Hearing of House Subcommittee on the Constitution: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act
HEARING OF HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION: CHILD INTERSTATE ABORTION NOTIFICATION ACT
March 3, 2005
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your holding the hearing in Cincinnati. It shows that there are things that we can work on and agree on. Unfortunately, there are also things that we disagree on.
I would ask Dr. Seigel, following up on that last question, I don't think you got to the end of your testimony. Have medical organizations taken a position on mandatory notice and consent laws?
Dr. Seigel. Yes. Actually, PRCH is in agreement with leading medical organizations on this issue. The AMA, for example, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the American College of Physicians, and the American Public Health Association all oppose mandatory parental involvement laws because they endanger the health of adolescents and impose undue burdens on physicians. Additionally, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Society for Adolescent Medicine have opposed similar legislation entitled the Child Custody Protection Act, which is currently under consideration in the Senate as S. 8, because of the harm that it may cause adolescents.
Mr. Scott. And so, on balance, they have judged that children would be more endangered with the passage of this bill than helped?
Dr. Seigel. Correct. However, all----
Mr. Scott. Do they take the position that it is a good idea to encourage the children to seek parental involvement?
Dr. Seigel. Not only do all of those organizations encourage that appropriate counseling for young women include them divulging the pregnancy to the parents, but also they have pushed us to start teaching it in medical schools, to our residents, to our fellows, in all of our programs throughout the country. This is the standard of care of medicine as it should be in this country right now, and to do anything less, in my view, is just not appropriate.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Professor Myers, you mentioned that you don't need a health exception in this bill. It has no health exception. Is your----
Mr. Myers. Well, it has a variety of exceptions that I think are crafted to protect----
Mr. Scott. Does it have a health exception?
Mr. Myers. It has the--there is an exception for--there is a judicial bypass in the minor's home State----
Mr. Scott. Does it have a health exception?
Mr. Myers. It has an exception for the life situation and in the sexual abuse and neglect situation.
Mr. Scott. It has a partial life exception. Does it have a health exception? Well, let me just say it has no health exception. Can you cite any case that supports the contention that you do not need a health exception in this bill? Carhart v. Stenberg would suggest that you need a health exception. Can you cite a case that would suggest that you do not need a health exception?
Mr. Myers. I think, as I mentioned earlier, I think the understanding of Stenberg was based on the Court's view that the law there actually prohibited abortions in certain situations because of the definition.
Mr. Scott. So you are citing----
Mr. Myers. So in that situation----
Mr. Scott. You are citing, Stenberg, then, as the case that we should rely on?
Mr. Myers. No. What I am saying is it required a health exception because the law was an actual obstacle to a woman getting an abortion.
Mr. Scott. Can you cite a case that we can review--can you cite the name of a case that we can review to lead us to the conclusion that you don't need a health exception in this bill?
Mr. Myers. I think the----
Mr. Scott. The name of a case.
Mr. Myers. The case that I think has the best understanding of the Supreme Court's case law in this area is the Fourth Circuit cases, Blueridge?
Ms. Collett. Hodgson v. Minnesota, Representative Scott, is a United States Supreme Court case where there was no health exception and it involves a parental notice act.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Ms. Collett, in two States, adjoining States, I guess Washington and Oregon, neither of which has any parental involvement law, if you go from one to the other, does this bill require parental notification?
Ms. Collett. Yes, it will.
Mr. Scott. Even though neither State has that provision?
Ms. Collett. That is correct.
Mr. Scott. Professor Myers, if the Commonwealth of Virginia feels that casino gambling is immoral, under the idea and the principles in this bill, could we pass legislation prohibiting these buses from gathering up people and transporting them across State lines to go to Atlantic City, New Jersey to gamble in a casino?
Mr. Myers. I think it is the sort of thing, and I teach conflicts of law, as happens all the time, where States as long as they have a proper interest----
Mr. Scott. Is the answer yes?
Mr. Myers.--in protecting their residents have an interest in applying their law----
Mr. Scott. I am almost out of time. Do you feel that is a yes?
Mr. Myers. Well, I think that one is this is a Federal law, so whether the State of Virginia has that authority is really immaterial. I think that they do have the right to legislate----
Mr. Scott. Let me ask a couple of other quick questions. Under the bill, is it legal for the teenager to cross State lines by herself? That would not be a violation of this bill, is that right?
Mr. Myers. The law doesn't focus on the minor.
Mr. Scott. Would it be legal to transport someone to the State line, without crossing the State line, and then dropping the child off at the State line? Would that be legal under the bill?
Mr. Myers. It turns on transporting somebody across the State lines for the----
Mr. Scott. Would an older sister----
Mr. Myers.--purpose of evading their home State's law.
Mr. Scott. Would an older sister be vulnerable under this act?
Mr. Myers. It applies to persons who have the proper mens rea who are trying to transport a minor for purposes of evading her home State's law, so yes, it applies----
Mr. Scott. That would include an older sister?
Mr. Myers.--it applies to--yes, it doesn't have an exception for----
Mr. Scott. And finally, if you catch a taxicab and in the conversation in the back make it clear that you are going from Kansas City, Kansas, to Kansas City, Missouri, for the purpose of getting an abortion and evading some parental consent laws, is the taxicab driver vulnerable under the bill?
Mr. Myers. I think it is really unrealistic to think that they would fall within the statutory requirement of knowingly transporting with the intent of abridging the rights of parents. So if you actually had a taxicab service that was set up for the purpose of evading the State law----
Mr. Scott. So if you had a taxicab driver----
Mr. Myers.--fine, but in this situation----
Mr. Scott.--who listens to the conversation----
Mr. Myers.--that you describe, I don't think that would fall within the definition of this statute.
Mr. Scott. If you listen to the conversation where the teenager says, ``Please take me to the abortion clinic. I can't get my parents' permission here. Take me across State lines,'' the taxicab driver would or would not be vulnerable?
Mr. Myers. I don't think they would have the requisite intent under the statute.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_house_hearings&docid=99583.wais