Email Alert, October 10, 2001

The following article will appear in the October issue of National Right to
Life News.

Terrorist Attacks Change Congressional Agenda
By Douglas Johnson
NRLC Federal Legislative Director

    WASHINGTON (Oct. 8, 2001) – The September 11 terrorist attacks have
changed the agenda of Congress, at least for the rest of this year.
    Legislation dealing with many important issues has been set aside for the
time, as Congress concentrates on bills dealing with national security and
with the economic disruptions growing out of the attacks.
    In addition, lawmakers are working to pass the 13 appropriations bills
that are needed to fund federal agencies for fiscal year 2002, which began on
October 1.  The government is currently operating on a temporary funding
measure that expires on October 18.
    Many lawmakers wish to adjourn for the year as soon as the appropriations
process is completed.
    Since the attacks, the leaders of both parties have striven to present a
picture of national unity to the American public and to other nations.  To
that end, they have largely avoided open conflicts on contentious issues. 
The mood was described by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), chairman of the Senate
Democratic Policy Committee, in a quote in the September 17 issue of the
Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call:  "There is a feeling that this is not a
time to have disagreement on issues.  All those issues for the moment are
suspended while the spotlight shines on this emergency and this catastrophe."

Human Cloning Ban
    The desire for unity and the widespread hope for early adjournment –
perhaps before the end of October – have worked to the disadvantage of
pro-life forces on the issue of human cloning.
    On July 31, the House passed the NRLC-backed Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R.
2505) to ban human cloning.  Before September 11, NRLC and other pro-life
groups were pressing for the Senate to take up the bill.  (See "Will Senate
Democratic Leader Act to Prevent Human Embryo Farms?," August NRL News, page
1.)  But since September 11, congressional preoccupation with the immediate
crisis has effectively foreclosed getting the Senate to take up a new issue
this year.
    The chief sponsor of the Senate version of the ban (S. 790),  pro-life
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), has indicated that he will push hard to obtain
Senate action on the measure as soon as feasible.
    Some other important pro-life measures will also have to wait until next
year.   These include the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 503), which
was approved by the House on April 26 and is awaiting Senate action, and the
Child Custody Protection Act (H.R. 476), which was the subject of a hearing
in the House on September 6.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research
    On some other issues, the prevalent desire to defer conflict has worked
to the advantage of the pro-life side – for example, on the issue of
embryonic stem cell research.
    In August, President Bush announced that he would authorize federal
funding of research on certain already-existing embryonic stem cell lines,
but that he would veto any bill to fund research that would require the
destruction of human embryos.  This policy was criticized as much too
restrictive by Democratic congressional leaders and some Republicans,
including pro-abortion Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA).  (See "Lawmakers
Opposed to Bush Policy Appear Uncertain on Next Move," September NRL News,
page 23.)
    Since the terrorist attacks, it appears that most advocates of federal
funding of research that would kill human embryos have concluded that they
should defer any legislative challenge to the President's policy until next
year.  However, it is still possible that some lawmakers could attempt to
reopen the issue during upcoming consideration of the Health and Human
Services appropriations bill.

Perennial Issues
    Despite the general desire among lawmakers to avoid new controversies,
some pro-abortion members of Congress have not shied away from pressing 
their positions on several perennial abortion-related issues.
    Appropriations bills, including the pro-life restrictions attached to
them, last for only one year.  On appropriations bills for the new fiscal
year, leaders of the House Appropriations Committee have included the same
pro-life provisions that have been carried on those bills in past years --
for example, the Hyde Amendment.
    However, as of NRL News deadline on October 8, the Senate had already
removed longstanding pro-life provisions from two of the new appropriations
bills. 
    One of the provisions deleted in the Senate prohibits funding of
abortions by the Bureau of Prisons – even though that policy was reaffirmed
by the House on July 17 by a vote of 253-169.  [To see the roll call, cut and
paste this address into your web browser: 
http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2001&rollnumber=235]    The
other deleted provision prohibits coverage of abortions in the health plans
that cover federal employees.  Four other appropriations bills that
traditionally contain pro-life provisions are still awaiting action in the
Senate, and some of those provisions may also be weakened or removed. 
    NRLC and others on the pro-life side will fight for retention of the
traditional pro-life provisions in the final versions of these bills, which
will be hammered out in House-Senate conference committees during the weeks
ahead. 
    Another attack from the pro-abortion side occurred on September 25, when
pro-abortion Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Ca.) offered an amendment to the Fiscal
Year 2002 Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 2586) to remove a longstanding ban
on performance of abortions at overseas military facilities.  The Sanchez
Amendment failed, 199-217. 
[http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2001&rollnumber=357]

Born-Alive Infants
    Both houses have passed "patients' bill of rights" bills (regulating
HMOs).  If and when lawmakers work out differences between the two bills –
and it is still possible that could occur this year – the final bill
("conference report") should contain the NRLC-backed Born-Alive Infants
Protection Act (H.R. 2175, S. 1050), since that legislation was attached to
both bills.  (See "Pro-Life Nurse Fired from Christ Hospital," September NRL
News, pages 16-17.)

"Campaign Finance Reform"
    NRLC is opposed to certain so-called "campaign finance reform" bills that
would restrict the right of citizen groups to communicate with the public
about the actions of federal politicians and about actions needed to affect
upcoming congressional votes.  The chief threat comes from the
McCain-Feingold bill (S. 27), which passed the Senate in April, and its House
counterpart, the Shays-Meehan bill (H.R. 2356).
    Up until the time of the terrorist attacks, Shays-Meehan backers were
working to push the bill to the House floor by getting a majority of House
members to sign a "discharge petition" on the bill.   By September 10, the
petition had gathered 209 of the 218 signatures required to force a floor
vote this year. 
    [To see the list of signers, go to:
http://clerkweb.house.gov/107/lrc/pd/petitions/Dis3.htm ]
    Since the September 11 attacks, however, no additional lawmakers have
signed the petition.  It does not appear that Democratic leaders will push
for debate on this controversial and partisan issue under current
circumstances.  As a staffer to Rep. Marty Meehan (D-Mass.) explained to
Congress Daily (Sept. 17), "All of this stuff has gone by the wayside.  I
don't think there's going to be a rush to the rostrum to sign the discharge
petition."
    Even Senator John McCain (R-AZ) himself told the Washington Times (Sept.
26),  "I can't worry about it right now.  I haven't thought about it since
[Sept. 11]."
    The same Washington Times story quoted House Majority Leader Dick Armey,
an opponent of the bill, as saying that Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) had
approached him "letting me know we can't go home until we do that
[Shays-Meehan bill]."  But Armey added, "Before the 11th of September, it
["campaign finance reform"] was the lowest thing on the American radar screen
for people outside of Washington, D.C.  And my guess is that it is even
further lower now than it was then."

back to Action Alert page