Status of Major Pro-Life Legislation in Congress

By NRLC Federal Legislative Office

WASHINGTON (August 4, 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. (See roll call, page 26.) 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.

(See Senate roll call on page 13 of this issue.)

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 story on page 8, and 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 story that begins on page 14, and 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.