[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5625-5628]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                THE SUPREME COURT AND THE RIGHT TO LIFE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Biggs). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2017, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to be recognized by you 
to address you here on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.
  I came to this floor this evening to take up a topic that I think is 
essential to the future of our country for our moral foundation. Yet, 
as I have listened to the gentleman from Maryland's presentation, there 
are a few moments I would like to spend with the other perspective 
before I move into the topic I came to address.
  I go back as far as the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who 
used the reference and said that stare decisis is binding precedent. 
Well, Mr. Speaker, I want the American people to know that stare 
decisis is a Latin term, a legal term that means, once the case is 
decided, it deserves deference. It has already been decided; it 
deserves deference, but where it has never been a binding precedent.
  There have been a number of times that the Supreme Court has turned 
180 degrees on what the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) has 
called a binding precedent. I could go through a list of those, Mr. 
Speaker.
  I think it is important to note that accepting a decision of a 
previous Supreme Court as if somehow it were binding precedent and then 
settled law and then incorporate it into the Constitution itself would 
be a very erroneous concept to carry into the Supreme Court itself, 
because we have to go back and evaluate that these were mortals that 
made the decision in the Supreme Court and the other courts and they 
aren't always right. And if a case is not soundly reasoned, it needs to 
be reconsidered.
  So I appreciate Justice Clarence Thomas' view on stare decisis. 
Essentially, it doesn't exist. If you want to evaluate the reasoning of 
a previous Court, that is a good thing to do because they have already 
thought it through and they have already written on it. There are 
already majority opinions and dissents that are generally written. Yet, 
to be bound by that, really handcuffs any future decisions. So it is 
worth looking at the decisions of the previous Court, but we can never 
be bound by them. So I take issue with the gentlewoman from Texas' 
position that stare decisis is binding precedent. It is never binding 
precedent.
  Stare decisis is an indicator, and it is informative. We have to go 
back to the text of the Constitution and the various amendments, and we 
have to understand what they were understood to mean at the time of 
ratification. Otherwise, the Constitution no longer is a guarantee from 
generation to generation. It is just simply an artifact of history that 
allows the Justices to hold up and say: Hey, we are bound by stare 
decisis; we can only make a decision that narrows things down; and we 
are essentially trapped into a funnel of reason that brings about a 
predictable conclusion that might be completely erroneous.
  To give an example, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the series of 
decisions that were made by the Supreme Court--and the first one I 
would start with, and I am going to get to abortion in this decision: 
Griswold v. Connecticut.
  In the early sixties, the Court had a case before them where the 
State of Connecticut had banned contraceptives, not just contraceptives 
in the school, as one might say today, but contraceptives that would be 
used in marriages. So there was a case. Griswold took it all the way to 
the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled that it was a right to 
privacy of married couples to be able to purchase contraceptives.
  There is no right to privacy that is stipulated in the Constitution. 
But it was a decision that was made by the Supreme Court that, if 
respected as stare decisis, now the next Court would be bound by it, 
and the next Court was.
  So the Supreme Court ruled that Connecticut couldn't ban 
contraceptives to married couples because they had a right to privacy 
to purchase those--as illogical as it sounds, even as I say it, Mr. 
Speaker, married couples had a constitutional right decided by Griswold 
v. Connecticut to purchase contraceptives within the State of 
Connecticut and the Nation, as the decision turned out.
  Well, that decision didn't flow over into unmarried couples. So 
unmarried couples went to court, and they sued. And it became the 
Eisenstadt decision, which concluded that any rights that are bestowed 
upon married couples with regard to right to privacy in purchasing 
contraceptives also must be available to unmarried couples who might be 
cohabiting or having a relationship in whatever way and they should be 
able to purchase contraceptives, too.
  So this right to privacy established by Griswold, expanded by 
Eisenstadt--see, how this is bringing us down to an irreversible 
conclusion, Mr. Speaker?
  This right to privacy was then argued before the Court in 1973 in Roe 
v. Wade. And the Supreme Court of the United States concluded in the 
emanations and penumbras that there was this right to privacy that 
extended to abortion itself.
  So when I hear the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) say stare 
decisis is binding precedent--if we are going to accept as binding 
precedent that there is a Court-manufactured right to privacy in 
Griswold, reinforced by Eisenstadt that is the foundation for the 
irrational, illogical, and unconstitutional reasoning that has brought 
about the abortion of 58.5 million babies since 1973 and all because a 
Court chased the rationale down a narrower and narrower path that they 
were bound to make decisions only on the judgment of the previous 
Court--it left very little of the Constitution to be reviewed.
  If we would have had nine Justice Thomases on that Court, they would 
have concluded this: first, that precedent didn't count. Eisenstadt, 
look at it if you like, look at the reasoning if you like, but they are 
not bound by it. Griswold v. Connecticut, they are not bound by it.

[[Page 5626]]

  In the case of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, I might add, the 
combination of those two cases together gave abortion on demand in 
America for any reason or no reason at all from an irrational 
foundation that began with a stare decisis view that came from an 
activist Court that, I believe, wanted to come to that conclusion 
anyway.
  I think they believed that society was moving along and that society 
was going to get to the place where they supported abortion. They just 
thought they would just go ahead and beat the Congress to the punch or 
beat the State legislatures to the punch and impose a right to abortion 
on America, and that is what they did.
  We saw this happen in our country. We saw this happen in different 
places around the world, and now it is still being pushed in some of 
the countries in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, if there is anybody listening from the nation of Chile, 
I would suggest to them: Back away from that push to legalize abortion 
in your country. We have seen what has happened in America.
  Twenty percent of the pregnancies in America now end in abortion, and 
the death toll of a bell that would ring for 58.5 million babies that 
have been aborted since 1973. It is a missing component of two going on 
three generations.
  And those little babies today, Mr. Speaker, had they been given that 
right to life that is guaranteed to any born person in the United 
States--if someone commits mass murder in the United States of America, 
mass serial murder in the United States of America, mass serial murder 
in multiple locations in multiple States in a ghastly and ghoulish and 
blood-thirsty way, we take them to court and say: You are innocent 
until proven guilty. You may have, by my description, committed capital 
crimes that would be facing the death penalty. Federal murder, it might 
be, in multiple States that have the death penalty.
  No matter how ghastly a murderer we have, we give that murderer first 
the presumption of innocence. They are innocent until proven guilty. We 
give them an opportunity to be tried by a jury of their peers. They are 
sometimes tried in the court of public opinion on top of it. If they 
don't have their due process--and often it is concluded by a judge 
along the way that they don't--they can appeal their death penalty all 
the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States.
  Why?
  Because they have a right to life because they are deemed and legally 
are a person not only in the eyes of God, but in the eyes of American 
law. In the eyes of American law, the most ghastly murderer that I can 
describe has a right to life and a right to due process until such time 
as the full appeals all the way up the board have been heard. If they 
are sentenced to death, then it must be the most merciful death that we 
can possibly devise in this country or the judges will rule that it is 
unconstitutional, cruel, and inhuman punishment. That is how we treat 
the most ghastly murderers in America.
  But the most innocent among us, those 58.5 million little babies that 
are there curled up in an innocent little fetal position in their 
mother's womb with little fingers, little toes, feet, hands, eyes, 
nose, ears, and a mouth--no teeth yet, but that mouth has an expression 
on it; it smiles; it frowns; it twists itself around--those babies can 
feel pain. They can put their hands together, and they can move around. 
The expressions on their faces, we now see them through 4D ultrasound.
  Mother after mother, father after father, grandparents, brothers, 
sisters, uncles, even before the baby is born, they bond with that 
little baby through the ultrasound. We have always known, the Catholic 
church has always known, and so have many of the other Christians 
organizations and many entities around this country and around this 
world have always known that that baby's life began at the moment of 
conception.
  If you look at our society, we don't have a lot of sympathy, as our 
society is concerned, for those beings that can't scream for their own 
mercy. That baby is silent. That baby can't cry out from the womb. The 
ring of that baby's cries doesn't echo in our ears. We turn our mind 
away from it. We turn our eyes away from it. And we listen to people 
say: Well, it is choice.
  Well, the baby is never given the choice.
  This little baby that could be the next Einstein, the next Lincoln, 
the next Ronald Reagan, the next Billy Graham, how many of those gifts 
to the world are in that mountain of guilt that is poured upon the 
United States of America that numbers now over 58.5 million?
  We will never know the answer to that question, Mr. Speaker. We will 
never know.
  We cry out to the conscience of the American people, the conscience 
that especially now knows because of ultrasound that that baby's life 
begins at the moment of conception, and science can prove it when we 
can detect a heartbeat. When we can detect a heartbeat, we know that is 
life and we know that it is innocent human life.
  For the purposes of the law today, it is innocent, unborn human life 
not protected by law, not even close to the first protection we offer 
the most heinous murderer that we can devise. Yet, they are the most 
innocent.
  I remember Father Jonathan Morris was speaking one day as I was 
watching him in the morning, and he was talking about the ladies in the 
church. When a baby cries, they pick the baby up and they go outside 
the church in order to get that baby's cries away from the congregation 
so the rest of them can hear the sermon. He said it doesn't bother him 
when there are babies crying in his church because those are the only 
innocent voices in that church, the voice of babies.
  The most innocent that we encounter are actually in the womb, not yet 
born, not yet with an opportunity to fill their lungs full of air and 
scream for their own mercy. We have to speak for them. We have to 
defend them. We have to protect them.
  We know by our conscience, we know by our science, we know by natural 
law, we know by what is innate with us in our intuition that life has 
to begin at a moment. You can't take a life by accident. If there is 
going to be an error, it must be on the side of life.

                              {time}  1815

  I know that when I was able to hold our firstborn, I looked at him, 
and there was an aura about him. I was so amazed that that miracle was 
in my hands, and that was an extension into another generation from the 
long line of families that we all have and share and enjoy.
  I looked at him, and I thought, could anybody take this little baby's 
life now, now that he is here, now that he is minutes old; could 
anybody take his life now? Of course they could not. Well, some can, 
and we do our best to lock them up or send them in the next life.
  But to take the life of a newly born baby is one of the most ghoulish 
things that I can think of, and so I thought, this little life is 
sacred. I know there is a soul in him. I know there is. And so could 
anyone take his life the minute before he was born? Is he any 
different? What transformed him as he came through the birth canal? He 
is not transformed. He is the same baby.
  He could be born by cesarean. His life is as sacred, and as unique, 
and as much created in God's image, and as much as a soul within him, 
born by cesarean as if he comes through the birth canal. So could 
anybody take his life the minute before he was born, or an hour, or a 
day, or a week, or a month, or a trimester, or two, or three?
  What transforms this child through that period of time that I have 
described as 9 months? What transforms them? So if you think back 
through from the minute before a little boy or an innocent little baby 
girl is born to the hour of the week, the hour of the day, the week, 
the month, the trimester, there is no dramatic moment from the moment 
of conception, because conception is the dramatic moment. It is the 
instant, the moment life begins.
  At that moment, if God doesn't already put the soul in that little 
baby,

[[Page 5627]]

I am completely convinced that it happens at that moment of conception 
when the genetics of the father and the mother are joined together in a 
unique being has begun, that has such a robust growth that if we think 
of it in terms of the multiples of size from the fertilized egg until 
the 5-, 6-, 7-, 8-, 9-pound baby is born, the dramatic growth that is 
there, that little baby has a soul in it from that moment. And that is 
human life. It is nurturable, and it must be protected, must be 
protected in law.
  So what we have done is, we have introduced the Heartbeat bill here 
in the United States Congress, and we have two-and-a-half dozen or so 
cosponsors on the bill. This is the first time I know of that this 
legislation has been introduced in the United States Congress, but it 
protects the life of every little baby who has a heartbeat. It requires 
that if any abortionist seeks to commit an abortion, that they first 
check for a heartbeat.
  That heartbeat can be discovered as early as 16 days from the moment 
of conception. I would like to have a bill that protected life from the 
moment of conception, and I would support such a thing. We can't 
scientifically prove conception, but we can scientifically prove 
heartbeat, and everybody knows, every mother knows, every father knows, 
every human being knows that if a heart is beating, there is life. And 
you can't describe this life as anything other than human life. It is 
human life. It is innocent life--nothing more innocent than a conceived 
little baby.
  We need to protect human life in all of its forms, from conception to 
natural death. This bill, the Heartbeat Protection Act of 2017, 
protects those babies from the moment their heartbeat can be detected, 
the baby is protected.
  And if an abortionist is determined or decides to commit an abortion, 
they must first check for a heartbeat under this law, and they must 
keep the records to demonstrate that they have done so. If they fail to 
do so, they would be facing a Federal penalty of a fine, imprisonment 
up to 5 years. The mother is not penalized in this. She is not 
subjected to this. It is the abortionists who are subjected to this 
statute.
  I would reiterate: if a heartbeat is detected, the baby is protected. 
Mr. Speaker, some people will be wondering--and they will be wondering, 
well, what kind of support does legislation like that have across the 
United States of America? So we have a poll here that is on this easel, 
and this is the question about the Heartbeat bill, H.R. 490, and we 
went to over 1,000 adults in America and asked for their opinions.
  Those 1,002 interviews were conducted, as a matter of fact, and this 
has a sampling error that is about as small as you get in a legitimate 
poll. Sometimes you will see them in 5\1/2\ percent or more, but this 
is down to a little over 3 percent accuracy, and it says: Do you agree 
or disagree or have no opinion on supporting the Heartbeat bill that 
would outlaw abortion in America? If a heartbeat can be detected, it 
would outlaw abortion unless there was a physical threat to the 
physical life or health of the mother.
  Sixty-nine percent of Americans agree with this legislation. That is 
across the spectrum. It is across the board, Mr. Speaker. That includes 
Democrats, no party, independents, and Republicans, and it includes 13 
percent of the people who had no opinion.
  Those that disagreed are 18 percent over here in the orange, Mr. 
Speaker. So we are sitting here with 69 percent of Americans who 
support legislation that would protect innocent, unborn human life from 
the moment that a heartbeat can be detected.
  Because we know that life is precious, and every one of those lives 
contributes to the well-being of humanity. No matter what kind of life 
we may think they experience, they are a blessing to their father, they 
are a blessing to their mother, they are a blessing to their family, 
they are a blessing to this country. And I would point out, Mr. 
Speaker, that when you break this down, 69 percent in favor that 
support the Heartbeat bill, H.R. 490, only 18 percent oppose. And I 
think some of them will do that for political reasons, but they would 
have a hard time making the argument if they are looking in the eye of 
someone who has survived an abortion.
  I have never heard one of the pro-abortion people look at one of the 
survivors of abortion and say: You should have never been born. No one 
does that. They don't have the nerve to do so because they know that 
each one of us contributes to the well-being of society, and each one 
of us are a gift from God. And His gift to us are the tools that we are 
born with, and our job is to develop them and utilize them for the 
well-being of everyone else.
  Here is the breakdown politically: 86 percent of Republicans support 
the Heartbeat bill, only 6 percent of Republicans disagree. I don't 
know why they do, but 6 percent do. I don't know what their argument 
is. In the center, we have the graph of the Democrats; 55 percent of 
Democrats--they are the ones who would be lined up against this, I 
would think, but it is a significant majority. In fact, if this were a 
political election, Mr. Speaker, that would be a landslide at 55 
percent of Democrats supporting the Heartbeat bill.
  Now, we are looking for some Democrats to sign on it. Maybe they will 
reflect the will and wishes of their constituents. Fifty-five percent 
of Democrats support the Heartbeat bill, 25 percent oppose--more than 2 
to 1. The undecided are in orange. That is 25 percent. So it is well 
over 2 to 1--2\1/2\ and actually, bordering on 3 to 1, support among 
the Democrats for this.
  If you go to the Independents, 61 percent of Independents support the 
Heartbeat bill, and 13 percent of the Independents oppose, and 27 
percent of the--so it is 61 percent support among Independents, and 55 
percent support among Democrats, 86 percent support among Republicans. 
That is the party breakdown for those who think of this in politics.
  I think of this in human terms, Mr. Speaker. I think of this in terms 
of picking up little babies and holding them in my arms, and feeling 
that love, and that special smell that a little baby has, and the 
gurgle, the laughter, and the crying. It is all part of life.
  When I think of the privilege of being able to go to church with 
almost my whole family and taking up, well, I guess last Sunday, parts 
of three pews and not all of all three. And I think of this little baby 
that got passed back to me, and he is kind of an in-law shirttail 
relation. I had never held him before. He snuggled up in my arms there 
at the end of mass, and I was able to carry him out.
  We have also little children who come out of the pews to run up front 
at the beginning of the collection to carry their dollar bill up and 
put it in that basket. They are being raised right, those little kids. 
They will be fine. But I see them bubbling out of the pews and coming, 
pouring down the aisle, and lining up there. Sometimes they trip and 
run into each other, and knock each other down, and help each other up, 
and little big brother or sister will go help the little 2-year-old 
back again.
  When you see that joy and you hear that gurgling laughter, and you 
think: 58.5 million babies never even had a chance to do that--never 
had a chance to learn, to love, to laugh, to play, to fall in love, to 
have their own children, to feel that joy of family, to experience this 
life in this wonderful country that we have. All denied them, denied 
them because the Supreme Court came down with a ruling that said: Well, 
stare decisis, the right to privacy, extended right to privacy. In the 
emanations and penumbras of the Constitution is a decision that they 
would support abortion on demand.
  Well, we know that the Court has also left room--and we will have a 
new Court soon--the Court has left room for us to make this argument 
before the Court. And if anyone should stand up and say that we 
shouldn't move this legislation to save the lives of the next 58.5 
million babies because a Court might rule it unconstitutional, my 
challenge back to the Court, Mr. Speaker, is: it was an erroneous 
decision in Roe v. Wade. It was erroneous in Eisenstadt, it was 
erroneous in Griswold, and it was erroneous in Doe v.

[[Page 5628]]

Bolton. And all of those together are bound up--don't be hiding behind 
stare decisis, Supreme Court.
  Let's look at this right to life that we have, and the right to equal 
protection under the law that is guaranteed to us in the 14th 
Amendment, and that is extended out to all of the States. And if we 
can't execute the most heinous murderer without a due process all the 
way to the Supreme Court, and then do so in the most painless and 
merciful way possible while babies are being torn apart in the womb, 
then what have we come to as a nation?
  We have the chance to rectify this, Mr. Speaker. We have an 
opportunity, an opportunity to move the Heartbeat bill, an opportunity 
to send a message from the House to the Senate and to all of America. 
Americans have an opportunity to weigh into us--to sign onto this bill, 
to move this, to save the lives of all of the babies who are born who 
have a heartbeat. If a heartbeat is detected, the baby is protected.
  That needs to be our rallying cry across this country and across this 
land. Forever.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________