Rep. Christopher H. Smith, R-N.J.
Chairman, Bipartisan Congressional Pro-life Caucus
Written for The CQ Researcher, March 2003

A society is measured by how well — or poorly — it treats the most vulnerable in its midst, and partial-birth abortion, like all abortions, is horrific violence against women and children.

Justice Clarence Thomas accurately described the procedure in his Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) dissent: “After dilating the cervix, the physician will grab the fetus by its feet and pull the fetal body out of the uterus into the vaginal cavity. At this stage of development, the head is the largest part of the body. . . . the head will be held inside the uterus by the woman's cervix. While the fetus is stuck in this position, dangling partly out of the woman's body, and just a few inches from a completed birth, the physician uses an instrument such as a pair of scissors to tear or perforate the skull. The physician will then either crush the skull or will use a vacuum to remove the brain and other intracranial contents from the fetal skull, collapse the fetus' head, and pull the fetus from the uterus.”

Most partial-birth abortions are committed between the 20th and 26th week of pregnancy. At this stage, a prematurely delivered infant is usually born alive. These are babies who are extremely sensitive to pain — whether inside the womb, fully born or anywhere in-between.

An overwhelming majority of Americans are outraged that this procedure is legal in our country. A January Gallup Poll found that 70 percent favored and 25 percent opposed “a law that would make it illegal to perform a specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of pregnancy known as 'partial birth abortion,' except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother.”

In a January speech, President Bush agreed: “Partial-birth abortion is an abhorrent procedure that offends human dignity.”

I have written two torture-victims relief laws and many other pieces of human-rights legislation including a law to stop exploitation of women by sex traffickers. Partial-birth abortion is torture of baby girls and boys, and I am ashamed of my colleagues who stand on the House floor to defend it.

Abortion methods are violence against children. There is absolutely nothing compassionate or benign about dousing a baby with superconcentrated salt solutions or lethal injections or hacking them to pieces with surgical knives, and there is absolutely nothing compassionate or caring about sucking a baby's brains out.

Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y.
Co-Chair, Pro-Choice Caucus
Written for The CQ Researcher, March 2003

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. . . .” Before taking office, Members of Congress pledge these words to uphold the Constitution. Yet, again this year, anti-choice legislators introduce legislation that disregards the Constitution and the precious rights it guarantees.

The right to privacy as recognized in Roe v. Wade and reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey is a fundamental American value. Opponents of a woman's right to choose have failed in their efforts to eliminate this constitutionally protected right, so they have changed tactics. Their strategy now is to whittle away at a woman's right to choose until all that remains are hollow guarantees in a faded court opinion.

The legislative centerpiece of this strategy is misleadingly titled Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Three years after the Supreme Court addressed this issue in the landmark Stenberg v. Carhart decision overturning Nebraska's prohibition of so-called “partial-birth” abortions, opponents of reproductive freedom want to force through Congress legislation that contains the same serious constitutional flaws as the Nebraska ban.

The court ruled that the Nebraska law was unconstitutional because it did not provide an exception to protect a woman's health. Further, it ruled that the law was an undue burden on women's rights to privacy, because the vague description of partial-birth abortions covered multiple procedures, including the most common form of second trimester abortion.

The legislation's authors could have drafted a bill that complies with constitutional standards, yet they have not done so. This bill does NOT include an exception for the health of the woman, and it does NOT prohibit a specific abortion procedure.

Congress should not invade the doctor-patient relationship. These intensely personal choices must be made by women, their doctors and their families — not by politicians. We should praise doctors who care for women faced with this difficult decision, not make them federal criminals. This legislation is an attack on the power of the Supreme Court, the Constitution and women's health and dignity.

Forcing members of Congress year after year to consider a bill that is clearly unconstitutional is a waste of taxpayers' money. Instead of continually reintroducing unconstitutional legislation, proponents of this measure should put their energies and resources into promoting women's health by improving access to contraception and supporting comprehensive family-planning programs.