Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 (Continued)

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

As a father of five, a grandfather of nine, and a proud great-grandfather, I regard life as a precious gift. During my tenure in the Congress—that is, since 1974—I have long supported policies that stand up for life and protect the unborn.

We made great strides in the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses on banning partial-birth abortions. It was unfortunate that President Clinton vetoed the ban. Not once, but twice.

Then, in 2000, the Supreme Court considered and struck down as unconstitutional the Nebraska State law making partial-birth abortion illegal. In Stenberg v. Carhart, the Court believed that the Nebraska law (1) did not contain an exception for the health of a mother, and (2) was too broad and could be construed to cover other types of procedures. The bill before us specifically addresses the Supreme Court's concerns.

I am disappointed and sickened that these abortion procedures are legal in the United States of America. I'm not alone.
According to a recent Gallup poll, 70 percent of Americans want a ban.

My constituents want a ban on partial-birth abortions:
A woman from Tabor, IA, wrote, "I'm horrified that under current law, thousands of partial-birth abortions are committed in America every year."

A man from Atlantic, IA wrote, "I believe that when women would see that they would be terminating a life then they would opt 'no' to abortion."

A woman from Nora Springs wrote, "Abortions are actually murder because even though the child may not be out of the womb, it's still developing into a person."

A woman from Waverly, IA, wrote, "Partial-birth abortions are never medically necessary."

A young man in the 6th grade from West Union, IA, wrote, "A child might die, and in the future that small child could grow up to create a cure for a disease, or be a fireman and save many lives. Just think, you could have been aborted."
It's time for us to stand up against such an extreme medical practice that stops the beating heart of an unborn child.
Most medical professionals would agree that this specific abortion procedure is outrageous. In fact, the American Medical Association supported a ban in 1999.

You will hear many on the other side argue about a woman's health and reproductive rights. As the bill states, the physician credited with developing the partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome. His testimony waters down their theory that this procedure is necessary in certain situations to preserve the mother's health.

If we know that the procedure can pose a threat to both a woman's immediate health and future reproductive capacity, why do you want to expose women to the risks?

Condoning partial-birth abortion is bad medicine, and bad policy.

When abortion advocates say that abortion is a matter just between a woman and her doctor, they are rejecting the rights of an innocent human being.

The unborn baby is alive from the moment of fertilization, the unborn baby has a heartbeat at 3 weeks and brain waves at 6 weeks, the unborn baby has 46 chromosomes in the cells of his or her body, the unborn baby is a living human being.

Dr. Seuss said it just right: A person is a person, no matter how small.

Let's pass this bill to protect the innocent and unborn.