I rise in support of both this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 4965, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002. This rule will allow adequate time for debate on this measure in addition to a motion to recommit with or without instructions, which will allow the House to work its will on this bill. Today I will spare the House the horrible details of partial-birth abortion, for I am certain that many of my colleagues are all too familiar with the gruesome reality of this deadly procedure. I am also well aware of the Supreme Court's decision in Stenberg v. Carhart and the attempts by opponents of this bill to use that 5-4 decision as a safety net for their pro-abortion agenda. Opponents of this measure will tell us that H.R. 4965 is unconstitutional because of the Supreme Court's Carhart decision. They will tell us we have no right to legislate a ban on this horrible practice because the Supreme Court says we cannot. I find that argument ironic, considering 413 Members of this body voted to pass a child pornography bill last month after the Supreme Court told us in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition that we could not. Although I certainly respect the Supreme Court exercising its article III duties, I believe the Congress has its own duty to create and pass laws that protect the people of this country.
JOHN LINDER: “I rise in support of both this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 4965, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of…”
Editor's note · Context
Supporting the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002 during House floor debate.
Share
More from JOHN LINDER
I respond to it that people do not put money under the mattress anymore. Wealthy people spend more than poor people. They will pay a higher share of the total cost of government; but to the extent that they do not spend that money, they…
That is right. So the consumer of that small business not only pays the $100 plus the payroll tax, it also pays the $724.
Mr. Speaker, about 2 years ago, the Government Accountability Office brought before the Ways and Means Committee a study that said if we continue to tax at the current percentage of the economy and continue to spend in discretionary…
Wealthy people pay taxes on personal consumption, and wealth has no meaning unless it is spent on personal consumption. If I had $100 million and lived in a $20,000 home and drove a used car, that $100 million would mean nothing to me. So…





