Mark Souder: “first I want to agree with the earlier speaker that this amendment is actually not needed. We in the House had already…”

“first I want to agree with the earlier speaker that this amendment is actually not needed. We in the House had already protected life of the mother, but in the new language, "necessary to save the life of the mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury, provided that no other medical procedure would suffice for that purpose," makes it clear this has nothing to do with life of the mother. I would also like to address the question of whether we men are trying to regulate women. I think one of the tragedies of this country are men who beat their spouses, mothers and fathers who treat their children as though they are objects to abuse. The question here is whether it is human life. If it is human life, it has nothing to do with whether it is the right of the woman or the right of the man to kill this child. If we disagree over life, that is one thing. But to act like we are trying to do anything other than protect an innocent life is unfair. In this case, the life is a life. If its head pops out a little bit further but if the legs are out and the heart is beating and the head is inside, then you jab it, it is not a human life. This is a debate over human life, not the rights of women and men.”