If you are poor, a very poor woman in the middle of a large State, let us say Oklahoma, and you have a State law which does not allow you to get an abortion, if you have gone through rape or incest, it means that individual must live with having that child, having to raise that child in that society. If you are in another State, say Kansas, which does allow for that abortion to take place in cases of rape or incest, it means that they would be allowed to have an abortion. Is that fair to that poor woman in the first State, in the State of Oklahoma, in that particular instance? I think the answer is no. This is not a matter of States rights. This is a matter of the rights of the individual woman, the poor defenseless woman, to be able to live her life as she pleases, and I believe we need to support this amendment. It comes down to the issue of fairness. I urge everyone to support the amendment.
On the recordMarch 7, 1996
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of state laws on abortion access for women in cases of rape or incest.
Share
More from Michael Castle
Jun 2, 2009
We allowed a quasi-political Government-Sponsored Enterprise here to borrow at a much lower rate in the market.
May 13, 2009
In the context of today's hearing, nutrition and health are both essential for fostering a child's academic success.
Feb 25, 2010
This amendment, offered with Mr. Lynch, requires the President, through the Secretary of the Treasury, to submit to Congress a comprehensive report on terrorism financing that was first mandated by the Intelligence Reform Bill of 2004, but…
May 11, 2009
No Child Left Behind was passed in 2001 to address the achievement gap that exists between poor and minority students and their more affluent peers.





