruel, dangerous, and 
medically unnecessary procedure is essential to the well-being of 
American women.
  Mr. Speaker, it is just not true, but it is an untruth we will not 
have to bear or hear again after today. After 8 long years and many 
partial-birth abortions, Congress will finally send the Partial-Birth 
Abortion Ban Act of 2003 to a President who is willing to sign it.
  When he does, abortion will still be with us. The debate over the 
rights of the unborn will continue and new battles will be fought. But 
in the meantime, in the meantime, the American people will take this 
one stand, this one stand on behalf of the innocent, to tame the 
savageness of man and to make gentle the life of this world.

[[Page 13798]]

  Take that stand with them now. Vote against this substitute and vote 
for the bill.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of he 
Hoyer-Greenwood substitute. It is refreshing to finally give policy a 
chance over politics. By allowing us the opportunity to vote on the 
Hoyer-Greenwood alternative as a substitute, the debate today is about 
making good public policy.
  Our goal should be to increase services that prevent unwanted 
pregnancies. However, when the unintended happens, let us remember that 
the decision to have an abortion is an extremely difficult and personal 
one. I believe it is a decision that is best left to a woman in 
consultation with her doctor, her family, her loved ones, and her 
faith.
  The Hoyer-Greenwood substitute is a superior alternative providing 
the most broad-based restriction on late-term abortions of any bill 
being considered in the House.
  This proposal ensures that no healthy women with a healthy fetus can 
terminate her pregnancy in the third trimester, regardless of the type 
of procedure used. I strongly support these restrictions and always 
have. But for the life and extreme health threats to the mother, I know 
of no compelling reason to terminate a pregnancy at this late stage, 
and the Hoyer-Greenwood alternative would ban all such procedures.
  Evidently, my Republican colleagues oppose what President Bush 
governed under in Texas. The Texas law is even broader than the Hoyer-
Greenwood substitute we are now considering. It says that no abortion 
may be performed in the third trimester on a viable fetus unless 
necessary to preserve the woman's life or prevent a ``substantial risk 
of serious impairment to her physical or mental health, or if the fetus 
has a severed and irreversible abnormality.'' That is the law in the 
State of Texas. That is the law under which President Bush operated 
during his terms as Governor of the State of Texas. It is a law similar 
to the 41 laws that have been passed in the different states that have 
such meaningful late-term abortion restrictions.
  I hope all of my colleagues recognize the opportunity we have today, 
an opportunity to vote in support of commonsense legislation. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Hoyer-Greenwood substitute.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Hoyer/
Greenwood/Johnson substitute, the Late Term Abortion Restriction Act, 
and in opposition to the underlying bill.
  In June 2000, in Stenberg v. Carhart, the U.S. Supreme Court 
invalidated a Nebraska statute that ostensibly prohibited ``partial-
birth'' abortions. The court based its decision on two determinations: 
(1) the statute lacked any exception for the preservation of a woman's 
health; (2) the statute placed an ``undue burden'' on the right to 
choose abortion because its vague definition of ``partial birth'' 
abortion could cover multiple procedures, at any time during a 
pregnancy, regardless of viability. Due to these determinations, the 
court found the Nebraska statute unconstitutional.
  Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, however, indicated that if changes were 
made in the legislation to address these concerns, restrictions on 
late-term abortions could be found constitutional. Unfortunately, the 
authors of H.R. 760, the underlying bill, failed to follow the outline 
by Justice O'Connor.
  The legislation I support, the Hoyer/Greenwood/Johnson substitute, is 
a bipartisan effort that meets the Supreme Court's criteria. This 
substitute would ban all abortions after fetal viability, allowing an 
exception to protect the life or health of the mother. This bill did 
not eliminate a particular procedure; it would prohibit all late-term 
post-viability abortions by whatever method or procedure.
  Most people, even those who oppose abortion, would make allowances 
for pregnancies as a result of rape or incest. There is no doubt that a 
young girl who becomes pregnant as the result of rape or incest can 
medically carry the pregnancy to term. However, many of us would say 
that that young girl should have the option to terminate that pregnancy 
as a means to safeguard emotional well-being--that is an argument in 
favor of recognizing the traumatic impact of a pregnancy due to rape or 
incest.
  Some would argue that the pregnancy could be terminated earlier. We 
would hope so. However, the psychiatric and sociological record is 
replete with scientific and anecdotal evidence that even in the most 
supportive environments, girls who are victims of rape and incest are 
reluctant to reveal their abuse, leaving them vulnerable to emotional 
and mental breakdown, self-destructive behavior, and, in the worst 
case, unrecognized or unacknowledged pregnancies up until the last 
trimester. Only the Hoyer/Greenwood/Johnson substitute would adequately 
address this serious issue.
  While this has been a difficult issue, I must oppose H.R. 760. This 
bill does not recognize the constitutionality issues raised by the 
Supreme Court. It does not contain an exception for a woman's health, 
nor does it adequately define ``partial birth'' abortion in such a way 
as to address the issue of ``undue burden.'' I am confident that if 
this bill is signed into law, the Supreme Court would strike it down.
  As a Member of the U.S. Congress, I took an oath to uphold the 
Constitution of the United States. I will not betray that oath. Now 
that the Supreme Court has determined the constitutional parameters for 
a partial-birth abortion ban in the Stenberg case, I must adhere to 
that decision and cannot vote for a bill that is blatantly 
unconstitutional. H.R. 760 does not comply with the Court's decision.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Greenwood, 
Hoyer, and Johnson amendment to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 
2003, H.R. 760.
  For several years, Congress and the American people have endured a 
wrenching debate concerning abortions. Although I believe in a woman's 
right to determine her reproductive destiny, I do not support partial 
birth abortion. In fact, I am opposed to any post-viability abortion by 
whatever method, unless it is performed to save the life of the woman 
or to avert serious adverse consequences to her health.
  To date, congressional debate has centered on legislation that would 
federalize the regulation of abortion, a matter historically left to 
the discretion of the States. And, for the first time in medical 
history, it would ban a specific procedure, known medically as a 
dilation and extraction, D&X. I cannot support this legislation because 
of its uncompromising language banning this specific late term abortion 
method even in a case where a pregnancy goes tragically wrong and the 
woman's health is placed in serious peril.
  Recognizing the need for some answers in a debate that has generated 
more heat than light, I join my colleagues, Congressman Jim Greenwood, 
and Steny Hoyer, and Congresswoman Nancy Johnson in support of an 
amendment that would prohibit all late-term abortions, regardless of 
the method used to terminate the abortion. The Greenwood, Hoyer, and 
Johnson amendment applies to all abortions performed after 
``viability'', defined as that time when a fetus is able to survive 
outside the womb. The amendment provides an exception only in cases 
where it is necessary to save the life of the woman or to avert serious 
adverse consequences to her health.
  The Greenwood, Hoyer, and Johnson amendment correctly puts the 
emphasis on when abortions are performed, not how they are performed. 
This amendment does not try to put Congress in the inappropriate role 
of determining the correctness of one particular medical procedure. 
Instead, this amendment makes clear that throughout the course of a 
pregnancy, prior to viability, medical decisions regarding a woman's 
personal care and treatment must lie with the patient, her physician, 
and her family--not lawmakers in Washington.
  Mr. Chairman, the Greenwood, Hoyer, and Johnson amendment would 
prohibit all post-viability abortions even if the woman suddenly 
decided she no longer wanted the child or was emotionally unable to 
care for a child. I cannot and I will not justify a late-term abortion 
in these instances. However, when an abortion is medically necessary, I 
want every woman to have available to her the procedure that is the 
safest. I encourage all my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, 
to support this amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Greenwood-Hoyer 
Substitute, the Late Term Abortion Restriction Act, and in opposition 
to the underlying bill.
  I oppose all late term abortions with exceptions only when the 
mother's own life is at risk or to prevent serious adverse consequences 
to her health.
  Federal courts have ruled unconstitutional at least 19 different 
State laws with similar or identical language to the underlying bill 
because they do not contain adequate health exceptions. In Stenberg v. 
Carhart, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that ``a State may promote but 
not endanger a woman's health when it regulates the methods of 
abortion'' and that ``the absence of a health exception will place 
women at an unnecessary risk of tragic health consequences.'' Despite 
this clear Court opinion, the bill's sponsors refuse to allow an 
exception to protect against adequate health consequences to a woman's 
health.
  We should be working together to approve legislation that bans late-
term abortions in a manner which protects the mother's health and which 
is consistent to the decisions of the Federal courts and the Supreme 
Court. The Late Term Abortion Restriction Act, which I cosponsor, does 
just this.

[[Page 13799]]


  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute. This amendment inserts a so-called ``health 
exception'' in the ban.
  I hope my colleagues will realize that this substitute would 
completely destroy the ban on partial-birth abortions. The amendment 
relies upon an outrageously broad definition of health that would 
effectively allow the doctor to determine that any circumstance 
qualifies for a ``health exception.''
  That means that a doctor could prescribe a partial-birth abortion 
because a mother is suffering from temporary depression or any number 
of other such circumstances.
  The mother's depression should be taken seriously and she should 
receive the best care possible, but snuffing out the life of her child 
is not a good cure for depression.
  In fact, partial-birth abortion has a great likelihood of being 
injurious to a woman's health--the doctor, while jabbing a pair of 
scissors into the child, could also stab the mother, as well.
  The Subcommittee on the Constitution held hearings on the Partial 
Birth Abortion Ban on March 25, and during that hearing, Dr. Mark 
Neerhof testified that hemorrhage, infection, and uterine perforation 
are all possible results of partial birth abortion. These women are put 
at greater risk of severe bleeding, uterine rupture, and death, as 
well.
  Women deserve better. Do not sell women short by making them pawns of 
abortion providers. It is not right to murder children--we should make 
strides to help these mothers without killing their children.
  Every child is precious in God's eyes, and we must learn to look at 
all children and their parents through God's eyes.
  I urge my colleagues to support the ban on partial-birth abortion, 
and to oppose the substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) 
has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 257, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill and on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOYER. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 133, 
nays 287, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 240]

                               YEAS--133

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Ballance
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Dooley (CA)
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hill
     Hoeffel
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Larsen (WA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lynch
     Markey
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sandlin
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--287

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Case
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solis
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Burton (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Dicks
     Eshoo
     Gephardt
     Jones (OH)
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Lofgren
     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}  2011

  Messrs. OWENS, JANKLOW, HINCHEY, NADLER, HONDA, HOLT, ENGEL and Ms. 
WATERS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. BACA, FATTAH, SWEENEY, GUTIERREZ, Ms. HARMAN and Ms. LINDA T. 
SANCHEZ of California changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Ms. Baldwin

  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

[[Page 13800]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. BALDWIN. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Baldwin moves to recommit the bill H.R. 760 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 17, line 2, strike ``abortion'' and all that follows 
     through ``itself'' in line 6, and insert ``abortion that is 
     necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the 
     preservation of the life or health of the mother''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her 
motion.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a motion to recommit that would 
provide an exemption to protect the health of the woman.
  Women do face profound medical crises during pregnancy. Conditions 
like hypertension, heart defects, diabetes, and breast cancer can cause 
serious trauma to a pregnancy. These potential traumas demand a health 
exception.
  The consequences of this sweeping ban are frightening. Women may face 
severe health consequences such as death, infertility, paralysis, coma, 
stroke, hemorrhage, brain damage, infection, liver damage, and kidney 
damage.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. Speaker, the list of consequences becomes even more horrifying 
when we realize that the families faced with crisis pregnancies are 
real.
  Allow me to tell my colleagues the story of a Wisconsin family, Kathy 
and her husband, Chris. Kathy was over 6 months into her pregnancy when 
doctors discovered through an ultrasound that their baby had no brain. 
There was a tumor in the baby's brain cavity, and the ultrasound 
revealed other factors that would complicate the delivery and 
jeopardize Kathy's health. Her doctor recommended that she have an 
abortion. After the procedure, Kathy was in tears for weeks suffering 
from depression. She felt alienated and shamed, even though she had 
done nothing wrong.
  The women who face this terrible decision want nothing more than to 
have a child and are devastated to learn that their baby cannot survive 
outside the womb. In consultation with their doctors and families, they 
make this difficult decision to preserve their own health and in many 
cases to preserve their ability to have children in the future.
  How can we look a woman like Kathy in the eye and tell her that she 
cannot have a safe procedure that would preserve her health and give 
her the best chance to have children in the future?
  Simple humanity alone should be sufficient to justify a health 
exception; but if my colleagues need more, the U.S. Supreme Court has 
made it clear that such an exception is legally required. In Stenberg 
v. Carhart, the Court held the Nebraska ban was unconstitutional 
because there was no health exception for the mother.
  Language in this motion is taken directly from the Supreme Court 
ruling. Denying a health exception is wrong and unconstitutional. If 
this bill passes today without this motion, women who are already 
dealing with the tragic consequences of crisis pregnancies will have 
their health put in serious danger.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, even if this bill were constitutional, it would not stop 
any abortions, just a procedure. The abortion would still take place 
using an alternative procedure. I am not going to inflame the debate by 
describing those alternative procedures; but this bill in its present 
form, without this amendment, is clearly unconstitutional.
  This amendment would make it constitutional. The Supreme Court said 
in Stenberg v. Carhart that the ban on partial birth abortions was 
unconstitutional because the law lacked any exception for the 
preservation of the health of the; mother, and reading out of the case, 
it says subsequent to viability the State, in promoting the interests 
of the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, proscribe an 
abortion and in italics it says except where it is necessary in 
appropriate medical judgment for preservation of the life or health of 
the mother. This is what this amendment says. That was in italics.
  Later down it says the governing standard requires an exception, and 
it says, where it is necessary in appropriate medical judgment for 
preservation of the life or health of the mother. That is the language 
of this amendment. It also says, our cases have repeatedly invalidated 
statutes, and the process of regulating the methods of abortion imposed 
significant health risks.
  Finally, it says, but where the substantial medical authority 
supports the proposition that banning a particular abortion procedure 
could endanger women's health case law requires the statute to include 
a health exception when the procedure is, and listen up, necessary in 
appropriate medical judgment for the preservation of life or health of 
the mother.
  That is what the Supreme Court said in June 2000. Five judges found 
that opinion. All five are still on the Court. They used the same 
language in this amendment in plain print, in italics and in quotes. 
They were serious about this legislation. We ought to read the case and 
apply the law and adopt the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman's time has 
expired.
  Who claims time in opposition?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This motion to recommit should be rejected for several reasons. The 
overwhelming weight of evidence compiled in a series of hearings 
indicates that partial-birth abortions are never necessary to preserve 
the health of a mother and, in fact, pose substantial health risks to 
women undergoing the procedure.
  No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted 
nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its 
safety and efficacy as compared to other abortion methods. There have 
been no articles published in peer review journals that establish that 
partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to establish abortion 
procedures.
  Furthermore, experience indicates that partial-birth abortions are 
not performed to preserve the health of a woman. The late Dr. James 
McMahon, developed this method and performed thousands of them, some as 
late as the ninth month. In 1995, Dr. McMahon submitted to the 
Committee on the Judiciary a graph and explanation that explicitly 
showed that he aborted healthy babies even in the third trimester which 
begins after the 26th week of pregnancy. His own graph showed, for 
example, that at 29 or 30 weeks one-fourth of the aborted babies had no 
flaw.
  Furthermore, leading proponents of partial-birth abortion acknowledge 
that it could pose additional health risks because, among other things, 
the procedure requires a high degree of surgical skill to pierce the 
infant's skull with a sharp instrument in a blind procedure.
  Dr. Warren Hern testified that he had very serious reservations about 
this procedure and that he could not imagine a circumstance in which 
this procedure would be safest. Although he was opposed to legislation 
banning partial-birth abortion, he also stated, ``You really can't 
defend it. I'm not going to tell somebody else they should not do this 
procedure, but I'm not going to do it.'' He also stated, ``I would 
dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use.''
  The procedure also poses the following additional health risk to the

[[Page 13801]]

woman: an increase in the woman's risk of suffering from cervical 
incompetence, a result of cervical dilation making it difficult or 
impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to 
term; an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid 
embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child 
to a footling breech position.
  Finally, a health exception, no matter how narrowly defined, gives 
the abortionist unfettered discretion in determining when a partial-
birth abortion may be performed, and abortionists have demonstrated 
they can justify any abortion on this ground. Again, Dr. Warren Hern, 
``I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman's life and 
could cause grievous injury to her physical health.'' I repeat, ``I 
will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman's life and could 
cause grievous injury to her physical health.''
  It is clear then that a law that includes such an exception would not 
ban a single-birth abortion; and for that reason, I would urge a ``no'' 
vote on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 165, 
nays 256, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 241]

                               YEAS--165

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

                               NAYS--256

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     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
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     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
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Burton (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Dicks
     Eshoo
     Gephardt
     Jones (OH)
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lofgren
     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}  2040

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 282, 
nays 139, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 242]

                               YEAS--282

     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 (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     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
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly

[[Page 13802]]


     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     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
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     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
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--139

     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
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--13

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


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  2047

  Mr. BERMAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I could not be present today, 
Wednesday, June 4, 2003, to vote on rollcall vote Nos. 236 through 242 
due to a family medical emergency.
  Had I been present, I would have voted:
  ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 236 on H. Res. 257; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 
237 on H. Con. Res. 177; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 238 on H. Res. 
201; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 239 on H.R. 1954; ``yea'' on rollcall 
vote No. 240; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 241; and ``no'' on rollcall 
vote No. 242.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 257, I 
call up from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 3) to prohibit the 
procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The text of S. 3 is as follows:

                                  S. 3

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban 
     Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds and declares the following:
       (1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the 
     practice of performing a partial-birth abortion--an abortion 
     in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until 
     only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of 
     the child's skull with a sharp instrument, and sucks the 
     child's brains out before completing delivery of the dead 
     infant--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never 
     medically necessary and should be prohibited.
       (2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is 
     embraced by the medical community, particularly among 
     physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, 
     partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is 
     not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, 
     but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of 
     women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at 
     least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States 
     Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 
     105th, and 106th Congresses.
       (3) In Stenberg v. Carhart (530 U.S. 914, 932 (2000)), the 
     United States Supreme Court opined ``that significant medical 
     authority supports the proposition that in some 
     circumstances, [partial birth abortion] would be the safest 
     procedure'' for pregnant women who wish to undergo an 
     abortion. Thus, the Court struck down the State of Nebraska's 
     ban on partial-birth abortion procedures, concluding that it 
     placed an ``undue burden'' on women seeking abortions because 
     it failed to include an exception for partial-birth abortions 
     deemed necessary to preserve the ``health'' of the mother.
       (4) In reaching this conclusion, the Court deferred to the 
     Federal district court's factual findings that the partial-
     birth abortion procedure was statistically and medically as 
     safe as, and in many circumstances safer than, alternative 
     abortion procedures.
       (5) However, the great weight of evidence presented at the 
     Stenberg trial and other trials challenging partial-birth 
     abortion bans, as well as at extensive Congressional 
     hearings, demonstrates that a partial-birth abortion is never 
     necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses 
     significant health risks to a woman upon whom the procedure 
     is performed, and is outside of the standard of medical care.
       (6) Despite the dearth of evidence in the Stenberg trial 
     court record supporting the district court's findings, the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the 
     Supreme Court refused to set aside the district court's 
     factual findings because, under the applicable standard of 
     appellate review, they were not ``clearly erroneous''. A 
     finding of fact is clearly erroneous ``when although there is 
     evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire 
     evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a 
     mistake has been committed''. Anderson v. City of Bessemer 
     City, North Carolina (470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)). Under this 
     standard, ``if the district court's account of the evidence 
     is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, 
     the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced 
     that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have 
     weighed the evidence differently'' (Id. at 574).
       (7) Thus, in Stenberg, the United States Supreme Court was 
     required to accept the very questionable findings issued by 
     the district court judge--the effect of which was to render 
     null and void the reasoned factual findings and policy 
     determinations of the United States Congress and at least 27 
     State legislatures.
       (8) However, under well-settled Supreme Court 
     jurisprudence, the United States Congress is not bound to 
     accept the same factual findings that the Supreme Court was 
     bound to accept in Stenberg under the ``clearly erroneous'' 
     standard. Rather, the United

[[Page 13803]]

     States Congress is entitled to reach its own factual 
     findings--findings that the Supreme Court accords great 
     deference--and to enact legislation based upon these findings 
     so long as it seeks to pursue a legitimate interest that is 
     within the scope of the Constitution, and draws reasonable 
     inferences based upon substantial evidence.
       (9) In Katzenbach v. Morgan (384 U.S. 641 (1966)), the 
     Supreme Court articulated its highly deferential review of 
     Congressional factual findings when it addressed the 
     constitutionality of section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 
     1965. Regarding Congress' factual determination that section 
     4(e) would assist the Puerto Rican community in ``gaining 
     nondiscriminatory treatment in public services,'' the Court 
     stated that ``[i]t was for Congress, as the branch that made 
     this judgment, to assess and weigh the various conflicting 
     considerations. . . . It is not for us to review the 
     congressional resolution of these factors. It is enough that 
     we be able to perceive a basis upon which the Congress might 
     resolve the conflict as it did. There plainly was such a 
     basis to support section 4(e) in the application in question 
     in this case.'' (Id. at 653).
       (10) Katzenbach's highly deferential review of Congress's 
     factual conclusions was relied upon by the United States 
     District Court for the District of Columbia when it upheld 
     the ``bail-out'' provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 
     (42 U.S.C. 1973c), stating that ``congressional fact finding, 
     to which we are inclined to pay great deference, strengthens 
     the inference that, in those jurisdictions covered by the 
     Act, state actions discriminatory in effect are 
     discriminatory in purpose''. City of Rome, Georgia v. U.S. 
     (472 F. Supp. 221 (D. D. Col. 1979)) aff'd City of Rome, 
     Georgia v. U.S. (46 U.S. 156 (1980)).
       (11) The Court continued its practice of deferring to 
     congressional factual findings in reviewing the 
     constitutionality of the must-carry provisions of the Cable 
     Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. 
     See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal 
     Communications Commission (512 U.S. 622 (1994) (Turner I)) 
     and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal 
     Communications Commission (520 U.S. 180 (1997) (Turner II)). 
     At issue in the Turner cases was Congress' legislative 
     finding that, absent mandatory carriage rules, the continued 
     viability of local broadcast television would be ``seriously 
     jeopardized''. The Turner I Court recognized that as an 
     institution, ``Congress is far better equipped than the 
     judiciary to `amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data' 
     bearing upon an issue as complex and dynamic as that 
     presented here'' (512 U.S. at 665-66). Although the Court 
     recognized that ``the deference afforded to legislative 
     findings does `not foreclose our independent judgment of the 
     facts bearing on an issue of constitutional law,''' its 
     ``obligation to exercise independent judgment when First 
     Amendment rights are implicated is not a license to reweigh 
     the evidence de novo, or to replace Congress' factual 
     predictions with our own. Rather, it is to assure that, in 
     formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable 
     inferences based on substantial evidence.'' (Id. at 666).
       (12) Three years later in Turner II, the Court upheld the 
     ``must-carry'' provisions based upon Congress' findings, 
     stating the Court's ``sole obligation is `to assure that, in 
     formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable 
     inferences based on substantial evidence.''' (520 U.S. at 
     195). Citing its ruling in Turner I, the Court reiterated 
     that ``[w]e owe Congress' findings deference in part because 
     the institution `is far better equipped than the judiciary to 
     ``amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data'' bearing upon' 
     legislative questions,'' (Id. at 195), and added that it 
     ``owe[d] Congress' findings an additional measure of 
     deference out of respect for its authority to exercise the 
     legislative power.'' (Id. at 196).
       (13) There exists substantial record evidence upon which 
     Congress has reached its conclusion that a ban on partial-
     birth abortion is not required to contain a ``health'' 
     exception, because the facts indicate that a partial-birth 
     abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a 
     woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies 
     outside the standard of medical care. Congress was informed 
     by extensive hearings held during the 104th, 105th, and 107th 
     Congresses and passed a ban on partial-birth abortion in the 
     104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. These findings reflect 
     the very informed judgment of the Congress that a partial-
     birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a 
     woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies 
     outside the standard of medical care, and should, therefore, 
     be banned.
       (14) Pursuant to the testimony received during extensive 
     legislative hearings during the 104th, 105th, and 107th 
     Congresses, Congress finds and declares that:
       (A) Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the 
     health of a woman undergoing the procedure. Those risks 
     include, among other things: an increase in a woman's risk of 
     suffering from cervical incompetence, a result of cervical 
     dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to 
     successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an 
     increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid 
     embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting 
     the child to a footling breech position, a procedure which, 
     according to a leading obstetrics textbook, ``there are very 
     few, if any, indications for . . . other than for delivery of 
     a second twin''; and a risk of lacerations and secondary 
     hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp 
     instrument into the base of the unborn child's skull while he 
     or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could 
     result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of 
     shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death.
       (B) There is no credible medical evidence that partial-
     birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion 
     procedures. No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions 
     have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been 
     conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to 
     other abortion methods. Furthermore, there have been no 
     articles published in peer-reviewed journals that establish 
     that partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to 
     established abortion procedures. Indeed, unlike other more 
     commonly used abortion procedures, there are currently no 
     medical schools that provide instruction on abortions that 
     include the instruction in partial-birth abortions in their 
     curriculum.
       (C) A prominent medical association has concluded that 
     partial-birth abortion is ``not an accepted medical 
     practice,'' that it has ``never been subject to even a 
     minimal amount of the normal medical practice development,'' 
     that ``the relative advantages and disadvantages of the 
     procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown,'' and 
     that ``there is no consensus among obstetricians about its 
     use''. The association has further noted that partial-birth 
     abortion is broadly disfavored by both medical experts and 
     the public, is ``ethically wrong,'' and ``is never the only 
     appropriate procedure''.
       (D) Neither the plaintiff in Stenberg v. Carhart, nor the 
     experts who testified on his behalf, have identified a single 
     circumstance during which a partial-birth abortion was 
     necessary to preserve the health of a woman.
       (E) The physician credited with developing the partial-
     birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never 
     encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was 
     medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, 
     is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a 
     woman.
       (F) A ban on the partial-birth abortion procedure will 
     therefore advance the health interests of pregnant women 
     seeking to terminate a pregnancy.
       (G) In light of this overwhelming evidence, Congress and 
     the States have a compelling interest in prohibiting partial-
     birth abortions. In addition to promoting maternal health, 
     such a prohibition will draw a bright line that clearly 
     distinguishes abortion and infanticide, that preserves the 
     integrity of the medical profession, and promotes respect for 
     human life.
       (H) Based upon Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)) and 
     Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833 (1992)), a 
     governmental interest in protecting the life of a child 
     during the delivery process arises by virtue of the fact that 
     during a partial-birth abortion, labor is induced and the 
     birth process has begun. This distinction was recognized in 
     Roe when the Court noted, without comment, that the Texas 
     parturition statute, which prohibited one from killing a 
     child ``in a state of being born and before actual birth,'' 
     was not under attack. This interest becomes compelling as the 
     child emerges from the maternal body. A child that is 
     completely born is a full, legal person entitled to 
     constitutional protections afforded a ``person'' under the 
     United States Constitution. Partial-birth abortions involve 
     the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere 
     inches away from, becoming a ``person''. Thus, the government 
     has a heightened interest in protecting the life of the 
     partially-born child.
       (I) This, too, has not gone unnoticed in the medical 
     community, where a prominent medical association has 
     recognized that partial-birth abortions are ``ethically 
     different from other destructive abortion techniques because 
     the fetus, normally twenty weeks or longer in gestation, is 
     killed outside of the womb''. According to this medical 
     association, the ```partial birth' gives the fetus an 
     autonomy which separates it from the right of the woman to 
     choose treatments for her own body''.
       (J) Partial-birth abortion also confuses the medical, 
     legal, and ethical duties of physicians to preserve and 
     promote life, as the physician acts directly against the 
     physical life of a child, whom he or she had just delivered, 
     all but the head, out of the womb, in order to end that life. 
     Partial-birth abortion thus appropriates the terminology and 
     techniques used by obstetricians in the delivery of living 
     children--obstetricians who preserve and protect the life of 
     the mother and the child--and instead uses those techniques 
     to end the life of the partially-born child.
       (K) Thus, by aborting a child in the manner that 
     purposefully seeks to kill the child after he or she has 
     begun the process of birth, partial-birth abortion undermines 
     the public's perception of the appropriate role of a 
     physician during the delivery process, and perverts a process 
     during which life is brought into the world, in order to 
     destroy a partially-born child.
       (L) The gruesome and inhumane nature of the partial-birth 
     abortion procedure and its

[[Page 13804]]

     disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant 
     promotes a complete disregard for infant human life that can 
     only be countered by a prohibition of the procedure.
       (M) The vast majority of babies killed during partial-birth 
     abortions are alive until the end of the procedure. It is a 
     medical fact, however, that unborn infants at this stage can 
     feel pain when subjected to painful stimuli and that their 
     perception of this pain is even more intense than that of 
     newborn infants and older children when subjected to the same 
     stimuli. Thus, during a partial-birth abortion procedure, the 
     child will fully experience the pain associated with piercing 
     his or her skull and sucking out his or her brain.
       (N) Implicitly approving such a brutal and inhumane 
     procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen 
     society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all 
     vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly 
     difficult to protect such life. Thus, Congress has a 
     compelling interest in acting--indeed it must act--to 
     prohibit this inhumane procedure.
       (O) For these reasons, Congress finds that partial-birth 
     abortion is never medically indicated to preserve the health 
     of the mother; is in fact unrecognized as a valid abortion 
     procedure by the mainstream medical community; poses 
     additional health risks to the mother; blurs the line between 
     abortion and infanticide in the killing of a partially-born 
     child just inches from birth; and confuses the role of the 
     physician in childbirth and should, therefore, be banned.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after chapter 73 the following:

                 ``CHAPTER 74--PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS

``Sec.
``1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited.

     ``Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

       ``(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or 
     foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion 
     and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this 
     title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This 
     subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is 
     necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is 
     endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or 
     physical injury, including a life-endangering physical 
     condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. 
     This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of 
     enactment of this chapter.
       ``(b) As used in this section--
       ``(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion 
     in which--
       ``(A) 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; and
       ``(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of 
     delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; 
     and
       ``(2) the term `physician' means a doctor of medicine or 
     osteopathy legally authorized to practice medicine and 
     surgery by the State in which the doctor performs such 
     activity, or any other individual legally authorized by the 
     State to perform abortions: Provided, however, That any 
     individual who is not a physician or not otherwise legally 
     authorized by the State to perform abortions, but who 
     nevertheless directly performs a partial-birth abortion, 
     shall be subject to the provisions of this section.
       ``(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time 
     she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the 
     mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of 
     the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in 
     a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the 
     pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or 
     the plaintiff consented to the abortion.
       ``(2) Such relief shall include--
       ``(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and 
     physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and
       ``(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of 
     the partial-birth abortion.
       ``(d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this 
     section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on 
     whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the 
     life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical 
     disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a 
     life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from 
     the pregnancy itself.
       ``(2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that 
     issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the 
     defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial 
     for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take 
     place.
       ``(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is 
     performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a 
     conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under 
     section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this 
     section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to chapter 73 the following new item:

``74. Partial-birth abortions...................................1531''.

     SEC. 4. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING ROE V. WADE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) abortion has been a legal and constitutionally 
     protected medical procedure throughout the United States 
     since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 
     (1973)); and
       (2) the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade 
     established constitutionally based limits on the power of 
     States to restrict the right of a woman to choose to 
     terminate a pregnancy.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (410 
     U.S. 113 (1973)) was appropriate and secures an important 
     constitutional right; and
       (2) such decision should not be overturned.


                  Motion Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 257, I 
offer a motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Sensenbrenner moves to strike all after the Enacting 
     clause of S. 3, and insert in lieu thereof the provisions of 
     H.R. 760 as passed by the House.

  The motion was agreed to.
  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read a third 
time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                       Motion to go to Conference

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII, I 
offer a motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Sensenbrenner moves that the House insist on its 
     amendment to S. 3 and request a conference with the Senate 
     thereon.

  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct the conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Nadler  moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the House amendments to the bill S. 3 be instructed 
     to insist that--
       (1) the committee of conference allow opportunity for 
     members of the committee of conference to offer and debate 
     amendments at all meetings of such conference; and
       (2) all meetings of the committee of conference--
       (A) be open to the public and to the print and electronic 
     media; and
       (B) be held in venues selected to maximize the capacity for 
     attendance of the public and the media.

  Mr. NADLER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is recognized for 30 
minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the motion says 
that the conferences should be open, and I am pleased to support the 
motion.
  Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is correct, the motion 
is to have the conference be open. I appreciate the gentleman's 
support.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I just want to say that I support the motion, and hope it 
passes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The motion to instruct was agreed to.

[[Page 13805]]




                        Appointment of Conferees

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: From the Committee on the Judiciary for 
consideration of the Senate bill and the House amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Sensenbrenner, Hyde and 
Nadler.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________