I rise today with strong unequivocal support for H.R. 4965, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. Passage of this act into law is long overdue, and I hope the American people--who overwhelmingly want this ban enacted--will get their victory in this House today and in this Congress. Time and again we hear the myths and propaganda that this barbaric procedure is necessary to somehow protect women. But what do doctors and experts have to say about the procedure? The head of National Coalition of Abortion Providers in 1997 said that the 'vast majority' of partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy babies and healthy mothers. The American Medical Association, regarding legislation to ban partial-birth abortions, wrote 'Thank you for the opportunity to work with you towards restricting a procedure we all agree is not good medicine.' The Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for the Truth (PHACT) stated, 'Never is the partial-birth procedure medically indicated. Rather such infants are regularly and safely delivered live . . . with no threat to the mother's health or fertility.' Lastly, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop issued a statement that not only is the procedure never medically necessary for mother or child but 'on the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.' We also know now that the infant feels tremendous pain, contrary to prior statements by pro-abortion groups.
Editor's note · Context
Expressing support for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban during a House floor debate.
Share
More from David Vitter
if the majority leader will yield for one moment, I want to thank the majority leader for his very kind words. Serving in the Senate for two terms has been the highest honor of my professional career. I have enjoyed it so much and have…
Thank you, Senator Inhofe, for those important clarifications to preemption and for another question that is very important to clarify in order to capture the full conngressional intent of the bills preemption section. This Act is intended…
I rise to bring up two key priorities-- two important unmet needs--which I hope this body and the U.S. House will act on immediately and certainly by the end of the year. The first is the Steve Gleason Act, legislation I drafted which…
That is an important question Senator Inhofe and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. The Lautenberg bill tries to address the concern about forcing paralysis by analysis in several ways. First, the bill establishes that `unreasonable…





