Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. LOFGREN) for yielding me this time, and for her great leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary as well for facilitating the Lofgren amendment coming to the floor.
It is masterful, it really is, because it answers the concerns that are posed by the proposers of the original bill to expand the penalty for those who commit violence against pregnant women, and it does so in a way that achieves that goal but is constitutional.
Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that acts of violence against pregnant women are reprehensible and should be punished. We all agree that acts of violence that harm a fetus are obviously unacceptable and repulsive to us. We can all agree that we must prevent violence against women whether pregnant or not.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. SMITH), who just spoke, whom I hold in very high esteem, asked the question how could otherwise intelligent, caring people come to the floor and be opposed to this legislation that is being opposed by our colleagues on the other side? He said, could it be, he had a series of could-it-be's, that we could ignore violence against a pregnant woman?
But we are not ignoring it. The Lofgren amendment addresses it very directly without doing violence to the issue.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the substitute proposed by my colleague. The substitute would create a separate Federal criminal offense for harm to pregnant women, but would not confer new legal status on the fetus.
So I respond to my colleague, could it be that, as a woman, I know a little bit more about this subject than maybe he does? Could it be that as a mother of five, a grandmother of four, and hopefully more grandchildren to come, that I understand how reprehensible violence against a pregnant woman is?
But if that is the issue, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. LOFGREN) has responded to it. The bill on the floor is unconstitutional. It is a move to undo, which it cannot do, unless it is a constitutional amendment, but it is an attempt to undo Roe v. Wade.
In 1973, we all know the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade stated that the unborn have never been recognized in the laws as persons in the whole sense. The Court specifically rejected the theory that grants personage to the fetus because it may override the rights of pregnant women that are at stake.
I urge my colleagues to accept the solution that is here, that addresses the problem in a constitutional way, and does not do violence to a woman's rights.