I think that this is probably the most important point in this entire emotionally charged debate. What was particularly revealing during my earlier colloquy with the gentleman from New Jersey was the question that I asked about the disparate treatment of a person who is standing in front of the entrance to an abortion clinic, and if that person is obstructing the entrance to an abortion clinic as part of a labor dispute, waving a sign that says ``On strike for higher wages,'' that is only a misdemeanor. However, if that same person is waving a sign that says, ``Don't kill your baby, oppose abortion,'' that is a felony. So, what is different under this law is this content of the speech rather than the actions of the person who is being charged with obstructing the entrance to the abortion clinic. That is patently unconstitutional as a violation of equal protection under the law, and no one who feels that that oath that we took at the beginning of this term means anything can in good conscience vote for this bill.
On the recordMarch 17, 1994
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of a bill on free speech related to abortion protests.
Share
More from Jim Sensenbrenner
Jul 28, 2020
I've been in Congress 42 years. That's coming to an end at the end of this year. I'm breathing a sigh of relief.
Mar 11, 2020
I am no stranger to this debate. In the aftermath of 9/11, I stood on this floor to advance the USA PATRIOT Act. I still believe, as I did at the time, in its necessity to protect our country from terrorist attacks. In 2015, after abuses…
Dec 10, 2019
if you, on the other side of the aisle, believe that Joe Biden is a man who tells the truth, you ought to support this amendment
Dec 10, 2019
I think that this markup has been a lot better than it could have been, and I think the chairman has been probably very evenhanded on that.





