On July 20, the Senate approved, 65-34, S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act (CCPA). The bill was brought directly to the Senate floor, bypassing the Senate Judiciary Committee due to Chair Arlen Specter’s (R-PA) opposition to the bill. The CCPA, sponsored by Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), would prohibit any person from taking a minor across state lines for an abortion, thereby circumventing her home state’s parental notification or consent law. The penalty for violating the law would be up to one year imprisonment, but would not apply in cases in which the minor was transported due to a life-threatening medical condition. Under the bill, a defendant could use an affirmative defense if he or she reasonably believed that parental consent had been given or that the court had waived the requirement for parental consent. The bill also would allow a civil action by the parent of a minor against the person or persons who transported her across state lines.
The House version (H.R. 748) was approved on April 27, 2005 (see The Source, 4/29/05). Unlike the Senate bill, the House version includes criminal and civil penalties for physicians who knowingly perform an abortion on a minor who has been transported across state lines.
During debate on the bill, two amendments were offered. The first, by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), was defeated, 48-51. The amendment would have attached the language of S. 2508, the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act (TPPA), to the bill. The TPPA would have enabled the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to make grants to states, non-profit entities, and educational agencies for abstinence and sex education, including information about contraception and sexually transmitted diseases, and activities designed to support healthy adolescent development.
Sen. Lautenberg said, “The amendment I am offering gets to the heart of the issue this bill purportedly means to address; that is, reducing the number of abortions. The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to prevent teen pregnancies in the first place. It is that simple. The amendment I am offering, along with Senators Menendez [D-NJ], Clinton [D-NY], Schumer [D-NY], Kennedy [D-MA], Kerry [D-MA], and Feinstein [D-CA], is aimed at dramatically reducing teen pregnancy rates in the United States. This amendment will assist efforts by nonprofit organizations, schools, and public health agencies to reduce teen pregnancy through awareness, education, and abstinence programs. Each year in the United States, approximately 860,000 young women become pregnant before they reach the age of 20.”
Sen. Lautenberg continued, asking, “So what are we doing differently in the United States that is separating us from the rest of the developed world? The answer is simple: the other countries promote full, comprehensive sex education programs, and in the United States — would you believe it — we don’t allow funding for comprehensive sex education…The federal government will not fund comprehensive sex education programs despite the fact that 90 percent of parents polled say that in addition to abstinence, sex education should cover contraception and other forms of birth control. But the federal government currently will not fund any programs that even mention contraception, and restricts all of its funding to abstinence-only programs. We need to dedicate our scarce federal resources toward medically accurate, age-appropriate education that includes information about contraception as well as abstinence. In many cases, particular types of contraception can help avoid sexually transmitted diseases. Isn’t that a good objective as well? We have to be realistic about the hope that each and every teenager is going to abstain from premarital sex. Saying ‘Don’t do it’ may work at times but not all the time.”
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who opposed the amendment, said, “There are two questions we ought to ask ourselves: How many people think it is in the best interests of our young people to be sexually active outside of marriage? Is there anything positive that ever comes from that? Is there positive self-esteem? Is there disease? Are there consequences to the fact that when our young people make a decision to become sexually active, almost always there is a negative downside? Everybody in this body desires the best for our children. We desire the best for one another’s children. We desire the best for every child. I have delivered over 4,000 babies. Most of those were Medicaid or teenage moms. I have been doing that for 23 years. I know the attitudes. I know what is going on. I can see.”
He continued, saying, “The point is, as a practicing physician, I use every tool I can with young women to make sure they are well informed. But there is a tipping point about what the best medical advice is. This is debatable. But I would tell you the best medical advice we could give our young men and women, the best absolute medical advice is to stay abstinent until you are in a married relationship. Everybody in this body probably agrees with that. If that is true, if risk avoidance is the best message, why do we turn around and give 1,200 percent more money to risk reduction than we do risk avoidance? For every dollar we spend on abstinence education, we spend $12 on teaching people how to lower the risk. What is the message we are sending with that? We are going to spend $600 million this year on what this amendment does already. That is what we are going to spend. If you add up everything associated with this amendment, we are going to spend another $600 million…The moral rationalization is if you make a mistake, there are no consequences. I have seen the consequences. Condoms on teenagers work about 50 percent of the time, if you add up all the studies. The STD rate for teenagers, even when used perfectly, for human papilloma virus [HPV] is still 38 percent, the number one cause of cervical cancer. We can rationalize our moral principle away or we can say: Here is where we should go. We are not talking about changing anything.”
The second amendment, offered by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Ensign, was approved, 98-0. The amendment would prohibit a parent or legal guardian from suing the person or persons who transported a minor across states if the parent or legal guardian has committed an act of incest with the minor.
During debate on the full measure, Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked, “Does Congress really want to say it is the best public policy to have young women and girls who are in traumatic situations not get medical assistance because it could result in an abortion for a non-life-threatening complication?” She continued, saying, “Let’s be clear, that is the impact of this legislation. I believe it is unconstitutional and bad public policy. A pregnant minor who feels she cannot confide in a parent is already left with few options. She can seek a judicial bypass. But few young women have the tools to navigate our complex legal system. The legal system is very difficult for the average adult to manage let alone a minor in an extremely difficult and vulnerable position. In addition, the legal system has demands that further restrict a girl’s access; for instance, court hours are usually 9 to 5, requiring a young woman to miss school in order to appear in court. And many girls are reluctant to discuss such a personal decision that could involve traumatic experiences with a judge. We do not need to criminalize well-intentioned assistance provided to her…An older sister or aunt accompanying a minor to the nearest provider may unwittingly become a criminal. Even if neither woman intended to evade parental consent laws, this act of family support would be criminalized. A grandmother or sister could have no idea that she is violating a federal law when she helps a family member access legal medical care…I wish this were a perfect world. I wish we could legislate that every child has a loving and stable parent to guide him or her through the trials of adolescence. I wish we could legislate that every family talk openly and honestly about the risks of sexual activity. But we cannot. Parental consent laws do not create these idealized families. Instead, they further burden those that are already troubled.”
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), who supported the measure, said, “At a time when a school nurse cannot even administer aspirin to a child with a headache without parental consent, how can we allow a child to have an abortion, a major medical procedure with potentially deadly consequences, without parental consent? I can think of no other time when parental guidance and consent is more important than when that parent’s minor daughter is pregnant and contemplating abortion. A minor girl, who is undoubtedly under incredible stress, does not have the maturity to make the decision to have an abortion on her own. And, it makes matters worse when the girl receives pressure to have an abortion from the father, the father’s family, or others. As a father, it appalls me to learn that oftentimes older adult males pressure young mothers to have an abortion without telling anyone and transport these young girls into states without parental consent laws to hide instances of statutory rape. Studies show that the majority of today’s teenage mothers are being impregnated by adult men. One study of 46,500 school age mothers in California found that two-thirds of the girls were impregnated by adult males, with the median age of the father being 22 years old…Mr. President, the pro-abortion lobby has come out in full force against the Child Custody Protection Act saying that it infringes upon a girl’s right to have an abortion. I have two major objections to that argument. First, I do not believe that a minor child has the right to an abortion without her parents’ consent. At a time when children cannot even be given aspirin without parental consent, they should not be able to undergo a major medical procedure with potentially deadly consequences without parental consent. Second, the Child Custody Protection Act is not about the right to have an abortion; it is about protecting the rights of parents and the well-being of children.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said, “I support the intent of the act, which seeks to protect the health and safety of pregnant minors, as well as the rights of parents to be involved in the medical decisions of their minor daughters. However, I believe this act might have gone further in protecting young women in situations of family abuse or incest…Unfortunately, some young women, particularly victims of incest or family violence, cannot safely involve parents in their decision to obtain an abortion. In such a circumstance, as my colleagues have rightfully pointed out, the minor girl could seek a judicial bypass, which would allow the girl to petition a judge to waive the parental involvement law. The bypass is intended for situations of incest or family abuse, and would allow for the involvement of appropriate state authorities, making it more likely that the minor girl will be removed from the abusive situation and that the abuser will be brought to justice. The bypass option is fundamental to the rights of the minor, and exists to protect her safety…I am concerned for those girls who are in an abusive family situation and who reside in states that could enact a parental notification law without a bypass option. I believe something must be done to strengthen the bypass requirements in this bill to ensure the protection of minor girls with abusive families…Given the unanimous consent agreement, I do not have the opportunity to amend the Child Custody and Protection Act on the floor in order to strengthen the bypass option in cases of parental notification…It is right to protect pregnant girls and their families from those who do not have the minor girl’s best interest at heart. I only ask that everything be done to protect the health and safety of those minor girls seeking an abortion who feel they cannot safely turn towards their family.”
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) said that taking a minor across state lines is “unfortunately, not a hypothetical for those of us in Pennsylvania. There are cases, unfortunate cases of children being taken by a boyfriend or his family members across state lines and the horrible consequences that result. We also have abortion clinics from other states that advertise in Pennsylvania. There are a couple of ads I will put up on the board…And it talks about no consent, no waiting period. There is a parental consent provision in the Pennsylvania statute that was upheld as constitutional back in 1992. There is a 24-hour waiting period. Again, the clinic is advertising no consent, no waiting period, directly aimed at minors in Pennsylvania urging them to come and have abortions at their clinic across the state line. This is a real-world situation, a problem we are confronted with in this country. All we are trying to do is let the state laws, the collective wisdom of the people of Pennsylvania, have effect, have efficacy; that the laws which are put in place are there to protect children and the rights of parents. The only one that can stop others from getting around those protections and avoiding state laws is the federal Government, by stopping the interstate transportation of these children for the purpose of abortion. This is one [piece of legislation] in which I am hopeful that 75 or 80 percent of the Senate will agree with when it is all said and done because it is vitally important, for the health of our children and for the stability of families, to give families and children this legal protection.”
