or Login to see your representatives.

Access Candidates' and Representatives' Biographies, Voting Records, Interest Group Ratings, Issue Positions, Public Statements, and Campaign Finances

Simply enter your zip code above to get to all of your candidates and representatives, or enter a name. Then, just click on the person you are interested in, and you can navigate to the categories of information we track for them.

Public Statements

Garrett Issues Statement on Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act Litigation

By:
Date:
Location: Washington, DC


Garrett Issues Statement on Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act Litigation

March 30, 2004, Washington, D.C. - Today, Rep. Scott Garrett (NJ-05) issued the following statement regarding the Partial Birth Abortion (PBA) Ban Act litigation beginning this week in three courts in New York City, New York; Lincoln, Nebraska; and San Francisco, California. The law is being challenged by the pro-abortion lobby, to determine whether or not the PBA Ban violates the Constitution:

"This law banning PBA protects innocent lives from this torturous, gruesome practice. By acting to prevent this act, our elected officials have affirmed a basic standard of humanity - the duty of the strong to protect the weak. The Justice Department is now defending this law banning PBA, which Congress found to never to be medically necessary.

"The abortion lobby originally claimed that PBA is medically necessary, but later changed their argument, when the Justice Department sought medical records of the doctors involved in the litigation. If the abortion lobby is going to strike down a federal law using their experience as the reason, then their medical records are obviously important in the defense of the law.

"Abortion-rights groups are trying to turn the government's subpoena into an issue of patient privacy, when in fact Justice Department states that it does not want names or any other identifying information. Any and all patient-identifying information was to be removed by the hospital, prior to releasing it to Justice, which would ensure that patient confidentiality was fully protected.

"There is no Constitutional right to perform this practice and there is no excuse for it in a civilized nation. This law meets all Constitutional merits, and the American people have long supported ending this violent and unnecessary procedure. It is critically important that this court must uphold this law and the victory that it represents for the voiceless and powerless members of our society."

Garrett Issues Statement on Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act Litigation
March 30, 2004, Washington, D.C. - Today, Rep. Scott Garrett (NJ-05) issued the following statement regarding the Partial Birth Abortion (PBA) Ban Act litigation beginning this week in three courts in New York City, New York; Lincoln, Nebraska; and San Francisco, California. The law is being challenged by the pro-abortion lobby, to determine whether or not the PBA Ban violates the Constitution:

"This law banning PBA protects innocent lives from this torturous, gruesome practice. By acting to prevent this act, our elected officials have affirmed a basic standard of humanity - the duty of the strong to protect the weak. The Justice Department is now defending this law banning PBA, which Congress found to never to be medically necessary.

"The abortion lobby originally claimed that PBA is medically necessary, but later changed their argument, when the Justice Department sought medical records of the doctors involved in the litigation. If the abortion lobby is going to strike down a federal law using their experience as the reason, then their medical records are obviously important in the defense of the law.

"Abortion-rights groups are trying to turn the government's subpoena into an issue of patient privacy, when in fact Justice Department states that it does not want names or any other identifying information. Any and all patient-identifying information was to be removed by the hospital, prior to releasing it to Justice, which would ensure that patient confidentiality was fully protected.

"There is no Constitutional right to perform this practice and there is no excuse for it in a civilized nation. This law meets all Constitutional merits, and the American people have long supported ending this violent and unnecessary procedure. It is critically important that this court must uphold this law and the victory that it represents for the voiceless and powerless members of our society."

Back to top