Jim Sensenbrenner: “I yield myself 2 minutes to make 3 points. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York seems to imply that this bill has to…”

“I yield myself 2 minutes to make 3 points. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York seems to imply that this bill has to do with tax cuts and appropriation levels. It does not. It has to do with the criminal law, and as an aside, the criminal law is an expression of the sense of values of the legislative body that puts the criminal law on the books. Secondly, the gentleman from New York seems to think that we are plowing new ground in making a definition of what a child in utero is and giving the child in utero the protections that are contained in this bill. That is a settled issue, and on July 25, 2000, with the gentleman from New York's support, we passed the Protection of Innocent Children Act which defined a child in utero as meaning a member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage in development who is carried in the womb, and that means a two-cell zygote. Thirdly, the gentleman from New York seems to want to interject the abortion debate in this bill. That is not the case at all, and I would refer him to page 7 of the bill as reported that says nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law.”