Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 Conference Report-Continued

PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2003 CONFERENCE REPORT—CONTINUED

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Roe v. Wade decision that was made by the Supreme Court over 30 years ago, and in opposition to the late term abortion conference report before the Senate.

The Supreme Court's acknowledgement of the fundamental "right to privacy" in our Constitution gave every woman the right to decide what to do with her own body. Since that historic day, women all across the country and the world have had improved access to reproductive health care and services. However, Congress is on the brink of turning back the clock.

Last month, my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, led a fight on the Senate floor to keep Senate passed language in support of Roe v. Wade in the late term abortion bill, S. 3. I was disheartened to hear that the conference committee stripped the Senate passed Roe v. Wade language. The Roe v. Wade decision is important to women's rights, women's health, and public health.

I believe that this bill is the first step in a plan by the leadership of this Congress to overturn Roe v. Wade. When President Bush signs this bill, he will become the first President since Roe V. Wade to recriminalize abortion procedures.

As I have stated previously on the Senate floor, the bill before us is unconstitutional. Just 3 years ago the Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart that a Nebraska State law that bans certain abortion procedures is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional for two reasons. First, it did not include an exception for a woman's health. Second, it does not clearly define the procedure it aims to prohibit and would ban other procedures, sometimes used early in pregnancy.

S. 3 is nearly identical to the Nebraska law the Supreme Court struck down. The proponents of this legislation say they have made changes to the bill to address the Supreme Court's ruling. They have not. It still does not include an exception to protect the health of the woman. It still does not clearly define the procedure it claims to prohibit. Let me be clear about this. S. 3 is unconstitutional. That is why I supported the Durbin substitute when the Senate considered this legislation.

I supported the Durbin amendment because it was consistent with my four principles. These are my principles: It respects the constitutional underpinnings of Roe v. Wade. It prohibits all post-viability abortions, regardless of the procedure used.
It provides an exception for the life and health of a woman, which is both intellectually rigorous and compassionate. And it leaves medical decisions in the hands of physicians—not politicians. The Durbin alternative addressed this difficult issue with the intellectual rigor and seriousness of purpose it deserves.

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 of contraceptives, or requiring federal quality standards for mammography, I will continue the fight to improve women's health.

Congress must protect a woman's freedom of choice that was handed down by the Supreme Court over 30 years ago. This
Congress must not turn back the clock on reproductive choice for women. I urge my colleagues to vote against the conference report for the late term abortion bill.