On the recordMay 20, 1997
this is an amendment that I took the floor yesterday to talk about. It is an amendment that I worked out, along with Senator Frist and Representative Canady in the House, and with the American Medical Association to tighten up some of the language to address some of the concerns that the physician community had about the definition of what is partial-birth abortion. I believe it is a good amendment, whether it would have gotten the AMA endorsement or not. I think it is a good amendment because I think it is language that is much tighter, and puts in the requisite mens rea, or thought processes that the physician must have been going through at the time of doing the procedure. I think that is important for a criminal statute. I think it would be a sad state if, in fact, we passed this legislation and overrode the President's veto, or if the President would see otherwise and decide to sign the bill, that, in fact, this bill would be thrown out for vagueness of criminality, the criminal statute itself would be considered too vague, and it would be OK on the abortion ground but not OK on the criminal statute ground. But I think what we have done is tighten up the language and have taken care of the concerns mentioned here, both on the House and Senate floors, about the vagueness of the statute. I don't think anyone will now look at this as a vague statute. It is a very precise statute. It is a complete criminal statute now.
Source
govinfo.gov




