Update on Status of Major
Pro-Life Legislation in Congress
From the Federal Legislative
Office
of the National Right to
Life Committee (NRLC)
WASHINGTON
(August 1, 2000) – Members of Congress have dispersed around the country for
their traditional summer recess, which runs through the entire month of August.
They will return to Washington in early September for a final frenzy of
pre-election work before adjourning in early October.
Throughout the
106th Congress – which began in January 1999 – pro-life forces have
had substantial success in the House of Representatives, but considerably less
in the Senate.
The House has
passed a number of major NRLC-backed pro-life bills, including the
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the
Child Custody Protection Act, the Pain Relief Promotion Act, and the Innocent
Child Protection Act, but only the Partial‑Birth Abortion Ban Act has
cleared the Senate.
Pro-life forces
have faced severe difficulties in moving major bills through the Senate, where
the Republicans currently hold a narrow 54-46 seat majority.
Senate Democrats
have collectively insisted on the right to use nearly every major bill that
reaches the Senate floor as a vehicle for amendments on unrelated, hot-button
political issues. Republicans have been reluctant to give them many such
opportunities, causing many bills -- including the pro-life bills -- to stall
without floor action.
This obstacle can be
overcome on measures for which 60 senators are willing to vote to "invoke
cloture" – a step that severely limits amendments and debate on a
measure. But so far none of the pro-life bills, other than the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act, have drawn enough support from Democratic senators to get over
that 60-vote hurdle.
The difficulties
faced by pro-life forces in the Senate are illustrated by the adoption, 51 to
47, of an amendment offered by Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) to endorse Roe v.
Wade, on October 21, 1999. The
amendment was supported by all but two of the Senate's 45 Democrats, along with
eight Republicans.
What follows is a
report on the status of some of the major pro-life issues that are pending in
Congress.
Appropriations
Measures
Congress has
much work yet to do on the appropriations bills for the fiscal year that will
begin on October 1. But so far, pro-life
forces have successfully repulsed every attempt to weaken or remove provisions,
carried over from earlier years, that prevent funding of abortion and abortion-related
services by various federal agencies.
On July 13, the
House voted 221-206 to extend restrictions on funding of groups that promote
abortion overseas. But the Clinton-Gore White House has expressed strong
opposition to this language, and it is likely to be the subject of discussions
between congressional leaders and the White House this fall.
Both houses
rejected attempts to repeal the current ban on performance of most abortions at
military bases overseas and in the territorial United States.
Pain
Relief Promotion Act
The Pain Relief
Promotion Act (H.R. 2260, S. 1272) is a bill to provide doctors with the ability
to aggressively treat their patients' pain, while prohibiting the use of
federally controlled drugs for physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia.
It is sponsored by Congressman Henry Hyde (R-Il.) and Senator Don Nickles
(R-Ok.).
H.R. 2260 passed
the House on October 27, 1999, 271-156. The
bill was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 27.
Senator Ron Wyden (D-Or.) has so far blocked Senate floor action on the
bill by threatening a filibuster, which would require 60 votes to surmount.
There is still a possibility of floor action on the bill in September.
Republican
presidential candidate George W. Bush has endorsed the bill.
Vice-President
Gore spoke negatively about the bill in a recent interview with MSNBC's Howard
Fineman. While Gore said he has
"personal opposition" to physician-assisted suicide, he also stated
that some situations "ought to be left to the family in consultation with
the physician."
Partial-Birth Abortion
Ban Act
The House and
Senate have passed somewhat different versions of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act (S. 1692), sponsored by Congressman Charles Canady (R-Fl.) and Senator Rick
Santorum (R-Pa.). This bill would
place a national ban on partial-birth abortions.
President Clinton
successfully vetoed similar bills in 1996 and 1998.
When the Senate approved S. 1692 last October, it was by a margin two
votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.
The congressional
bills are similar to a Nebraska law that was struck down by a five-justice
majority of the U.S. Supreme Court on June 28 in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart.
After carefully examining that ruling, the leading sponsors of the bill
decided that it would be more productive to focus on other pro-life bills for
the remainder of this congressional session -- especially, the Born-Alive
Infants Protection Act (see below).
"We need a
change at the White House before we can make any real progress on the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act," commented Congressman Canady.
For more
information on this issue, see the NRLC website at www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/index.html.
Born-Alive Infants
Protection Act
The Born-Alive
Infants Protection Act (H.R. 4292), sponsored by Congressman Charles Canady (R-Fl.),
would ensure that all infants who are born alive at any stage of development,
including those who survive attempted abortions, are regarded as legal
"persons" in all federal laws.
The bill was the
subject of a hearing before the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee on
July 20, and was approved by the full House Judiciary Committee on July 26 on a
vote of 22-1. The full House may
consider the bill in September. Prospects
for Senate action during the few remaining weeks of the Congress are uncertain.
For more
information on this bill, see the material at the NRLC website at www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/index.html.
Innocent Child Protection
Act
The Innocent
Child Protection Act (H.R. 4888) would prohibit governmental authority, state or
federal, from carrying out a death sentence on a woman ""who carries a
child in utero." The bill
defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo
sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
The bill,
sponsored by Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl.), was introduced on July
19. The House Republican leadership
used a fast-track procedure to bring the bill to the House floor on July 25, and
it passed 417-0. The measure is now
awaiting action in the Senate.
For more
information on this issue, see the material at the NRLC website at
www.nrlc.org/Federal/ICPA/Index.html.
Unborn Victims of Violence
Act
The Unborn
Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 2436, S. 1673) is a bill to recognize an unborn
child as a victim when she is injured or killed during commission of a violent
federal crime. It is sponsored by
Congressman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Senator Mike DeWine (R-Ohio).
H.R. 2436 passed
the House on September 30, 1999, 254-172. The
House rejected an alternative measure backed by pro-abortion groups, which would
have increased penalties for crimes that involve "interruption" of a
pregnancy, but would have recognized only one victim in such crimes.
On February 23,
the Senate Judiciary Committee conducted a public hearing on the Senate version
of the bill. However, no Democrat on the committee has yet endorsed the
bill, and prospects for enactment this year are dim.
For further
information on this issue, see www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/index.html.
Child Custody Protection Act
The Child
Custody Protection Act (H.R. 1218, S. 661) would prohibit transportation of a
minor across state lines for an abortion, if this circumvents a state parental
notification or parental consent law. The
chief sponsor of the House version of the bill is Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl.).
Senator Spencer Abraham (R-Mi.) is the chief sponsor of the bill in the
Senate.
H.R. 1218 passed
the House on June 30, 1999, 270-159. The
bill has not come up in the Senate because the Senate Democratic leadership has
insisted on being allowed to use it as a vehicle for amendments on unrelated
issues. Pro-life forces have been unable to gather the 60 votes that
would be needed to overcome this obstacle.
For further
information on this bill, see www.nrlc.org/Federal/CCPA/Index.html.
Killing Embryos
Earlier this
year the Clinton-Gore Administration announced plans to begin federal funding of
experiments that require the killing of human embryos.
The embryos will be obtained from "infertility clinics" and
will be killed by dissection in order to obtain their "stem cells,"
which are desired for use in various medical experiments.
However, the Administration has not yet taken the final steps to begin
actually funding such research.
NRLC and other
pro-life groups believe the Administration's announced plan, once implemented,
will violate a current federal law, the Dickey Amendment, which prohibits
federal funding of "research in which" embryos are harmed.
Congress is expected to approve a one-year extension of the Dickey
Amendment as part of health and human services appropriations legislation that
must be enacted before adjournment.
Pro-abortion
Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who strongly supports embryonic stem-cell
research, has introduced a bill (S. 2015) that would explicitly authorize
federal funding of embryo-killing experiments.
Specter has been promised an opportunity to debate that bill in
September. Pro-life senators, led
by Sam Brownback (R-Ks.), are expected to use procedural methods that will block
action on the bill unless Specter can muster 60 votes to "invoke
cloture." Even if Specter
succeeds in overcoming that hurdle, it is unlikely that the House will act on
the measure.
For further
information on this issue, see www.nrlc.org/Killing_Embryos/Index.html.
Free Speech About
Politicians
The Shays-Meehan
bill (H.R. 417), a so-called "campaign reform" bill that would
severely restrict free speech about officeholders and officeseekers, passed the
House in September 1999, but was blocked in the Senate in October by a
filibuster led by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), as was another speech-restrictive
"campaign reform" bill sponsored by Senators John McCain (R-Az.) and
Russ Feingold (D-Wi.).
On June 22, the
House Ways and Means Committee approved a bill (H.R. 4717), sponsored by Rep.
Amo Houghton (R-NY), that would have placed burdensome regulations on advocacy
groups such as NRLC and NRLC affiliates. Strong
objections to the bill were lodged by groups as diverse as NRLC, the Christian
Coalition, and the National Education Association, and it was never brought to a
vote. Instead, both houses passed a
much narrower bill (H.R. 4762) to place new regulations on certain groups that
are covered by Section 527 of the IRS code.
In September,
Senators McCain and Feingold may make another attempt to win approval of
legislation to put new restrictions on advocacy groups, but no such measure is
likely to be enacted this year. NRLC
will continue to oppose any legislation that would interfere with the rights of
advocacy groups to communicate with the public regarding the positions of those
who hold or seek federal office.
For further
information on this issue, see www.nrlc.org/Federal/Free_Speech/index.html.