[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CHILD INTERSTATE ABORTION NOTIFICATION ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 2299
__________
MARCH 8, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-87
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-214 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERROLD NADLER, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia Virginia
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MIKE PENCE, Indiana MAXINE WATERS, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
JIM JORDAN, Ohio MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
TED POE, Texas JUDY CHU, California
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah TED DEUTCH, Florida
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania JARED POLIS, Colorado
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina
DENNIS ROSS, Florida
SANDY ADAMS, Florida
BEN QUAYLE, Arizona
MARK AMODEI, Nevada
Richard Hertling, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on the Constitution
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona, Chairman
MIKE PENCE, Indiana, Vice-Chairman
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio JERROLD NADLER, New York
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
STEVE KING, Iowa JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
JIM JORDAN, Ohio ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
Virginia
Paul B. Taylor, Chief Counsel
David Lachmann, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
MARCH 8, 2012
Page
THE BILL
H.R. 2299, the ``Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act''.... 3
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the
Constitution................................................... 1
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the
Constitution................................................... 15
WITNESSES
Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor of Law, University of St.
Thomas School of Law
Oral Testimony................................................. 18
Prepared Statement............................................. 21
The Very Rev'd. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, President and Dean,
Episcopal Divinity School
Oral Testimony................................................. 41
Prepared Statement............................................. 43
Michael J. New, Ph.D., Department of Social Sciences, University
of Michigan--Dearborn
Oral Testimony................................................. 49
Prepared Statement............................................. 51
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 16
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Trent Franks, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona, and
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution..................... 69
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Florida........... 71
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Teresa Stanton Collett,
Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas School of Law....... 72
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from the Very Rev'd. Katherine
Hancock Ragsdale, President and Dean, Episcopal Divinity School 76
Prepared Statement of Americans United for Life, submitted by the
Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the
Constitution................................................... 83
Material submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New York, and
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution
Prepared Statement of the National Latina Institute for
Reproductive Health........................................ 104
Prepared Statement of the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU)..................................................... 109
Letter in opposition to H.R. 2299, the ``Child Interstate
Abortion Notification Act''................................ 115
Prepared Statement of the Center for Reproductive Rights..... 117
Letter in opposition to H.R. 2299, the ``Child Interstate
Abortion Notification Act''................................ 134
Prepared Statement of the National Abortion Federation....... 137
Prepared Statement of the National Partnership for Women &
Families (PRCH)............................................ 140
Prepared Statement of the Physicians for Reproductive Choice
and Health................................................. 145
Prepared Statement of the Reproductive Health Technologies
Project.................................................... 149
CHILD INTERSTATE ABORTION NOTIFICATION ACT
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2012
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Constitution,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:41 a.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Trent Franks
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Franks, King, Jordan, Nadler,
Scott, and Quigley.
Staff present: (Majority) Paul Taylor, Subcommittee Chief
Counsel; Jacki Pick, Counsel; Sarah Vance, Clerk; (Minority)
David Lachmann, Subcommittee Staff Director; and Veronica
Eligan, Professional Staff Member.
Mr. Franks. Good morning, and welcome to this Constitution
Subcommittee hearing on H.R. 2299, the ``Child Interstate
Abortion Notification Act.''
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare the
recess of the Committee at any time.
The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, more
commonly known as CIANA, is a very reasonable measure that
would prevent the transportation of a minor across State lines
in circumvention of a parental consent law that applies to a
minor's abortion procedure. This law is consistently supported
by 70 percent of the American people in national opinion polls.
More than 30 States have made it clear through legislation
that parents have the right to know whether their minor
daughters are trying to undergo an abortion. Parents play a
critical role in the well-being of their daughters,
particularly in such a context. And I would quote the bill
sponsor, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, ``As a mother and a grandmother, I
understand the importance of the unconditional love and support
that parents can give to their children. This responsibility is
nonnegotiable and nontransferable. This bill assures young
women that they are not alone, if ever they find themselves
contemplating undergoing an abortion.''
Parental notification laws have proven to be effective at
lowering the abortion rate among minors, and, therefore, they
are effective at lowering the attending risks that accompany
abortion.
Abortion is a serious surgical procedure with serious
physical and psychological risks, some of which can be
especially detrimental when experienced at a young age. These
include increased risks of breast cancer, extremely premature
birth in subsequent pregnancy--that is, delivering at 28 weeks
of gestation or less--and suicide.
When a woman experiences an abortion early in life, she can
lose the protective effect against breast cancer that full-term
pregnancy provides through inherent changes in breast tissue.
Many developed countries legalized abortion in the early
1970's, and breast cancer rates have increased as much as 80
percent since then in these same countries.
Likewise, when a woman has one induced abortion, she is 50
to 70 percent more likely to experience an extremely premature
birth, again, defined as a delivery at 28 weeks or earlier,
when she later attempts to carry a wanted child to term. This
could be due to damage to the cervix during the abortion,
rendering it less competent.
When a woman has two abortions, she becomes 160 percent
more likely to have an extremely premature birth. An extremely
premature birth carries greatly increased risks for many
serious health issues. For example, babies who are extremely
premature have 38 times the risk of cerebral palsy than babies
born full-term. And there are increased risks for autism and
mental retardation.
Abortions performed on African-American women are
approximately five times the rate of Caucasian women. And,
consequently, African-American women have four times the risk
of extremely premature birth.
It is also true that the danger of subsequent premature
birth is significantly greater when an abortion is performed on
a girl under 17 years of age.
Premature birth rates are now up more than 43 percent since
Roe v. Wade became law. Forty-nine studies worldwide have
confirmed this causal link between abortion and premature
birth. Abortion and suicide are also correlated.
A study by two economists appearing in the January 18th,
2012, online version of the Journal of Economic Inquiry shows
that parental involvement laws correlate with a decrease in the
incidence of teen suicide. Quote, ``The adoption of a law
requiring a parent's notification or consent before a minor can
obtain an abortion is associated with an 11 to 21 percent
reduction in the number of 15- through 17-year-old females who
commit suicide,'' unquote.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a responsibility to ensure
that parents are able to protect their minor daughters from an
invasive surgical procedure that takes the life of their
grandchild and sometimes brings with it additional,
significant, and deadly hidden costs. This bill is a step in
that direction.
And I would now recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes
for an opening statement.
[The bill, H.R. 2299, follows:]
__________
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today we consider legislation that is at once another
flagrant violation of the Constitution and an assault on the
health and well-being of young women and the health care
providers.
Before we start discussing this bill, versions of which we
have considered in the 105th, 106th, 107th, 108th, and 109th
Congresses, and I presume will have no more success in this
Congress, I think it is important to note that this is the
ninth time this Committee has met in this Congress to assault
the reproductive rights of women.
The 112th Congress has had just over 200 legislative days
so far. If the Republican leadership had put as much effort
into helping distressed homeowners or creating jobs or
reforming our immigration laws as they have into the war on
women, most of our problems might have been solved by now.
Instead, we get this warmed over and facially
unconstitutional legislation yet again. Some States have chosen
to enact parental notification or consent laws. Some, like
mine, have considered this issue and decided it is not good for
the welfare of young women and have declined to do so.
This bill would substitute the judgment of Congress for the
judgment of people who live in States like mine. In fact, even
where the young women's State of residence and the State in
which the doctor is located have both decided not to enact such
laws, this bill would impose a new Federal parental
notification law that is more draconian and more
unconstitutional than the laws of most States.
Perhaps we should just disband our State legislatures and
let Washington decide these important family issues for us. If
it would spare the rest of us endless speeches about federalism
and State's rights, I might be tempted to go along with it.
I would just note, in this regard, that many Members of
this Committee recently voted to allow the laws of some States
to preempt the concealed carry firearm laws in other States,
including mine. Congress would, in effect, allow any State to
nullify our laws and require us to allow anyone lunatic to walk
our streets with a concealed weapon if so much as one other
State says they can.
As a matter of policy, this bill would place many young
women in an impossible situation. In some cases, the young
woman may not be able to go to her parents and can turn only to
a grandparent, a sibling, or a member of the clergy. Indeed,
sometimes the parents may pose a threat to the life and health
of the young woman, if they learn that she is pregnant.
That is what happened to Spring Adams, a 13-year-old from
Idaho. She was shot to death by her father after he found out
that she planned to terminate her pregnancy, one he caused by
his act of incest.
I would commend the authors of the bill for not allowing
him to sue in this new version of the bill. It is a step in the
right direction from the prior versions of the bill, albeit a
small step.
This bill also uses a narrow definition of medical
emergencies that applies only where, ``abortion was necessary
to save the life of the minor because her life was endangered
by a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness,
including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or
arising from the pregnancy itself.''
That clearly falls far short of the Supreme Court's
requirement that any restriction on the right to choose must
have an explicit exception to protect the life or health of the
woman.
There are many things far short of death that threaten a
young woman. She deserves prompt and professional medical care,
and the Constitution still protects her right to receive that
care. Requiring that young women have their health destroyed is
beyond cruel. It is anything but pro-life.
I know that I have rankled some of my colleagues in the
past by comparing this bill to the fugitive slave law. I would
never suggest that this bill turns young women into slaves, so
don't say that I did. I won't even presume to know what
Frederick Douglass might think of this bill.
But by requiring a young woman or any American to carry the
law of their States on their backs as they travel around the
country to other States is inimical to our Federal system. We
have a few laws in New York that I think might benefit the
people of other States, but I am not sure the proponents of
this legislation would particularly like it.
I know of no laws since the Fugitive Slave Act that
literally says that you take the law of the State from which
you leave when you go to some other State, and use the power of
the Federal Government to enforce the law of the first State in
the jurisdiction of the second State.
So when she goes from State A to State B, and State B
allows abortions, let's say without parental notification, this
bill says that that is illegal and that the doctor who performs
the abortion in the State where it is perfectly legal to do so
without parental notification commits a crime because of the
law in the other State.
So this bill uses the power of the Federal Government to
export the law of one State, to enforce it another against the
public policy of the State. And as I said, I know of no law
since the Fugitive Slave Act that attempted to use the power of
the Federal Government in exporting the law of one State to
another State.
Congress, in any event, should not be tempted to play
doctor. It is always bad medicine for women. This
unconstitutional and ill-considered legislation will harm young
women.
But perhaps the intention is to punish young women who
desire to have abortions. In fact, that seems to be the
intention of a lot of legislation, so maybe it is not ill-
considered. Maybe it is simply ill-motivated.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses, and yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Franks. Without objection, other Members' opening
statements will be made a part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary
Across the country, officials must obtain parental consent before
children can engage in certain school activities such as field trips
and contact sports.
In nearby Maryland, school systems even require a parent's note
before sunscreen can be applied to a student.
And my home state of Texas, along with the large majority of
states, requires parental consent before anyone can tattoo a minor.
Abortion is a serious medical procedure. And most states--my home
state of Texas included--have some form of parental involvement law
that requires that at least one parent be given notice, or give their
consent, before their minor daughter receives an abortion.
Yet today, it remains legal for complete strangers to evade those
state parental involvement laws and transport minors across state lines
to obtain secret abortions without the minor's parents ever knowing
about it.
Because this tragic gap in the law involves interstate commerce,
under the Constitution, only Congress can address it. The Child
Interstate Abortion Notification Act ensures state parental involvement
laws are not evaded through interstate activity.
Parental involvement in the abortion decisions of minor girls leads
to improved medical care for minors who seek abortions, and provides
increased protection for young girls against sexual exploitation by
adult men.
Parental involvement ensures that parents have the opportunity to
provide medical history and other information to abortion providers
prior to the performance of an abortion.
The medical, emotional and psychological consequences of an
abortion are serious and lasting. An adequate medical and psychological
case history is critically important to any physician, and often only
parents can provide such information for their daughters as well as any
suitable family medical history.
Parental involvement also improves medical treatment of pregnant
minors. It ensures that parents have adequate knowledge to recognize
and respond to any post-abortion complications that may develop.
Without the knowledge that their daughters have had abortions,
parents are unable to ensure that their children obtain routine
postoperative care.
Finally, teenage pregnancies often occur as a result of predatory
practices of men who are usually much older than their minor victim.
This results in the transportation of victims across state lines by an
individual who has a great incentive to avoid criminal liability for
his conduct.
Parental involvement laws ensure that parents have the opportunity
to protect their daughters from those who would victimize them further,
and the bill under discussion today does just that.
The House passed this legislation with large bipartisan support
when it was last brought up for a vote. I hope and expect it will enjoy
the same broad support this year.
__________
Mr. Franks. And I certainly hope people listen very
carefully to statements like this and think through it.
Witnesses, thank you for being here this morning. We
welcome you.
Dr. Teresa Collett is a professor of bioethics and
professional responsibility at the University of St. Thomas
School of Law. Professor Collett is an elected member of the
American Law Institute, and she has testified before committees
of the United States Senate and House of Representatives, as
well as before State legislative committees.
Most recently, she represented various medical groups in
the defense of the Federal ban of partial-birth abortion and
the Governors of Minnesota and North Dakota in a parental
consent case before the United States Supreme Court. She has
served as a special attorney general for the States of Oklahoma
and Kansas, and has assisted other States attorneys general in
defending laws protecting human life and marriage.
And, welcome, Professor Collett.
The Very Rev. Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale was appointed
president and dean of Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, in March of 2009. Dean Ragsdale has appeared on
William F. Buckley's Firing Line, Faith Under Fire, Religion
and Ethics, and many other broadcasts.
Dean Ragsdale served on the national boards of NARAL, Pro-
choice America. She is the editor of ``Boundary Wars: Intimacy
and Distance in Healing Relationships,'' and the author of
``The Role of Religious Institutions in Responding to the
Domestic Violence Crisis.''
Welcome, Dean Ragsdale.
Dr. Michael New is an assistant professor of political
science at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, a Phi Beta
Kappa graduate of Dartmouth College. He holds a master's degree
in statistics and a Ph.D. in political science from Stanford
University. He completed his postdoctoral research at the MIT
Harvard Data Center.
Dr. New's research interests span from campaign finance
reform to the positive impact of pro-life legislation and
States' informed consent laws, Medicaid funding rules and
parental notification laws for minors.
His work has been featured in peer-reviewed scholarly
journals, such as the State Politics & Quarterly Policy and in
major media outlets such as National Review Online, the Weekly
Standard, and the New York Post.
I want to thank all witnesses, again, for appearing before
us today. Each of the witness's written statements will be
entered into the record in its entirety, and I would ask that
each witness summarize his or her testimony in 5 minutes or
less. And to help you stay within that time, there is a timing
light on your table. When the light switches from green to
yellow, you will have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. When
the light turns red, it signals that witness's 5 minutes have
expired.
Before I recognize the witnesses, it is the tradition of
this Committee that they be sworn, so if you will please stand
to be sworn.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Franks. Thank you, and please be seated.
I will recognize our first witness, Professor Collett, for
5 minutes.
Pull your microphone closer to you maybe. Is that on?
TESTIMONY OF TERESA STANTON COLLETT, PROFESSOR OF LAW,
UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS SCHOOL OF LAW
Ms. Collett. Mr. Chairman, other Members of the Committee
and distinguished guests, I am delighted to appear to testify
in favor of this important piece of legislation related to the
health care of minors.
I am a professor of law at the University of St. Thomas in
Minnesota. My opinions I express here today do not represent
the university or any other organization or person. They are
opinions, however, that I have derived by virtue of my
scholarly studies of the operation of parental involvement
laws, as well as my practice in litigation in representing
States defending their parental involvement laws.
This particular piece of legislation has appeared before
this Committee numerous times, as Congressman Nadler mentioned.
In fact, it is a common-sense piece of legislation that
represents the consensus across the country. Thirty-seven
States currently have parental involvement laws in effect, and
another six States have passed them but had them enjoined by
judicial action or by an opinion of their State attorney
general.
These laws are based on common-sense protection of girls in
recognition of the particular health benefits that derive from
them.
First and foremost, as the United States Supreme Court
itself has observed, parental involvement allows the parent to
provide needed medical history and details to a physician who
is about to undertake treatment of their minor daughter. It
also allows the parent to guide that minor in the selection of
an abortion provider, knowing the difference between a
competent doctor as opposed to someone who is simply practices
in this area to generate money and engages in unsanitary
conduct.
Second, they allow the opportunity of those parents to
ensure that the girl's well-being is properly considered by
that abortion provider.
And finally, and I believe most importantly, as the Supreme
Court has observed, it ensures that the parents have the
ability to monitor for post-abortion complications.
The Chairman mentioned particularly surgical abortions, but
surgical abortions are not the only form of abortion being
engaged in by abortion clinics today. There are also abortions
using RU-486, which was approved for use by the FDA but had not
been tested on the use of minors. There has been no follow-up
study, notwithstanding the FDA's requirement that such studies
be submitted to the FDA on the use of RU-486 for minors.
Therefore, it is of critical importance that parents know
about the medical condition of their minor, as well as about
the medical treatment that has been undertaken, so that they
can monitor for adverse effects, such as hemorrhaging or
infection, the primary adverse side effect from abortion.
The Ranking Member mentioned the need on occasion for an
emergency abortion. In a study that I did in preparation for my
testimony as an expert witness in Alaska, I actually looked for
State records regarding the number of emergency bypasses done
related to abortion of any kind, and there are few States that
actually report that to the departments of health. Among them
are Alabama, Nebraska, and Wisconsin.
What those States reported in the period from 2005 to 2010
is that were over a total of four--four--emergency abortions.
In Alabama, the number of abortions ranged from 781 to 654
during that time period. In 2005, there was exactly one
emergency bypass. In 2006, there was exactly one emergency
bypass. And from 2007 to 2010, none.
In Wisconsin, the number was zero for a 5-year period. And
in Nebraska, the number was one in a 5-year period.
This legislation is obviously constitutional and relies on
the long-standing Supreme Court precedent that allows Congress
to correct the problems that can be created in federalism.
The State of Missouri, for example, attempted to create a
statute that precluded intentionally taking a minor out of
State in order to obtain abortion and avoid that State's
parental consent law. In reviewing the law, the Missouri
Supreme Court upheld it only in so far as it applied in State,
but it could not reach the conduct of abortion providers in
Illinois who were actively advertising for girls to cross State
lines to avoid parental consent.
This law is no different than the law upheld by the Supreme
Court in Caminetti, which forbids the transport of women across
State lines for immoral purposes, or any other numerous laws.
If FACE is constitutional, a favorite of abortion
activists, then certainly this law is constitutional.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Collett follows:]
__________
Mr. Franks. Thank you, Professor Collett.
And Rev. Ragsdale, please, for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF THE VERY REV'D. KATHERINE HANCOCK RAGSDALE,
PRESIDENT AND DEAN, EPISCOPAL DIVINITY SCHOOL
Rev. Ragsdale. Chairman Franks, Ranking Member----
Mr. Franks. Rev. Ragsdale, would you pull that in and push
the button? That will work.
Rev. Ragsdale. Thank you very much.
Mr. Franks. Yes, ma'am.
Rev. Ragsdale. And thank you for the opportunity to testify
once again on this bill.
I come before you as an Episcopal priest with over 15 years
in parish ministry, now serving as president of one of the
Episcopal Church's 10 seminaries. My interest in and
perspective on this issue are shaped by my life as a parish
priest, by my current work educating future priests, and by my
responsibilities as an Episcopalian, because this bill flies in
the face of, is completely contrary to, the official position
of the Episcopal Church.
I recall vividly one day when I left my home to pick up a
15-year-old girl and drive her to Boston for an 8 a.m.
appointment for an abortion. I didn't know the girl. I knew her
school nurse. The nurse had called me a few days earlier to see
if I knew where she might find money to give the girl for bus
fare to and cab fare home from the hospital. I was stunned.
A 15-year-old was going to have to get up at dawn and take
multiple buses to the hospital alone. The nurse shared my
concern but explained that the girl had no one to turn to. She
feared for her safety if her father found out, and there were
no other relatives close enough to help.
There was no one to be with her, so I went, and during our
hour-long drive, we talked. She told me about her dreams for
the future, all the things she thought she might like to do and
be. I talked to her about the kind of hard work and personal
responsibility it would take to get there. She talked to me
about her guilt at being pregnant. I talked to her about God.
Later, I drove her back to her school and walked her to the
nurse's office and turned her over to someone who would look
out for her for the rest of the day, and I drove home wondering
how many bright, funny, thoughtful, girls, girls brimming with
promise, had no one to help them.
I did not take her across State lines, nor did I, to my
knowledge, break any laws. But if either of those things had
been necessary to help that girl, I would have done them.
And if helping young women like her should be made illegal,
I will nonetheless continue to do it. I have no choice.
Some years ago, I stood before an altar and a bishop of the
people of God, and vowed to love and serve the people among
whom I work. Even if you tell me that it is a crime to exercise
my ministry, I will have no choice. And I assure you, I am not
alone.
I would like to acknowledge that we probably all have much
in common here: although we may differ as to when, if ever,
abortion is a morally appropriate choice, I wish we could all
acknowledge the fact that it is a legally protected choice.
And, certainly, we can all agree that we would like for all
women to have fewer reasons to consider abortion, and we all
deeply desire that every teen facing any significant decision
be able to turn to her parents for guidance and support.
That is the world we wish for. The Episcopal Church,
certainly, hopes and works for such a world even as we passed a
resolution opposing parental notification laws, because we know
that, unfortunately, for far too many young women, this is not
the world they actually live in and must find a way to
navigate.
We know that young women do get pregnant, sometimes due to
poor choices or carelessness, too often due to violence or
coercion. And while you surely know the statistics that an
overwhelming majority of minor women considering an abortion
do, indeed, talk to their parents, some won't and others can't.
That is why many years ago now the Episcopal Church passed
a resolution opposing any parental consent or notification
mandates that did not include provision for nonjudicial bypass.
We thought it was far too onerous to require a teenager already
undergoing the trauma of an unintended pregnancy to also have
to face and navigate an intimidating judicial system.
It was our view that any morally responsible notification
or consent requirement had to allow young women to turn for
help to a responsible adult other than a parent or a judge, to
go instead to a grandparent or an aunt, a teacher, a neighbor,
a counselor, minister, rabbi, a doctor.
Our position encourages the very thing this bill would
outlaw. Certainly, we want young people to be able to talk to
their parents, but when they can't or won't, we want to make it
easier not harder for them to turn to other responsible adults.
And most certainly, we don't want to make it harder for
their doctors to be their allies and advocates. We adopted this
resolution by a large majority not because we don't care about
parental notification and involvement, but because we know that
no one can simply legislate healthy communication with
families, and we know that of those girls who do not involve
their parents, many feared violence or being thrown out of
their home.
There is no excuse good enough to justify legislation that
further imperils young people who are already living in danger
in their own homes. Teens deserve to be able to talk, to turn
to their parents for love and support and guidance. But when
they can't, we want them to turn to some responsible adult.
Please don't outlaw the very help we want our children to
have. Oppose this bill. Oppose it out of compassion for those
young people who cannot for reasons of safety comply with its
provisions.
I am sure that each of your families is a loving and
supportive one, and your daughter knows she can always turn to
you for anything. But what about her best friend? What about
your neighbor's daughter?
Please don't leave any scared teenager alone and without
help.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony.
[The prepared statement of Rev. Ragsdale follows:]
__________
Mr. Franks. Dr. New, I will recognize you now 5 minutes,
sir.
Just pull that microphone close. We are going to have to
just start turning those on at the beginning of the hearing, I
think, because they fool everybody always.
Is it on now?
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL J. NEW, Ph.D., DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN--DEARBORN
Mr. New. Chairman Franks, distinguished guests, thank you.
I appreciate this opportunity to offer testimony on behalf of
the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. I am currently
assistant professor of political science at the University of
Michigan-Dearborn. I am also an adjunct scholar at the
Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research and education arm of
the Susan B. Anthony List here in Washington, D.C. I have a
Ph.D. in political science and a master's degree in statistics,
both from Stanford University.
I have authored nine articles which have appeared in
various peer-reviewed journals, three of which have been on the
topic of State-level pro-life legislation. In March 2011, an
article of mine on this topic was published in State Politics &
Policy Quarterly, which is the top State politics journal in
the country.
I have evaluated the research on parental involvement laws
that has appeared in peer-reviewed journals in public health,
economics, and political science. I have come across 18 peer-
reviewed studies in total.
The peer-reviewed research on the impact of State-level
parental involvement laws arrives at a great deal consensus
about their effects.
In my testimony this morning, I want to highlight the four
most important findings.
First, every peer-reviewed study I have seen, 16 in total,
finds that State parental involvement laws reduce the in-State
abortion rate for minors. This is true of studies that analyze
time series cross-sectional data, allow for simultaneous
analysis of multiple laws. It is also true of States that focus
on the individual--on the impact of an individual State-level
law.
There have been separate studies analyzing the laws of six
States, including Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas. The findings are all very
similar. After the passage of a parental involvement law, the
research shows a statistically significant reduction in the in-
State minor abortion rate from anywhere from 13 percent to 42
percent. Most of these find the decline somewhere between 15
and 20 percent in the in-State minor abortion rate.
My own research shows that those States which require both
parents be involved, Minnesota, Mississippi, have seen even
larger declines.
Secondly, parental involvement laws are always worth
enacting because the in-State decline in the abortion rate
consistently exceeds any out-of-State increase. The two best
studies in State-level parental involvement laws both show
this.
The first study looked at the Massachusetts law that took
effect in 1981. That study appeared in the American Journal of
Public Health.
The second study analyzed the Texas law, which took effect
in 2000. That study appeared in the New England Journal of
Medicine in 2006.
Both studies are unique because they analyze monthly data
on in-State minor abortions, out-of-State minor abortions, and
births to minors. Both studies found that after the enactment
of both the Massachusetts law and the Texas law, the in-State
minor abortion decline clearly exceeded the out-of-State
increase.
Furthermore, both studies did find evidence of short-term
increases in the minor birthrate. The Texas study found that
girls who are over 17-and-a-half-years-old are more likely to
give birth. Another Texas study analyzing similar data showed
the birthrate for 17-year-olds increased by 2 percent after the
parental involvement law took place.
The Massachusetts study suggested that in the year after
the parental law took effect, 100 minors gave birth instead of
having abortions as a result of law.
Third, every State that tracks out-of-State abortions after
a parental involvement law takes effect finds an increase in
the number of girls who obtain abortions in adjacent States
without parental involvement laws. Now, the number depends on
the State. In large States like Texas, relatively few minor
girls cross the State line to have an abortion. But in smaller
States, like Massachusetts and Missouri, a much larger percent
do. In fact, a fairly substantial decline--or, a fairly
substantial percentage of the minor abortion rate decline in
States like Massachusetts and Missouri is due to minor girls
crossing State lines and having abortions in States where the
laws are more permissive.
The fourth and final point I would like to make is that the
knowledge that parents will be involved with an abortion
decision provides teen girls with a strong disincentive to
engage in unprotected sexual activity. There is a very broad
research, very body of research, I should say, on the positive
public health of parental involvement laws.
A 2003 study in the Journal of Health Economics found that
parental involvement laws are reducing teen pregnancy rate
anywhere from 4 to 9 percent. A 2008 study in the Journal of
Law, Economics and Organization, found that parental
involvement laws reduced the gonorrhea rate for minors from
anywhere from 12 to 20 percent.
Finally, this past February, the Journal of Economic
Inquiry published a study which shows that the enactment of
parental involvement law lowers the teen suicide rate for minor
girls.
As such, I would encourage Members of the Committee to
support the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. It will
give parents more involvement over how their minor daughters
resolve pregnancies.
I think it is safe to say that parents are more invested in
the well-being of their minor daughter than a boyfriend, a
friend, or a relative. They also have better knowledge of their
daughter's medical history. There is evidence where minor girls
obtained abortions without their parent's knowledge and died
because they did not realize they were allergic to the
anesthesia.
Based on the testimony I have given, I am confident that
the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act will lead to
fewer abortions and better public health outcomes for teen
girls. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. New follows:]
__________
Mr. Franks. Thank you, Dr. New.
And thank all of you.
Professor Collett, you know you heard some of the previous
comments related to the constitutionality of the law. And I
guess it is always a good thing to sometimes restate the
obvious. Essentially, this bill says that one cannot circumvent
parental consent laws in a State by, without the parent's
knowledge, taking a minor girl across State lines for an
abortion.
Obviously, I have a little girl. She is only 3. But I hope
that she doesn't run into somebody who would have the
philosophy of Rev. Ragsdale.
With that said, can you tell me--if you could kind of
expand on your reasoning for why this is a constitutional law?
Ms. Collett. Certainly. In fact, this bill is far narrower
than the Free Access to Clinic Entrance Act, because it
operates only on residents of the State when they leave their
State. It applies the home State law, and simply facilitates
the State's ability to protect minors consistent with that.
There are numerous Supreme Court decisions that allow when
there is interstate movement of persons related to commercial
activity, that that interstate movement of persons can be
constitutionally regulated by this Congress. For example, in
the Caminetti case, the taking of women across State lines for
immoral purposes, was upheld. Certainly the Raich case dealing
with medical marijuana, the court upheld the congressional
authority to involve itself in medical determinations.
It is very clearly constitutional. This Congress has on
numerous occasions relied upon the interstate commerce clause
for its power. That is the enumerated power that, under this
instance, it would be appropriate to uphold the statute under.
Mr. Franks. Well, I always find it a little unnerving when
people tell me that to say, you know, that someone taking a
minor child of someone else's across the State lines to perform
or have a surgery performed upon them, that somehow that it is
unconstitutional to recognize parent's rights in that regard,
it just astonishes me beyond comprehension.
Dr. New, you testified that the academic research on
parental involvement laws say that it has an impact on their
in-State minor abortion rates, and I would like for you to
expand on that.
But you also say that there is a frequent crossing of State
lines among minor girls where there is a proximity of a State
that does not have these laws and where there are people that
will actually take someone else's child across State lines to
have a surgery performed on them that will take another child's
life and endanger the first child's life.
So would you say that your study in this area points to the
conclusion that parental involvement laws are successful in
reducing abortions but that there would be an even greater
success in reducing abortions if Congress enacted a law
prohibiting the transportation of minors across State lines to
have abortion laws without the parent's knowledge or
involvement?
Mr. New. Yes. I think those are both fair statements. I
mean, literally, every peer-reviewed study on this topic shows
that when a State passes a parental involvement law, the in-
State minor abortion rate goes down. There is a very broad
consensus about that. Sixteen peer-reviewed studies in total
that I have looked at, and they all arrive at the same
conclusion.
They also found, the studies can really track accurately
both the in-State decline and compare it to the out-of-State
increase. There are some States that have reciprocal reporting
arrangements, where they know kind of what is happening to
these minor girls, pretty much every study also finds--both
studies that look at that do find the in-State decline exceeds
the out-of-State decrease.
So I think it is fair to say that these laws are effective.
We also, again, do see a short-term increase in minor
birthrates, meaning that once these laws are passed, some
minors who otherwise had abortions decided to give birth.
But I do think these laws would be made more effective if
the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act did take effect,
because in many States, especially States with close proximity
to other States with more permissive laws, you do see a
substantial part of the in-State minor abortion decline due to
the fact that minors cross State lines.
That was certainly true in Massachusetts. When
Massachusetts passed their law in 1981, it was surrounded by--
basically every other State did not have a parental involvement
law, including New York, including New Hampshire, including
Rhode Island up until 1982, including Connecticut.
And, again, a number of Massachusetts minors circumvented
that law by getting abortions in other States.
There was a study of the Missouri law that was enacted in
1985, and it was again similar. Illinois does not have a
parental involvement law, and there was evidence that many
minors did go across the border and obtain abortions in
Illinois.
So I really do think that the Child Interstate Abortion
Notification Act would really strengthen these parental
involvement laws that are already doing a lot of good in the
respective States.
Mr. Franks. You know, I can't help but wonder how parents
feel when they find that some stranger has taken their minor
daughter across State lines for an abortion, so that they can
keep it from their parents. I know how I would react. But I am
wondering why that isn't something that is more obvious to
everyone here.
So I will now recognize Mr. Nadler for 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Rev. Ragsdale, a moment ago the Chairman said he hoped his
daughter never ran into someone like you or with your
philosophy. Could you describe the kind of situations where
another adult, either relative or perhaps a clergy person,
might need to assist a young woman who is pregnant, where it
would be in her welfare for that person to do so? And is a
parent always the best person to have involvement in a
situation, or is it even possible?
Rev. Ragsdale. Well, Mr. Nadler, you actually referenced
just such a situation in your opening remarks, where the father
shot the daughter, who had hoped to get an abortion.
A lot of young women seeking abortions were impregnated by
their fathers, or they are in homes where the parents are
sufficiently emotionally unstable that they may disrupt the
entire family. Children are thrown out of their homes. They are
beaten.
One of the past times that I testified on this, I was still
a parish priest. And a man in my parish with a teenage daughter
said to me, ``I would be furious if you did that with my
daughter.'' I said, ``Well, I wouldn't have to do that with
your daughter. If she came to me because she was afraid to talk
to you, I know that you are safe. I would take her, go with you
her to talk to you and deal with this.''
But there are young women who are in danger. They are in
danger of being beaten. They are in danger of being killed.
They are in danger of being thrown out of their homes.
They have to find another way to get these procedures. And
I don't want them doing it without any adult support, nor does
the Episcopal Church.
So that is why we support nonjudicial bypass provisions
that would allow a grandparent, a teacher, a clergy person to
accompany these young women and to keep them safe.
Mr. Nadler. There has been a lot of talk recently that a
requirement in law that insurance policies cover contraceptives
is an assault on the religious liberty of those employers who
don't want to pay insurance even if they don't have to pay
extra, because it is against their religion to have people use
contraceptives.
Would this bill be an assault on your religious liberty or
the religious liberty of the Episcopal Church in saying that
what your ministry compels you to do would become a criminal
act?
Rev. Ragsdale. Yes.
Mr. Nadler. In exactly the same way as it is alleged that
the contraceptive requirement is an assault on the religious
liberty of some other church?
Rev. Ragsdale. Well, I am not sure in exactly the same way,
because I don't concur that the contraceptive coverage is an
assault on the religious liberty----
Mr. Nadler. Well, I don't agree on that either, and I don't
think this is an assault on religious liberty, but if that is,
this is.
Rev. Ragsdale. But I am not taking Federal money, and,
therefore, to interfere with my ability to do my ministry is an
assault.
Mr. Nadler. Would be even worse.
Rev. Ragsdale. And to fulfill the provisions that the
Episcopal Church has passed in general convention many years
ago.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Let me ask you this. We heard, from 2005 through 2010, 559
judicial bypasses were sought in the State of Idaho. During
that time, a total of 24 were granted. In three of those years,
none were granted at all.
That is half a percent of young women who managed to find
their way through the court system, who tried to do so. The
records for the other States are no better. Many judges simply
refuse to grant the bypass ever.
Would you say the judicial bypass system is a sham in
practice?
Rev. Ragsdale. I would like to believe that there are some
responsible, ethical judges who behave appropriately, and it is
sort of in my business to believe things in contradiction to
the evidence from time to time, but it certainly seems the
evidence suggests that, yes, it is a sham.
When the Episcopal Church suggested--insisted on
nonjudicial bypass provisions, this was before we had this
experience. We simply wanted it because we thought navigating
the court system was just too much to ask, too intimidating to
ask of a young woman already in a tricky situation.
Having seen since the evidence of what actually happens in
these judicial bypass procedures, it seems clear that they are
ineffective at best and often abusive. And we really would not
want to subject any person to those procedures as they are
exercised in most States.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Professor Collett, this bill only has an exception if an
abortion is, ``necessary to save the life of the minor because
her life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical
injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering
physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy
itself.''
Does is exception comply with the constitutional mandate
that you have to permit an abortion when necessary for the life
or health of the mother? And to the extent that a woman might
need a medical treatment that is inconsistent with pregnancy,
she needs medical treatment that is inconsistent with
pregnancy, but is not caused or arising from the pregnancy
itself, wouldn't the Constitution require that an abortion be
permitted in that case as well, contrary to this law, to this
bill, rather?
Ms. Collett. Congressman Nadler, in fact, I believe the
constitutional case that you are relying on is Doe v. Bolton,
which was a statutory construction case. It was not an
interpretation of the Constitution. It was an interpretation of
the----
Mr. Nadler. Excuse me, there is not a constitutional
requirement under applicable Supreme Court law that abortions
be allowed for the life or health of the mother?
Ms. Collett. I am sorry, Congressman Nadler. If I could
complete my answer.
In Doe v. Bolton, where they gave the life or health of the
mother language, it was statutory construction. In Planned
Parenthood v. Casey, which was an opinion that occurred 20
years later, in fact, they upheld an emergency exception
remarkably similar to this on a constitutional basis where the
language did not have the health of the mother.
In Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England,
the most recent United States Supreme Court case dealing with
parental involvement laws, the Court, in fact, even upheld the
statute at issue in that case without an emergency exception.
I believe this is completely constitutionally consistent
with Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Ayotte.
Mr. Nadler. So it is your belief that an abortion can be
refused even if, constitutionally, even if refusing that
abortion would wreck the health of the mother but wouldn't kill
her?
Ms. Collett. I believe the Court has upheld similar
exceptions.
Mr. Nadler. The answer is yes, you believe that that is the
state of the law.
Ms. Collett. I believe that is the state of the law.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. You are in a very small minority, I
must tell you.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Franks. All right, I would now yield to Mr. Jordan for
5 minutes.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the Chairman for the time and for this
legislation, this hearing.
Dr. New, the premise from Ms. Ragsdale is that if we have
this law or, frankly, any parental notification, parental
consent law, that there is the potential that minors can be
harmed if they have to communicate with their parents.
You cited a number of studies.
Mr. New. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. Do any of the studies show that that actually--
you see an increase in harm to minors where you have States
with parental notification, parental consent laws?
Mr. New. I am not aware of any body of peer-reviewed
research which shows an increase in child abuse rates that
follow from the enactment of State-level parental involvement
laws, so, no, I have yet to see a study that would show that.
Mr. Jordan. So your answer is that not one single study
shows that involving the people who care most about children,
their parents, not one single study shows that there is an
increase in child abuse? Is that accurate?
Mr. New. I have researched the academic literature, and I
think I have been fairly thorough. There may something out
there I haven't seen, but I have been very thorough in my
reading, and I have yet to come across one peer-reviewed study
that----
Mr. Jordan. Not one single study?
Mr. New. No.
Mr. Jordan. Okay.
And, Professor Collett, do you know of any studies that
show what the reverend asserts?
Ms. Collett. In fact, there is a study to the contrary by
Henshaw and Kost. Of course, Stanley Henshaw is a demographer
of the Guttmacher Institute, a research affiliate of Planned
Parenthood. The study is ``Parental Involvement in Minors'
Abortion Decisions.'' It was published in 1992. Table 5 of that
particular study, Congressman, in fact, indicates that although
minors had initially, a small minority of minors, had expressed
concerns that there would be violence or be thrown out of their
home, and that is why they were reluctant to inform the
parents, when researchers inquired after the fact, there was
not a single study in which violence had occurred.
Mr. Jordan. So, in fact, we don't have one study that shows
that there is an increase in harm to young people, but we have
research that shows it actually could be positive.
Ms. Collett. There is no research that shows harm.
Mr. Jordan. Okay.
Reverend, let me ask you a slightly different question.
There was an article recently published in the Journal of
Medical Ethics, two bioethicists/philosophers argued for what
they term after-birth abortion. And they assert, and I quote,
``We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically
permissible in all circumstances where abortion would be.''
And I want to know, first, if you are familiar with the
article; and, second, if you agree with the assertion of these
two bioethicists/philosophers.
Rev. Ragsdale. I am not familiar with that particular
article. I am certainly familiar with philosophers who have
made similar arguments. It is sort of the job of academic
philosophers to think way outside the box.
We, obviously, utterly disagree and don't consider it a
responsible position.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. And what would you call the term after-
birth abortion? Is there a better definition, better language
for that?
Rev. Ragsdale. I am sorry, I don't think there is any such
thing as after-birth abortion. Abortion is the termination of--
--
Mr. Jordan. Yes, it seems to me this is infanticide. It is
murder. It is the taking of innocent human life.
Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield for a moment?
Mr. Jordan. These ethicists seem to----
Mr. Nadler. I think I can help clear this up. Will the
gentleman yield for a moment?
Mr. Jordan. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Nadler. I think just about everyone on this side of the
aisle and on that side of the aisle voted for the--what was
that called?--the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which was
on this issue. I stated at the time that this was absurd, that
this was infanticide and murder, and we all voted for it, and
stated at the time that it was unnecessary because it was
already the law in every State that it was murder.
Mr. Jordan. And I appreciate that, but we have a journal
printing this kind of ridiculous----
Mr. Nadler. There is always some nut out there.
Mr. Jordan. Yeah. My question was to the reverend, and she
answered the question.
Rev. Ragsdale. One of the repercussions of the tenure
system. You are encouraged and entitled to think any bizarre
thing you want and to publish it, and it pushes the envelope.
Mr. Jordan. Well, that is good to hear.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I would yield back.
Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, Mr. Jordan.
It is kind of ironic that, you know, that we have talked
about--at least we have some agreement here that after-birth
abortion is murder, and yet somehow there is some argument that
10 minutes earlier before you travel 5 inches down a birth
canal, that all of a sudden everything is changed.
And it is also interesting that our President voted twice
against the legislation that would have protected children born
alive in his legislative career.
With that, I would yield to Mr. Quigley for 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I think anyone watching these hearings or the
hearing, since I have been here for 3 years now, understands
how just extraordinarily emotional and how powerful they are,
how strong people's feelings are, how difficult the decisions
that have to be made are.
And for me, what that seems to bring out is the fact that,
sitting here in Washington, I have absolutely no right to tell
people how they handle that decision. It is impossible for us
to know all of the scenarios that exist under those
circumstances, all of the risk, all of the dangers, all of the
emotional turmoil that takes place. And for us to put ourselves
in that place is inappropriate, especially for those who claim
that government's role is least, that government shouldn't
intrude on people's lives.
So I appreciate that nothing we say here ever, if I am here
3 years more or 30 years more, will ever change anyone else's
mind. But I will say this, however any of us feel, it is worse
and it is wrong for us to place ourselves above anybody's
decision-making process, especially when it comes to something
as serious as this.
But I will ask the reverend one question.
Are you aware what major medical groups have said or talked
about in terms of confidentiality in medical care for minors?
Rev. Ragsdale. I believe virtually every medical group that
one can name is on the record as opposing this sort of
regulation, because of their interest in protecting the doctor-
patient relationship and not wanting to pit doctors against the
young women who come to them for help.
Mr. Quigley. And, well, the scenarios that you have seen,
and for what you know, how would you imagine that this measure
would actually, in reality, be enforced? Border patrols or
questions or putting doctors in a very unique position?
Rev. Ragsdale. I think the goal is to have a chilling
effect on doctors and make them unwilling to perform abortions.
It is interesting that the success of these parental
notification requirements is being measured by Dr. New as
reducing abortions, which suggests to me that their point here
is not actually protecting young women's health but reducing
abortions, which is a constitutionally protected right.
So I think the goal is to have a chilling effect on
doctors, to deny young women the adult support that they might
need to move forward safely with this procedure. And I think
the result will be, and I think the result has been, and
perhaps the reason that the statistics don't show abuse is that
the young women are not foregoing abortions, the ones who are
in danger, so much so they are getting them illegally or
without any adult support.
Mr. Quigley. Right, and I think it teaches us that there is
a difference between correlation and causation.
Rev. Ragsdale. Well, exactly.
Mr. Quigley. And there is also a difference that wasn't
taken into consideration of where the abortions are actually
taking place. It is not taking place in the same State for the
reasons we were talking about before.
Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Franks. I thank the gentleman. I have to thank him for
his tone, but placing himself above someone else's decision, he
mentioned that, and that is one of the challenges with this
legislation, we are trying to make sure that perfect strangers
don't place themselves above a parent's right to decide things
over their own children. The judges, obviously, you testified
that they have some reticence to do so, but a perfect stranger
who finds the arrogance to do that is just astonishing to me.
And you are right, too, Mr. Quigley. There are intense
feelings about this. There were intense feelings when we were
debating the issue of slavery, when the Supreme Court said
slaves weren't persons. But people's minds did change, finally.
They did change.
Mr. King, I would recognize you for 5 minutes, sir.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And again, I thank the witnesses for your testimony, and
this raises a number of questions in my mind as I listened to
their response.
I would turn first Professor Collett.
Would you assert that there existed a conscience protection
for medical practitioners prior to the passage of Obama care?
Ms. Collett. Well, certainly, there is the Weldon act and
the Hill-Burton Act that protected both medical institutions as
well as individual practitioners in certain instances.
Mr. King. And is it also your understanding that the
passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care
Act has struck that language of conscience protection and
allowed for an executive branch to, essentially, impose
obligations on health care practitioners that go beyond that
conscience protection that you cited?
Ms. Collett. Actually, Congressman, I believe that is an
issue that is being litigated as we speak on behalf of a number
of both individuals and religiously affiliated institutions. I
do believe that they will be successful in their litigation,
because I do not believe that the Secretary of Health's
regulation will withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Mr. King. Thank you.
And I turn to Rev. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale and ask if
you agree with, at least philosophically, with conscience
protection for medical practitioners?
Rev. Ragsdale. No.
Mr. King. You think they should be compelled, then, to
provide sterilization, abortifacients, and contraceptives even
if they object to it on religious terms?
Rev. Ragsdale. You know, I am a church person. I believe in
conscience. We are big supporters of conscience. We believe
that everyone's conscience should be respected as long as they
pay the price for it.
Civil disobedience, if you are willing to pay the price for
it. Conscientious objection, if you are willing to pay the
price for it.
But if you are not willing to shoot people, don't join the
Army. If you are not willing to carry a gun at all, don't
become a police officer. If you are not willing to experiment
on animals, medical research probably is not the place for you.
If you are not willing to provide full medical care, don't go
into----
Mr. King. I am sorry, the clock is ticking, so I do get
your point.
And let me then ask the question, if this conscience
protection then apparently, if you are willing to pay the
price, so in your testimony you talk about assisting a young
lady and you state that you don't believe that you violated any
laws. But you also assert, if I note this testimony, that you
have you have no choice because of your oath and your
commitment. You say, I have no choice even if you tell me it is
a crime to exercise my ministry, I will have no choice. And I
assure you I am not alone.
So are you saying to this Congress, then, that if this
legislation passes and you are met with the same or a similar
question for an individual that you described in this
testimony, that you would cross the State line, you would
violate Federal law, you would be willing to go to jail for a
year or pay a $100,000 fine, if you believe it violated your
conscience to fail to serve?
Rev. Ragsdale. I hope to God that I would have the courage
of my convictions and my faith to do that.
Mr. King. Do you believe that a judge should have a
conscience protection?
Rev. Ragsdale. I beg your pardon?
Mr. King. Do you believe that a judge should have----
Rev. Ragsdale. That a judge should not have to uphold the
law if he disagrees with it?
Mr. King. I mean, just to suspend this for a second, I
would like to turn to Professor Collett, and then I will come
back to you on this.
Professor Collett, I will tell the narrative here, and that
is that the parental notification law that was passed in Iowa,
I was part of, that the gentleman, Mr. Nadler, discussed. And I
met with judges around the State, and I can think one in
particular who expressed to me how troubled he was that the law
required him to provide for the judicial waiver, the judicial
bypass, I think as it was referred to. And he was greatly
troubled because of his faith, because of his convictions.
But he found himself, a sworn judge, required to carry out
the law. And now, because of the language in the law, he was
required to provide that judicial bypass even though it
violated his most profound moral and religious convictions.
Do you believe judges should have conscience protection?
Ms. Collett. Congressman, this actually came up on the
Texas subadvisory committee on drafting court rules for
parental notification and parental consent in that State. At
that time, we determined it was appropriate for a judge to
recuse, as they can on any matter where they believe their
personal values will not allow them to render a judgment under
law.
Mr. King. And, Reverend, is it your position that not to
recuse or to apply the same philosophy to the judges as you
would the medical practitioners, either pay the price or leave
the profession and find something else to do?
Rev. Ragsdale. Well, you understand I am not a legal
expert. Recusal sounds like a reasonable alternative to me, but
I haven't given this a lot of thought.
Mr. King. But if you would allow a judge to recuse himself,
wouldn't you allow a medical practitioner to recuse himself as
well?
Rev. Ragsdale. Medical practitioners have a responsibility
to respond to the emergencies in front of them. If there is
another doctor handy that you can hand off to, that is fine. If
not, it is your job to provide medical care.
Mr. King. Thank you. There are very few pregnancies that
are emergencies.
I yield back.
Mr. Franks. Thank you, Mr. King.
I now recognize Mr. Scott for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think a lot of the
questions I have have been answered. I just have a couple of
technical questions.
Professor Collett, in the phrase ``knowingly transports,''
would that include a taxicab driver who, a young lady hops in
the cab and says take me to the abortion clinic; I need an
abortion.
Would they be guilty of violating this code section?
Ms. Collett. Congressman, I don't believe so, because it
also requires with the intention to assist her in obtaining the
abortion.
Mr. Scott. Taking them to the abortion clinic is not
assisting?
Ms. Collett. It is not with the intention of assisting her
in doing that.
Mr. Scott. Okay, knowingly transport, does that include
someone who hops in the taxicab with the pregnant teenager?
Ms. Collett. Have they hopped in the taxicab with the
intention of helping her evade the State's parental involvement
law?
Mr. Scott. The question is transports.
Ms. Collett. I understand, Congressman. Because this has
criminal sanctions, it will be strictly construed under
constitutional standards, and, therefore, you have to meet all
elements.
Mr. Scott. So if it is strictly--you are not transporting;
you are just accompanying. Is that the same thing?
Ms. Collett. Again, it depends on the intention.
Mr. Scott. The mens rea is just on the intent to get an
abortion, not the mens rea to evade the parental consent; is
that right?
Ms. Collett. Crossing State lines, that is correct.
Mr. Scott. The law exempts parents from the application.
Does it exempt a sister?
Ms. Collett. No, not on the face of the statute.
Mr. Scott. So the sister accompanying a pregnant sister
would violate criminal law by accompanying her sister to the
abortion clinic?
Ms. Collett. Unless the law that is to be applied, the law
of the minor's residence, includes siblings. There are a couple
States that do.
Mr. Scott. I am sorry. Where is it exempt from this law?
Ms. Collett. The requirement is that they apply the law of
the minor's residence. And, therefore, if the law of the
minor's residence allows another adult relative to accompany
the minor, they would not be a violation of the law----
Mr. Scott. But in absence of that, the sister would be
violating Federal law.
Ms. Collett. That would be correct.
Mr. Scott. Okay, if a college student who lived in a State,
was a resident of a State, without parental consent law, went
to college in a State without a parental consent law, and
sought an abortion, why does this law require a 24-hour
parental consent?
Ms. Collett. The law does not use college attendance as a
standard. Under that standard, there would be numerous adults
that would be subject to the involvement of someone else. This
law deals with adults only.
Mr. Scott. The college wasn't--if you are in another State
without a parental consent law for any reason, say college,
your home State does not have a parental consent law, you are
performing the abortion in a State that is not the residence of
the teenager. This law requires a 24-hour notice,
notwithstanding the fact that neither State has a parental
consent law; is that right?
Ms. Collett. I am sorry, Congressman. Could you direct me
to the provision. I am confused by your----
Mr. Scott. Page 7, line 15.
Ms. Collett. I am sorry, I will need the section, because I
don't have your printing.
Mr. Scott. Section 3, Child Interstate Abortion
Notification, and it says offense generally, number two,
parental notification, if a physician who performs or endorses
an abortion on a minor who is a resident of a State other than
the State in which the abortion is performed must provide or
cause to provide 24-hour actual notice to parents.
Ms. Collett. The numbering is different that I printed off
of Thomas, but I see where you are now. I am sorry.
Yes, it does.
Mr. Scott. So there is no parental consent law in the State
in which abortion is being performed, no parental consent law
in the teenager's home residence, and yet Federal law is
requiring a parental notice.
Ms. Collett. On a minor who is a resident of a State other
than State in which the abortion is being performed, yes.
Mr. Scott. Okay. And is there any judicial bypass in that?
There can't be any judicial bypass, because you don't have
a system in either State; is that right?
Ms. Collett. It does not appear to be the case, although
most States have emancipation laws, so you can get an order of
partial emancipation. That is done in numerous States.
There are at least two States that have parental
involvement laws that have no judicial bypass in them.
Mr. Scott. Rev. Ragsdale, can you explain whether it is
better or worse for a teenager to be accompanied when they go
to get an abortion?
Rev. Ragsdale. Accompanied by an adult? Yes, we want
teenagers to have support, adult support, preferably from their
parents. When that is not safe or not possible, we would like
them to have other adult support. To ask a teenager to undergo
any significant decision, and any medical procedure without
adult support, seems to us uncharitable and unwise.
Mr. Franks. We appreciate the witnesses here. We appreciate
your time today.
I always think it is important sometimes just to restate.
This bill essentially says that someone cannot arrogate unto
themselves the parent's role of taking a minor girl across
State lines for an abortion without the parent's knowledge. I
am not even sure why we debate that sometimes. It doesn't seem
like we have come very far at times.
But in any case, I thank the witnesses.
And without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative
days to submit to the Chair additional written questions for
the witnesses, which we will forward and ask the witnesses to
respond as promptly as they can so that the answers may be made
part of the record.
Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
with which to submit any additional materials for inclusion in
the record.
And with that, again, I thank the witnesses. I thank the
Members and observers.
And this hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:43 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the
Constitution
The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, more
commonly known as ``CIANA,'' is a modest measure to prevent the
transportation of a minor across state lines to avoid parental
consent laws that apply to abortion procedures. This law is
consistently supported by approximately 70% of the American
people in national opinion polls.
More than 30 states have made it clear through legislation
that parents have the right to know whether their daughters are
trying to undergo abortions. Parents play a critical role in
the well-being of their daughters, particularly in the abortion
context. I quote the bill's sponsor, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen: ``As
mother and a grandmother, I understand the importance of the
unconditional love and support that parents can give to their
children. This responsibility is non-negotiable and non-
transferable. This bill assures young women that they are not
alone if they ever find themselves contemplating undergoing an
abortion.'' (unquote)
Parental notification laws have proven to be effective at
lowering the abortion rate among minors, and therefore they are
effective at lowering the attendant risks that accompany
abortion. Abortion is a serious surgical procedure, with
physical and psychological risks, some of which can be
especially detrimental when experienced at a young age. These
include increased risk of breast cancer, extremely pre-term
birth in subsequent pregnancy (that is, delivering at 28 weeks
gestation or less), and suicide.
Where a woman experiences an abortion early in life, she
can lose the protective effect against breast cancer that a
full term pregnancy provides with the inherent changes in
breast tissue. Many developed countries legalized abortion in
the early 1970s, and breast cancer rates have increased as much
as 80% since the 1970s in these same countries.
Likewise, where a woman has one induced abortion, she is
50% -70% more likely to experience an ``extremely pre-term
birth'' (delivery at 28 weeks or earlier) when she later
attempts to carry a wanted child to term. This could be due to
damage to the cervix during abortion, rendering it less
competent. Where a woman has two abortions, she is 160% more
likely to have an extremely pre-term birth.
An extremely pre-term birth carries greatly increased risks
for many serious health issues. For example, babies who are
extremely pre-term have 38 times the risk of cerebral palsy
than babies born full-term, in addition to increased risk for
autism and mental retardation. Note that abortionists perform
abortions on black women at approximately five times the rate
of white women, and black babies therefore have four times the
risk of extremely pre-term birth. Also note that the danger of
subsequent premature birth is greater where the abortive woman
is a girl under seventeen years of age. Premature birth rates
are up greater than 43% since Roe v. Wade became law. Forty-
nine studies worldwide confirm the abortion/premature birth
causal link.
Next, abortion and youth suicide are correlated. A study by
two economists appearing in the January 18, 2012 online version
of the Journal of Economic Inquiry shows that parental
involvement laws are correlated with a decrease the incidence
of teen suicide. ``The adoption of a law requiring a parent's
notification or consent before a minor can obtain an abortion
is associated with an 11%-21% reduction in the number of 15-
through 17-year-old females who commit suicide.''
We must enable parents to protect their daughters from an
invasive surgical procedure that has significant, and sometimes
deadly hidden costs.
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Florida
I would like to thank the House Constitution Subcommittee
for holding this hearing. The Child Interstate Abortion
Notification Act (CIANA) is an important bill and I am pleased
it is receiving the serious consideration it deserves. CIANA
deals not only with abortion, but also with parental rights.
This bill would make it a federal offense to knowingly
transport a minor across state lines with the purpose of
obtaining an abortion and circumventing the parental consent
and/or notification laws of the minor's home state. It would
prohibit doctors from performing abortions on out of state
minors without obtaining parental consent for the procedure.
This requirement would apply to all out of state abortions.
Physicians would be exempted from these requirements if the
minor has a judicial bypass from their home state, the minor
claims to have been abused by a parent and the doctor informs
state authorities or if the minor's life is immediately
endangered by the continuation of the pregnancy.
Parents are entitled to the right of being involved in
their child's life. Responsibility to guide and direct their
children's development belongs to the parents. This
responsibility is non-negotiable and non-transferable.
Currently, minors cannot get a tattoo without parental consent.
Children cannot even take aspirins for headaches at their
school without prior authorization from parents. However, that
same minor can be taken across state lines to obtain an
abortion without so much as a phone call to her mother or
father. This is unacceptable and fundamentally corrosive to the
institution of the family. More than 30 states have passed laws
that require either parental notification and/or consent before
a minor can undergo an abortion procedure. Moreover, in poll
after poll a majority of the American people have made it clear
that parents should be involved if their minor daughter is
considering terminating her pregnancy. As mother and a
grandmother, I understand the importance of the unconditional
love and support that parents can give to their children. This
bill assures young women that they are not alone if they ever
find themselves contemplating undergoing an abortion. Having
this right ripped away by individuals seeking to confuse, and
at times even coerce, minors is criminal and the federal
government must recognize it as such. Predatory and bullying
tactics by a former boyfriend, or his parents, have led to
young women being rushed into a decision they ultimately would
not have chosen if allowed the chance to reflect and consult
with their families.
As a pro-life advocate, I believe that innocent life is
sacred and unique. The precious gift of life is something that
the unborn are entitled to through their inherent dignity as
human beings. Congress has had the courage and wisdom to ensure
this basic precept. Through legislation prohibiting the use of
federal funds for abortions this body has unequivocally stood
by the rights of the unborn. CIANA aims to resolve a gaping
hole in Congress' long tradition of supporting pro-life issues.
This legislation is neither radical nor draconian. On the
contrary, this legislation is borne out of common sense and
affirming our commitment to the unborn and to the rights of
parents everywhere. Once again, I thank the House Constitution
Subcommittee for convening this hearing and I look forward to
working with my congressional colleagues as we move forward on
consideration of this important legislation.
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________