On July 20, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution heard testimony concerning the Child Custody Protection Act (H.R. 1755). Sponsored by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), the measure would make it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion, thereby evading parental consent and notification laws. Violators could be subject to $100,000 in fines and a jail term up to one year.
Chair Steve Chabot (R-OH) explained that the Child Custody Protection Act is “a regulation of interstate commerce that seeks to protect the health and safety of young girls, as well as the rights of parents to be involved in the medical decisions of their minor daughters, by preventing valid and constitutional state parental involvement laws from being circumvented.” He argued that the measure is “not a federal parental involvement law,” but “it ensures that these state laws are not evaded through interstate activity.” Rep. Chabot also noted that the bill “falls well within Congress’ constitutional authority to regulate the transportation of individuals in interstate commerce.”
Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) argued that the Child Custody Protection Act “would cost lives and destroy families.” Pointing out that “life is messy,” he referred to a scenario in which a father sexually abused his daughter, and the grandmother transported her across state lines for an abortion. In such a situation, he stated, “The child’s grandmother could go to jail, and the rapist could sue her.” Rep. Nadler concluded that the bill “is not very well thought out.”
The subcommittee heard testimony from a Pennsylvania woman whose 13-year-old daughter, Crystal, was taken to New York for an abortion. Ms. Farley explained that her daughter developed complications from the abortion, but the physician who performed the procedure “was not available” and “refused to supply necessary medical records to a physician that was available to provide Crystal the medical care she needed.” Ms. Farley urged Congress to “put aside your personal opinions on abortion” and “consider the safety of the minor children of our nation whose lives are put at risk when taken out of their home state to avoid abortion laws that are designed to protect them from harm.” She added, “Please allow loving, caring, responsible parents the freedom to provide the care their adolescent daughters need without interference from criminals or people who may think they are helping but actually cause more harm than good.”
The Reverend Lois Powell, chair of the Board of Directors of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, was the only witness to speak in opposition to the Child Custody Protection Act. She said that the bill “is not about protecting children but about government interference in the decisions of conscience that young women sometimes have to make.” Explaining that some girls may not be able to involve their parents in their decisions to have an abortion, Rev. Powell stated, “In households in which distrust or violence prevails, children are even less likely to trust a parent or legal guardian in a time of crisis. So it is reasonable that they turn to other adults whom they do trust and in whom they can confide. It would be the role of that adult to help the young woman to negotiate the rocky waters of family conflict, to make a decision about what to do, and to assist her in achieving what she determines is best for her. If that assistance included accompanying her across a state line to terminate a pregnancy, that trusted adult would be a federal criminal…I ask you, is this just? Should minors’ access to legal health care services be compromised in this way? Should those who assist them in obtaining legal health care be criminalized? Are these the family values we choose to espouse?”
Teresa Stanton Collett, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis, Minnesota, said that the Child Custody Protection Act would “significantly advance the legitimate health and safety interests of young girls experiencing an unplanned pregnancy,” and would “safeguard the ability of states to protect their minor citizens through the adoption of effective parental involvement statutes.” She argued that parental notification of a young girl’s decision to have an abortion would improve her medical care because 1) it would allow parents to assist their daughter in the selection of the abortion provider, 2) it would insure that parents have the opportunity to provide additional medical history to abortion providers before the procedure, and 3) it would insure that parents have adequate knowledge to recognize and respond to any post-abortion complication that may develop. Professor Collett also contended that parental notification laws would provide increased protection against exploitation of minor girls by adult men. She cited a survey of 1,500 minors who have had an abortion in which 89 percent of the girls said their boyfriend was involved in the decision to have the abortion, and 76 percent said their boyfriend helped pay for the abortion.
Mark Rosen, an associate professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, was asked to testify before the subcommittee on Congress’ power to enact the Child Custody Protection Act. He stated, “I believe that Congress has the authority to enact this law under the Commerce Clause and Full Faith and Credit Clause [of the Constitution]. In my view, H.R. 1755 is fully consistent with principles of federalism, and is not inconsistent with the right to travel or constitutional limitations connected to abortion rights.”
