The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“END PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H11123 on Nov. 7, 2003.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
END PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago the President of the United States signed into law a historic piece of legislation, a bill that would end partial birth abortion, a law that will now end this heinous and truly gruesome, barbaric act of killing innocent little boys and girls.
But as was all too expected, a lawsuit was immediately filed and a court immediately prevented this life-saving law from going into effect. Most appalling is the fact that the court did so not on any sound basis of law, but on what is becoming all too often the case with courts in this Nation, a decision by the court to simply impose its feelings on the issue over the findings of a legislative body, this United States Congress.
As has been reported in the press, the U.S. Department of Justice asked the court, as courts should do, to give deference to the finding of fact by Congress. Instead, the court replied to that request that it could find no record of any doctor who performs abortions in the last trimester to testify before Congress. The court stated: ``Isn't that important if Congress was really interested in knowing about this procedure?'' Indeed, if this court was truly being honest, it would realize that no abortionist would ever want to testify before Congress because in so doing, the awful truth about this heinous act would be revealed before the opponents of this act, before this House. It is telling that no abortionist of such late-term abortions would want to testify about such horrific acts that they do.
It is so patently clear that the court here was searching for a way to impose its personal view instead of abiding by the law of the land, a law which is supported by the vast majority of the people of this Nation, as well as most State governments. The court simply refused to abide by the findings of this Congress that a health exception was not necessary. The court stated: ``While it is also true that Congress found that a health exception is not needed, at the very least it is problematic whether I should defer to such a conclusion when the Supreme Court has found otherwise.'' Problematic, court?
If the court was indeed wanting to uphold the law of the Nation and not its personal views, it would have recognized that the Supreme Court's holdings were not its own, but were the opinions of a lower court that the Supreme Court simply did not have sufficient legal basis to overrule.
Congress, however, very clearly and upon substantial hearings and evidence set out its findings of fact of no need for a health exception. This court, however, as past Supreme Courts have stated, should have abided by the findings of facts by this Congress. This court has failed to uphold the findings of this Congress. This court has failed to abide by the precedent of the Supreme Court in granting due deference to such findings of fact. And most tragic of all, this court's actions may well result in more deaths to innocent little children.
____________________
