[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 24407]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 3, PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. CHET EDWARDS

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 2, 2003

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose all late term abortions, 
but when a mother's health is at risk, that decision should be made by 
a woman and her doctor, not by politicians in Washington, D.C. If there 
is one frivolous later term abortion, that's one too many. That's why I 
want to pass legislation that bans all late term abortion procedures, 
not just one. This bill is not a serious attempt to save babies. It is 
a cynical attempt to make political points. Do you know what? There is 
a dirty little secret about this bill that is starting to get out, and 
that secret is that this bill does not outlaw late-term abortions. Let 
me repeat that.
  Under this bill, late-term abortions under Federal law, will still be 
perfectly legal. Why do I say that? Very simply, because this bill only 
outlaws one late-term abortion procedure, while allowing all others to 
remain perfectly legal. For 8 years, I have asked on this floor the 
supporters of this bill to explain why they did not want to put in this 
bill an outlaw of all late-term abortion procedures like I helped do in 
the Texas legislature 13 years ago.
  I think probably the honest answer to that was given by Ralph Reed a 
number of years ago when he said, ``the partial-birth abortion bill is 
a silver political bullet.'' And I think the people in America who 
should truly be upset about this bill and the effort to pass it for 8 
years, are not just the pro-choice people. It should be the genuine, 
decent pro-life people who in their own heart have been misled to 
believe that this bill would actually outlaw late-term abortions. It 
does not. And that is a dirty little secret that is starting to get 
out, even in the pro-life community.
  In fact, let us go to a statement made just 2 weeks ago by Randall 
Terry, who is the founder of Operation Rescue, an ardently pro-life 
organization. This is what Mr. Terry, a pro-life citizen, said, ``This 
bill, if it becomes law, may not save one child's life.''
  Yes, Mr. Speaker, the dirty little secret is getting out. There is 
another little secret that is getting out about this bill, and that is 
that it is absolutely, patently unconstitutional. So those who have 
pushed this bill have pushed a false promise on their pro-life 
constituents.
  Why is it unconstitutional? It is as clear as the Supreme Court can 
say. When it puts a decision in italics, I think it is trying to make 
it a very clear point to those who would read it; but for those who 
cannot understand it, let me read Justice O'Conner's statement from the 
Stenberg v. Carhart decision in 2000, which outlawed a bill almost 
exactly like this.
  ``States may substantially regulate and even prescribe abortion, but 
any such regulation or prescription must,'' not maybe, ``must contain 
an exception for instances,'' and this was in italics, ``where it is 
necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of 
life or health of the mother.''
  Well, guess what, unlike the constitutional bill I passed in the 
Texas legislature 17 years ago abolishing all late-term abortion 
procedures, but constitutional because we had a health exception, this 
bill refuses to have a health exception, even when the mother's health 
is at risk.
  This bill is a false promise. It will harm good decent women in this 
country, and it should be defeated.

                          ____________________