Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to attempt to speak on the unique tragedy and trauma suffered with the loss of a child. I think other Members have already spoken to that, and could speak to it with a passion of familiarity that neither I nor any other male Member of this Chamber could. Instead, I would like to speak as a former prosecutor, someone who for 6 years went into court and prosecuted a variety of Federal crimes, and has experience not only with the job of prosecuting those cases but also handling the inevitable motions, the appellate process, the habeas corpus petitions and all of the delays attendant to litigating complex issues.
This is a criminal justice bill. This is a public safety measure. Its ostensible purpose is to use the vehicle of the criminal justice system to deter attacks on pregnant women, to incapacitate those who would conduct them by lengthening the sentences, to bring about retribution on those who would commit such a heinous act. All of the purposes of the criminal justice system are served by both bill and substitute; but if one has to choose as a prosecutor going into court under one law or going into court on another, they would certainly choose to go into court under a law that is less subject to constitutional challenge and attack.
The bill, as it is drafted, using definitions like a member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb, invites, demands in fact, constitutional litigation. As a prosecutor, one can be assured in both motion and appeal to the highest courts of the land they will be required to litigate when life begins under the bill.
That is not required under the substitute. If it is our goal to give prosecutors that extra tool, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) mentioned, if it is our goal to allow prosecutors to take more vigorous action to have greater penalties at their beck and call to deter, to incapacitate, to bring about retribution for these crimes, let us choose a substitute which makes that possible without this unprecedented constitutional litigation.