[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9250-9259]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2045
                       THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kratovil). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.

[[Page 9251]]


  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the privilege to be 
recognized here tonight. Before my colleagues leave the floor, I hope 
they can hear a little bit of an alternative viewpoint, that being that 
this news flash, for especially my colleague from Iowa, corporations 
don't pay taxes, Mr. Speaker. Corporations collect those taxes from end 
users, consumers, retail people, and then they aggregate the taxes from 
the consumers and they pass them on to the Federal Government or State 
government or whatever the tax collecting body might be.
  For that reason, no matter what the circumstances are, we are not 
going to be able to chase these corporations. We're not going to be 
able to chase these corporations around the world and collect that 
taxes from them because they will always find another way to pay taxes 
or, of course, the obligation they have it to pass it onto the 
consumer.
  This is a fundamental principle when it comes to holding this economy 
together and how we're going to build the economy in this country and 
how we're going to compete with the rest the world. If we get that 
wrong, if we get it wrong and we think that we can somehow squeeze this 
capital out of these corporations that have lost about 40 percent of 
their asset value over the last year or so if you just simply look at 
the Dow, you'll find out that you can drive this free-market economy 
into oblivion and the free world will not make progress.
  So we need to get that fundamental principle correct. We can't simply 
get corporations to pay taxes without them passing it on to consumers. 
And that is the bottom line, Mr. Speaker.
  I didn't come to talk about that, but as I listened to my colleagues 
from the Populist Caucus--I discovered a new caucus here in the House 
of Representatives, Mr. Speaker--I raise another issue, the very vague 
and undefinable position of being for fair trade.
  If someone stands up and says they're for fair trade, that means 
they're not for free trade. They can be for free trade and for smart 
trade, but you can't be for fair trade and also be for free trade.
  Now that might seem like a little bit of alliteration gobbledegook, 
Mr. Speaker, but the truth is that there is no such thing as fair. 
Anyone who has raised more than one child--two or more children, I 
might further define--understands there's no such thing as fair. A 
three-year old can figure out that their four-year old brother or 
sister got an extra benefit along the way. They'll argue: That's not 
fair. As soon as they argue that, of course its subjective.
  There's no such thing as fair when it comes to raising children, 
there's no such thing as fair when it comes to trade, because another 
country will have a different view on what is fair trade compared to 
what we will here in the United States.
  Those are the fundamental principles. If we go down this path of this 
nice feeling rhetoric of fair trade as opposed to having justice and 
equity and balance and free marketing, if we go down this path of 
seeking to tax corporations and punish them, then we will continually 
be frustrated by trying to shape a policy that will never be achieved.
  And that would be my comments to the gentleman who I think gave a 
heartfelt presentation here over the last hour, Mr. Speaker.
  I didn't come, as I said, to talk about that. I came here to the 
floor of the House of Representatives tonight to talk about an issue 
that has to do with innocent unborn human life and these timeless 
values of the sacredness of the unborn child and the sacredness of all 
human life.
  I have often made this case, especially to our high school and our 
middle school students, but also across this country, that we have 
these rights that come from God, and they are delineated in the 
Declaration of Independence, Mr. Speaker.
  What our Founders drafted in the Declaration of Independence are the 
right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was not a 
random stream from the quill of Thomas Jefferson, Mr. Speaker. That was 
very specific, very carefully thought out, very prosaic designed 
phrase--the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 
Prioritized rights, Mr. Speaker. That right to life--the right to life 
is paramount to anyone's liberty. And the right to liberty is paramount 
to pursuit of happiness.
  So let me say that in my pursuit of happiness, if I should encroach 
upon someone's liberty, my pursuit of happiness loses its right out of 
deference to a higher priority right of liberty trumps pursuit of 
happiness. In pursuit of liberty, if I were to choose a pursuit of 
liberty that would violate someone's right to life, the right to life 
trumps anyone's pursuit of liberty.
  So our Founders understood these are prioritized rights. There's a 
right to life. That human life is sacred in all of its forms and we 
have to choose a time, we have to choose an instant when life begins 
because we simply cannot err. So I choose that instant at conception. 
Today, it's conception/fertilization. When that happens, we have the 
biological beginning of life.
  I believe that's the moment that God puts the soul in that little 
child. From that instant on, they're a unique individual. There will 
never be another one identical to that unique individual. And they are 
all the solutions to the problems in the world, aside from those that 
come from above, come from those little children that are coming into 
this world.
  They have a right to life. We need to guarantee that right to life. 
That right to life trumps anyone's right to liberty, as much as the 
right to liberty trumps anyone else's pursuit of happiness.
  I can continue to give these examples, Mr. Speaker, but I think where 
we are at this point is, having laid the foundation, I recognize I have 
the gentleman here from New Jersey, who has, I think, put together a 
very strong and compelling case here in this Congress; someone who I 
can count on every time to be with us every day as we stand up for the 
innocent unborn human life. He's someone who brings a passion to the 
scholarship, the conviction, the faith, the core principles to this 
cause, an individual I get to count as a friend and a colleague and 
someone who it's an honor for me to be serve with.
  I'd yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend and colleague, Mr. 
King, for his leadership, for his consistency in promoting human 
rights, and for bringing to this floor tonight another opportunity for 
us to affirm the dignity and the value of all human life, including 
that of the unborn.
  Mr. Speaker, last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited 
the Catholic Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City, 
presented bouquet of flowers on behalf of the American people--a very 
nice gesture--and then went on to Houston, Texas, to receive the 
Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood.
  In her remarks, Secretary Clinton said she was ``in awe''--I repeat, 
``in awe''--of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. To 
our distinguished Secretary of State, I respectfully ask: Are you 
kidding? In ``awe'' of Margaret Sanger, who said in 1921, ``Eugenics is 
the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, 
political, and social problems.'' And who also said in 1922, ``The most 
merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to 
kill it.''
  Later, in 1939, Sanger wrote, ``We should hire three or four colored 
ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds and with engaging 
personalities.'' She wrote, ``The most successful educational approach 
to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to 
go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,'' she goes on, 
``and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it 
ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.''
  Secretary Clinton in her speech said that Margaret Sanger's life and 
leadership was ``one of the most transformational in the entire history 
of the human race.'' Mr. Speaker, transformational, yes. But not for 
the better if one happens to be poor, disenfranchised, weak, a person 
of

[[Page 9252]]

color, vulnerable, or among the many so-called undesirables who Sanger 
would exclude and exterminate from the human race.
  To me, and to many, including my distinguished colleague in the well, 
the juxtaposition of the last week's two very public events in Mexico 
City and in Houston bring into sharp focus two huge and irreconcilable 
world views.
  On the one hand, the miracle of Our Lady of Guadalupe has for five 
centuries brought a message of hope, faith, peace, reconciliation and 
protection for the weakest, most vulnerable among us. On the other 
hand, each year, Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood kills 
approximately 300,000 unborn baby girls and boys in their abortion 
clinics scattered throughout the United States.
  Worldwide, the loss of innocent human life at the hands of Planned 
Parenthood is in the millions. Planned Parenthood even supports the 
hideous brain-sucking method of abortion called partial birth abortion.
  On a visit to the Basilica in Mexico City in 1999, Pope John Paul II 
publicly entrusted protection of all at-risk human life, including 
especially unborn children and their mothers, to Our Lady of Guadalupe 
because the miracle she wrought 500 years ago resulted in an end to the 
barbaric practice of human sacrifice to a serpent God that claimed 
anywhere between 20,000 and 50,000 victims a year.
  Indeed, the miraculous story of Our Lady of Guadalupe, known so well 
especially in Latin America, but really around the world, has been 
extraordinarily compelling and inspirational for centuries.
  In 1531, the Blessed Mother appeared to Juan Diego, a native American 
at Tepeyac, near Mexico City, and asked that a church be built on the 
site of the apparition. The Catholic bishop was skeptical and asked for 
a sign. At the behest of the Blessed Mother, and despite the fact it 
was winter, Juan Diego gathered roses from the site into his tilma for 
presentation to the Bishop.
  When Juan Diego met with Bishop Juan de Zumarraga with the roses 
tucked under his apron, a miraculous image suddenly appeared on the 
cloth. The Bishop was stunned, and he believed. The image of the 
Blessed Mother wasn't painted. There are no brush strokes. To this day, 
the image defies all scientific explanation as to its origin.
  Within a few years of the miracle, more than 9 million Aztecs 
converted to Christianity and a strong devotion to Our Lady of 
Guadalupe began that continues to this day. Each year, some 18 million 
to 20 million pilgrims visit the miraculous image in Mexico City.
  Last Thursday, Hillary Clinton visited the shrine. On Friday, she 
paid homage to Planned Parenthood and to Margaret Sanger.
  Margaret Sanger is the founder of Planned Parenthood. She was a self-
described pro-abortionist eugenist and a racist who considered charity 
care for impoverished, disenfranchised women, including women of color, 
especially pregnant women, to be ``cruel.''
  In her book, ``The Pivot of Civilization,'' Margaret Sanger devoted 
an entire chapter that she entitled: ``The Cruelty of Charity,'' to her 
inhumane case for not helping--and I repeat that--not helping poor 
pregnant women with prenatal and maternal care.
  Sanger said in the book--and I read her book--``We are paying for and 
even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing, unceasingly 
spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at 
all.''
  In chapter 5--again, chapter 5 is called: ``The Cruelty of 
Charity''--she writes, ``Organized charity itself is the symptom of a 
malignant social disease.'' Sanger writes, ``Those vast, complex, 
interrelated organizations aiming to control and diminish the spread of 
misery and destruction and all the menacing evils that spring out of 
this sinisterly fertile soil are the surest sign that our civilization 
has bred, is breeding, and is perpetuating constantly increasing 
numbers of defectives, delinquents, and dependents.'' That's Margaret 
Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.
  She continues, ``My criticism therefore is not directed at the 
failure of philanthropy but rather at its success.'' Sanger goes on to 
say, ``There's a special type of philanthropy or benevolence now widely 
advertised and advocated both as a Federal program and as worthy of 
private endowment, which strikes me,'' that is to say Sanger, ``as 
being more insidiously injurious than any other. This concerns itself 
directly with the function of maternity and aims to supply gratis 
medical and nursing facilities to slum mothers.
  ``Such women are to be visited by nurses and receive instruction in 
the hygiene of pregnancy, to be guided in making arrangements for 
confinement, to be invited to come to the doctors' clinics for 
examination and supervision. They are, we are informed, to receive 
adequate care during pregnancy, at confinement, and for 1 month 
afterwards. Thus, are mothers and babies to be saved, childbearing is 
to be made safe.''
  Construing to demean the generosity of pregnancy care centers, 
Margaret Sanger goes on to say, ``The work of the maternity centers in 
the various American cities, which they have already been established 
and in which they are supported by private contributions and endowment, 
it is hardly necessary to point out is carried out among the poor and 
the most docile section of the city, among mothers least able, through 
poverty and ignorance, to afford the care and attention necessary for 
successful maternity.
  ``The effect of maternity endowments of maternity centers supported 
by private philanthropy would have perhaps already have had exactly the 
most dysgenic tendency. The new government program would facilitate the 
function of maternity among the very classes in which the absolute 
necessity is to discourage it.
  ``Such benevolence,'' she goes on to say, ``is not merely superficial 
and nearsighted.'' Sanger continues, ``It conceals a stupid cruelty. 
Aside from the question of the unfitness of many women to become 
mothers, aside from the very definite deterioration in the human stock 
that such programs would inevitably hasten, we may question its value 
even through the unfortunate mother.

                              {time}  2100

  Simon concludes, ``The most serious charge that can be brought 
against modern benevolence is that it encourages''--and I say this 
again--``the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents, and dependents.'' 
Such audacity, such an inhumane view of human life.
  Mr. Speaker, in her speech at the Planned Parenthood gala accepting 
the Margaret Sanger award--and I have many other quotes from Sanger 
that I will put into the Record, and I invite Members and the American 
people to look at those quotes, and there is so much more.
  But in her speech last Friday, Secretary Clinton said she admired 
Sanger for her vision, was in awe of her, and that Margaret Sanger's 
work here and in the United States and certainly across the globe is 
not done.
  Translated, ``not done'' means more abortions here in the United 
States, in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, the world. Planned 
Parenthood's mission statement, documents, and work in the field make 
it absolutely clear that they seek a global unfettered right to commit 
violence against unborn children at all stages of development. Planned 
Parenthood seeks integration of all health care with abortion, with no 
conscience rights whatsoever for medical practitioners, no parental 
consent or notification whatsoever for minors. And all of this paid for 
by the United States taxpayer.
  Which begs the question, Mr. Speaker. Is our Secretary of State 
unaware of Margaret Sanger's inhumane beliefs? Was she not briefed on 
Margaret Sanger's cruel and reckless disregard for poor, pregnant 
women? Respectfully, Secretary Clinton should at a minimum return the 
Sanger award.
  More importantly, Congress and the White House must at long last take 
a long, hard, second look at the multimillion, almost billion, dollar 
corporation called Planned Parenthood, Child Abuse Incorporated.

[[Page 9253]]

  Let's be honest, Mr. Speaker. Abortion is violence against children. 
It dismembers and chemically poisons a child to death. It hurts women 
physically, psychologically, and spiritually. There is nothing 
whatsoever compassionate, benevolent, ennobling, benign, or empowering 
about abortion. It is a violation of a child's fundamental human 
rights.
  Rather than partnering with Planned Parenthood and like-minded NGOs 
to promote abortion worldwide with hundreds of millions of taxpayer 
dollars, the United States should affirm the inherent value, dignity, 
worth of both victims of abortion, mother and child. We need to promote 
nonviolent, life-affirming solutions to women both here as well as 
abroad. Women deserve better than abortion. We should always and in 
every way affirm the precious lives of both. And on that score, 
Margaret Sanger and far too many others would disagree.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to take that second look at Planned 
Parenthood. It is time to respect the value and the dignity of all 
human life.
  Mr. Speaker, last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited 
the Catholic Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City, 
presented a bouquet of flowers on behalf of the American people--a nice 
gesture--and then went on to Houston, Texas to receive the Margaret 
Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood.
  In her remarks, Secretary Clinton said she was ``in awe'' of Margaret 
Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. To our distinguished 
Secretary of State, I respectfully ask, are you kidding? In ``awe'' of 
Margaret Sanger who said in 1921 ``Eugenics is . . . the most adequate 
and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social 
problems'' and in 1922 said, ``The most merciful thing that a family 
does to one of its infant members is to kill it.''
  Later in 1939 Sanger wrote ``We should hire three or four colored 
ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with 
engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the 
Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out 
that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is 
the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of 
their more rebellious members.''
  Secretary Clinton said in her speech that Margaret Sanger's ``life 
and leadership'' was ``one of the most transformational in the entire 
history of the human race.'' Mr. Speaker, transformational yes, but not 
for the better if one happens to be poor, disenfranchised, weak, 
disabled, vulnerable, or among the many so called undesirables who 
Sanger would exclude and exterminate from the human race.
  To me--to many--the juxtaposition of last weeks two very public 
events--in Mexico City and in Houston--bring into sharp focus, two huge 
and irreconcilable world views.
  On the one hand, the miracle of Our Lady of Guadalupe has for 5 
centuries brought a message of hope, faith, love and protection for the 
weakest, most vulnerable among us. On the other hand, each year 
Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood kills approximately 300,000 unborn 
children in their abortion clinics throughout the United States. 
Worldwide the loss of innocent human life at the hands of Planned 
Parenthood is in the millions. Planned Parenthood even supports the 
hideous brain sucking method of abortion called partial birth abortion.
  On a visit to the Basilica in Mexico City in 1999, Pope John Paul II 
publicly entrusted protection of all at risk innocent human life, 
including and especially unborn children and their mothers, to Our Lady 
of Guadalupe because the miracle she wrought 500 years ago resulted in 
an end to the barbaric practice of human sacrifice to a serpent god 
that claimed 20,000 to 50,000 victims a year.
  Indeed, the miraculous story of Our Lady of Guadalupe has been 
extraordinarly compelling and inspirational for centuries.
  In 1531, the Blessed Mother appeared to Juan Diego, a Native American 
at Tepeyac, near Mexico City, and asked that a church be built on the 
site of the apparition.
  The Catholic Bishop was skeptical and asked for a sign.
  At the behest of the Blessed Mother, and despite the fact that it was 
winter, Juan Diego gathered roses from the site into his tilma for 
presentation to the Bishop.
  When Juan Diego met with Bishop Juan de Zumarraga with the roses 
tucked in his apron, a miraculous image suddenly appeared on the cloth.
  The Bishop was stunned, and believed. The image of the Blessed Mother 
wasn't painted--there are no brush strokes--and to this day the image 
defies all scientific explanation as to its origin.
  Within a few years of the miracle, more than 9 million Aztecs 
converted to Christianity and strong devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe 
began, that continues to this day. Each year some 18-20 million 
pilgrims visit the miraculous image in Mexico City.
  Last Thursday, Hillary Clinton visited the Shrine. Then on Friday she 
paid homage to Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger.
  Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a self-
described pro-abortion eugenist and racist who considered charity care 
for impoverished, disenfranchised women, including women of color, 
especially pregnant women, to be ``cruel.'' In her book, the Pivot of 
Civilization, Margaret Sanger devoted an entire chapter entitled ``The 
Cruelty of Charity'' to her inhumane case of not helping--I repeat not 
helping--poor, pregnant women with prenatal and maternal care.
  Sanger said in the book, ``We are paying for and even submitting to 
the dictates of an ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human 
beings who never should have been born at all.'' In Chapter 5 of that 
book Sanger writes:
  `` . . . Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant 
social disease.
  ``Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control 
and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the 
menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the 
surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and is 
perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents 
and dependents.''
  Sanger continues, ``My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the 
`failure' of philanthropy, but rather at its success. . . .''
  Sanger goes on to say, ``there is a special type of philanthropy or 
benevolence, now widely advertised and advocated, both as a federal 
program and as worthy of private endowment, which strikes me (Sanger) 
as being more insidiously injurious than any other. This concerns 
itself directly with the function of maternity, and aims to supply 
gratis medical and nursing facilities to slum mothers. Such women are 
to be visited by nurses and to receive instruction in the ``hygiene of 
pregnancy''; to be guided in making arrangements for confinements; to 
be invited to come to the doctors' clinics for examination and 
supervision. They are, we are informed, to ``receive adequate care 
during pregnancy, at confinement, and for one month afterward. Thus are 
mothers and babies to be saved, `Childbearing is to be made safe.' ''
  Construing to demean the generosity of pregnancy centers Sanger 
continues, ``the work of the maternity centers in the various American 
cities in which they have already been established and in which they 
are supported by private contributions and endowment, it is hardly 
necessary to point out, is carried on among the poor and more docile 
sections of the city, among mothers least able, through poverty and 
ignorance, to afford the care and attention necessary for successful 
maternity. . . . The effect of maternity endowments and maternity 
centers supported by private philanthropy would have, perhaps already 
have had, exactly the most dysgenic tendency. The new government 
program would facilitate the function of maternity among the very 
classes in which the absolute necessity is to discourage it.''
  Such ``benevolence'' is not merely superficial and nearsighted.
  Sanger continues to write: ``it conceals a stupid cruelty . . . Aside 
from the question of the unfitness of many women to become mothers, 
aside from the very definite deterioration in the human stock that such 
programs would inevitable hasten, we may question its value even to the 
normal though unfortunate mother.''
  Sanger concludes, ``the most serious charge that can be brought 
against modern `benevolence' is that it encourages the perpetuation of 
defectives, delinquents and dependents.''
  Sanger also said:
  ``The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant 
members is to kill it.''
  ``Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.''
  Margaret Sanger, Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New 
York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.
  ``We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with 
social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most 
successful education approach to the Negro is through a religious 
appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate 
the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out 
that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.''

[[Page 9254]]

  Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 
255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith 
Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described 
in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of 
Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.
  ``Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need . . . We must prevent 
multiplication of this bad stock.''
  Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.
  ``Eugenics is . . . the most adequate and thorough avenue to the 
solution of racial, political and social problems.
  Margaret Sanger. ``The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.'' 
Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
  ``As an advocate of birth control I wish . . . to point out that the 
unbalance between the birth rate of the `unfit' and the `fit,' 
admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be 
rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two 
classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the 
fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-
stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation . . .
  ``On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and 
discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically 
defective.''
  Margaret Sanger. ``The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.'' 
Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
  ``The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but 
is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.''
  Margaret Sanger. ``The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.'' 
Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
  ``Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying 
. . . demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism . .  . 
[Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of 
the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate 
fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must 
agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming 
to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the 
race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree 
dominant . . . We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates 
of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who 
never should have been born at all.''
  Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on ``The 
Cruelty of Charity,'' pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College 
Library edition.
  ``The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be 
discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.''
  Margaret Sanger, quoted in Charles Valenza. ``Was Margaret Sanger a 
Racist?'' Family Planning Perspectives, January-February 1985, page 44.
  ``The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless 
ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose 
religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. 
Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper 
element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their 
support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the 
procreation of this group should be stopped.''
  Margaret Sanger. Speech quoted in Birth Control: What It Is, How It 
Works, What It Will Do. The Proceedings of the First American Birth 
Control Conference. Held at the Hotel Plaza, New York City, November 
11-12, 1921. Published by the Birth Control Review, Gothic Press, pages 
172 and 174.
  ``The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social 
order . . .''
  Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. 
Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 
1922.
  ``[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the 
burden of unwanted children . . .''
  Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. 
Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 
1922.
  ``Give dysgenic groups [people with `bad genes'] in our population 
their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.''
  Margaret Sanger, April 1932 Birth Control Review.
  In her speech at the Planned Parenthood Gala, accepting the Margaret 
Sanger award, Secretary Clinton said she admired Sanger for her 
``vision,'' was in ``awe of her'' and that ``Margaret Sanger's work 
here in the United States and certainly across the globe is not done.''
  Translated, ``not done'' means more abortions here in the United 
States, in Latin America, Africa, Asia--the world. Planned Parenthood's 
mission statement, documents, and work in the field make it absolutely 
clear that they seek a global unfettered right to commit violence 
against unborn children at all stages of development. Planned 
Parenthood seeks integration of all health care with abortion, with no 
conscience rights whatsoever for medical practitioners, no parental 
consent or notification for minors, and all paid for by the taxpayers.
  Which begs the question: is our Secretary of State unaware of 
Margaret Sanger's unhumane beliefs? Was she not briefed on Margaret 
Sanger's cruel and reckless disregard for poor pregnant women? 
Respectfully, Secretary Clinton should at a minimum return the Sanger 
award. More importantly, Congress and the White House must, at long 
last take a long hard second look at the multi-million corporation 
Planned Parenthood--Child Abuse Inc.
  Let's be honest, Mr. Speaker. Abortion is violence against children. 
It dismembers and chemically poisons a child to death. It hurts women 
physically and psychologically and spiritually. There is nothing 
whatsoever compassionate, benevolent, ennobling, benign or empowering 
about abortion. It is a violation of a child's fundamental human 
rights.
  Rather than partnering with Planned Parenthood and like minded NGOs 
to promote abortion worldwide, with hundreds of millions of taxpayer 
dollars, the United States should affirm the inherent value, dignity 
and worth of both victims of abortion--mother and child. We need to 
promote both at home and abroad. We should always and in every way 
affirm the precious lives of both. On that score, Margaret Sanger and 
far too many others would disagree.
  I thank my good friend and yield back to him.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. And I 
appreciate the privilege to stand here and hear those words, the 
nonviolent, life-affirming philosophy that we are here and that we join 
together in, and the question that was presented, that is this 
question: Did Hillary Clinton understand? Did the Secretary of State 
understand the cruel, racist, elitist philosophy of Margaret Sanger in 
whose name she accepted the award? Did she understand the implications 
that come with such an award?
  And I don't know the answer to that, Mr. Speaker. But I have to 
believe that someone who has been engaged in public policy all of her 
life, even as an undergraduate at Yale, this is not something that has 
not crossed her mind. I cannot believe that the Secretary of State 
would be ignorant of the philosophy of Margaret Sanger. I cannot 
believe that. If that were the case, then I would suspect that she is 
ignorant of many other things, and I don't buy that. I think this is a 
well-educated, very astute lady, a smart lady.
  And as I listened to the gentleman from New Jersey's presentation, I 
think about something that takes us even to another level here, and 
this is a statement where we have an individual that has been nominated 
into this administration in a confirmation, a Senate confirmation 
position, Office of Legal Counsel, who actually is even more of an 
advocate of abortion and someone who even takes the position of 
Margaret Sanger to another level, and that is Dawn Johnsen, Office of 
Legal Counsel. And I have a quote.
  Now, Dawn Johnsen has been appointed, Mr. Speaker, to head up the 
Office of Legal Counsel. This is the most influential, most powerful 
position that you have never heard of if you are an average, regular 
person in America.
  The Office of Legal Counsel provides opinions on the 
constitutionality of the activities of the entire administration, and 
gives advice to the President of the United States.
  The Office of Legal Counsel, the person who heads that up, this would 
be Dawn Johnsen, should she be confirmed by the United States Senate, 
has the opportunity to whisper into the President's ear over and over 
again Constitutional recommendations, which are actually considered to 
be binding precedent unless it happens to be overturned by the courts, 
so very seriously taken, and the opportunity to advocate for policy.

[[Page 9255]]

  This is Dawn Johnsen, who says that: Abortion should not be rare. And 
actually went so far as to take issue with Hillary Clinton whom, in the 
presidential campaign, who said abortion should be safe, legal, and 
rare. At least rare is the right direction to go, and legal is another 
question. But here is Dawn Johnsen's statement:
  The notion of legal restrictions as some kind of reasonable 
compromise, perhaps to help make abortion safe, legal, and rare, thus 
proves nonsensical.
  In other words, she even took issue with Hillary Clinton's position 
that abortion should at least be rare. I will give Hillary Clinton 
that, Mr. Speaker, that she has at least made the statement, whether 
she has followed through on it or not. And she has accepted the 
Margaret Sanger award, which would actually contradict this statement 
about abortion being rare.
  Margaret Sanger's philosophy was very elitist, very racist, very much 
focused on the idea of eugenics, and that we could perfect the species 
of Homo sapiens by selective breeding processes and by selective 
abortions. And data shows that in the African American community, as 
much as 50 percent of the African American babies conceived in the 
United States of America meet their death by abortion. Half of the 
population that would be here, that could laugh, live, love, play, 
contribute to this society, be part of this whole America, could enjoy 
a right to life and the right to fulfillment of that life lose that 
right to life in the abortion clinics.
  And if I listened right to the gentleman from New Jersey, 300,000 
altogether meet their end annually here in the United States of America 
at the hands of Planned Parenthood and their abortion clinics, 300,000 
out of perhaps a number that is around 4,000 a day, multiplied across 
every day here in the United States. And this is just the United States 
of America.
  Then we have the Advocacy for International Abortion, which comes 
continually here. Every year we deal with that debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I remember this debate that we had on the floor here 
where we stand. It was the first debate on the Mexico City policy that 
took place in the 110th Congress, the first debate on Mexico City 
policy that fell underneath the gavel of Speaker Pelosi.
  And I remember those of us who stand up for innocent, unborn human 
life lost that debate and lost that vote here. And I will never forget 
looking across over on this side, Mr. Speaker, where I saw the 
advocates that thought that they wanted to compel American taxpayers to 
fund abortions in foreign lands clapping, cheering, jumping up and 
down, hugging each other, maybe even in tears of joy, for compelling 
Americans to fund abortions in foreign lands, something that is 
abhorrent to I believe a majority of Americans. And yet, the cheer came 
up over here, Mr. Speaker. Nearly impossible to understand.
  I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for bringing that up.
  Back in 1984, when President Reagan first announced the Mexico City 
policy, it was designed to separate abortion from family planning. It 
got its name, as I know the gentleman knows, Mexico City policy because 
it was at a U.N. conference that the venue was in Mexico City; hence, 
its name. But it was a very well calibrated, very thoughtful policy 
which said that there ought to be a very bright line of demarcation 
between family planning and abortion, and that we would only fund those 
foreign nongovernmental organizations that divested themselves of 
lobbying, promoting, and performing abortions as a method of family 
planning.
  It was a policy that worked. NGOs got funding. We are the largest 
provider of family planning in the world. But now, the organizations 
that will receive those funds, and we are talking about over one-half 
billion dollars per year of taxpayer funding, will be used to promote 
abortions in Africa, in Latin America, in Asia, Europe, everywhere 
where the law still protects and safeguards the sanctity of human life.
  Most of the African countries, most of the countries in Latin America 
protect the lives of their innocent unborn children as a matter of 
human rights. Now, abortion organizations, backed with huge subsidies 
from the Federal Government--and President Obama was the one who signed 
the executive order that reversed the Mexico City policy. And, as the 
gentleman said, and I offered the amendment on the floor that he was 
talking about that regrettably failed, the misguided cheers and 
happiness about giving money to an organization that completely targets 
innocent babies in the womb for destruction.
  We live in 2009. As the gentleman knows, ultrasound technology, 
prenatal surgeries have shattered the myth that an unborn child is 
human and alive. Of course they are. A child in utero may need a blood 
transfusion or microsurgery or some other intervention, medically 
speaking, to abate or mitigate some anomaly before birth. I chair the 
Spina Bifida Caucus. Some of the early interventions for spina bifida 
children can have a marvelous quality of life impact later on, from 
birth on. But you do it before birth.
  Bernard Nathanson, as my distinguished colleague knows, was the 
leading abortionist in the seventies. He founded, along with Betty 
Friedan and Lawrence Lader, NARAL, one of the biggest pro-abortion 
organizations in this country. He changed positions after he was doing 
surgeries and looking at the unborn child as a patient at St. Luke's 
Hospital in New York. He ran an abortion clinic, was a big activist for 
years, and then became a pro-lifer. And he wrote in the New England 
Journal of Medicine, and I quote, ``I have come to the agonizing 
conclusion that I have presided over 60,000 deaths.'' And then he 
became a pro-lifer. And now he has spoken out for many years on behalf 
of the human rights of the unborn, and that the women are injured, the 
babies are victimized and killed, and that this death and destruction 
to our offspring and to our women and to mothers must cease.
  We now are exporting. We don't export enough. We certainly don't 
export enough commodities. Our economy has been hurting for a number of 
months now and even years. What we are exporting, tragically, is 
abortion, and the taxpayers of America are the ones who are subsidizing 
that, enabling that promotion of abortion in Africa and Latin America 
and elsewhere.
  There was a famous movie years ago, and my friend and colleague from 
Iowa probably saw it, The Ugly American. You know, I love what we can 
do foreign policy-wise to help and to ennoble and to make healthier 
people around the world, whether it be on AIDS treatments and all the 
other things that occur internationally, hunger alleviation, clean 
water, safe blood.

                              {time}  2115

  But abortion takes all that. It tells people in the developing world, 
just like the vision of Margaret Sanger that we don't want you. That 
your children are not--are dehumanized and are expendable. As the great 
Henry Hyde used to say, liable to extermination. You can terminate the 
innocent and inconvenient with such ease. Who is to speak out for them? 
They can't speak for themselves because of their immaturity and their 
dependency.
  So I congratulate the gentleman because the time has come, the time 
has truly come for America to begin a great awakening when it comes to 
the value, the dignity and the sanctity of human life. Abortion is 
violence against children. Despite all of the platitudes, all of the 
cheap sophistry that routinely is employed to cover up abortion, it is 
violence. Dismembering a child, chemically poisoning a child, inducing 
a miscarriage whereby the child then dies very early because of the 
inability to cope after being separated from the mother, all of these 
methods of abortion have one goal in mind, the killing of the unborn 
child.
  Recently I watched and read a statement that Father Pavone, a priest 
for life actually put together. And he talked about Dr. Haskell, who is 
the man who came up with the partial-birth abortion method. And one of 
the main reasons why, and maybe the primary reason why that method was

[[Page 9256]]

crafted, where a baby is half born, his or her brain is pierced in the 
back of the head and the brains are literally sucked out, was to ensure 
that the abortion didn't produce a live birth. Years ago, the 
Philadelphia Inquirer, which is just south of my district, had a big 
story called ``The Dreaded Complication'' and spoke about the fact that 
every year something on the order of 500 children survived later-term 
abortions only to die maybe a day later, several hours later, but some 
went on to be adopted. For the abortionist, this was a complication, a 
dreaded one. So Haskell and others decided to do away with that 
possibility by completely collapsing the brain cavity and sucking the 
brains out of a child. We get accused of inflammatory rhetoric by the 
pro-abortion side when we describe what it is that they do in abortion 
clinics. It is violence. It hurts women.
  And finally, as Dr. Elvita King has said so eloquently--the niece of 
Dr. Martin Luther King, a woman who used to be on the other side of 
this issue, who had two abortions herself, and has spoken out on behalf 
of the unborn child and his or her mother--abortion is the ultimate 
civil rights movement of our day. She is the niece of Martin Luther 
King. She knows a thing or two about human rights and civil rights. And 
she says that as a society, it is time to look carefully, get rid of 
the platitudes, get rid of the euphemisms that have stifled true 
debate, words like ``choice.'' Choice to do what? To destroy an unborn 
child in a very vicious way. We need to protect both.
  One of the most beautiful things of the group that she is a part of 
called ``Silent No More,'' made up exclusively of women who have had 
abortions, is that they reach out to women who are in crisis, who have 
the post-traumatic stress disorder, have grave misgivings, not right 
away, but maybe a couple years later, maybe several years later, and 
say there is a path to reconciliation and peace. That is what the pro-
life movement is all about. We have never been about judgment. We have 
always been about enfranchisement. Protect the baby. Protect the mother 
in the first place. And for those who have already had abortions, who 
like Martin Luther King's niece, Elvita King in Silent No More and 
other women who have bravely spoken out on behalf of the unborn and 
their mothers, there are two victims, one is killed, one is injured. 
They need our help, our love and our compassion.
  Unfortunately, they don't get that from the other side. It is called 
``empowerment.'' There is nothing empowering about destroying an unborn 
child. And it is time--and I would hope, as the gentleman would hope, 
that there would be a campaign that men and women in America, Members 
of Congress, who have for a long time voted the pro-abortion side, 
would take a second look, look at Planned Parenthood this second time. 
To look at, as you pointed out, what Dawn Johnson has said when she 
says ``Women are not fetal containers,'' that degrades the beauty and 
the magnificence of procreation and of life and the way we all came 
into this world.
  So I thank the gentleman for this time and hope that there will be a 
new, a re-evaluation, a new reappraisal of what the culture of death 
has done. Fifty million unborn children have been killed since 1973, a 
staggering loss of human life. And as you have pointed out previously, 
Mr. King, there has been a very suspicious disproportionality when it 
comes to how many African Americans have been killed. And many, 
including Dr. King and others, are more than suspicious, especially 
given Margaret Sanger's and others' viewpoint about who is desirable 
and who is undesirable. So I strongly urge this re-evaluation. It needs 
to take place now.
  Finally, and I said ``finally'' before, but this will be final, 
President Obama sadly and tragically, with the enormous support and the 
wellspring of goodwill that is being afforded him, is the abortion 
President. Every move he has made, whether it be the reversal of Mexico 
City, his embrace of the Freedom of Choice Act, which may come up on 
this floor some time, we don't know when, the move to get rid of 
conscience protections that men and women in the medical profession 
absolutely need so they are not complicit in killing innocent human 
life, taxpayer funding for abortion, the embrace of embryonic stem-cell 
research at a time when induced pluripotent stem cells, which are 
embryo like but do not require the killing of an embryo and can come 
right off your skin and mine and be manipulated in a way that will be 
lifesaving, cord blood, all the adult stem cells, the alternatives to 
embryonic work, embryonic has not worked, and yet with great fanfare he 
has embraced that at every turn. And the one that the gentleman brings 
to the floor tonight, Dawn Johnson, in what is truly an outrageous 
view, an inhumane view, a tragic view towards the sanctity of life, 
people of her kind and people with her perspective are embedded all 
over the Obama administration and will daily be promoting and 
proffering policies, very often in a stealthy way, that will promote 
the culture of death.
  And to our friends in Africa, Latin America and elsewhere, watch out. 
The abortionists are coming. And they are coming from the Obama 
administration. I thank my friend.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. And I would 
hope that he can stand by. I have a couple of questions I would like to 
present that way and first make a statement. And that is, Mr. Speaker, 
with regard to partial-birth abortion, it has occurred to me that if an 
abortionist can go in and turn that child around so the baby is born 
breech, that being feet first, and bring that baby to delivery for 
everything but the head and in fact, part of the head, and then, hold 
the baby there so that the baby isn't fully born and then take a 
scalpel and insert that into the back of the skull and put some 
scissors in there and open up the hole and suck the brains out of that 
child while that child struggles for life and struggles for mercy, it 
occurs to me as I picked up the film, ``Silent Scream'' years ago when 
our children were about 10 or 12 years old and showed that to them one 
time, and one time was enough, that silent scream, the word of that 
movie that showed the violence of abortion, it occurs to me that this 
society can't abide the screams of the innocent. And so they had to 
devise a means of abortion that would stop the life of that innocent 
child an inch before that child could fill its lungs full of free air 
and scream for its own mercy. That, I think, is the psychology behind 
this. Even the abortionists couldn't stand the sound of the scream of 
the child screaming for its own mercy. And I think that is how partial-
birth abortion was devised.
  I would pose this question to the gentleman from New Jersey, and 
having been the individual that offered the amendment to preserve the 
Mexico City policy and having lost that debate and lost that vote on 
this floor, and having seen the display of glee and joy and hugging and 
clapping and cheering and perhaps even tears of joy on this side of the 
aisle, Mr. Speaker, the joy that they were going to compel the American 
taxpayers to fund abortions in foreign lands, what kind of a person, 
the sons and daughters, the grandsons and granddaughters of Margaret 
Sanger, the mother of abortion, the mother of ``family planning'' in 
quotes, the eugenic idea of producing a more perfect race, Hitlerian 
idea, what could cause a person to be so full of joy about compelling 
you or me or the people who agree with us to fund abortions in foreign 
lands? I can't understand that, Mr. Smith. And I would be very 
interested in your analysis.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I say to my good friend, Mr. King, I have 
been offering the Mexico City Policy since 1984. I have been here for 
29 years, and I offered it the first time. And I remember members on 
the other side of the aisle saying that none of the family planning 
NGOs will take the money with that kind of conditionality. They were so 
focused and filled with their wanting to provide abortions.
  That didn't happen. NGOs lined up. The money went out the door. And 
we had that line of demarcation between abortion and family planning 
for years.

[[Page 9257]]

Bill Clinton reversed it, and during the course of his presidency, we 
fought hard to restore it. And in the end, for the last 2 years of the 
Clinton administration, we had first a modified and then the full 
Mexico City Policy back. President Bush, by executive order, re-
established it, and family planning moneys flowed, but without abortion 
promotion or performance.
  And then, President Obama, like I said, just a couple of days after 
being sworn in, re-established, or reversed I should say, the Mexico 
City Policy with more money now flowing to those organizations. Why the 
joy and the happiness on the side of those who promote abortion? It is 
bewildering in the extreme. Father Pavone's Web site, and I encourage 
people to check it out, he talks about a meeting when this Dr. Haskell, 
the man who devised this child-abuse method called partial-birth 
abortion, as you pointed out where the baby's brains are literally 
sucked out, he presented that method, as Father Pavone points out in 
one of his speeches, it actually has much about what happened in this 
conference, and the conference was filled with abortionists. And when 
the baby actually died, it was being killed, because he had it all on 
film, they broke into applause at the demise, at the death of that 
child.
  That is pathetic. It is beyond tragic. I said during the debate, and 
remember Bill Clinton vetoed partial-birth abortion not once but twice, 
that when my young girls, and we have two girls, four children totally, 
but when they were young, if they were to play ``doctor,'' the girls, 
and take their dolls as they had when they were 5 and 6, turn them 
around and pierce the back of their skulls and then suck their brains 
out, we would seek, as would any parent, immediate counseling. 
Something would be wrong. When someone embraces the death of a child, 
something is very, very dangerously wrong.
  I have seen on this floor time and again--and I would say we won the 
debate, I would say to my friend, but lost the vote on Mexico City 
Policy. And when we have lost fights on partial-birth abortion, for 
example, not in vote count, but in vetoes by the previous 
administration, it never ceases to amaze me that one could be joyous 
over allowing, facilitating and enabling more death to children and 
more wounding of their mothers.
  That is what this is all about. I believe passionately, and I have 
been in Congress 29 years, and I spend much of my time working on human 
rights issues, humanitarian issues around the world, whether it be in 
Africa working on human trafficking or on trying to mitigate and stop 
terrible things like torture. I wrote four torture victims relief 
acts--laws--they are not bills, they are laws, and many, many other 
laws, microcredit financing for the developing world, three human 
trafficking laws beginning with the Trafficking Victims Protection Act 
of 2000, I believe passionately in human rights. But birth is not the 
beginning of a person's life. We need to see it as an event that 
happens to each and every one of us, and that those children in utero 
are no less human and alive than you and me. They are definitely 
dependent. They are immature, as is a newborn, as is a 1 year old. And 
a compassionate and sane society would seek to enfranchise, not 
disenfranchise.
  So when they expressed on the other side, and a few on our side of 
the aisle, happiness over the loss of the Mexico City policy, it was 
very clear to me. I had nothing but sorrow because there is one 
predictable consequence, more dead babies and more wounded mothers.
  I yield back.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. And as I 
listened to that description of the audience breaking into applause at 
a video of a baby who has been a victim of partial birth abortion, had 
its brain sucked out and stopped struggling, it became apparent that 
the baby was dead, that they would cheer, break into applause, that 
indexes to the cheer and the applause and the hugging that went on here 
when the Mexico City Policy was defeated on the floor of the House of 
Representatives, Mr. Speaker.
  And I understood it differently. And I think it was because of a gap 
in the knowledge and experience that's been filled in by Mr. Smith from 
New Jersey. I explained that emotion over here as not being a rational, 
logical emotion, but an emotion that simply divorced itself from the 
sacred nature of human life, and was simply cheering because they had 
scored a victory over our side.
  And how could anyone go through life and think they had accomplished 
something by compelling others to fund abortions in foreign lands? 
That's a psychology that I cannot connect with, Mr. Speaker. And so I 
could only rationalize it on the part that they know we hold innocent 
life dear. We hold all human life dear. And we believe that it's sacred 
in all of its forms, from the instant at conception and fertilization 
to natural death.
  And Mr. Smith, among others, have been one of the stalwarts in 
leading and defending innocent human life, especially in this Congress. 
And I thought that that cheer was for having scored points against the 
value system, the core value system of those of us on this side.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure of that, because the people sitting inside 
that room who were watching that film of that partial birth abortion, 
the struggling child who ceased to struggle when it's obvious that the 
baby was dead, that broke into a cheer, they didn't do that because 
they scored points on the other side. That doesn't relate over here to 
a political contest which should always transcend our fundamental, 
timeless values. However I might try to rationalize their emotions, 
when you tie the two of them together, it's almost unexplainable. I 
can't explain an emotion or thought process that would want to end 
innocent human life and consider it to be a right, a fundamental right.
  So I ask this question, and I ask this question continually in our 
public schools and our parochial schools across the land when I have 
the chance. And I say, especially to young people, you'll be called 
upon to make a profound moral decision in this society and this 
civilization; if you're 14, 15, 16, 18 years old, 19, 20 years old, you 
will, or you will be among those who will have to make that profound 
decision, the moral decision.
  And you ask only two questions. It's very simple, and it's this 
simple. The first question is, do you believe in the sanctity of human 
life? Is human life sacred in all of its forms? Is your life sacred? Is 
the person next to you, is their life sacred, people on either side, 
are their lives sacred? And it becomes almost a universal yes. I've 
actually never had a student say, no, I don't think so. I don't think 
my life is sacred and I shouldn't be treated in a sacred fashion. I've 
never had that happen. They nod their heads. It's universal that we 
believe that life, human life is sacred in all of its forms.
  So once we establish the answer, yes, to the first question, is human 
life sacred, the only question to follow that up with is, then at what 
instant does life begin? You have to choose an instant. And I describe 
it this way. You can't guess at it. What if somebody came by the 
gymnasium or the auditorium and stuck a gun in the door and turned 
their head the other way and pulled the trigger and ran down the 
hallway without looking back. If they were captured outside the 
building, you could ask them, did you kill somebody or didn't you? And 
their answer might be, I don't know. But we know that if the gymnasium 
emptied and there's someone in there who's dead, with a bullet hole in 
them, yes, the answer is, he did kill somebody.
  And if it results in a dead baby, someone was killed. And you cannot 
guess when it comes to life. You can't err when it comes to life. You 
must choose that instant that life begins. It can't be a first 
trimester, a second trimester, a third trimester; it can't be viability 
outside the womb. We know it goes up beyond 24 weeks or below 24 weeks 
for viability today. There's no baby that's born, now, 9 months, full-
term that really is viable without being nurtured by its mother and by 
its parents. And they've got to be nurtured. And so whether it's the 
instant

[[Page 9258]]

before they're born or the instant after, when does life begin?
  I remember asking that question when this first little miracle, that 
firstborn of our family, was put into my hands. And I looked at that 
child and I was struck by the awe of the miracle. And I don't remember 
that I thought this through on that day, but I remember going to work 
the next day and I was sitting there thinking this through. And I still 
believe there's a certain aura about that firstborn child.
  And I asked myself, here's this miracle that's been in my arms within 
the last hours. This little child, this miracle, could someone take his 
life today? And of course the answer is no. Could they have taken his 
life yesterday, the day he was born? No. Could they do so the minute 
after he was born? No. The minute before he was born? No. What about 10 
minutes before or 2 hours before or a day or a week or a month before 
he was born? The answer is no, no and no, Mr. Speaker. And so if you 
can't do that, if it's abhorrent to us to think about the idea of 
ending the life of our unborn child a day, a week or a month before 
they're born, just as we couldn't think of that a day a week or a month 
after they're born, then we've got to take this back to an instant, an 
instant that their life begins. And it's that simple.
  And this has become a political argument that's destroyed the lives 
of 50 million babies, to the point where we argue that this 
civilization has a hole in it, in the generation.
  I remember standing down on the Mall, this would be, I believe, a 
year ago, January 22, on the March for Life. And if you looked out 
across that Mall, there were over 100,000 there that day. This year 
there was a far bigger number in the March for Life, many, many young 
people.
  And I made the point that if you are under 30 years old, and you're 
standing next to somebody that's under 30 years old, look at each 
other. And the ghost of one-third of your generation stands between 
you. That's the aborted generation, the generation that didn't have 
that opportunity for life, the generation that are the victims of 
Margaret Sanger, the victims of a political agenda, the victims of a 
lack of belief in the sanctity of human life, the people that would 
argue that babies are inconvenient, that an abortion should never be 
rare, the people like Dawn Johnsen who would argue that mothers are 
fetal containers. My mother a fetal container? Chris Smith's mother a 
fetal container? That the only emotion you feel--this is Dawn Johnsen 
again--the only emotion you feel when you have an abortion is relief, 
not trauma; that it never comes back to you; that it's simply off one's 
conscience.
  We know that that has motivated--that women deserve better--the 
organization that Chris Smith talked about.
  Dawn Johnsen spoke that women who get pregnant are simply the losers 
in the contraceptive lottery, and that they no more consent to 
pregnancy than pedestrians consent to being struck by drunk drivers.
  And yet, I'm standing in my kitchen on Sunday, talking with my 
daughter-in-law, who's the mother of our third grandchild. And I told 
her that I'm jealous because I'll never get to be a mom. And yet, no 
matter what she wants to do with her career, some of that career is 
going to be slowed down because she's busy being a mom.
  And she looked at me and she said, I know you're jealous. You've told 
me that before. You'll never be a mom. And I think being a mom is worth 
the tradeoff of slowing down my career because I think it's great being 
a mom.
  And that's the love that flows. That lady is not a fetal container. 
She's a mother, a mother that's brought love to each of the children 
that God's gifted this family with, just like the millions and millions 
of mothers across the planet who have done so, done so out of love, out 
of faith, out of conviction.
  And I can't understand the people that would cheer and celebrate the 
tax dollars of American people going to any place that provides 
abortion services and counseling.
  That is what happens, Mr. Speaker. And I know the gentleman from New 
Jersey has a few more words.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Just a couple of final comments. And I again 
thank my friend and colleague for his leadership on this fundamental 
human rights issue of protecting the unborn child.
  You know, the most persecuted minority in the world today are unborn 
children. The acceptable bias today is abortion. To be prejudiced 
against unborn children is somehow acceptable. It's certainly legal in 
this country. And that is a very significant tragedy for our society.
  It is time we called it for what it is. It is child abuse, abortion. 
It is violence against children. It is prejudice. And I would hope that 
Members--you know, I've heard some of our finest leaders in the pro-
life movement say over the years that Americans won't stop abortion 
until they see it. We have to push away the euphemisms that have 
cloaked this for the last three decades and figure it out, not figure 
it out, just simply spend some time focusing on what it is that the 
abortionist does. It is violence against children. It actually 
engenders pain for the unborn child.
  My friend and colleague will know that 3 years ago, 4 years ago I 
offered legislation on this floor called the Unborn Child Pain 
Awareness Act. We got 250 votes, bipartisan votes for at least advising 
a woman that, from at least the 20th week on, her child might feel 
significant pain. The evidence clearly suggests that a child who is 
killed by dismemberment or some other hideous method of abortion, feels 
pain that is up to four times more excruciating than a newborn or an 
older child because the nerve endings are so close to the skin, and the 
ability of the body to dampen pain has not matured sufficiently.
  There's a method of abortion known as the D&E. The method literally 
involves hacking off the arms and the legs of an unborn child, 
decapitation, takes upwards of 30 minutes for that method to effectuate 
its kill. And at least in the beginning moments of that abortion, the 
child feels excruciating pain.
  Today, because of the great work of people like Dr. Anand and others, 
when prenatal surgeries are performed and the child needs to be 
surgically opened up to do some procedure that is benign and life-
affirming, he or she gets anesthesia. An unborn child gets no such 
consideration. We treat animals with more benevolence and in a more 
caring way in terms of pain mitigation than we do unborn children.
  That legislation should be on this floor. A child should not only not 
suffer the cruelty of being killed, but also the pain that goes along 
with it. Most Americans are woefully unaware. Some of my colleagues, 
our colleagues are probably woefully unaware as well that pain is real 
for these children as they die a death due to abortion.
  I yield back.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. And I very much thank the gentleman from New 
Jersey. And it brings to mind an image that many of us have seen of an 
in-utero surgery where that--not only does that little unborn child 
feel the pain, but that little child reached up out of the incision and 
grasped the finger of the surgeon. I'll never forget that image. And it 
was something that floated around the Internet for a long time, and I 
think it would be worth bringing to this floor. Very, very human.
  And as I listened to Mr. Smith, the gentleman from New Jersey, I have 
to reflect back on our dear departed friend and colleague, Henry Hyde, 
who was a stalwart on the life issue. And I wrote this down from the 
back of the program at his funeral in Chicago that day. His last day on 
this Earth was November 29, 2007. And I think it's a good place, Mr. 
Speaker, to close this special order with a quote from Henry Hyde. And 
he said this:
  ``When the time comes, as it surely will, when we face that awesome 
moment, the final judgment, I've often thought, as Fulton Sheen wrote, 
that it's a terrible moment of loneliness. You have no advocates. You 
are there alone, standing before God. And a terror will rip through 
your soul like nothing you can imagine. But I really think that those 
in the pro-life movement will not be alone. I think there

[[Page 9259]]

will be a chorus of voices that are not heard in this world that will 
be heard in the next, beautifully and clearly. And they will plead for 
everyone who has been in this movement, they will say to God, spare him 
because he loved us, and God will look at you and say not did you 
succeed, but did you try.''
  Mr. Speaker, I will yield back.

                          ____________________