House Passes Child Custody Protection Act

House Passes Child Custody Protection Act

By NRLC Federal Legislative Office

WASHINGTON (July 5) By a lopsided, bipartisan margin of 270-159, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the NRLC-backed Child Custody Protection Act on June 30.

The bill (H.R. 1218) would make it a federal offense to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion, if this circumvents the right of her parents to be involved under the law of their home state. Twenty-five (25) states have laws that require the notification or consent of a parent (or judicial authorization) prior to an abortion.

Under the bill, transporting a minor across a state line for an abortion, without fulfilling the requirements of any home-state law requiring notification or consent of a parent, would be a federal misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $100,000.

In addition, the bill authorizes parents to file private federal lawsuits against those who violate their rights.

The bill is sponsored by Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl.) and Senator Spencer Abraham (R-Mi.).

The bill received the votes of 206 Republicans and 64 Democrats. It was opposed by 14 Republicans, 144 Democrats, and one independent. (See roll call No. 4 on the chart that appears on page 30 of this issue.)

The measure now goes to the Senate, where it will face intense opposition by pro-abortion senators. If the bill clears the Senate, it faces a veto threat from the Clinton-Gore White House. The majority by which the bill passed the House, while substantial, was 16 votes short of the two-thirds majority required to override a veto.

"The Clinton-Gore Administration has threatened a veto unless the bill is radically changed to allow various non-parents to transport a minor girl out-of-state for a secret abortion - including any parent's in-law, or any sibling of a pregnant girl," said NRLC Policy Analyst Susan Muskett. "Fortunately, the House refused to undermine parental rights in that fashion. After all, if the minor girl is injured by the abortion, it is the parents who must authorize and pay for necessary medical treatment-not a brother, sister, or in-law."

However, pro-abortion groups have argued that adults have a right, under Roe v. Wade, to transport minors across state lines to receive abortions without a parent's knowledge or consent. For example, Kathryn Kolbert, while representing the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy in New York, said that adults engage in such activity "thousands" of times, and asked, "How does a 14-year-old get to New Hampshire from Boston without getting a ride?" (Associated Press, Sept. 16, 1995.)

Supporters' Arguments

At a press conference held by Ros-Lehtinen the day before the House debate, the CCPA was strongly endorsed by representatives of a number of pro-life and pro-family organizations. NRLC's Muskett gave a statement at the event, focusing on the opposition to the bill by the Clinton-Gore White House. (See text of statement below.)

The other groups that participated in the event were the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Feminists for Life, the Susan B. Anthony List, Traditional Values Coalition, and Concerned Women for America.

On the House floor on June 30, the fight for the bill was led by chief sponsor Ros-Lehtinen and by Rep. Charles Canady (R-Fl.), the chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, which reported out the bill.

Ros-Lehtinen and other bill supporters pointed out that abortion clinics located in states that lack parental involvement laws sometimes publish advertisements aimed at minors in adjacent states that enforce parental involvement requirements. They displayed enlarged copies of several such ads, published in Yellow Pages in parental-involvement states, touting "no parental consent" as a selling point.

"These ads lure young girls to directly disobey the law (of their home states)," Ros-Lehtinen said. "They entice vulnerable children with dangerous slogans such as 'No Parental Consent Needed.'"

Pro-life Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) said that one large abortion clinic in Illino has purchased ads on certain Missouri radio stations that mention that no parental consent is required for Missouri minors who travel to the Illinois clinic for their abortions.

"This is a predatory market, it targets vulnerable young girls, and really there is too much pressure from boyfriends and the like to just simply go have an abortion," Emerson said.

"It is most often an older male who preys on a young girl, impregnates her, and then takes her illegally across state lines to have an abortion without the knowledge and consent of the parents," said pro-life Rep. Jim Barcia (D-Mi.). "It can be dangerous for that child to receive an abortion. Only a parent knows that child's health history, including allergies to medication. A parent should be informed, and the older male should be prosecuted."

"Right now, a parent in North Carolina must grant permission before a nurse at school can give a child an aspirin," said Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC). "But a stranger can take a child across state lines for an abortion. Give me a break!"

Opposition Arguments

Opposition to the bill was led by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Tx.), who said, "Young women have the same right to choose, constitutionally, as others. This is not going to diminish abortions. This is only going to take away the rights of young people."

Jackson-Lee and other opponents also insisted that many pregnant girls "cannot" deal with their parents, and will find access to the judicial bypass process intimidating or otherwise difficult. Therefore, they argued, sympathetic non-parents should be permitted to take such girls out-of-state without parental knowledge.

Jackson-Lee offered a motion (called a "motion to recommit") to exempt from the bill's prohibitions any "adult sibling or grandparent" of a child, and any "minister, rabbi, pastor, priest, or other religious leader of the minor." The motion did not contain a definition of "religious leader."

"I love my in-laws and my parents, but they have no business taking my daughter across state lines for the purpose of having an abortion," responded Rep. Canady. "And I have a great deal of respect for my pastor, but I will guarantee my colleagues that he has no business taking my daughter across state lines for the purpose of having an abortion."

The House rejected the Jackson-Lee motion, 268 to 164. (See Roll Call No. 3 on the chart on page 30 of this issue.)

Following the House's approval of the bill, Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), called it one of a series of "legislative assaults aimed at the most vulnerable and least politically powerful people in America: teen-age women in crises."

Janet Benshoof, president of the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, said, "It is an extreme, unprecedented congressional intrusion into the rights of minors to obtain abortions."

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Society for Adolescent Medicine sent a letter urging lawmakers to oppose the bill, saying it would interfere with "access to health care."

Vote Changes

On the June 30 vote on final passage, three lawmakers who supported the bill last year switched their positions and opposed the bill. They were William Jefferson (D-La.), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), and Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). However, Rep. Steve Horn (R-Ca.), who opposed the bill last year, switched to support this year. In addition, another lawmaker who opposed the bill last year, Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tn.), missed this year's vote, but later announced that if present he would have voted for the bill.

Of 19 newly elected Republicans, only Rep. Judy Biggert (Il.) opposed the bill. Of 23 newly elected Democrats, four supported the bill: Baron Hill (In.), Ken Lucas (Ky.), Dave Phelps (Ms.), and Ronnie Shows (Ms.).

Another Shot in Senate

Pro-life lawmakers collaborated with NRLC in the crafting of the Child Custody Protection Act, which was originally introduced in February, 1998. In July, 1998, the House approved the original bill, 276-150. But that measure died in the Senate in September, 1998, at the end of the Congress, when Senate Democrats were collectively blocking legislation not on their own priority list.

At that time, Senator Abraham tried to "invoke cloture" to force action on the bill. Under Senate rules 60 votes are needed for cloture, and Abraham's motion received only 54-six votes short. (See Senate vote no. 5 in the 1997-98 NRLC congressional scorecard.)

This year, Abraham is hopeful that the bill will receive a fair debate on its merits.

"Most Americans support the commonsense notion that parents should be involved in this important health decision affecting their teen-age daughters," Abraham told NRL News. "I am confident that the U.S. Senate will build upon the bipartisan support for the Child Custody Protection Act, and pass the bill in the coming months."

Resources

More detailed information on the Child Custody Protection Act appeared on pages 6-7 in the June 10 edition of NRL News.

A short NRLC factsheet, "Key Points on the Child Custody Protection Act," is available at the NRLC website at www.nrlc.org/Federal/CCPA/key_point_CCPA.htm. Also available at the website is a long resource paper on the bill, "Why We Need the Child Custody Protection Act" (updated April, 1999), at www.nrlc.org/Federal/CCPA/why_we_need_CCPA.htm.

Please send a copy of any response received from a lawmaker, or any local news story that reports on the lawmaker's position on this (or any other) pro-life issue, to the NRLC Federal Legislative Office at 419-Seventh Street, Northwest, Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20004, fax (202) 347-3668, e-mail: Legfederal@aol.com.

Statement by NRLC's Susan Muskett At Press Conference for Child Custody Protection Act

On June 29, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl.), the prime sponsor of the Child Custody Protection Act (H.R. 1218), hosted a press conference on Capitol Hill, in which various lawmakers and groups expressed their support for the bill. NRLC Policy Analyst Susan Muskett, an attorney with the NRLC Federal Legislative Office, gave the following statement on behalf of NRLC.

The National Right to Life Committee strongly supports the Child Custody Protection Act. The American people strongly support the concept of the bill. And we anticipate that the House of Representatives will show the same strong bipartisan support for passage of the bill as they did last year. So the real question remains - will the Clinton/Gore Administration continues to pretend that it has sympathy for the basic purpose of the bill, while all the while demanding changes that would actually legitimate and codify the circumvention of state parental involvement laws?

The Clinton/Gore Administration demands that it be amended to provide exemptions for family members such as a parent's mother-in-law, or a child's siblings. These amendments in actuality would gut the bill and legitimate the very practice that the bill was designed to curb. Congress should not empower such individuals with a parent's right with respect to such a life-altering and life-threatening decision.

When an abortion injures a child, it is the parents who must authorize and pay for the necessary medical treatment. We heard testimony a few weeks ago from Eileen Roberts, a mother who testified regarding the suffering that resulted from her own daughter's secret abortion. Her daughter's depression became so severe that she had to be 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.

We know that the majority of today's young teenage mothers are being impregnated by adult men. These men have a strong incentive to take the young girl out of state for a secret abortion in order to conceal both the pregnancy, and their relationship, which may violate state statutory rape laws. Enactment of the Child Custody Protection Act would protect these young girls from adult male predators at a time when these girls are particularly vulnerable.

We urge the Clinton/Gore Administration to support the bill and come down on the side of parents, and not on the side of the abortion-on-demand lobby and the largely unregulated abortion industry.