|
Mr. Speaker, as we consider H.R. 4965, the Late Term Abortion Ban Act, I would like to clarify what this debate is really about. We are not debating so-called ``partial-birth'' abortion. We are not debating late-term abortion. We are debating a broad and unconstitutional attack on a woman's fundamental right to protect her life and health, our right to make our own decisions--our right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled not simply that women have the right to an abortion, but that we have the right to the safest abortion procedure available. States and Congress cannot place an undue burden on a women's right to choose, and cannot endanger the life or health of a woman seeking an abortion. This bill fails on both counts. Its overbroad definition of ``late term'' abortion could include some of the most commonly used medical procedures for abortion in the second trimester--making it difficult for a woman to get an abortion. Its denial of an exception to preserve the health of a woman is dangerous. Ample evidence exists that the procedures described by my colleagues may be the safest for women with certain health conditions. If the sponsors of this bill wanted to ban one medical procedure, why didn't they use medical terms to describe it? If they wanted to ban post-viability abortions, why didn't they include a time limit in their bill? I can only conclude that this bill is intended--just as the Nebraska law struck down by the Supreme Court was--to ban some of the most common abortion procedures used, even before a fetus is viable. This bill is unconstitutional and it is harmful to women's health. Let's keep medical decisions where they belong--in the doctor's office, not the House floor. Vote no on H.R. 4965. Home | Lobby | Congresswoman Harman's Office | Press | Issues | Casework | District Office | Library | Webmaster | Privacy Policy | Contact
|
