Republican Congressional Leaders Vow Quick Action on Child Custody Protection Act

WASHINGTON (June 8) - - Republican congressional leaders have vowed to take quick action on the Child Custody Protection Act (CCPA) (S. 1645, HR 3682).

The bill would make it a federal crime to transport a minor across a state line for an abortion if this circumvents a state law requiring parental or judicial involvement in the abortion decision. The prime sponsors, Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-Mi.) and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl.), developed the legislation in consultation with NRLC and with Congressman Charles Canady (R-Fl.), the chairman of the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee.

NRLC's push for the bill has been joined by the Christian Coalition, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, and the Traditional Values Coalition, among others.

Leaders Vow Quick Push

At a May 13 press conference in the Capitol, the primary sponsors of the bill were joined by the top Republican leaders of the House and Senate, who said they would push for fast action on the legislation, and hoped to have it to President Clinton's desk this summer.

"This should be a bipartisan commitment to protecting children and to strengthening families," said House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). "Any school in America which performed a significant medical procedure on your child without your approval would promptly be subject to a lawsuit."

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Ms.) said, "It is simply intolerable that a young girl can be taken away from her home, out of the state, to have an abortion, without her parents even knowing about it. It is intolerable that an adult male who may have committed statutory rape of a minor can evade the parental consent laws of his state by taking his victim across the state line to have an abortion."

Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles (R-Ok.) and House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Tx.) were among the other senior Republicans present for the press conference.

Committees of the House and Senate held public hearings on the bill on May 20 and 21, and are expected to vote on the bill around mid-June. The full House, at least, could take up the measure before the end of June. The timetable for action by the Senate is not yet clear.

Lawmakers backing the bill are optimistic that it will enjoy majority support in both houses. As the Los Angeles Times noted, "Lawmakers are aware that, according to surveys by the Gallup Organization, voters give approval ratings of 70% and higher to measures aimed at restricting girls' access to abortions."

Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), told Legal Times, " This is part of an overarching policy to incrementally, systematically, and deliberately dismantle a woman's right to choose."

The Clinton Administration's Justice Department was originally expected to present testimony on the bill at a May 20 hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but then declined. So far, the Administration has taken no formal position on the legislation, although White House spokesman Barry Toiv said that the bill raised "all sorts of constitutional, enforcement, and policy issues."

Donna Shalala, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), was asked about the bill by a journalist on May 16. Shalala responded that she had not read it, but added, "I would make the President's position clear, and that is abortions are legal in the country, and women ought to continue to have access to those abortions, and we ought not to interfere with a woman's right to choose."

Compelling Testimony

At its May 20 hearing, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard compelling testimony regarding a 1995 case which inspired the bill.

Joyce Farley of Duschore, Pennsylvania, testified that her daughter, then age 12, became pregnant after sexual involvement with an 18-year-old man (who later plead guilty to two counts of statutory rape). Pennsylvania law requires parental consent (or judicial bypass) for an abortion to be performed on a minor. However, the man's mother, Rosa Hartford, took the pregnant girl for an abortion in New York, which has no parental involvement law.

"My daughter, who had just turned 13, underwent a dangerous medical procedure without anyone present who knew her past medical history. . . . Following the abortion, the mother of the rapist dropped off my physically and emotionally battered child in another town 30 miles away from our home. The plan was to keep the rape and abortion a secret. If I had not contacted the state police on the morning . . . when I found my child missing, she might not be alive today. Severe pain and bleeding revealed complications from an incomplete abortion. This required further medical care. . . . My child suffered terribly, but I am thankful that she is alive."

Subsequently, when Pennsylvania authorities prosecuted Hartford for interfering with the custody of a child, she was defended by attorneys for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, the major national pro-abortion litigating organization. They argued that the woman's actions were like those of "thousands of adults who each year aid young women in exercising their constitutional right to an abortion," and that such "aid" is protected by Roe v. Wade.

Hartford was convicted after a jury trial, but, according to Legal Times, "Hartford's conviction was reversed on a technicality involving jury instructions and is now on appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court." Hartford's son pleaded guilty to two counts of statutory rape.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Mike Fisher, whose office is defending Rosa Hartford's conviction, testified in favor of the bill. "Hopefully, the bill will deter people like Rosa Hartford from transporting young girls across state lines to avoid abortion control acts like Pennsylvania's," Fisher said. "This legislation will help us in law enforcement protect vulnerable children."

Also testifying in support of the bill was Eileen Roberts, founder of Mothers Against Minors' Abortions (MAMA), an organization that speaks for parents whose daughters received abortions without their involvement, often suffering serious physical or psychological consequences.

Roberts explained that her own 14-year-old daughter "was encouraged by her boyfriend, with the assistance of an adult friend, to obtain a secret abortion without my knowledge. This adult friend drove my daughter to the abortion clinic, 45 miles away from our home and even paid for my daughter's abortion. . . . Words cannot adequately communicate the Orwellian nightmare of discovering that your child had undergone an abortion, from a questionnaire we found under her pillow, which she failed to return to the abortion clinic."

The girl suffered complications from the abortion. "To add insult to injury, my husband and I were responsible for our daughter's medical costs, which amounted to over $27,000."

Bell Case Revisited

Testimony opposing the bill was presented by Bill and Karen Bell of Zionsville, Indiana.

Since at least 1990, Mr. and Mrs. Bell have often appeared in the media and at state legislative hearings, speaking in opposition to laws requiring parental consent or notification for abortion. Such a law was in effect in Indiana in 1988 when their own 17-year-old daughter, Becky Bell, became pregnant without their knowledge and subsequently died of an infection. The parents believe that Becky obtained an illegal abortion from an unknown person, causing the lethal infection. But substantial medical and circumstantial evidence suggests that Becky experienced a miscarriage rather than an induced abortion, before dying from a rampant pneumonia infection.

At the Senate hearing, two pro-abortion senators declared their opposition to the measure, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Il.) and Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Ca.). Feinstein argued that the bill would expose pregnant girls to dangerous illegal abortions and result in the jailing of "grandmothers" who assist their granddaughters.

House Hearing

On May 21, the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee also held a hearing on the bill. The subcommittee is chaired by Congressman Charles Canady (R-Fl.), who commented, "This bill gets tough on adults who are subverting the law in order to help minors obtain illegal abortions. It will help ensure that parents are involved in their child's life when it comes to the critical matter of abortion."

The House bill's prime sponsor, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, testified, "By passing the Child Custody Protection Act, we, the Congress, and the American people will take a clear stand against the twisted notion that the United States Constitution confers a 'right' upon strangers to parent our children."

Pro-life Congressman James Oberstar (D-Mn.) presented a powerful account of a married couple he knows who recently learned that their 14-year-old daughter was pregnant.

"While my friends were struggling with trying to find the right answer for their family, and their daughter was experiencing a whirlwind of conflicting emotions, their daughter's friends, some of whom were over 20 years old, were pressuring her to have an abortion," after which the girl disappeared, Rep. Oberstar related.

The girl was returned, 16 days later, "pale as a ghost, weak, distraught, and emotionally nearly destroyed," having been taken out of state for an abortion "using a false name, and probably false medical information. . . . This broken girl is now hospitalized for severe depression and faces a long and difficult recovery. . . . By luring my friends' daughter away from her family and taking her out of state to have an abortion, they have wrought untold destruction on a young girl, her parents, and her brother."

Among those opposing the bill was the Rev. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, a member of the Episcopal clergy from Massachusetts, who testified that she and the Episcopal Church opposed parental notification and consent requirements. Ragsdale said that she had assisted girls in obtaining abortions without parental involvement, and that she would do so even if it meant violating laws, because "I took vows."

Under the bill, violators would be subject to federal misdemeanor penalties of up to one year in prison and fines. In addition, the legislation allows parents whose rights are circumvented to file private lawsuits against violators.

For more information, see "Key Points on the Child Custody Protection Act" on page 12 of this edition. For a detailed factsheet on the issue, see "Why We Need the Child Custody Protection Act," available from the NRLC Federal Legislative Office or at the NRLC website at www.nrlc.org/abortion/ccpa/ccpafact.html.