Child Custody Protection Act--Continued
CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT--Continued -- (Senate - July 25, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is a difficult issue for most Americans, the issue of abortion. There are strongly held feelings on both sides and the American people are conflicted. When you probe and ask them what they think about abortion, first, they would rather not talk about it. I think that is a natural human reaction because we know it is a delicate and difficult issue. Secondly, they basically say: Well, I don't want to criminalize someone who goes out for an abortion, but is there any way to reduce the number of abortions in this country? I think that is a natural reaction by most, that we should keep abortion legal, not a crime, but reduce the incidents of abortion in our country.
So we have a bill before us today which deals with one aspect; and the aspect is, what do we do about the fact that some States have laws that require parental consent before a person who has not reached adulthood would have an abortion performed and some States do not have those laws? What if you move from one State to the other? What law will apply?
Senator Ensign of Nevada brings us his bill and suggests that if you knowingly remove a person across one border where parental consent is required to another State where it is not required, the person who took that minor to that abortion clinic in the State without parental consent is going to be liable not just for a civil lawsuit that can be filed against them by the parents but also for a crime.
Their idea is to reduce the likelihood that young people will be taken across a State line to a State without parental consent by imposing new civil penalties and criminal penalties on those who would transport them.
Senator Boxer of California has come before us and pointed out some real problems with this bill. What about the situation where the young girl we are talking about has been a victim of incest? Would the father then have the right to bring a lawsuit against someone who took the daughter he abused across the State line? Nobody wants to talk about this issue. This is not the kind of thing you wake up in the morning and say: I hope the debate today will be about abortion and incest. But that is what we face. We are talking about writing the laws of the land in a way that is sensible. You say: That has to be a rare situation. Yes, it is. I am sure it is. But for that life and that person and that crime, it could be the most important and tragic event that ever happened in their lives. That is why we have to take this very seriously. We have to write these amendments very carefully.
The thing that troubles me about this debate is evidenced in the vote we just took. Senators Lautenberg and Menendez came to the floor and said: If we are truly going to reduce the number of abortions, then we have to deal with the reality of family planning and sex education, other issues that politicians don't jump forward to speak about. They suggested we start creating programs that have been proven to be effective, that will help educate young people so they will avoid unwanted pregnancies and avoid the diseases and problems that may result therefrom.
What happened on this vote? What happened on a vote where we were talking about sex education as part of our approach? It was defeated. The approach which is dominant now is not to deal with the reality of young people and their knowledge of what they face if they make the wrong decision but, rather, punishment, to suggest to them that what they have done is not only morally wrong but could be criminal.
My wife and I have raised three children, two daughters. I know that to be a parent is to be countercultural. So many times we would say: We don't want you to go to that movie or look at that book; you can't watch this television show. Parents do that all the time in the hopes that you instill in your kids values they can live by and that they will make the right decisions. I never felt at any point that ignorance was a virtue. I felt with our kids, as many parents do, you have to be honest with them about the realities of life and what they will face.
The question of abstinence comes up on the floor. It is brought up by many. That is the first thing we told our kids: Stay away from sexual activity. This is something you shouldn't do. That is the best advice from a parent to a child. But beyond that, what more should you tell them? Senator Lautenberg suggests you should tell them more in certain circumstances, and it was rejected 48 to 51.
You might ask why we are debating this issue this day. I think it is important for us to reflect on why this happens to come to the Senate floor today. This issue is before the Senate today for two or three reasons. One reason is many Republican Senators who traditionally vote against abortion voted for stem cell research last week. This is a make-good vote. This is so some of them can remind their antiabortion constituencies they are still in their corner. I understand that.
Secondly, it is a way to kill time in the Senate rather than address the real issues the American people care about. This debate over this issue is taking time away from any debate on gasoline prices, on health insurance, on jobs.
Third, of course, it fires up a political base on the Republican side for the upcoming election.
A Gallup poll asked 1,000 Americans this open-ended question: What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today? They asked 1,000 Americans a few months ago. The top vote getters: The war in Iraq, gasoline prices, immigration, health care, and the economy. Where did the issue of abortion show up on this list? It tied for No. 33. Less than one half of 1 percent of people said abortion was the most important problem facing America today. But it is the most important issue in the mind of the Republican leadership that we should be debating on the floor of the Senate.
I hope we are able to work out an amendment to deal with the reality of the issue of incest, which is part of the debate, sadly. Perhaps the most egregious part of this bill is the fact that there is no exception for the case of incest. It empowers the parent who may be guilty of the crime to file a lawsuit and recover money because someone else took the victim across a State line. That is hardly where we want to go. Many incest victims are understandably frightened and don't want to tell their parents anything for obvious reasons.
Listen to the words of Sharon from New Hampshire, raped by her father at the age of 17:
Imagine being 17, pregnant after being raped by your father, alone, isolated, afraid to tell anyone for fear your parents would find out and that, if they did, you would be further humiliated, harassed and abused. ..... I felt and feared these things.
Consider the case of Spring Adams, a 13-year-old girl from Idaho, raped by her father and impregnated. A private organization learned about the girl, made arrangements to take her to the nearest abortion clinic 6 hours away to have an abortion. The night before Spring was to leave, her father discovered it. When Spring went to sleep that night, her father went into her room and shot her to death with a rifle.
These aren't isolated incidents. One study showed that 30 percent of the minors who had an abortion without telling their parents had previously experienced violence or threats of violence in their family. That is the real world. We should deal with the real world when we write these laws.
I think Senator Ensign understands changes have to be made to this bill. I hope we will make them. Let us all agree on this: We need to find ways to reduce the incidence of abortion. We need to find ways that are sensible and sensitive. Merely telling people you can't do it, you shouldn't do it, may not be enough. Education may be part of it as well. It is unfortunate the Senate has rejected the Lautenberg amendment which would have moved us closer to the point where that would have been available in some areas where good family planning information would have been available. It was rejected by the Senate.
Now we come before the Senate with this bill that is subject to amendment. We are hoping we can find a reasonable compromise on a very difficult and divisive issue.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
Mrs. BOXER. I want to go back to the Lautenberg-Menendez amendment. It is extraordinary to me; when we try to talk about common ground on the issue of pregnancy prevention, doesn't my colleague believe one area we ought to all come together on, regardless of whether we call ourselves pro-choice or anti-choice, would be preventing pregnancies among teens?
Mr. DURBIN. That ought to be the starting point. Shouldn't we all agree on that? If we are going to reduce the incidence of abortion, one of the things we should do is make sure young people are aware of consequences. We should stress abstinence. The Lautenberg amendment put that as the highest priority. But then have family planning information available so young people know that there are ways to protect themselves. I think that was a reasonable starting point. We had a few from the other side of the aisle join us with that amendment but clearly not enough.
Mrs. BOXER. If my friend will further yield, is my friend aware there are 800,000 pregnancies among young women and that we could prevent these unwanted pregnancies and all of the attendant upset among families and that we had an opportunity to do that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds and for Senator Santorum to have an additional 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Here we had a chance to do something to prevent these unintended pregnancies. This bill focuses on a small number of cases. It seems to me by two votes we lost that vote. It is an issue, wouldn't my friend say?
Mr. DURBIN. I would say we have to find very common ground on a divisive issue. That was a good starting point. Unfortunately, it did not prevail today. We will go on with this debate, but I hope those of us who look at this issue and worry over how to reduce the number of abortions can work to find some common bipartisan ground to help strengthen families and educate their children about the consequences of their actions, to promote abstinence but not to promote ignorance.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SANTORUM. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. The bill creates a civil cause of action the parents can bring. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania believe that in one of those rare, tragic cases of incest and the father is the reason for the incest, he should be allowed to bring a civil cause of action against the person who has transported the victim?
Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator from Nevada has an amendment which is going to take care of that situation. I will defer to him, if he would like to answer that question on how the amendment would work to preclude that problem.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, on behalf of myself and other Senators, I will object to the appointment of conferees at this point. This is an issue which has been debated for a short time here on the floor and never went through the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration. It is our belief that at this point in the session asking for a conference committee is premature.
http://thomas.loc.gov/