On April 27, the House approved, 270-157, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (H.R. 748). The House Judiciary Committee approved the measure on April 13 (see The Source, 4/15/05).
Sponsored by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), H.R. 748 would make it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion, thereby evading parental consent and notification laws. The bill would require that a parent or legal guardian be notified when a minor is transported across state lines for an abortion. Individuals who transported a minor across state lines and the doctor performing the abortion would be fined and could serve up to one year in prison. 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.
During consideration of the bill, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) offered an amendment that would have exempted doctors, nurses, and other medical providers, taxicab drivers, bus drivers or others in the business of professional transportation from being charged with a crime for transporting a minor across state lines for an abortion without parental or guardian consent. The amendment was defeated, 179-245.
The House also rejected, 177-252, an amendment offered by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) that would have exempted members of the clergy and grandparents from being charged with a crime for transporting a minor across state lines for an abortion without parental or guardian consent.
Rep. Ros-Lehtinen explained that “as a mother of two teenage daughters, I, like so many Americans, believe that we as parents have a right to know what is going on in our daughters’ lives, especially with regard to a potentially life-threatening medical procedure. And my bill, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, CIANA, will incorporate all of the provisions previously contained in the Child Custody Protection Act making it a Federal offense to transport a minor across State lines in order to circumvent that State’s abortion parental protection laws… It will protect minors from exploitation from the abortion industry. It will promote strong family ties, and it will help foster respect for State laws.”
Citing statistics that most young women already do include a parent in their decision to have an abortion, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) added, “Not everybody talks to their parents, because they cannot. And so it is these young people who most need the advice and assistance of a trusted family friend, a minister, or a sympathetic grandmother. When a young woman cannot involve her parents, public policies and medical professionals need to encourage her to involve a trusted adult. And if you look at this bill, it does just the opposite of that. If it is passed into law, these young women will have to face this life-altering decision themselves, alone and without any medical help.”
Expressing her support for the bill, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-VA) stated, “Unfortunately, only about half our States currently have parental notification or consent laws in effect, and all too often these laws are circumvented by those wishing to take minors to other States that do not have parental notification requirements. This often happens under heavy pressure from older boyfriends or at the urging of abortion providers. In order to protect the welfare of young women and the rights of their parents, Congress has a duty to regulate this interstate activity…As Federal lawmakers, we also have an obligation to protect the rights of the States. Unfortunately, when it comes to abortion, these State laws are being trampled on at the expense of vulnerable young women and their families.”
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) disagreed, arguing that the bill “is not about protecting children. It is merely a part of the majority’s agenda to please anti-choice extremists. If the majority were truly concerned about children, then this bill would not be so extreme, so complex, and so unconstitutional. It provides no exception for the health of the mother, as required by the Supreme Court. It does not always provide an option for judicial bypass, which is also required by the Supreme Court. And it violates States’ rights by forcing the laws of one State on to another.”
Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) has introduced a similar measure (S. 396) in the Senate.
