David Skaggs: “I wish we were debating the best way to reduce the number of late term abortions. That is a goal we all can share.…”

“I wish we were debating the best way to reduce the number of late term abortions. That is a goal we all can share. Instead, under the terms of debate imposed on this bill, we are able to consider only a text drafted to make a political statement and keep an issue alive rather than to solve a problem. The question, that the advocates of this bill haven't, and can't answer, is this: Why should the Congress prohibit this particular medical procedure when a physician has determined: First, that a late term abortion is medically necessary to preserve the health of the mother and second, that this procedure is the one that is medically prudent? The bill would substitute the political judgment of the Congress for the medical judgment of a woman's physician. The bill provides no exception for medical circumstances involving grave physical risks to the health of the mother, no matter what the circumstance nor how tragic the circumstance may be. As we debate this issue, we need to remember how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution. In Roe versus Wade the Court stated: "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." That decision is the law of the land. Its language is clear and unambiguous.”