U.S. House Passes Ban on State Execution of "Child in Utero"

WASHINGTON (July 31, 2000) In a noteworthy precedent, by a vote of 417-0, the U.S. House of Representatives has approved a bill that recognizes the humanity of the unborn child.

The bill, The Innocent Child Protection Act (H.R. 4888), would prohibit any state from executing a woman who "carries a child in utero," defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." (See text of bill in box on this page.)

The bill is sponsored by Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R- Fl.) and supported by the National Right to Life Committee.

"The House has emphatically declared that the government must never execute an innocent unborn child," commented NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "This reaffirms an important legal principle that was recently called into question by comments of Vice President Gore."

During a July 16 interview on NBC's Meet the Press, correspondent Tim Russert asked Gore if he agreed with the current law that prohibits the federal government from executing a woman while she is pregnant. Gore laughed and said, "I'd want to think about it."

The next day, Republican presidential nominee Gov. George W. Bush said he supported delaying an execution under such circumstances "because there's a second life involved."

"My opponent refused to take a position on this," Bush said. "No matter what your position is on abortion or the death penalty, you shouldn't put a pregnant woman to death."

Bush said he was "surprised, frankly" that Gore "needed time to think about it."

Gore revisited the issue later the same day. According to the July 18 edition of The New York Times, at a press conference in Nashville, "Mr. Gore said he favored allowing a pregnant woman to choose whether to delay her execution until she gave birth. 'The principle of a woman's right to choose governs in that case,' he said." To many, this formulation seemed to suggest that Gore thought it would be acceptable for the government to execute the child, along with the mother, if the mother agreed to this -- a violation of the age-old principle that a government may never take the life of an innocent child in the course of punishing the crime of his or her mother.

Two days later, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen introduced The Innocent Child Protection Act (H.R. 4888), with NRLC backing.

The bill would prohibit any state from carrying out a death sentence on a woman who carries a "child in utero."

The current law, regarding which NBC's Russert had questioned Gore, applies only to federal death sentences, which are very rare. H.R. 4888 would extend the same "innocent child principle" to death sentences administered by states, which are far more numerous.

The House Republican leadership used a special fast-track procedure to bring the bill to the House floor only six days later, on July 25. Under this procedure, no amendments were permitted, and debate was limited to 40 minutes.

"No unborn child can possibly be guilty of committing a crime, therefore, no unborn child should be punished by death," Rep. Ros- Lehtinen told the House. "An innocent unborn child should not have to forfeit his opportunity for a life for a crime that his mother has committed."

Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-Ar.) explained that the bill would implement a provision of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the U.S. has joined along with 143 other nations, which flatly states, "Sentence of death . . . shall not be carried out on pregnant women."

Some commentators suggested the bill was unnecessary, since in the U.S. years pass between a woman's incarceration and her execution. However, supporters noted that women sometimes become pregnant while incarcerated. They quoted a statement made by pro- abortion Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Ca.) on June 22, addressing the House in support of an unsuccessful amendment to allow funding of abortion by the federal Bureau of Prisons: "We know that women become pregnant in prison, from rape or from having a relationship with one of the guards."

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mi.), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, complained that the bill did not spell out the basis for federal jurisdiction over the issue. But despite such complaints, neither Conyers nor any other member of the House voted against the bill. The tally was 417-0 (House roll call no. 431).

However, two lawmakers -- Reps. Nancy Johnson (R-Ct.) and John LaFalce (D-NY) -- expressed their dissatisfaction with the bill by voting "present." Although she did not speak on the floor against the bill, Johnson told colleagues she strongly objected to the bill's recognition of pre-natal human life. LaFalce, who is pro-life, said that he felt the bill exceeded the authority of Congress with respect to state matters.

NRLC's Johnson commented, "The House has with near unanimity recognized the humanity of the unborn child, and the need to protect that child, in this one context. This is an important statement and an important precedent."

The bill could be acted on by the Senate in September. The Clinton-Gore White House has not yet taken a position on the measure.

Further information on the Innocent Child Protection Act, including a detailed factsheet and a facsimile of the bill, is available at the NRLC web site at www.nrlc.org/Federal/ICPA/Index.html.

TEXT OF THE INNOCENT CHILD PROTECTION ACT (H.R. 4888)

Adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives, 417-0

July 25, 2000

It shall be unlawful for any authority, military or civil, of the United States, a State, or any district, possession, commonwealth or other territory under the authority of the United States to carry out a sentence of death on a woman while she carries a child in utero. In this section, the term "child in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.