[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 27 (Tuesday, March 12, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H792-H797]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BORN-ALIVE INFANTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2001
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 2175) to protect infants who are born alive.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2175
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Born-Alive Infants
Protection Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual'
as including born-alive infant
``(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or
of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various
administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the
words `person', `human being', `child', and `individual',
shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens
who is born alive at any stage of development.
``(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive', with
respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the
complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of
that member, at any stage of development, who after such
expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart,
pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of
voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord
has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or
extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor,
cesarean section, or induced abortion.
``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm,
deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right
applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any
point prior to being `born alive' as defined in this
section.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as including
born-alive infant.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2175, the bill
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, the Born-Alive Infants
Protection Act, is to protect all infants who are born alive by
recognizing them as a person, human being, child or individual for
purposes of Federal law. This recognition would take effect upon the
live birth of an infant, regardless of whether or not his or her
development is sufficient to permit long-term survival and regardless
of whether or not he or she survived an abortion.
It has long been an accepted legal principle that infants who are
born alive are persons and thus entitled to the protections of the law.
Many States have statutes that explicitly enshrine this principle as a
matter of State law and some Federal courts have recognized the
principle in interpreting Federal criminal laws. However, recent
changes in the legal and cultural landscape appear to have brought this
well-settled principle into question.
In its July 2000 ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart, the United States
Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law banning partial-birth
abortion. In doing
[[Page H793]]
so, the Carhart court considered the location of an infant's body at
the moment of death during a partial-birth abortion, delivered partly
outside the body of the mother, to be of no legal significance. Indeed,
two members of the majority, Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, went so far
as to say that it was, quote, ``irrational,'' unquote, for the Nebraska
legislature to take the location of the infant at the point of death
into account. Thus, as Justice Scalia noted in dissent, the result of
the Carhart ruling is to give live-birth abortion free rein.
Following Stenberg v. Carhart, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit made this point explicit in the case of Planned
Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer when it struck down New
Jersey's partial-birth abortion ban. According to the Third Circuit,
under Roe v. Wade and Carhart, it is nonsensical and based upon
semantic machinations and irrational line-drawing for a legislature to
conclude that an infant's location in relation to his or her mother's
body has any relevance in determining whether or not an infant may be
killed.
The logical implications of Carhart and Farmer are both obvious and
disturbing. Under the logic of these decisions, once a child is marked
for abortion, it is wholly irrelevant whether the child emerges from
the womb as a live baby. That child may still be treated as though he
or she did not exist, and would have not the slightest rights under the
law, no right to receive medical care, to be sustained in life, or to
receive any care at all. If a child who survives an abortion is born
alive and had no claim to the protections of the law, there would be no
basis upon which the government may prohibit an abortionist from
completely delivering an infant before killing it or allowing it to
die. The right to abortion, under this logic, means nothing less than
the right to a dead baby, no matter where the killing takes place.
Thus, the Carhart and Farmer rulings have essentially brought our legal
system to the threshold of accepting infanticide itself, making it
necessary to firmly establish the ``born alive'' principle in Federal
law.
The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act is designed to repudiate the
destructive ideas that have brought the born-alive rule into question,
and to firmly establish that, for purposes of Federal law, an infant
who is completely expelled and extracted from his or her mother and who
is alive is, indeed, a person under the law.
This bill draws a bright line between the right to abortion and
infanticide, or the killing or criminal neglect of completely born
children. The bill clarifies that a born-alive infant's legal status
under Federal law does not depend upon the infant's gestational age or
whether the infant's birth occurred as a result of natural or induced
labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
Thus, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act protects the legal status
of all children born alive and affirms that every child who is born
alive has an intrinsic dignity which does not depend upon the interests
or convenience of anyone else.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2175.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We today consider legislation reaffirming an important principle
which is enshrined in the laws of all 50 States and unquestioned in
law, that an infant who is born and who is living independently of the
birth mother is entitled to the same care as any other child similarly
diagnosed regardless of whether labor was induced or occurred
spontaneously. It has never been particularly clear to me why we need
to legislate that which most Members of Congress and the general public
already understand to be the law; but if the majority is interested in
restating well-settled law, there is no harm to that.
The same measure passed last year as an amendment to the Patients'
Bill of Rights legislation in the Senate by a vote of 98-0, which is
about as uncontroversial as something can get. Certainly it proved to
be less controversial than the Patients' Bill of Rights.
I am pleased that the majority has made a serious effort in this
draft of the bill to make clear that this bill has nothing to do with
matters related to abortion, even going so far as to add subsection (c)
further clarifying that point. Whatever concerns some may have had that
this bill might be some clever way to undermine the rights protected
under Roe v. Wade have, I think, been eliminated. Unless someone
attempts to disrupt this effort by dragging the abortion debate back
into it, I have little doubt that the bill will pass without much
controversy.
I would like to address the concern that our Republican colleague,
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), has enunciated most
eloquently.
{time} 1415
That is the standard of care employed by neonatologists when faced
with a nonviable newborn or clearly critical ill or massively deformed
newborn. These are difficult medical issues and often horrendous
circumstances which confront families hoping for the gift of
parenthood.
I am aware of the fact that these are complex issues with which
doctors, hospitals, families and courts grapple every day. What is
important to remember is that this legislation, by its plain meaning
and by the stated intent of the authors, does not intrude into these
difficult decisions or change the standard of care required by law.
As the committee's report makes clear, ``The protections afforded
newborn infants under H.R. 2175 for purposes of Federal law are
consistent with the protections afforded those infants under the laws
of the 30 States and the District of Columbia that define a live birth
in virtually identical terms. Like those laws, H.R. 2175 would not
mandate medical treatment where none is currently indicated. While
there is debate about whether or not to aggressively treat premature
infants below a certain birth weight, this is a dispute about medical
efficacy, not regarding the legal status of the patient. That is, the
standard of medical care applicable in a given situation involving a
premature infant is not determined by asking whether that infant is a
person. Medical authorities who argue that treatment below a given
birth weight is futile are not arguing that these low-birth-weight
infants are not persons, only that providing treatment in these
circumstances is not warranted under the applicable standard of medical
care. H.R. 2175 would not affect the applicable standard of care, but
would ensure simply that all born-alive infants, regardless of their
age and regardless of the circumstances of their birth, are treated as
persons for purposes of Federal law.''
I do not want to trivialize the concerns of neonatologists, but I was
gratified by the testimony that we received from the majority witnesses
at our subcommittee hearing on this legislation, which indicated that,
while an infant may be considered ``born alive'' under this
legislation, this proposed law would not in any way substitute the
medical judgment of Congress for the judgment of doctors on the scene
or interfere with the painful decisions that families must make under
the most difficult of circumstances. We must respect families and not
have the big hand of government make their worst moments even more
unbearable. I trust the sponsors of this legislation are in agreement
on this point.
There has been some debate over the question, and the gentleman from
Wisconsin mentioned this, whether there is some sort of recognized
legal right to a dead baby when a parent intends to abort a fetus. My
colleagues well know that the line drawn by the Supreme Court is that
of viability within the womb, and that outside the womb the normal laws
governing the appropriate care of newborns, taking into account the
prognosis made by a trained health care provider, apply. This bill
reinforces the law as we know it to be. It does not change it in any
respect.
I hope that we can agree for once to avoid the overheated rhetoric,
deal with the bill in front of us and not some other unrelated
grievance. As the Hippocratic Oath states, it will ``do no harm.'' If
we must put on a show for some of the antiabortion extremists, let us
get over it and get back to dealing with the real problems this country
has.
I want to say also with respect to the comments of the gentleman from
Wisconsin of, the question of born alive, of
[[Page H794]]
a right to a dead baby, has been joined into question only in the
fevered imaginations of some in the antichoice camp. But there is no
harm in assuaging their concerns, there is no harm in making clear that
the law is what we always know it to be. There is no right to a dead
baby in an attempted abortion. There is no right, it is against the
law, it is murder, to kill an infant born alive. The cases that were
cited did not deal with a baby born alive under the definition in this
bill, which is also the definition of the laws of most of the States,
it dealt with a baby prebirth.
So there is no problem with this bill, it has nothing to do with
abortion, it does not do harm to neonatology, and I see no harm in
passing the bill. I see no good in passing the bill either, except that
it will satisfy the concerns of some people about some recent Supreme
Court decisions, and that is a useful enough thing, so we can get back
to debating the real issues.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, at the risk of not quitting while I
am ahead, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot),
who will tell the Members what good this bill will do.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for
yielding me time, and also for his leadership in moving forward on this
important piece of legislation.
Last summer, over 70 original cosponsors joined with me in
introducing H.R. 2175, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. The
purpose of this bill is to respond to recent legal and cultural
developments and protect all infants who are born alive by recognizing
them as a ``person, human being, child or individual'' for purposes of
Federal law.
Recent court decisions have called into question the rights entitled
to newborn babies. Under the logic of the Supreme Court's decision in
the Stenberg v. Carhart case, the long-accepted legal principle that
infants who are born alive are persons entitled to the protections of
the law has been called into question, bringing our culture and legal
system closer than ever believed possible to accepting infanticide.
By failing to recognize as legally significant the location of an
infant's body at the moment it is killed during an abortion, the
Court's ruling opened the door for future courts to conclude that the
location of an infant's body at the moment it is killed during an
abortion, even if fully born, has no legal significance whatsoever.
The principle that born-alive infants are entitled to protection of
the law is also being questioned at one of America's most prestigious
universities. Amazingly, Princeton University bioethicist, Peter
Singer, argues that the life of a newborn baby is ``of no greater value
than the life of a nonhuman animal at a similar level of rationality,
self-consciousness, awareness or capacity to feel.'' Thus, ``Killing a
disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very
often, it is not wrong at all.''
Think of that.
If such logic is allowed to go unchecked, the end result will be
legal and moral confusion as to the status of newborn infants that are
on the outskirts of viability or were marked for abortion prior to
their unintended birth.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I presided over
hearings during which the subcommittee received credible and disturbing
testimony that such confusion already exists. According to eyewitness
accounts, live-birth abortions are being performed on healthy infants
as late as the 23rd week of pregnancy, and beyond, that suffer from
nonfatal deformities resulting in live-born premature infants who are
simply allowed to die, sometimes without the provision of warmth or
nutrition.
Our subcommittee was told of a living infant who was found in a
soiled utility closet; another who was found naked on the edge of a
sink; and another infant who, horribly, was wrapped in a disposable
towel and thrown in the trash, only to be later found after falling out
of the towel and onto the floor.
One witness, Nurse Jill Stanek, told the subcommittee about a live-
birth abortion performed on a healthy infant at more than 23 weeks of
gestation, and stated, ``If the mother had wanted everything done for
her baby, there would have been a neonatologist, pediatric resident,
neonatal nurse, and respiratory therapist present for the delivery, and
the baby would have been taken to our neonatal intensive care unit for
specialized care. Instead, the only personnel present for this delivery
were an obstetrical resident and my coworker. After delivery, the baby,
who showed early signs of thriving, was merely wrapped in a blanket and
kept in the Labor and Delivery Department until she died 2\1/2\ hours
later.''
In my hometown of Cincinnati, a woman delivered a living 22-week-old
baby girl after going through with the first steps of an unsuccessful
partial birth abortion procedure. Reportedly, the attending emergency
room physician placed the live baby in a specimen dish and asked that
the baby be taken to the lab. The medical technician, Shelly Lowe,
refused after she saw the baby girl gasping for breath. Instead, she
held the baby, whom she named Hope, for 3 hours, singing to her and
stroking her cheeks, until she died. Ms. Lowe has said that she
``wanted her to feel that she was wanted; that she was a perfectly
formed newborn entering the world too soon through no choice of her
own.''
Had any of these newborns been assessed for their likelihood of long-
term survival, medical research suggests that there is a strong chance
that they would have survived. Infants born alive at 23 weeks currently
have almost a 40 percent chance of sustained survival; those born at 24
weeks, a greater than 50 percent chance of survival; and those born at
25 weeks now have an 80 percent chance of survival. With medical
technology rapidly improving, these survival rates will only improve.
The definition of ``born alive'' contained in H.R. 2175 was derived
from a model definition of ``live birth'' that was promulgated by the
World Health Organization in 1950 and is, with minor variations,
currently codified in 30 States and the District of Columbia.
Like those laws, H.R. 2175 would not mandate medical treatment where
none is currently indicated. While there is debate about whether or not
to aggressively treat prematurely born infants below a certain birth
weight, this is a dispute about medical efficiency, not regarding the
legal status of the patient.
H.R. 2175 would not affect the applicable standard of care, but would
only ensure that all born-alive infants, regardless of their age and
regardless of the circumstances of their birth, are treated as persons
for purposes of Federal law.
I urge all Members to support this bill of compassion that says that
all of America's children are precious and deserving of the most basic
dignities afforded human life.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just a few brief comments. The gentleman from Ohio
mentioned the hearings that were conducted on this bill and the
testimony of Nurse Jill Stanek. It is very interesting that two
hearings were held on this bill, two separate years, with the exact
same witnesses. The majority could not find more than one witness,
Nurse Stanek, to describe these allegedly horrible things that are
occurring.
The majority's witness, Dr. Bowes, said even in the situations
described by majority witness Nurse Jill Stanek, Dr. Bowes, the
majority witness stated, ``I don't think this legislation changes
medical care for those babies.''
The fact is, we cannot guarantee that in a country as large as this,
where the laws of all 50 States and the District of Columbia already
say what this bill would say, that we cannot guarantee no one violates
the law. We cannot guarantee it. Nonetheless, the majority has not been
able to point to one prosecution.
Now, it may be, assuming that what Nurse Stanek described actually
happened, most of her testimony was hearsay, but assuming it was true,
maybe the authorities in that county should have prosecuted.
But the fact is, the courts have been very clear, there is no such
thing as the right to a live-birth abortion. A baby born alive is a
human being under the terms of the law in all 50 States and the
District of Columbia. This bill
[[Page H795]]
merely restates that, so we have no problem with that.
But we should not get into the rhetoric, we should not get into the
overheated rhetoric of the few who wish to suggest that viable, healthy
infants are being allowed to die in our Nation's hospitals. It is
simply not true. If it is true, then people ought to be prosecuted for
murder, and the fault, if it is true, lies with the prosecuting
authorities wherever that may happen.
So I do not think there is a big problem here. The court decisions
that were cited all referred to babies or to fetuses really still in
utero. Once outside of the mother's body, they are babies, there is no
legal right to kill them. God forbid. It would be murder. This bill
does not change that. There is no harm in restating it, I think. I
think we have taken care of the concerns of the neonatologists about
the standard of care.
So I support the bill simply to put at rest the fevered apprehensions
about nonexistent threats. But let us not overstate those nonexistent
threats, and if they are existent, they ought to be prosecuted. If the
majority really knows of such cases, I hope they get on the cases of
whoever the district attorney is and say, why are you not doing
something about them, because it is already against the law, unless, of
course, the descriptions of those cases are not as stated. But if they
are as stated, the law already makes that murder. This bill retains
that as murder.
It is a harmless bill. It is a bill that does nothing, but is
harmless. And why not put people's fears at rest? So I still urge
people to support the bill. But we should not get carried away and
imagine that under the guise or name of ``abortions'' any of this
nonsense is going on, because if it is going on, it is murder under the
law today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I rise also in support of the Born-Alive
Infants Protection Act.
The law would require that babies born alive be treated as babies. It
seems simple. I agree with the gentleman that should be the way it is
today. But, unfortunately, our society has blurred this issue and some
have made it, one, an issue of the parents' interest, or in this case,
lack of interest in a newborn. Babies now born at 23 weeks generally
survive. Some born even earlier have survived.
Some critics of the legislation argue it is not necessary because
what was alleged by one of our witnesses and several others that we
have spoken with does not happen.
{time} 1430
It currently does happen. It clearly does happen. We would not be
dealing with this issue if it did not happen.
Ms. Stanek was just one of the individuals we spoke with through the
committee. She brought with her other people who had also witnessed
this type of action in a hospital, no less; a place where people go to
receive care. Unfortunately, babies involved in induced-labor abortions
were left to die, even though those children were born alive. It is
every instance that will be covered, however. A child born alive,
whether the labor is induced or not, should be treated as a child.
It seems like it should not be necessary for us to make this law.
However, it was stated earlier today that viable, healthy infants are
being permitted to die according to those of us who support this
legislation. If we remove those adjectives, viable and healthy, that
seems to except that infants who maybe are not healthy are being left
to die.
Is it okay for us to allow unhealthy or maybe even unviable infants
to be left to die on a cold shelf abandoned in some kind of cart in a
hospital? It is not. This society must stand up for those who are the
weakest. It is our responsibility as Members of the House to do so.
That is why we support the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, and I urge
all of my colleagues to support it as well.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 2175,
the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001.
Many individuals who support a woman's right to choose have argued
that this bill is harmless because it restates existing law. I oppose
this bill because it mischaracterizes current abortion rights law and
may create confusion among physicians who provide emergency care to
pregnant women. Concerns have been raised that H.R. 2175 would obligate
physicians to provide care beyond recognized standards, and that
failure to adhere would raise the issue of liability. More importantly,
I oppose this bill because it is yet another attempt to chip away at a
woman's right to choose.
Pro-life advocates have opposed and attempted to erode reproductive
rights in a number of ways: by imposing waiting periods, by denying
women information about their own health choices, by restricting or
removing funding for contraception and family planning efforts, and at
the most radical by terrorizing physicians and clinic workers. The
current Administration has signaled its intent to pursue this line of
advocacy.
In April 2001 the Bush Administration proposed to remove
contraceptive coverage for federal employees. Only a groundwell of
opposition restored this benefit, which the Office of Management and
Budget found added nothing to the cost of federal health benefits.
Again in 2002, the Bush Administration has proposed to end
contraceptive coverage for federal employees, even though ending such
coverage would violate Title VII, the federal law prohibiting sex
discrimination in the workplace. In addition, the Administration has
proposed cutting Title X funding family planning programs that provide
critical family planning and related health services to millions of
low-income families.
Make no mistake--advocating on behalf of women's health care and
reproductive rights entails stating the core issue of reproductive
rights: Who gets to decide? Who decides what a woman does with her own
body?
Access to birth control and abortion is part of the larger struggle
for access to health care for all women. In 1973 the Supreme Court
legalized abortion. Yet today, 20% of women who want to have an
abortion cannot obtain one. Lack of funding, restrictive legislation,
and campaigns of terror and harassment by the antiabortion movement
have severely eroded abortion rights.
While public attention has focused on restrictions of women's choices
through legislation and judicial decisions, abortion services have been
undermined in more basic ways. Through harassment and violence directed
at doctors and other health care providers, as well as medical schools
and hospitals, anti-choice forces have discouraged both the teaching
and provision of abortions. As a result, abortion services have been
eliminated in large parts of the country and a critical shortage of
abortion providers and services has developed. As with all other
attacks on access to abortion, these restrictions have the greatest
impact on low-income women, rural women, and women of color.
A number of solutions support reproductive rights:
Opposing hospital mergers with institutions that prohibit
reproductive health services;
Developing the role of non-physician clinicians as women's
healthcare providers, including nurses, midwives, nurse
practitioners, and physicians assistants in abortion;
Increasing abortion training for medical residents;
Increasing awareness of reproductive choice and abortion
access as a public health issue and encouraging research in
the field;
Creating innovative public education campaigns;
Publishing directories of reproductive health and abortion
providers in English, Spanish, and other languages where
women lack access to information and health services;
Creating coalitions of like-minded organizations which have
an interest in women's reproductive health and abortion, such
as: American Civil Liberties Union, NARAL, NOW, National
Lawyer's Guild, National Women's Law Center, and numerous
health care providers and unaffiliated activists.
In the 1986 case Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians &
Gynecologists, Justice Harry Blackmun stated ``Few decisions are more
personal and intimate, more properly private, or more basic to
individual dignity and autonomy, than a woman's decision whether to end
her pregnancy. A woman's right to make that choice freely is
fundamental.''
The terrorist events of 2001 focused our country on fundamental
values such as freedom, commitment, and tolerance. Bills such as the
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001 ultimately seek to curtail
the freedom of choice held dear by the majority of the American public.
We cannot afford to ignore challenges which seek to restrict the
freedom of women to control their reproductive capacity, their decision
to bear children, and the shape of their destiny.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, there are some things in life
that are beyond the realm of sanity. There are some things that are
just so heinous--so cruel--they surpass verbal description. The bill
before the
[[Page H796]]
House today addresses such an instance. We are considering a measure to
ban the killing of an infant after the baby has been delivered.
The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001 states that anytime the
word ``person,'' ``human being,'' ``child'' or ``individual'' is
written in law or regulations, it will include every infant member of
the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
Infanticide has no place in a civilized society. All children should
be welcomed into life. I commend the sponsors of this legislation for
bringing to light an injustice to innocent children and urge my
colleagues to once again pass this bill.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the Born-Alive Infants
Protection Act, I strongly support its passage. This bill would firmly
establish that, for purposes of federal law, an infant who is born
alive is, indeed, a person and is entitled to the protections of the
law. This concept has been a standing legal principle, spelled out in
many state statutes and recognized by some federal courts in
interpreting federal criminal laws. However, recent changes in the
legal and cultural landscape appear to have brought this well-settled
principle into question and have made it necessary for the Congress to
ensure that this principle becomes law.
A significant change in how the law defines a person occurred with
the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to strike down a Nebraska law banning
partial-birth abortion. Partial-birth abortion is a procedure in which
a doctor delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains
inside of the mother, punctures the back of the child's skull with
scissors and sucks the child's brains out before completing the
delivery. The Court's decision found that the location of an infant at
the time of death--delivered partly outside the body of the mother--is
of no legal significance. The Court's decision implies that a partially
born infant's entitlement to the protections of the law is dependent
upon whether or not the partially born child's mother wants him or her.
The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was also introduced partly to
respond to testimony that ``live-birth abortions'' are performed around
the country. A registered nurse from Illinois testified before Congress
that she witnessed pregnant mothers being prematurely induced and
delivering living premature infants that were then left to die without
any medical attention. The hospital where this occurred defended its
actions by saying that the newborns were intended for abortion. In
other instances, babies whose lungs are insufficiently developed to
permit sustained survival are often spontaneously delivered alive, and
may live for hours or days, while some are born alive following
deliveries induced for medical reasons.
The Born-Alive Infant Protection Act would ensure that any infant
born alive is treated with the dignity and respect of a human being and
given appropriate medical attention regardless of whether he or she is
completely extracted or expelled from her mother and breathes,
regardless of whether or not her lung development is believed to be, or
is in fact, sufficient to permit long-term survival. The infant will be
considered to be alive if she has a beating heart, a pulsation of the
umbilical cord, or definite movement of the voluntary muscles,
regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless
of whether the baby was born as a result of natural or induced labor,
Caesarean section, or induced abortion. I believe we must pass this
bill to protect the lives of the unborn and prematurely born.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Born-
Alive Infants Protection Act. In 2000 this legislation passed the House
overwhelmingly, by a vote of 380-15. I am hopeful that today my
colleagues will again vote to protect all infants who are born alive.
It saddens me that we have come to the point where we need federal
legislation to assert that an infant who is completely expelled or
extracted from her mother and who is alive is a person under the law. I
strongly believe that the unborn should have the same protection under
the law, but unfortunately not all of my colleagues agree. Many of you,
however, agree that a baby who is born alive is a person and should not
be killed or left to die.
Many states have approved the practice of ``live-birth abortions.''
Infants born alive as a result of an unsuccessful abortion are killed
or left to die, some babies are partially born only to be killed, and
in so-called ``therapeutic abortions'' physicians use drugs to induce
premature labor and deliver children still alive and then simply allow
them to die. According to nurses at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn,
Illinois, physicians have used the ``therapeutic abortion'' procedure
on infants with non-fatal deformities, such as spina bifida and Down
Syndrome. Many of these babies have lived for hours after birth, with
no efforts made to determine if any of them could have survived with
appropriate medical assistance. Those who swear to save lives are
instead leaving living, breathing, kicking, screaming babies to slowly
die on their own.
A registered nurse from Illinois testified before Congress that she
witnessed pregnant mothers being prematurely induced and delivering
living premature infants that were then left to die without any medical
attention. The hospital where this occurred defended its actions by
saying that the newborns were intended for abortion. There is no
defense for leaving innocent babies to die.
As a father of three beautiful children and a strong defender of
human life, I am embarrassed that we live in a country where babies are
abandoned and left to die. I urge you to vote in favor of this
important legislation so that all the beautiful children who come into
this world are treated as the human beings they are.
Mr. JEFF MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 2175. Every infant deserves to be fully entitled to all
protections of our laws, no matter the likelihood of long-term
survival. This legislation will ensure that the deplorable practice of
infanticide will never occur again in this country.
We have many serious issues to tackle here in Washington, few as
important as the right to life. I am pleased to see that this issue is
no longer on the backburner. It is reassuring that we in the House are
making strides toward legislation that will reduce abortion rates here
and abroad.
Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, countless victims have
paid the ultimate price. The landscape of American society changed with
the Roe vs. Wade decision, which has resulted in societal corruption
and a moral decline in our nation.
Life is a fundamental human right. We must preserve the sanctity of
this right and we must not rest until its place in the moral fabric of
our nation is restored. The unborn child has no voice and cannot
protect itself. It is our responsibility to ensure their voices are
heard and their right to life is protected.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2175 and take a stand
for what we know to be ethically decent.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor to the legislation
before us, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2175, the Born-Alive
Infants Protection Act.
While it has long been accepted as legal principle that infants born
alive are entitled to the protection of law, recent court decisions
have cut back this fundamental right. The purpose of this legislation
is to firmly establish under law that an infant who is completely
expelled or extracted from his or her mother and who is alive, is
considered a person for purposes of federal law. This recognition takes
effect upon birth, irrespective of whether the baby survived an
attempted abortion.
This legislation will make illegal ``live-birth'' abortions, a
practice so barbaric in nature and tragic in outcome that it is almost
inconceivable that they occur. Unfortunately, testimony received by the
Subcommittee on the Constitution indicates that in some jurisdictions,
once a child is marked for abortion, it may become irrelevant whether
that child emerges from the mother's womb as a live baby. In other
words, some live-born premature infants may be treated as a nonentity,
and allowed to die.
I thank my friend from Ohio, Congressman Chabot, for introducing this
vital piece of legislation, and I strongly urge all my colleagues to
cast an ``aye'' vote on final passage.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R.
2175, the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act and I am a proud cosponsor
of this bill.
This legislation is long overdue. For too long the youngest and most
vulnerable of children have not been protected. This bill corrects this
and brings protection to these children. It ensures that all children
who are born alive are to be considered a human being.
This bill would grant protection from being killed to all babies that
show signs of life such as a heartbeat, breathing or muscle movement
once they are outside the mother's womb.
I commend the Chairman for bringing this bill to the floor today, and
I urge all of my colleagues to support its passage. It is critical that
we value all human life and this bill moves us in that direction.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2175.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
[[Page H797]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________