**TO: Conservative Leaders**

**FROM: Matt Lloyd, Communications Director, Congressman**

> **Mike Pence**

**DATE: April 27, 2004**

**RE: PENCE GIVES FOURTH "CASE FOR LIFE" SPEECH ON HOUSE FLOOR**

The following is the \"Case for Life\" speech that Congressman Pence
gave on the House floor April 21, 2004. This is the fourth part in a
series of speeches Pence will give on \"The Case for Life.\"\
\
***THE CASE FOR LIFE: ABORTION AND THE PROBLEM OF PAIN***\
(As delivered)

Congressman Mike Pence:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the discharge of an idea that began for me
in September of 2003. And now today it has its fourth manifestation, a
series of remarks on the floor of this Congress that I simply call, "The
Case for Life."

My inspiration for today\'s discussion, which is entitled, "The Case for
Life: Abortion and the Problem of Pain," was inspired not by a
contemporary in this Congress, though I just came from a meeting with
really the intellectual and moral father of the pro-life movement in
this Congress, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde, Chairman of the
Committee on International Relations. He simply referred to my humble
efforts on the floor and those of colleagues who will join me as, in his
words, "a great idea." But it was not from the gentleman from Illinois
that I drew my inspiration for this series, but rather from another
distinguished gentleman who served in this body from the years 1827 to
his death on the House floor in the year 1848. That was the late
Congressman and the former President, John Quincy Adams, who history
recorded after he served as President of the United States for a term in
the early 1820s, he actually felt compelled to return to Washington,
D.C. from his home state of Massachusetts as a member of the House of
Representatives, truly an extraordinary exercise in public service.

One can scarcely imagine a former President in the modern era becoming a
member of Congress after he served in the Oval Office. But John Quincy
Adams was not an ordinary man. His father before him, John Adams, was
our second President. John Quincy Adams was considered one of the great
moral and intellectual minds of the 19th century and is considered so to
this day. But he came to Capitol Hill, Mr. Speaker, not simply, as some
get wrongly accused, to occupy a chair. He came here on a mission, a
mission encapsulated in a book I am reading now entitled "Arguing About
Slavery." Because when John Quincy Adams came to the Congress of the
United States he did so as a Northerner, a former President himself, the
son of one of the founders of this country, and a man who believed that
the scourge of slavery was a blight on this nation and threatened its
greatness and threatened its destiny.

So as history records, Congressman John Quincy Adams came often not to
this floor, but to the floor of the Congress just down the hallway,
every few weeks for the nearly 20 years he served in this body to speak
about one issue, and that was the issue of the abolition of slavery.

Now, one would argue that having died in 1848, John Quincy Adams could
scarcely point to any accomplishment in his life ending slavery. But
there, Mr. Speaker, you would be wrong. Because it would be none other
than a lanky, gangly freshman member of Congress that arrived on Capitol
Hill the year that John Quincy Adams would die who would be sitting on
the back row in what is now Statuary Hall in the House of
Representatives and would listen to the great man speak, making his
powerful moral orations against slavery. And that young congressman,
known to his friends as Abe Lincoln, would be deeply moved.

History would record that this young Congressman would go back to
Illinois and run for the United States Senate and eventually become our
President and eventually sign the Emancipation Proclamation. I am
confident that once we reach the other side of heaven, as opposed to
this side of heaven, we will know to a certainty that Abe Lincoln was
inspired by the words and the example of that humble former President
and Congressman.

After I learned that story, I thought of my own time. I thought of the
short period of time that I would have here to serve, and I thought
about my passion about the sanctity of human life, and I thought about
the enormity of this issue and the fact that apart from a few important
legislative advances, despite the fact that this chamber could be
considered the heart of the most powerful nation on Earth, that actually
the subject of abortion comes up here very infrequently, even though the
statistics are startling about the impact that abortion has and has had
on our society over the last 30 years.

Think of it, Mr. Speaker. Each year more than 1 million U.S. teenagers
become pregnant, and the teen pregnancy rate in the last 30 years has
become truly alarming. With regard to those who elect to end that
pregnancy out of wedlock in abortion, 80 percent are single, 60 percent
are white, 35 percent are black. Eighty-two percent of women having
abortions are among that single or separated category, but the most
startling statistic to me, and I think the reason why, Mr. Speaker, it
begs that we grapple with this issue on this floor from time to time, in
the same way that John Quincy Adams, however inconveniently, grappled
publicly on the floor of the Congress about slavery, is that according
to Planned Parenthood\'s National Center for Health Statistics, nearly
half of American women, 43 percent of American women, will have an
abortion sometime during their life.

Let me say again. This procedure, validated in the case of Roe v. Wade
in 1973, has now given rise to a procedure that literally impacts the
lives not only of the unborn, but of nearly half of childbearing women
in the United States of America. So it is in that spirit that back in
September I launched this series on the Case for Life and today come to
the floor on the subject of abortion and the problem of pain.

I mentioned earlier that there have been some recent and important
legislative achievements. This Republican majority in Congress has
advanced not one, but two historic pieces of legislation that advance
the principles of the sanctity of human life. To a lesser degree is the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I helped to draft that bill as a member
of the Committee on the Judiciary, and while it is not a pro-life piece
of legislation, it does, on the federal level, certify what two-thirds
of the states of this nation have certified long ago: that when there is
violence against a pregnant mother that results in the loss of the
unborn child\'s life, that there are two victims, and while I would say
that it is not a pro-life piece of legislation, the principle about the
sanctity of unborn human life is nonetheless there, and it is important.

I commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Ms. Hart, who
almost single-handedly muscled this legislation to the floor of the
Congress and saw to its passage and signature earlier this year.

Obviously, the most significant piece of legislation and, in fact, the
very first restriction on the abortion procedure since Roe v. Wade also
passed in this Congress and is now the subject of not one, but three
separate pieces of litigation in the federal courts, and it is in that
context that abortion and the problem of pain, I think, justifiably
comes before us today.

Congress, as I am sure my colleagues are aware, Mr. Speaker, actually
managed earlier this year in overwhelming numbers to pass the Partial
Birth Abortion Ban Act. For those not aware of this procedure, partial
birth abortion essentially involves, as hard as it is to say, the breach
delivery of a child post-20 weeks of pregnancy. Virtually in every case
of a partial birth abortion, the child could be delivered whole and
could survive. It is certainly at the stage of viability.

But in the partial birth abortion, the child is delivered partially, and
then a suction tube is, I will say it gently, inserted in the back of
the skull. The contents of the skull are removed, and the remains of the
child are taken from the mother\'s womb. It is a horrific procedure.

It was one of the joys of my life on November 5, 2003, to sit on about
the third row as the President of the United States, over near the White
House in the Reagan Building, signed that ban of this horrific
procedure. As the President said, our nation owes its children a
different and better welcome. He went on to say, "The bill I am about to
sign protecting the innocent, new life from this practice reflects the
passion and humanity of America." And so it did. It affirmed our basic
standard of humanity, which can be summarized in the duty of the strong
to protect the weak.

The American people obviously overwhelmingly support this legislation.
One survey after another has shown enormous support. A recent Gallup
poll showed 68 percent of Americans believe that partial birth abortion
should be illegal. The same poll showed that even 50 percent of those
who considered themselves to be pro-choice on abortion supported the ban
of this horrific procedure, and here is a compelling number for my
colleagues. Fifty-seven percent of obstetricians and gynecologists want
partial birth abortion banned as well, according to a survey in Medical
Economics Magazine.

It seems, as we like to say back in Indiana, Mr. Speaker, to be a
no-brainer that a procedure like this has no place in a civilized
society, and Congress, in bipartisan fashion, agreed. Members from
across the political spectrum after literally eight years of wrangling
on Capitol Hill, eight years of expert testimony, eight years of public
debate, finally came to broad agreement. Members across the aisle, as I
mentioned, many colleagues in the Democrat minority in the House and the
Senate, strongly supported this legislation. Senators, from conservative
Republican \[Rick Santorum\] to Senator \[Tom Daschle\], approved this
measure in a 64-to-34 vote, and House Members in this Chamber, the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell and my friend the
gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Kennedy, joined conservatives like me
in approving the ban 281 to 142.

Congress made specific findings in this legislation as well, that
partial birth abortion was essentially an inhumane procedure that is,
and this was a finding of the Congress that is important in this moment,
Mr. Speaker, because it is being litigated in federal courts around the
country at this very moment, that the Congress found that one expert
after another, and even in agreement with the American Medical
Association that supports abortion rights in America, found that this
procedure is never medically necessary. Let me say again. That after
nearly eight years of debate, after examination of experts, including
the concerted opinion of the American Medical Association, it was
concluded that this procedure, known as partial birth abortion by the
AMA, as well as, of course, by the overwhelming majorities of this
Congress, was found to never be medically necessary, and that is a
critical, critical conclusion by this Congress.

Partial birth abortion, it was concluded almost unilaterally or
uniformly by medical and legal and ethical experts to be inconsistent
with the obligations of the law. So we find ourselves, nevertheless, in
litigation in America, and as a former trial attorney, I can tell my
colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I would never stand between any American and
the courthouse door. We all have the right to seek redress in the
courts, and some are doing just that.

In fact, this law, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, signed into law
last November is being challenged not in one, but in three separate
cases in federal courts around the country: in New York City before
Judge Richard C. Casey; in Lincoln, Nebraska, before Judge Richard Kopf;
and in San Francisco, California, before the honorable Judge Phyllis J.
Hamilton.

In two out of three of those cases, though, interestingly, Mr. Speaker,
the judges on the bench have ruled that an issue that we did consider in
this Congress, but an issue that has not gotten a great deal of public
discussion, was relevant to the deliberations on the constitutionality
of the ban, and that is, as I have said in the title of this discussion
today, the problem of pain. It is the problem of pain that is literally
being considered in two out of three of the federal cases, and it may
ultimately cause some pain in the hearts of Americans who may be looking
in on our deliberations or may be reading accounts of this, but it seems
to me, as we try to come to terms with the cost of abortion in America,
we do well to listen to the experts about this issue of pain, and I want
to speak gently and respectfully about it today.

The truth is, in the New York City case, the National Abortion
Federation never wanted Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand to testify in the Partial
Birth Abortion Ban Act trials, but he did, and no wonder. This Oxford-
and Harvard-trained neonatal pediatrician had some jarring testimony
about the subject of fetal pain, and it is truly made more astonishing
when one considers the fact that Dr. Anand is not a stereotypic
Bible-thumping pro-lifer.

In fact, interestingly, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Anand is not pro-life at all.
He is, in fact, a strong advocate of the right to an abortion. A native
of India, he just does not meet the stereotype, not just the head wrap,
the neat beard, the Rollie Fingers-style mustache, but he views abortion
as an unalienable right for women in America. He gave his testimony in
the New York court, even more credibility as one of the leading experts
on fetal pain in America, if not the world.

Dr. Anand took the stand in the morning recently and testified for
hours, excerpts of which I will read into the record today. He testified
for hours on a simple principle that unborn children can, according to
his research, actually feel pain more vividly than recently born
children or adults. It is an astonishing and truly chilling assertion
that this expert came to.

Let me go back, as my old trial lawyer days taught me to do, and let me
establish the credibility of the witness, if I can. Dr. Kanwaljeet S.
Anand is a pediatrician specializing in the care of critically ill
newborns and children. For more than 20 years, according to trial
testimony, he has conducted intensive research on the study and the
development of pain and stress in human newborns and fetuses.

I said before once again, and I repeat it for the sake of its
significance and its addition to the credibility of his testimony, that
Dr. Anand personally believes that a woman has an unalienable right to
an abortion, which makes him solidly and unqualifiedly pro-choice.

He received his medical degree from Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical
College in Indore, India. After postdoctoral training in pediatrics, he
was awarded a Rhodes scholarship to study at the University of Oxford.
He received a Ph.D. from the Faculty of Medicine for research he
performed on surgical pain and stress in premature and full-term
newborns.

Following additional postdoctoral training at Oxford, Dr. Anand
completed a fellowship in pediatric critical care at Massachusetts
General Hospital.

He has numerous academic appointments, University of Oxford, Harvard
Medical School, Emory University School of Medicine. He has authored or
co-authored more than 200 articles and is currently professor of
pediatrics at Arkansas University for Medical Science. Not a
lightweight, and, virtually as we used to say in the law business, an
unimpeachable witness on the subject of fetal stress and fetal pain.

Now, before I go into precisely what Dr. Anand had to say, it is
important to point out that the damaging nature of this information
coming in not only to the courtroom in New York, and not only has been
ruled in order in Nebraska, Mr. Speaker, but also into the public domain
was certainly not lost on the abortion rights activists who brought the
challenge to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in both of those cases.

Literally, attorneys for the National Abortion Federation used virtually
every legal tactic at their disposal to prevent Dr. Anand\'s testimony
from being permitted in the court. NAF attorneys attempted time and time
again to block Dr. Anand\'s testimony. And then once he was allowed on
the stand, the plaintiffs\' attorneys cross-examined him redundantly, in
a style that actually drew the judge\'s rebuke. The judge actually asked
one of the National Abortion Federation lawyers, he was being so
pedantic and repetitive, and in some ways abusive of Dr. Anand on the
stand, "Is this a new school of cross-examination, where you make a
statement and finish every statement with, is that correct?" Later, the
judge actually drilled a plaintiff\'s lawyer for attempting to make one
of their witnesses testify about events before they were hired.

It just was extraordinary the efforts to which the opponents of the
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act went to prevent Dr. Anand\'s testimony
from being allowed in. And for all the world, I do not think, Mr.
Speaker, it was so much about what was happening in that courtroom as it
was what was happening out here in the debate, the debate for winning
the hearts and minds of 270 or 280 million Americans who wrestle with
this issue and are deeply divided. And not only are we divided just as a
country, but most of even my very best friends and family members who
profess to be pro-choice, do so with a great deal of ambiguity about it,
seeing abortion as a necessary evil in society, but an evil nonetheless.

I really believe, as I denominated this Case for Life installment, I
believe that pain is a problem for the advocates of abortion in America,
not just those who would oppose partial-birth abortion. Abortion and the
problem of pain can be summarized in this idea, and forgive me if I have
too high an opinion of people and particularly the American people, but
I cannot help but feel that if most Americans became persuaded about the
truth of what Dr. Anand has said, about the capacity of unborn children
to experience pain, that we would, as a nation, rethink this business of
abortion.

And so I thought it altogether fitting that we talk about the problem of
pain in the little bit of time I have left. And I may be joined, Mr.
Speaker, by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. *King*), who was actually in
Nebraska, in the courtroom, where much of this testimony took place and
was facilitated just in the last two weeks.

Here is what Dr. Anand had to say, and I want to read this into the
record, if I can, Mr. Speaker, although I will submit the entire
testimony for the record.

When he was brought to the stand in New York City in the partial-birth
abortion ban challenge case, Dr. Anand was asked a series of questions
beginning with this: "Are there differences between fetuses and infants
born at full term?" The answer: "There are certainly huge differences
between a fetus at different stages of maturity and a full-term infant,
yes."

Next question: "What effect, if any, does that have on your opinion in
this case about a fetus\'s ability to feel pain?" This was the response
of this Rhodes Scholar, Harvard-trained Ph.D. who supports the right to
an abortion. Dr. Anand responded: "What we have noted from these
multiple lines of evidence is that the pain system has a very low
threshold, meaning that the fetus has a much greater sensitivity to pain
during the early development of the pain system, and later on that
threshold rises or the sensitivity decreases to pain. This is seen
throughout development. So in a premature fetus, those 23, 24 weeks of
gestation, they have a much lower threshold of pain compared to a
full-term infant. A full-term infant has a lower threshold of pain as
compared to, say, a 1- or 2-year-old child. And during childhood as well
there is a progressive increase in the threshold of pain. So," Dr. Anand
testified, "my opinion is that between 20 and 30 weeks of gestation
there is the greatest sensitivity to pain."

The attorney went on to ask the question: "Doctor, can you explain the
scientific reasons why that is so?" Dr. Anand responded: "There are many
reasons to explain this increased sensitivity to pain. Firstly, there is
the early development of the receptors and the density of these
receptors is much greater in the fetal skin as compared to an older
child or adult. These receptors have connections to the spinal cord," et
cetera, et cetera, et cetera. "So it is that early period," he
concluded, "there is the greatest sensitivity to pain."

Then it gets a bit more chilling, and this is where I would ask the
forbearance of the Chair and any who are looking in; so that if there
are little ears nearby, I, as the father of three small children, have
no desire to offend, but this is offensive. Because here we will hear
where Dr. Anand actually used the word "excruciating" to describe the
experience of pain of an unborn child in a partial-birth abortion.

Question: "Do you have any opinion as to whether the partial-birth
abortion procedure will cause pain to a fetus?" Answer: "Yes, it would,
if the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation."

And I would add parenthetically here, not as part of the testimony, that
virtually all partial-birth abortions take place after 20 weeks,
according to medical statistics.

Back to the testimony. Question: "And could you describe, in your
opinion, Doctor, what kind of pain you would anticipate the fetus would
feel?"

Dr. Anand responded as follows: "Given the increased sensitivity to pain
at that period of gestation, the parts of the procedure associated with
grasping the lower extremity of the fetus, of manipulating or rotating
the fetus within the confines of the uterus, of delivering the fetus
through an incompletely dilated cervix as well as the surgical incision
made at the back of the head, the puncturing of the intracranial cavity
through the occipital bone and through the membranes that cover the
brain, all of those parts of the procedure would be associated with
prolonged and excruciating pain to the fetus." So said Dr. Kanwaljeet
Anand, a Rhodes Scholar and one of the leading experts on fetal pain in
the Western World.

As you heard, Mr. Speaker, going literally step by step through each
element, the doctor described of the procedure of a partial-birth
abortion, and I cited here his reference to the grasping of lower
extremities, the turning of the fetus in the uterus, the delivery of the
fetus through an insufficiently dilated cervix, Dr. Anand concludes that
these would all result in, and these are his words now, "prolonged and
excruciating pain to the fetus."

There is more here; and as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, I will
submit this testimony at this point in the record, in its entirety, for
any who might examine our work at some point in the future, because it
is truly extraordinary to consider.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful now to yield to a colleague and a friend who,
while a freshman from the great State of Iowa, has arrived here with a
vengeance and with convictions and with passion. And as I presented the
issues that are being litigated at this very hour in New York and in
Nebraska and in San Francisco, I was delighted to note that over the
April recess, my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, was not
content to stay in Iowa while these weighty matters were being debated.

As was reported to me, the gentleman from Iowa drove 470 miles one way
to sit in the courtroom in Nebraska in the company of the Honorable
Judge Richard G. Kopf, and reassert the principle of Congress\' ability
to make findings of fact and the deliberation that Congress used in
concluding, as I asserted earlier, Mr. Speaker, that partial-birth
abortion is never medically necessary. And, as I am sure the gentleman
from Iowa will elaborate, that was a broad conclusion by this body.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would be anxious to hear my colleague\'s
reflections on the issue of fetal pain and how that may or may not play
into this debate, both in and out of the courtroom.

My purpose today in this "case for life" entitled "Abortion and the
Problem of Pain," is simply to do our part on this blue and gold carpet
to bring these issues more into the public domain, not just to our
colleagues here on the floor, but also to those that might be looking
in, Mr. Speaker, to be aware that this business of banning partial-birth
abortions, so overwhelmingly supported by the American people, is an
unfinished work. The work goes on.

Mr. Speaker, again I yield to my colleague, the distinguished gentleman
from Iowa, Mr. King, a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Congressman Steve King of Iowa:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana Mr. Pence,
for yielding to me to address my colleagues and America on this issue.

For many years now, this Congress, in response to the people of the
United States of America, have fought diligently to end the most ghastly
and ghoulish and gruesome procedure known to modern man. And as we have
done so, this Congress has held hearings in the 104th, 105th, 106th, and
108th Congresses. That is over 8 to 9 years if gathering information and
data and analysis of the concept of what we call and have defined in
this Congress as partial-birth abortion.

Now, for myself, as I thumb through the phone book in the Washington,
D.C. yellow pages, I can find in there ads for abortions up to at least
22 weeks, and I believe there are one or two that advertise up to 24
weeks. And if the advertisement goes to that, then you can be confident
that those partial-birth abortions are taking place beyond the 24 weeks.
And, in fact, in this country, there is a Supreme Court decision that
allows for such a thing up until the very last minute before birth.

The circumstances around this law that we have then in this country come
to Congress finally passing a ban on partial-birth abortion that was
signed by our President. And that was something that was difficult, in
fact impossible to obtain under the previous administration. We have it
today.

I sit on the House Committee on the Judiciary, and we held hearings and
we gathered facts, did fact-finding, due diligence, and gathered data
that reaches out all across this country into all of the experts, the
best experts that we can find, to bring them forward to testify before
congressional hearings. There were people to testify on each side of the
argument, both pro and con on this procedure that we know all across
this Nation as partial-birth abortion.

And when that happens, these expert witnesses testify, they are
cross-examined by nearly every member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
At the end of that period of time, then we debate the relative merits of
the issue. As that debate flows through, we bring the bill for a vote,
and generally through subcommittee, full committee, and then out to the
floor. The same procedure takes place over in the other body.

That gathers all of the best expertise that can be gathered, it draws it
all out of the United States of America, and then we have the
administrative branch that also has their staff and their expertise, and
they do their fact-finding.

So when the House of Representatives votes overwhelmingly and the other
body votes overwhelmingly to ban that ghastly, ghoulish, and gruesome
procedure of partial-birth abortion, and when Congress comes with
findings that declare that a partial-birth abortion is never medically
necessary to preserve the health of the woman, there is no system of
fact-finding or data-gathering that exists in this country today that
can begin to match the due diligence of the United States Congress.

So, when word came to me late Good Friday that a judge in Lincoln,
Nebraska, had made remarks during the last witness\' cross-examination
in the case that is one of the three jurisdictions that the gentleman
from Indiana spoke about, that the attorneys in the case had done more
due diligence than Congress had, that echoed into my ears an hour or
two, if not within minutes. When it did, it looked to me that the
preparation was at least there to declare that Congress had not done due
diligence, that the attorneys in the case had, and that would be reason
or justification enough to overturn our congressional ban, our Federal
ban on partial-birth abortion.

So the decision was made late that Friday afternoon, and I was in
Lincoln at 9 on Monday morning. I make one minor correction to the
gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pence: It was round-trip miles rather than
one way. It was a little bit to adjust it into my schedule. I walked
into the courtroom at 9, and I am confident most of the actors in the
courtroom knew I was coming, judging by the reaction in the courtroom. I
listened to that case between 9 and almost up to 12, nearly noon, just
stepping out for a couple of message exchanges. At noon I went down
there outside the Federal building in Lincoln, Nebraska, and held a
press conference. I made the statement describing how Congress comes to
their findings, what due diligence Congress uses, and that there is no
substitute for the due diligence of Congress.

For a single judge to substitute his opinion for the collective wisdom
of the United States of America is the height of arrogance. It also
exposes judicial activism. It turns the law on its head. There is
nothing that we could pass in this Congress that would meet that kind of
standard that would allow a single judge to substitute his judgment for
the wisdom of the people of America.

That is what that press conference was about. It echoed across this
Nation from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean and points in between, and
I am hopeful that it echoes into that courtroom and the courtrooms of
San Francisco and New York where any activist judge in this country
realizes that the legislative power belongs to the United States
Congress. That is defined in the United States Constitution. If we allow
judicial activism to run its course, there is no point in this body
existing. They will have taken away all of the legislative power of this
Congress if we do not draw the line.

I would have said a year ago that the line was blurred between the
judicial and the legislative branch of government. Today I will say it
is obliterated. It has been obliterated in a number of cases not
particularly relevant to the ban on partial-birth abortion.

We have the authority as Congress to rein in the run-away judiciary, to
slap the wrists of judicial activism. In fact, all Federal courts, with
the exception of the Supreme Court, exist because they have been
established from time to time by the Congress. Whatever the Congress
establishes, they can take away.

So it is conceivable that any of these Federal lower courts are not a
requirement of Congress, we could do with them as we wish. We want to do
what is prudent and appropriate, but we also have an obligation to
preserve the separation of powers. I will continue to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the fetal pain issue as well. I do not
think that is hard for any of us to understand. We have heard testimony
during hearings of this Congress of a baby that was almost to the last
moment of its life reaching its arm out with that fear-of-falling
reflex. It is unrealistic to believe that baby did not feel the pain at
that moment, at that moment when they are trusting into the hands
outside the womb instead of the protection of the womb, to have those
hands take the life and drain the brains from that innocent, most
innocent little child.

If Members have seen the pictures that have been up on the Internet,
particularly on the Drudge Report, during intrauterine surgery, a little
hand reaching up, grabbing ahold of the finger of a doctor. Imagine a
little hand grasping the hand of the surgeon that is there to protect
and save its life, and that little hand and that little body cannot feel
pain? Of course it does. For a doctor to say, I have never thought of
such a thing, it did not occur to me whether there was pain there, that
would not be the case if this were happening with an animal. There would
be a national outrage, and there should be a national outrage on this.

We have to play this out in the courts in New York, Nebraska and San
Francisco. We are going to see these three inferior courts come with a
decision. Those decisions will find their way to the United States
Supreme Court where the Supreme Court will in the next year or so be
obligated to makes a decision on whether Congress can actually declare
findings and declare fact.

We have done so.

There are only two questions before the court, I understand. One of them
is do congressional findings determine that a partial-birth abortion is
never necessary to protect the health of the woman; and the other
question is did we define partial-birth abortion accurately and
precisely enough that one who is providing that procedure, and that is
hard for me to say, understands clearly at what point they would be
breaking the law?

I think we have a precise definition of partial-birth abortion. It is
clear whether it is a head delivery or whether it is a breech delivery.
We define that moment when it becomes a partial-birth abortion, and
Leroy Carhart or any of those practitioners understand that, and they
are simply trying to confuse the American public.

I will stand for life. I stand with the gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
Pence, and the hundreds of people in this Congress and the millions
across this country that understand that innocent life begins at the
instant of conception.

Congressman Pence:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, for his
statements, and again want to express my gratitude for the gentleman\'s
tenacity in defending life and the processes of an institution. Our
colleague, literally at a time when many Members of Congress with their
families were stealing away to someplace warm, our colleague was headed
to a courthouse to defend the integrity of an institution and the
processes of this institution which the American people, many of whom
may be looking into our conversation today, have a right to know that
the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act signed 5 November, 2003, by this
President was thoughtfully considered and carefully prepared and based
upon findings of fact that are demonstrable.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, for his leadership and for
his courage on behalf of the unborn and as truly a remarkable
contributor to this institution in a very short period of time.

By way of closing this installment of the case for life, abortion and
the problem of pain, I would reflect on those words from the ancient
text that say whatsoever you do to the least of these, you do to me, and
that for millions of Christians, me included, those were the words of
God Himself. They express a principle that has been manifested
throughout the 2,000-year history of Western civilization that societies
and their justice and their definition of justice is defined on the
manner in which the strong deal with the weak. That is the essence of
justice.

At its very core, in my judgment, whether it is partial-birth abortion
or abortion in any of its permutations, justice demands that we
reconsider this practice. As the evidence that the gentleman from Iowa,
Mr. King, defended in Lincoln, Nebraska, overwhelmingly attested in the
case of partial-birth abortion, this is a procedure that is never
medically necessary. In fact, we, from south of Highway 40 in Indiana,
like to use common sense on things. It hardly seems like it could ever
be in the interest of the health of a woman to deliver a child and to
brutalize it in the birth canal, and that would somehow be safer for the
mother than a simple caesarean section that is done countless times in
America and has been done since Caesar, after whom it was named. It is
never medically necessary.

Beyond that, it is my hope and my ambition, and I may even say my
prayer, that the problem of pain becomes more widely known in this
country. Just judging the intensity that abortion rights activists use
to keep Dr. Anand\'s testimony about fetal pain out of the courtroom in
these proceedings suggests to me that our opponents in this debate
understand the political vulnerability because at our core I believe, as
the President says so often, the American people are a deeply
compassionate and caring people.

That is why I said at the beginning of this discussion today that in the
case for life, the problem of pain is a problem for advocates of
abortion rights. To the extent that these court cases and the attempts
to challenge and pull down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act ultimately
result, whatever their outcome, in the American people having a broader
understanding of the reality of what Dr. Anand called so chillingly that
prolonged and excruciating pain to the fetus in a partial-birth
abortion, then we may be making progress.

So I conclude this Case for Life, Mr. Speaker, with gratitude for your
forbearance and those of my colleagues, with renewed appreciation to the
gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, who, along with his lovely bride, are
stalwarts on the case for life. I close this case for life with
gratitude.

\###