Abortion: Legislative Response Page: 16 of 19
This report is part of the collection entitled: Congressional Research Service Reports and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
IB95095
whether the D & X procedure is never medically necessary, and similar uncertainty over the
procedure being safer than other procedures for some women, the court concluded that
Congress's findings were not reasonable and based on substantial evidence.
Finally, in Carhart v. Ashcroft, 331 F.Supp.2d 805 (D. Neb. 2004), a federal district
court in Nebraska concluded that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is
unconstitutional for several reasons: it fails to include a health exception that would allow
the partial-birth abortion procedure to be performed to preserve the health of the mother; it
imposes an undue burden on women by banning the D&E or dilation and evacuation
procedure, the most common abortion procedure during the second trimester of pregnancy,
under certain circumstances; and it is unconstitutionally vague.
Appeals are expected for all of the cases. An appeal to the Supreme Court is also
expected.
H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 or Laci and Conner's Law, was
signed by the President on April 1, 2004 (P.L. 108-212).6 The act establishes a separate
offense for harming or killing an "unborn child" in utero during the commission of a violent
crime. Punishment for the separate offense is the same as if the offense had been committed
against the pregnant woman. In addition, an offense does not require proof that the person
engaging in the misconduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim
of the underlying offense was pregnant, or that the defendant intended to cause the death of,
or bodily injury to, the child in utero. The phrase "child in utero" is defined by the act to
mean "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried
in the womb."
H.R. 1755, the Child Custody Protection Act, was introduced by Representative Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen on April 10, 2003. S. 851, the Senate version of the act, was introduced by
Senator John E. Ensign on the same day. The act would have prohibited the knowing
transport of a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. The bill
sought to prevent the abridgement of parental consent and notification requirements in a
minor's residing state. Violators of the act would have been subject to a fine under Title 18
of the United States Code or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. The act's
prohibition would not have applied to abortions that were necessary to save the life of the
minor because her life was endangered by physical disorder, physical injury, or physical
illness.
S. 1397, the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2003, was introduced by Senator Judd
Gregg on July 14, 2003. Under the bill, various health care entities, including hospitals and
health maintenance organizations, that refused to provide coverage for abortion or refused
to pay for induced abortions could not have been subject to adverse action by the federal
government or state or local governments that receive federal financial assistance. A similar
version of the act was passed by the House during the 107th Congress, but was not considered
by the Senate. For additional information on the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act, see CRS
Report RS21428, The History and Effect of Abortion Conscience Clause Laws.CRS-13
6 See also CRS Report RS21550, The Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
04-05-05
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
Lewis, Karen J.; Shimabukuro, Jon O. & Ely, Dana. Abortion: Legislative Response, report, April 5, 2005; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc820435/m1/16/?rotate=90: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.