HOYER-GREENWOOD BILL RESTRICTING LATE-TERM ABORTIONS -- HON. STENY H. HOYER (Extensions of Remarks - June 10, 1999)

[Page: E1220]
---

HON. STENY H. HOYER OF MARYLAND IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1999

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, abortion is one of the most difficult and divisive issues facing the public today. Like most Americans, I would prefer that there were no abortions. Also, like most Americans, I believe the decision is one that is for the woman and family involved, not the Government.

However, I oppose late-term abortions, except for the most serious and compelling of reasons. I am specifically and adamantly opposed to what some refer to as ``abortion-on-demand''--after the time of viability. For that reason, I and others have introduced the ``Late Term Abortion Restriction Act of 1999.''

The specific intent of this legislation is to adopt as Federal policy, a prohibition on post-viability, late-term abortions. Critics of this legislation point out that there are exceptions. They are correct. We believe that in the event that the mother's life is in danger or where the continuation of the pregnancy will pose a threat of serious, adverse health consequences to the woman, then and only then can this prohibition on late-term abortions be overcome.

I introduced this legislation in both the 104th and the 105th Congress. I did so then because I am opposed to abortions being performed after the viability of a fetus, except for the most serious of health risks if the pregnancy is continued.

This prohibition is similar to restrictions on late-term abortions in 41 of our States, including my own State of Maryland. Those States believed that it was appropriate policy to prohibit late-term abortions ``on demand.'' We share that view.

Those who oppose abortion under almost all circumstances at any time during the course of pregnancy have criticized this legislation as meaningless. They do so because they believe that some doctors will contrive reasons to justify a late-term abortion. I do not doubt that may happen. But if it does, it will be illegal under this act and subject the doctor to the penalties set forth in the bill and to such professional sanctions as are imposed by the appropriate medical societies and regulatory bodies.

This legislation is much broader than the partial-birth abortion bills introduced by others in the 104th and 105th Congress. Those bills and the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 1999 recently introduced in the Senate had and continue to have at their purpose, the elimination of a particular procedure to effect an abortion at any time during the course of the pregnancy.

To that extent it is inaccurate and misleading to define it as many proponents and press reports have, as a prohibition on late-term abortions. It is both much narrower and, at the same time, broader than that. It is my belief that its terms would not prohibit the performance of a single abortion. They would simply be performed by a different procedure.

Congressman JIM GREENWOOD and I are introducing this legislation today with 14 other bipartisan original cosponsors. This bill, in contrast to the partial birth abortion bills, would prohibit all late-term post-viability abortions by whatever method or procedure that would be employed. While there are exceptions to this general prohibition, we believe that our bill will, in fact, prohibit all post-viability, late-term abortions that are not the result of a serious cause.

This legislation establishes a clear Federal policy against late-term abortions. We would hope that the Judiciary Committee would hold an early hearing on this legislation and bring it to the floor so that the Federal Government could adopt this sensible prohibition, which is similar to that adopted by over 80 percent of the States. They did so because their legislatures wanted to make it clear that late-term abortions were, in almost all circumstances, against public policy and against the law.