Child Custody Protection Act - Continued
CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT--Continued -- (Senate - July 25, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Child Custody Protection Act. I oppose this bill for three reasons. The first is that it does nothing to promote the health and safety of our children. The second is that I do not believe it can pass constitutional muster. The third reason I oppose this bill because it is just another example of the continual assault on women's reproductive freedom.
I strongly believe that minors should involve their parents in all important decisions. This includes the decision to have an abortion. Research shows that most women voluntarily involve their parents when making this decision. However, I recognize that there are some young women who cannot talk to their parents about this issue. Some young women may not live with either of their parents, and instead live with a grandparent, aunt, or another adult relative. Some young women may be growing up in households where they experience physical and sexual abuse and may be threatened with further abuse should their parents be aware of a pregnancy. Yet young women facing pregnancy crisis need help and support.
There are no exceptions in this bill which address the realities of women's lives. The reality is that some young women come from abusive homes. The unfortunate reality is that sometimes young women are raped by their fathers, and this results in a pregnancy. And, the reality is that a young woman may need a trusted adult whether it be a grandparent, older sibling, priest or rabbi, to accompany them if they choose to get an abortion.
This bill does not help these young women. In fact, this bill says to women who cannot involve their parents that they have to go it alone. That is why I voted for the Feinstein amendment which would have allowed other trusted adults like grandparents or clergy members to be allowed to step in when a young woman could not go to her parents for help. This amendment was a step in the right direction. It acknowledged that unfortunately some young women cannot talk to their parents about this very important decision.
That is why I also voted for the Lautenberg-Menendez amendment. This amendment addresses the causes of teen pregnancy. The amendment takes positive steps to prevent teenage girls from getting pregnant in the first place. It funds teen pregnancy prevention programs in schools and community settings. The amendment provides funding to keep teens out of trouble and on the road to success. It restores budget cuts to after school programs and physical education classes.
I also oppose this bill because it does not pass constitutional muster. Not only does it totally ignore cases where a young woman's health is threatened. That clearly undermines the major holding in Stenberg v. Carhart which requires any law regulating abortion must contain an exception for a woman's health. Let's be clear: because this bill does not contain an exception to protect the health of young women it will be ruled unconstitutional.
Finally, I oppose this bill because it is yet another assault on women's reproductive freedom. I strongly support a woman's right to choose and have fought to improve women's health during the more than two decades I have served in Congress. Whether it is establishing offices of women's health, fighting for coverage for contraceptives, or requiring Federal quality standards for mammography, I will continue the fight to improve women's health.
Today, I will oppose S. 403 because it forces young women who are dealing with a crisis pregnancy to go it alone and deprives them of the advice and assistance of a trusted adult. It assumes that every family is safe, stable, and supportive. The bill ignores that some minors cannot go to mom and dad for help. It does not make our children any safer. I urge my colleagues to vote against S. 403.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov