Neil Abercrombie: “today I rise to discuss the Partial- Birth Abortion Ban, H.R. 1122 that was introduced yesterday and which we are voting…”

“today I rise to discuss the Partial- Birth Abortion Ban, H.R. 1122 that was introduced yesterday and which we are voting on today. This measure is supposed to be a new improved version of Representative Canady's bill, H.R. 929. However, it is more draconian, offensive and degrading to women. This newly introduced bill, like the one we were supposed to debate, still tears apart the principle that women have reproductive rights which was set in Roe versus Wade (1973) and reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania versus Casey (1992). H.R. 1122 also still uses the same vague, nonmedical terms as Representative Canady's bill. However, H.R. 1122 does include two provisions that were not in Representative Canady's bill, H.R. 929. First of all, a ``partial-birth abortion,'' whatever that means, can not be performed to save the life of the mother even if her very life was endangered by the pregnancy itself. Secondly it allows would-be fathers who had abused or abandoned the mother to sue and collect monetary damages from the physician who performed the improperly defined medical procedure. I find this provision one of the hardest to comprehend--why allow a person that has abused a woman repeatedly to be able to gain monetarily if he gets her pregnant and something goes tragically awry to her fetus after viability?”