U.S. House to Vote Soon on Child Custody Protection Act

WASHINGTON (June 10) ­ The House of Representatives is expected to vote on the Child Custody Protection Act (CCPA) before the end of June.

At NRL News deadline, the bill was tentatively scheduled for House floor action the week of June 21. (Please see the Action Alert on the back cover of this issue.)

The NRLC-backed bill would make it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion, if this abridges the right of her parents to be involved in the minor's abortion decision under the laws of her home state. Offenders would be subject to both criminal penalties and private lawsuits by parents whose rights are abridged by such activity.

This will be the second attempt to enact the CCPA. The House approved the legislation in July, 1998, but it died in an end-of-the-Congress political crossfire in the Senate. (See NRLC congressional scorecard for 1997-98, House votes no. 6-7 and Senate vote no. 5.)

This year, the bill has been reintroduced by Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl.) and Senator Spencer Abraham (R-Mi.), under bill numbers HR 1218 and S. 661, respectively.

Twenty-four states, including Texas and Florida which recently passed parental notification laws have laws requiring involvement by a parent (or a court) in a minor's abortion decision, of the type that would be covered by the CCPA. However, the bill would not create parental involvement rights in states that have not enacted such laws.

The CCPA is strongly opposed by the Clinton-Gore Administration, which has demanded drastic changes to the bill, including recognition of a right of family members - such as a parent's mother-in-law or a pregnant girl's sister - to transport the girl across state lines without parental knowledge.

On May 27, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution held a public hearing on the bill­ the first step in a renewed effort to send the bill to President Clinton's desk this year.

The subcommittee and the full Judiciary Committee are expected to vote on the bill around mid-June, with floor action before the end of the month.

Constitution Subcommittee Chair-man Charles Canady (R-Fl.), a cosponsor of the legislation, explained the need for the bill: "In light of the widespread practice of circumventing state parental involvement laws by transporting minors across state lines, it is entirely appropriate for Congress, with its exclusive constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, to enact the Child Custody Protection Act. The safety of young girls and the rights of parents demand no less."

Speaking on behalf of Mothers Against Minors' Abortions, (MAMA), Eileen Roberts of Fredericksburg, Virginia, testified regarding the suffering that resulted from her own daughter's secret abortion.

Roberts's daughter was just 14 years old when she was taken by an adult friend 45 miles from home for an abortion, without her mother's knowledge. The adult friend paid for the abortion.

When her daughter subsequently became depressed, Roberts searched for a cause and learned that her daughter had undergone an abortion. Due to her depression, her young daughter was hospitalized, at which time it was learned that the abortion was incomplete and surgery was required. Subsequent treatment for pelvic inflammatory disease was also necessary. The Robertses' costs for their daughter's medical care came to over $27,000.

"I am horrified that our daughters are being dumped on our driveways after they are seized from our care, made to skip school, lie, and deceive their parents to be transported across state lines, whether it be two miles or 100 miles away," Roberts said. "Where are these strangers when the emotional and physical repercussions occur?"

Saying that she was speaking for "those parents . . . around the country, [whose] daughters have been taken out of state for their abortions," Roberts emphasized that "[m]any times these attempts to evade parental notification and consent laws are also attempts to conceal criminal activity, such as statutory rape."

Dr. Jonathan Klein testified against the bill on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

"The American Academy of Pediatrics, and other medical and public health groups, firmly believe that young people must have access to confidential health care services ­ including reproductive health care and abortion services," Klein said. "While parental involvement is very desirable, it may not always be feasible and it should not be legislated."

Also testifying in opposition was Billie Lominick of Newbury, South Carolina, dubbed "Grandma Billie" by opponents of the bill. Lominick testified that she had helped her grandson's 16-year-old girlfriend to neighboring Georgia to get an abortion, without the parental involvement or judicial authorization required under South Carolina law.

The girl "had no complications from the abortion, and feels better now than she has ever felt in her whole life," Lominick said.

At the hearing, various pro-abortion groups distributed statements opposing the bill.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America's president, Gloria Feldt, said, "Those who oppose abortion are using parents' hopes and fears for their children to legislate their narrow view of family communications and their restrictive definition of what constitutes the American family."

Vicki Saporta, executive director of the National Abortion Federation, said, "Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in this country. If the Teen Endanger-ment Act [sic] becomes law, teens who will not involve their parents will endanger their lives and health by seeking out back alley abortions, self-inducing, or hitchhiking across state lines."

Statements opposing the bill were also issued by the American Civil Liberties Union and by the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, both claiming that the bill is unconstitutional. But Prof. John Harrison of the University of Virginia Law School and Prof. Lino Graglia of the University of Texas School of Law testified that the bill conforms to U.S. Supreme Court doctrine.

The bill "furthers the principle of federalism to the extent that it reinforces or makes effective the very small amount of policymaking authority on the abortion issue that the Supreme Court, an arm of the national government, has permitted to remain with the states," Graglia testified.

"We expect that the Clinton-Gore Administration and the pro-abortion lobby will pull out all the stops to try to kill this bill in the Senate," commented NRLC Legis-lative Director Douglas Johnson. "We need as lopsided a margin as possible in the House, so that the bill is sent to the Senate with some momentum."

Resources

A short NRLC factsheet, "Key Points on the Child Custody Protection Act," appears on this page, and is also available at the NRLC website at www.nrlc.org/Federal/CCPA/ key_point_CCPA.htm.

A long resource paper on the bill, "Why We Need the Child Custody Protection Act" (updated April 1999) is available at www.nrlc.org/Federal/CCPA/why_we_need_CCPA.htm.

There is strong support among the American people for the concept of the bill. A national poll of 1,000 registered voters, conducted June 6-8, 1998, by the polling firm of Baselice & Associates, asked, "Should a person be able to take a minor girl across state lines to obtain an abortion without her parents' knowledge?" 78% strongly disagreed and another 7% somewhat disagreed, for a total of 85%, while only 3% somewhat agreed and 6% strongly agreed that such an action should be allowed.