Regular Session - May 14, 2003
2534
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
May 14, 2003
11:05 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
SENATOR RAYMOND A. MEIER, Acting President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
2535
P R O C E E D I N G S
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senate will come to order.
May I ask everyone present to
please rise and join me in repeating the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: In the
absence of clergy, may we now bow our heads in
a moment of silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Reading
of the Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Tuesday, May 13, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Monday, May 12,
was read and approved. On motion, Senate
adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
2536
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President, on
page 72 I offer the following amendments to
Calendar Number 449, Senate Print Number 608,
and ask that said bill retain its place on
Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received and adopted, and the
bill will retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Thank
you, Senator.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Environmental Conservation Committee in the
Majority Conference Room.
2537
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Immediate meeting of the Environmental
Conservation Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, I
believe there are substitutions at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes,
there are.
SENATOR SKELOS: Could we make
them at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the substitutions.
THE SECRETARY: On page 5,
Senator Maziarz moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Racing, Gaming and Wagering,
Assembly Bill Number 6217 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 2626,
First Report Calendar 801.
On page 6, Senator Hannon moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Health,
Assembly Bill Number 6907 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 1817A,
First Report Calendar 816.
On page 6, Senator Rath moves to
2538
discharge, from the Committee on Health,
Assembly Bill Number 2800 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 2045,
First Report Calendar 817.
On page 10, Senator Leibell moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Finance,
Assembly Bill Number 490 and substitute it for
the identical Senate Bill Number 1677, First
Report Calendar 849.
On page 13, Senator Velella moves
to discharge, from the Committee on
Transportation, Assembly Bill Number 3039 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 2985, First Report Calendar 884.
On page 14, Senator Maltese moves
to discharge, from the Committee on
Transportation, Assembly Bill Number 608 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 4106, First Report Calendar 889.
On page 15, Senator Flanagan moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Codes,
Assembly Bill Number 7048B and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 3061A,
First Report Calendar 901.
On page 16, Senator Volker moves to
2539
discharge, from the Committee on Codes,
Assembly Bill Number 7003 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 4853,
First Report Calendar 911.
On page 16, Senator DeFrancisco
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Environmental Conservation, Assembly Bill
Number 1957 and substitute it for the
identical Senate Bill Number 4190, First
Report Calendar 917.
On page 19, Senator Marcellino
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Civil Service and Pensions, Assembly Bill
Number 6927 and substitute it for the
identical Senate Bill Number 2101, First
Report Calendar 940.
And on page 22, Senator Nozzolio
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Local Government, Assembly Bill Number 1812A
and substitute it for the identical Senate
Bill Number 2236A, First Report Calendar 971.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitutions ordered.
Senator Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
2540
Mr. President.
On behalf of Senator Parker, I'd
like to move that the following bills be
discharged from their respective committees
and be recommitted with instructions to strike
the enacting clause: Bill Numbers 4268, 4270,
4272, 4273, and 4274.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: So
ordered.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
there's a privileged resolution, 1663, at the
desk by Senator Krueger. Could we have the
title read and move for its immediate
adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator L.
Krueger, Legislative Resolution Number 1663,
honoring Donald Meyers upon the occasion of
his designation as recipient of the Life-Time
Achievement Award on May 15, 2003.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
2541
question is on the resolution. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Those
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Insurance Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Immediate meeting of the Insurance Committee
in the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could go to the noncontroversial reading
of the calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the noncontroversial
calendar.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
37, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 422, an
2542
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
establishing.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
214, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 525, an
act to amend the Insurance Law and the Public
Health Law, in relation to the
confidentiality.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the 120th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 37.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
224, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 2351, an
act to amend the Public Health Law, in
relation to extended certification.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
2543
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 37.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
325, by Member of the Assembly Tokasz,
Assembly Print Number 1874A, an act to amend
the Civil Service Law, in relation to
resolution of disputes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 39.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
2544
415, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 2974A, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to permits.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 38. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
524, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 4378, an
act to amend the Labor Law, in relation to the
registration of agents.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
2545
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 39.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
543, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 2937, an
act to amend the Retirement and Social
Security Law, in relation to the employment of
retired persons.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 39.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
628, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 2842A, an
act to amend the Judiciary Law, in relation to
the prohibition against attorneys sharing
compensation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
2546
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first of
September.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 39.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
633, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 2749A,
an act to amend the Highway Law, in relation
to the designation of the "Jack Austen
Highway."
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 39.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
2547
634, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 3411A, an
act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to
the designation of a portion of the state
highway system.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 39.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
636, by Senator Little, Senate Print 3790, an
act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to
the New York State Scenic Byways System.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
2548
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 39.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
637, by Senator Flanagan, Senate Print 3803,
an act to amend the Highway Law, in relation
to the designation of the Pearl Harbor
Memorial Bridge.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 39.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
642, by Senator Maltese --
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Lay it
aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
2549
764, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print Number 4967, an act to amend Chapter 266
of the Laws of 1986.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 39.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
noncontroversial reading of the calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could go to the controversial reading of
the calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the controversial
calendar.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
37, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 422, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to the
establishing the vehicular assault.
2550
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 37 by Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This bill would amend Section
120.04 of the Penal Law by making a person
guilty of vehicle assault in the first degree
when a victim is a provider of emergency
services. And the bill defines who may be a
provider of such emergency services.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
other Senator wish to be heard?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 42. Nays,
3. Senator Andrews, Hassell-Thompson, and
L. Krueger recorded in the negative.
2551
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
642, by Senator Maltese --
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If I could just
interrupt for a moment, there will be an
immediate meeting of the Local Governments
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Immediate meeting of the Local Governments
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
642, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print 403, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
unborn victims of violence.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:
Explanation.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
2552
Maltese, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 642.
SENATOR MALTESE: Mr. President,
all of us in this chamber have heard this
debate in the past. We've heard the pros and
cons. This chamber, at least, has been
enlightened enough to pass this legislation
overwhelmingly, bipartisan votes included,
both Democrat and Republican.
Unfortunately, the daily press has
brought forth a situation in another state
that brings added attention on this very sad
situation. And that is the Laci Peterson case
in California.
Laci was a mother who very, very
much wanted a child. And without going into
the details of the case that are well known to
all of us, she had named the child Conner.
Upon her disappearance, people wondered
whether the child had been born and what other
unknown facts were that had bearing upon that
child.
The stark reality of finding, at
separate places, two bodies, bodies of two
persons, added to the tragedy for the family
2553
of Laci Peterson.
But it brought to us again a vivid
picture, perhaps across the country, of a
situation that cries out for remediation here
in New York, the fact that in order to
prosecute an interloper, a third party, a
person who intrudes on the family relationship
between mother, father in most cases, and
child, we must pass this legislation.
This legislation is simple. It's
not a fifty-page piece of legislation. It's
been vetted. Twenty-six states have similar
legislation seeking to remedy this wrong, this
intrusion between a mother and a child.
We've seen the press reports, and
we've talked about them in prior years. Those
press reports had a case in the Bronx where a
philanderer, where a doctor who should have
known better and had taken a sworn oath to
protect life, sought out the woman with whom
he had an affair and who wanted to carry that
child to life and tried to inject her with an
abortion-inducing drug, not to harm her but to
kill the child, to kill that unborn child.
We had similar situations in
2554
Buffalo, in this state, where fathers -- I
hesitate to use the term -- sought to end the
pregnancy by assaulting the mother, the
vessel, the sacred vessel that carried this
child, to kill the child.
And yet time and time again, upon a
search of the law and the inadequacies of the
law in this state, they found that they could
not prosecute for the killing of the child and
that the most they can do in most cases is
charge the perpetrator with assault.
This bill seeks to change that.
This is a bill, by the way, that has 18
cosponsors in this house, Democrat and
Republican. It is a bill in the Democratic
house of the Assembly where they went contrary
to custom, permitted members of both parties
to go on. It is carried by Assemblyman
Rivera. And they have 26 sponsors in the
Assembly, Democrat and Republican.
And I'd like to simply read -- it
is a slim bill, less than two sides of a piece
of paper. But what it would do is confer a
right to life -- and I use that term in this
context -- on an unborn child that has a
2555
right, an absolute right to life.
The definition speaks of "person"
when referring to the victim of any assault,
aggravated assault, or vehicular assault,
means a human being who has been born and is
alive. And that is the common law, and that
is the law that has been superseded and
changed and corrected in 26 states of this
union. And we seek to add "or an unborn child
at any state of gestation."
Now, there are those -- some
well-meaning, but many not -- in the
pro-choice movement that seek to identify this
bill as an abortion bill.
This chamber, the members of this
chamber, my constituents, my colleagues know
that I am pro-life. I say it unashamedly. I
am proud of that position. But this is not an
abortion bill. This bill accepts Roe versus
Wade, which has been recently affirmed in the
year 2000 by the Supreme Court. So that is a
red herring.
This does not seek to change Roe
versus Wade. It would not diminish whatever
holding, whether I feel it erroneous or not,
2556
that Roe versus Wade prevails.
And this states very clearly -- and
by the way, this bill has been amended over
the years to take corrections, to take
changes, situations that have arisen in others
of the 26 states.
"Nothing in this article shall be
construed to permit the prosecution of any
person for conduct relating to a justifiable
abortional act" -- that "justifiable" is
defined elsewhere in the criminal law and in
our statutes as basically an act within the
first 24 months [sic] of life of that unborn
child.
And I have a definition of
"justifiable" which, if I find it, I'll read.
But "Nothing in this article shall
be construed to permit the prosecution of any
person -- any person -- for conduct relating
to a justifiable abortional act for which the
consent of the pregnant woman has been
obtained."
In addition, of any person -- and
this was a change that we made two years ago
because we consulted with medical authorities
2557
who were concerned about liability or blame
for treating or for performing an abortion.
And "this cannot be construed to permit the
prosecution of any person for any medical
treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn
child."
And speaking of unborn children, we
know now, we have medical science advanced to
a degree that there are all manner of medical
treatment, medical surgery performed in utero
on children. We had in this house at various
times medical people come to us and tell us
about the miracles that they could perform
while a child was still less than the size of
my hand, totally in the mother's womb, and we
were able to change and prolong and give life.
In addition, this indicates that
nothing in this article shall be construed to
permit the prosecution of any person for
conduct relating to a justifiable abortional
act for which the consent of the pregnant
woman or a person authorized by law to act on
her behalf, in those cases where you have
comatose or someone unable to give consent, or
a person authorized by law to act on her
2558
behalf -- another change that we made in
response to suggestions -- has been obtained
for which consent is implied by law.
And we then have, absolute clear,
"any person for any medical treatment of the
pregnant woman or her unborn child."
Now, I could go over and recite the
horror stories. And I don't want to do that
because I think to a great degree the Laci
Peterson case has done that.
This, as we indicate, is not a case
of attacking Roe versus Wade. Nowhere in the
body of this statute or in any material that
we have distributed are we diminishing in any
way that private, personal relationship
between a mother and a child.
And for those women that elect to
terminate the life of the child, to terminate
their pregnancy before the 24 weeks, the women
who decide that for whatever reason that the
child, the life of the child would be ended,
this does not interfere with that.
This is speaking, in most of the
cases, of complete interlopers, usually not
even the alleged or the real father of the
2559
child. This addresses in many cases the
criminals who deliberately attack a woman for
whatever reason and kill or seriously cripple
the unborn child.
This covers all the ramifications
of assault, homicide, the various portions of
the law.
In previous debate, there was a
point, I believe, attempted to be made by the
opposition to the bill that we don't speak of
knowledge; the person in some cases isn't
aware that the mother is pregnant. I submit
it has absolutely nothing to do with that.
Some of you know in a previous life
I was an assistant DA and deputy chief of the
homicide bureau in Queens. And I believe I
know something about the law as it stands --
stood then, a long time ago, and now. And
every variation of intent or reckless
indifference, they're carried over from those
portions of the homicide and assault law to
this. That's why this bill is such utter
simplicity.
We have a situation here that cries
out for remediation. It's very narrow, within
2560
the phraseology of this statute. The statutes
in some of those 26 states -- I'm advised it's
at least 12 -- have been attacked on various
grounds, and every single one has stood the
test of law and the test of time and has not
been overruled by appellate courts.
We have, just recently, in
Stenberg, Attorney General of Nebraska, versus
Carhart, we've had Roe versus Wade affirmed by
the highest court in this land.
This seeks to punish an intruder
who's intruding into a relationship between a
mother and a child. This seeks to protect an
unborn person so that when a prosecutor, for
whatever reason, wants to prosecute for
injury, assault or the death of a child, this
enables that prosecutor to do so.
I submit to my colleagues -- and
most of them, I believe, in looking into this
legislation, believe that this does not
intrude on that personal relationship between
mother and child. Indeed, it enhances it, it
perfects it, it protects both the mother and
the child.
I submit, Mr. President, that this
2561
bill should be passed, if not unanimously,
overwhelmingly.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well, I
concur with my friend Senator Maltese that
violence against women is a very serious and a
very tragic occurrence, a problem which we see
quite a bit in our state.
But I think this bill fails to
focus on the problem of violence against
women. Instead, I think it shifts the focus
away from the woman and focuses instead -- and
they are the ones who are truly the victims
here -- and focuses more on the fetus, which
my colleague calls a child. Which in no way
do I understand that a fetus is a child.
And I don't think we should be
looking at the horror of the Peterson case to
undermine what I understand are the rights of
all women.
I think, rather, New York should
increase protection for abused women through
2562
more effective intervention and more
commitment of resources.
I think the best way to protect a
fetus is to better protect women from
violence. Fetuses are protected when abused
women are protected.
I think if the Senate truly, truly
wished to focus on violence against pregnant
women, I think this could be effected by
taking a look at expanding the hate crimes
bill to have a protected class which would be
the pregnant woman.
By recognizing an embryo or a fetus
as a person that has separate legal rights
equal to that of a woman, this legislation is
clearly trying to establish what you've
already discussed, Senator Maltese, and that's
fetal personhood.
It's hard for me to understand
this, since the fetus is totally dependent on
the woman until the time of its birth.
They're connected. They are one being.
Establishing fetal personhood would
contradict the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade,
where the court ruled specifically that the
2563
person, using the word "person" as used in the
14th Amendment, does not include the unborn.
The court stated that the rights, life and
health of the pregnant woman are always held
supreme to any government interest in the
fetus.
In Roe v. Wade, it also held that
the fetus was not a person with rights
separate from and equal to that of the woman.
The court stated that rights, life, and health
of that pregnant woman will always be held
supreme. Even when the fetus is viable, the
court said, it is not a person.
So I think this bill, I think, is
misguided. And I think it's misguided both as
a matter of law and also as a matter of the
public policy that we want to promote in our
state and indeed in our country. And I think
we should be rejecting this bill.
And if you look at the people
who -- historically the organizations that
have supported and opposed this bill, I think
it says a great deal. Supporting it is the
New York Conservative Party and the New York
Catholic Conference. But opposing this bill
2564
is the Coalition Against Domestic Violence,
the obstetricians and gynecologists, the Civil
Liberties Union, the League of Women Voters,
the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition, Family
Planning Advocates, Planned Parenthood. I
think that speaks volumes about this bill.
And I hope we will reject it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President.
There's an amendment at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes,
there is, Senator. Do you wish to explain
your amendment?
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Yes, I
would waive the reading and wish to explain my
amendment.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Reading
is waived, and you're recognized to explain
the amendment.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President.
Violence against women continues to
be a significant problem in the state of
2565
New York and across this country. But this
bill fails to shift the focus to where the
problem really belongs. It shifts it away
from women, who are truly the victims of
violent crimes, and places it and refocuses it
on the fetus.
You say, Senator, that you and your
supporters are pro-life. I think all of us
are pro-life. But I think that the important
thing is this bill is about pro-choice. It is
unconscionable to use the horror of the Laci
Peterson case to undermine the rights of
women, and it is equally unconscionable to
imply that those of us who oppose this
legislation in any way condone acts of
violence against women.
The loss of a wanted pregnancy is a
tragedy whatever the circumstances. There is
no question about that. We support bills that
are designed to protect women. But this
measure is a first step, no matter what may be
said to the contrary, toward denying women
their right to choose.
This legislation under
consideration separates a woman from her
2566
pregnancy for no useful purpose. Until such
time as birth occurs, a fetus is a part of a
woman; hence the term "pregnant woman."
By recognizing an embryo or a fetus
as a person that has separate rights equal to
that of a woman, this legislation clearly is
trying to establish fetal personhood.
Now, that's not a word that speaks
to the law. This contradicts the Supreme
Court decision in Roe v. Wade, because Roe v.
Wade says where -- the court rules that the
person -- that the word "person," as used in
the 14th Amendment, does not include the
unborn. In 1973, Roe v. Wade held that a
fetus was not a person with equal rights
separate from and equal to that of a woman.
And even in the amendments of 2000, that has
not changed.
The legislation before us makes a
pretense of being a pro-woman measure while,
in fact, it is a proposal that advances the
antichoice movement and attempts to divert the
focus from the victim of assault to that of
the fetus.
It redefines "fetus" in a way which
2567
contradicts even the medical definition of the
term. With this language, the bill's sponsor
seeks to undermine a woman's constitutional
right to choose an abortion as established in
Roe v. Wade.
The Supreme Court holds that a
fetus, again, is not a person for the purpose
of the 14th Amendment and has never been
recognized in law as a person in the whole
sense.
This legislation -- Roe v. Wade
legislates when life begins. We recognize the
importance of passing stronger antiviolence
laws which protect pregnant women. And a
better approach than S403 would be to support
this amendment that increases penalties for
persons knowingly injuring a pregnant woman
with the intent to harm her health.
This approach would serve to place
additional penalties on persons who harm
pregnant women without opening the doors to
constitutionally flawed approaches that seek
to elevate the status of a fetus.
Entering into a contentious debate
regarding the status of the fetus rather than
2568
the crime against women also serves no
purpose. The best way to protect the fetus is
better to protect women from violence. And
unfortunately, assaults on women, pregnant or
otherwise, are often not considered severe
enough. And that's where the problem lies.
You look to resolve the issue of
the fetus. If we strengthen the laws against
pregnant women and women, we will do a greater
job toward reducing violence toward women.
Too often the elements of crime are
underprosecuted or fail to be prosecuted at
all, as you so rightly say. By giving the
fetus the same rights as the woman under this
legislation, in practical terms it is
tantamount to giving the fetus more rights
than a pregnant women. And that would be a
grave injustice to abused women everywhere and
a step backward in our campaign to end
domestic violence.
There is no evidence that the
existing criminal statutes fail to provide
adequate sanctions for crimes seeking to
enhance the safety of pregnant women. But if,
however, the sponsors of this bill would truly
2569
seek to enhance the safety of a pregnant woman
and her fetus, this interest would be better
served by enacting legislation that provides
for more effective intervention by police,
district attorneys, and social service
agencies in matters of domestic violence, one
of the single greatest causes of injury to
pregnant women.
The amendment that I propose is
entitled the Protection of Motherhood Act of
2003. It does three things. It increases
penalties for assaults against pregnant
women --
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Excuse
me, Senator Hassell-Thompson.
Can we have a little quiet in the
chamber.
Go ahead, Senator.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President.
It increases penalties for assaults
against pregnant women, it provides a civil
course of action for gender-related violence,
and it provides treble damages for any assault
against a pregnant woman resulting in a
2570
miscarriage.
Under increased penalties for
assaults against pregnant women, this
amendment provides enhanced penalties for any
person who assaults a pregnant woman and who
knows or should know that the woman is
pregnant. Three new offenses are created,
each one -- each of which is one felony degree
higher than if she were not pregnant.
Assault on a pregnant woman in the
second degree would be a Class D violent
felony; assault on a pregnant woman in the
first degree, a Class C violent felony; and
aggravated assault on a pregnant woman, a
Class B violent felony.
The best way to protect the fetus
from violence is to protect the woman from
violence. This legislation would increase
protections for abused women who are pregnant.
And the second thing that it does
is it establishes a civil cause of action for
gender-based violence. This amendment also
provides a civil cause of action for damages
due to violence based on the gender of the
victim and provides for treble damages where
2571
the assault results in a miscarriage.
Prevailing plaintiffs may also recover
reasonable legal fees and expenses incurred in
pursuing such an action.
In May of 2000, the United States
Supreme Court struck down the portion of the
Violence Against Women Act that allowed
victims of gender violence to recover civil
damages in federal court. Despite
Congressional findings as to the prevalence of
gender-based violence, the serious impact on
victims and their families, and pervasive bias
in various state justice systems against
victims of gender violence, the Supreme Court
held that Congress had exceeded its
constitutional authority to enact the act's
civil remedy.
Notably, however, the court went on
to say that no civilized system of justice
could fail to provide a remedy to the victims
of gender-based violence, and such a remedy
must be provided by states, not federal
government.
This amendment would fill the void
left by the Supreme Court decision by
2572
providing a state civil remedy for the victims
of domestic violence, rape, and other forms of
gender-based violence that plague our society.
This amendment would better protect
women than the Unborn Victims of Violence bill
because it does not further the interests of
the unborn child at the expense of the mother.
It is my hope that it is our intent
in this chamber to pass legislation that will
protect pregnant women. By accepting this
amendment, you will take a giant step -- we
will take a giant step toward the mutual goal
of reducing gender-related violence to women
in the state of New York.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other Senator wish to be heard on the
amendment?
The question, then, is on the
amendment. All those Senators in favor of the
amendment signify by raising their hands.
Please keep them up so the
Secretary can tally them.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
agreement are Senators Breslin, Brown, Dilan,
2573
Duane, Hassell-Thompson, L. Krueger, C.
Kruger, Lachman, Mendez, Montgomery,
Oppenheimer, Parker, Paterson, Sabini,
Schneiderman, A. Smith. Also Senator Andrews.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendment is lost.
We are now on the main bill.
Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you.
I would like to compliment the
previous speakers, including Senator Maltese,
because I think he deserves some special
recognition for having spoken fairly
dispassionately about the issue which causes
the greatest emotional reaction of any other
issue that is debated in this chamber and many
other chambers across the nation.
The minute one talks about the
origin of life, freedom of choice, the right
of a woman to choose, Roe v. Wade, you can
feel the tension in a legislative chamber
accelerate.
My own feelings on this are very
mixed, along with many other people. And
obviously we're all subject to a great deal of
2574
recent sensational media attention because of
the Laci Peterson case.
So it is predictable that there
will be a higher level of intensity on this
issue while people are reacting to the very
real and highly dramatized pain of a family in
California that so looked forward to the birth
of a child. And now that they have lost the
opportunity to have that child, along with the
death of the mother, it has been elevated to a
status that is very different from medical
reality.
And we have to avoid the temptation
when we are talking about these issues to
rewrite medical fact. The medical and
physiological realities that we must focus on
deal with a fetus, not a child. And we must
focus our attention where it is most
appropriate, and that is the protection of the
mother who would be carrying a fetus
presumably to full term and then giving birth
to a child.
There are many ways that we can
protect the lives of mothers without starting
that slippery slope that would erode the right
2575
of a woman to choose whether or not to be
pregnant. And I must emphasize that this
measure, like so many other measures that have
come before us, is carefully calculated to
begin that process. This, ladies and
gentlemen, is a toe in the door to eliminating
the freedom of choice guaranteed under the
14th Amendment.
Under the 14th Amendment, it is
very clear that the word "person" cannot be
used to describe a fetus. And we must
remember that to be responsible, our laws must
bear appropriate correlation to previous laws
and certainly to the Supreme Court's decision
in the matter of Roe versus Wade.
And I know that that is painful for
some people who would like to find a way to
roll back Roe versus Wade. I think it's also
painful for people who are watching the Laci
Peterson story unfold or thinking of another
situation like that, and it's easy, it's easy
to get caught up in the emotion and say: Oh,
what is the harm here?
There is a great deal of harm in
supporting this measure, because it would
2576
begin that process of redefining what is
medically known as a fetus and giving it
rights superior to the rights of the woman who
is carrying the fetus.
Regrettably, I can't support this
measure. I am very intrigued with the
amendment that just came up. I hadn't heard
about it before today. But I'm willing to
take a careful look at that amendment and have
talked with others about the possibility of
incorporating some aspects that were discussed
in Senator Hassell-Thompson's amendment in
other legislation sometime down the road.
Because I believe we must continue
to do everything humanly possible to protect
the women of this state. Be they pregnant or
nonpregnant, mothers or no intention of
motherhood at all, they deserve to be the
focus of our intention. And the issues of
domestic violence and violence directed
against women must continue to be a major
concern for this chamber.
I'm proud of the work that we've
done in this area. I welcomed the support of
Senator Maltese when I authored the Abandoned
2577
Infant Protection Act, because I knew, after
more than twenty years of studying that issue,
that there were young women -- girls,
sometimes, barely beyond puberty -- who became
pregnant, carried a fetus all the way through
term, and then delivered in secret, sometimes
in complete denial of that pregnancy even to
themselves, and then, in their rush to hide
the evidence of that pregnancy, the life of a
newborn infant was lost.
And I thank all the members of this
chamber and the other house and the great
Governor of this land for signing into law the
most compassionate law in the nation that
agrees to meet a woman under those
circumstances on her own terms, whatever they
may be. Absurd as it is, we know that these
women will sometimes take an infant to a
supermarket or a dry cleaner or a laundromat,
leave it at a police station or someplace
where they know it will be found -- leave it
on the doorstep of a neighbor who they
understand may care for children -- because
they are so terrified of ever being
discovered.
2578
So our law, which is the only one
of its kind that does not list specific
locations where a newborn must be taken, is
unique in this chamber.
And I believe that together we
continue to address the issues that affect
women when they are protect and the needs that
they have as pregnant women and their right to
carry their fetus to full term, to deliver a
healthy baby into a wanted home.
And I will continue to work on this
issue. But I cannot, I cannot be party to a
piece of legislation that would begin that
slippery slope to erode the right of women to
choose.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President.
With all due respect to much of the
debate and to my colleagues who have been on
the other side of this bill today, so much of
the information that's been relied upon is
simply not true. And, frankly, so much of the
2579
position that has been taken today puts us on
a slippery slope.
You know, we constantly hear this
argument made that an unborn child is totally
dependent on the mother. Those of us who have
had children, and I think that includes just
about all of us, understand that that
condition continues for some time after
they're born.
And I would also suggest that those
of us who have dealt with relatives and have
to go through the painful experience of
helping to care for relatives who have entered
advanced age and infirmity surely don't want
to argue that somehow people are less worthy
of consideration for protection because
they're totally dependent on somebody else.
The argument's also been made today
that an unborn child is part of the mother.
That, simply put, is scientifically not
correct. Now, we can argue about, if you want
to, under Roe v. Wade whether it's a person
entitled to protection, and I suppose
reasonable people can conduct that legal
debate.
2580
But a part of the mother? It is a
separate being, genetically separate and
genetically distinct. Genetically distinct.
If you examine the DNA from the mother and the
DNA from the fetus, if you want to call the
unborn child that, they are genetically,
identifiably distinct.
This is not about the subject
matter of Roe v. Wade. Senator Maltese has
carefully crafted a piece of legislation that
does what we frequently do when we amend the
law. You have to be careful when you amend a
body of statutes to track the language that is
in that law, that has been used by the courts
to develop that law, and not tear it apart.
What he has carefully done is to
take the body of the Penal Law in this state
that defines assaults and homicides which
speaks in terms of "person," and, for the
purpose of only those statutes which define
assault and homicide, included "an unborn
child at any stage of gestation." It has no
effect whatsoever on any other area of the
law.
This is not about the subject
2581
matter of Roe v. Wade, which speaks in terms
of whether the state has a legitimate interest
in protecting an unborn child -- or a fetus,
if you will. This is not about the
government's interest. This is about that
mother's interest who has decided to carry her
child to term and deliver it who has that
decision violently invaded and interrupted.
That's what this is about.
Now, let me throw something that's
inconvenient out here for this debate. I
brought this up last year, I'll bring it up
again, and this time I'm going to develop it a
little further.
Two years ago we all patted
ourselves on the back for passing Buster's
Law. We made it a felony to commit animal
cruelty under certain circumstances in this
state. Now, here's the inconvenient part.
Under the common law, animals are chattels.
And the penal law provides adequate protection
and adequate remedies to prosecute someone
when you destroy someone else's chattel.
Why did we pass Buster's Law, then?
Because something in our humanity recognizes
2582
that animals are more than chattels.
Something in our humanity recognizes that,
that they are more than animated pieces of
tissue. And so we passed Buster's Law.
And the inconvenient fact that
hangs over this debate, the big elephant in
the room that nobody wants to talk about, is
you can debate all day about Roe v. Wade, it's
not about Roe v. Wade today. It is about --
and this is undeniable scientifically -- an
unborn child is more than a blob of tissue.
It is genetically distinct from the mother.
It has value, certainly at least to that
mother who has decided to carry that child to
term.
And oh, by the way -- this is
scientifically undeniable also -- physicians
who practice in this area will tell you that
the nervous system is sufficiently developed
by at least 20 weeks of gestation, and perhaps
much earlier, to experience pain.
And so I must tell you I find it
incredible -- and I will say this even though
I said it last year, and I know most of you
don't take notes, so I'll say it again -- I
2583
know I don't -- I find it incredible that we
accord, in this state, more protection to an
animal owner who loses a dog or a cat to an
act of cruelty and violence than we do to a
mother who has chosen to carry her unborn
child to term.
I find it incredible and
unbelievable. And I admire Serph Maltese for
having the courage to introduce this bill and
to fight for it.
Thank you, my colleagues.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: On the bill.
Frankly, I would have preferred had
the bill achieved its objective without
defining a fetus at any stage of gestation as
a person. Candidly, the definition proposed
in this bill seems unnecessary to me and
treads upon very, very sensitive religious
territory that would probably best be left to
theologians rather than to legislators.
Nonetheless, we all have to make
difficult decisions -- or choices -- in our
life as legislators. And after a careful
2584
reading of the bill, and a similar bill that
this was patterned after that was introduced
in the U.S. House of Representatives in the
year 2001, I do believe that the bill has been
changed and carefully drawn to limit that
definition to the specific context of this
legislation.
Now, in the year 2001, a similar
and much more eloquent definition was raised
by Representative Charles Rangel, who voted
both for an amendment to this bill similar to
the excellent one proposed by Senator Ruth
Hassell-Thompson and to the bill that Senator
Serph Maltese has brought to the surface.
Senator [sic] Rangel, in voting for
both, said that this is neither a pro-life or
pro-choice bill and we would be confusing the
issue if we brought extraneous issues into a
discussion of a bill such as this.
I believe that a pregnant woman
does deserve extra protection. Again, and
perhaps more forcefully, I will support this
bill because I believe that acts of violence
against pregnant women should be punished much
more severely than similar acts against other
2585
people.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Diaz.
SENATOR DIAZ: Thank you, Madam
President.
Before I say anything, I would like
to refer to and commend my colleague Senator
Lachman. And I would like to say that there
is nothing wrong by electing theologians to
the body, to this body. There's nothing wrong
with that. We have elected all kinds of
people before that.
And this is the beauty of living in
America. In America, everyone is entitled to
their opinion. And everyone is entitled to
have that opinion respected. So by electing
theologians to this body or to legislative
bodies, there's nothing wrong with that. I
hope you elect more of them.
And talking -- referring to the
bill, I am not a lawyer. So when people say
that the Supreme Court has decided that an
unborn child is not -- the fetus is not a
living being, well, that's the Supreme Court.
2586
The wrong with that is that there is a higher
Supreme Court that says differently.
And I would like to say that I'm
new here, only five months. I was a City
Council member in the City of New York. And
in the City Council of the City of New York,
when we were supposed to vote, there always
was a roll call.
And I have learned here that this
body gives you an easy way out when
controversial issues come. You just come to
the door, show your face, the Secretary puts
you present, and when the controversial bills
come to be discussed, you just walk out. And
that's an easy way.
Last night I have been lobbied, by
my son, by many different people who tell me:
Just walk out. You don't have to express your
opinion. You know, you just show your face,
get yourself be present, and walk out, and
they will count you yes.
But to me, that's a cowardly way
out for me, because I was not elected to walk
out when controversial issues come. I got
elected to fight for what I believe and to
2587
represent to the best of my ability the people
that elected me.
And there are two cases here that I
would like to read. One such case occurred in
Suffolk County. A driver traveling well in
excess of the posted speed limit crashed
head-on into an oncoming car driven by a woman
who was six to seven months pregnant. The
child died, and nothing was done to the guy,
to the driver.
The other case was in Queens
County. A man armed with a handgun demanded
money from three teenagers. He shot one of
them. She was pregnant, seven months. The
baby -- the unborn child died, and nothing was
done to the gunman.
There are reckless driving, drunk
driving, reckless behavior, shooting a weapon
during a robbery attempt -- all those kinds of
acts committed by criminals should be
punished.
And I am here in support of this
bill. And I think that by reading the names
of the members that are supporting the bill --
Senators Maltese, DeFrancisco, Farley,
2588
Flanagan, Golden, Johnson, Larkin, LaValle,
Marchi, Maziarz, Meier, Morahan, Nozzolio,
Onorato, Padavan, Rath, Robach, M. Smith,
Trunzo, Velella, Volker, Wright -- I feel bad
that my name is not there. Is there any way
that my name could appear there too? I would
love to have my name there.
So I congratulate you, Senator
Maltese, and come with my vote on this
precious piece of legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Madam
President, if the sponsor would yield to a
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Maltese, will you yield for some questions?
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
Senator Maltese, in your
presentation earlier in your explanation of
the bill, you stated that this was a bill
about the right to life of unborn children.
2589
And yet you also said it didn't conflict with
Roe v. Wade.
So I ask you, in your bill, a fetus
has the status of a person under your bill, is
that correct?
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes. Within
the confines of this bill, "person" would
include the fetus, yes.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Madam
President, if, through you, the sponsor would
continue to yield.
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Maltese continues to yield.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: So further,
Senator, under your bill an embryo would have
the status of a person?
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, the bill clearly indicates that
the -- it would cover, within the definition
of "person," an unborn child at any stage of
gestation. So it would include any stage of
gestation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
2590
Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Madam
President, if the sponsor would yield to one
more question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Maltese, for one more question?
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields for one more question.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
Just to clarify the record.
So, Senator, under your bill a
zygote would have status as a person?
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, the term "any stage of gestation" I
assume would include any stage of gestation.
I don't -- somebody earlier
mentioned something about delving into
philosophy. And while we cover a great deal
of that, this is the question of when life
begins, I assume. And the question itself
would include, you know, at what stage the --
what stage this zion [sic] or embryo or fetus
is entitled to this definition of personhood.
This bill speaks for itself. It's
2591
very clear. It would include, as we had
indicated in the bill, an unborn child at any
stage of gestation. So without going into
anything further, if it covers an unborn
child, if a zion is considered an unborn child
at a stage of gestation, that would cover that
zion, if you would.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Zygote.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Krueger, on the bill.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
Senator Meier said in his
statements a few minutes ago that this was a
carefully crafted bill. I would agree. It is
a carefully crafted bill to do one thing. It
is not a new bill to establish legal
protections for women who are the victims of
crime who are pregnant at the time they are
the victims of crime.
Because our previous senator who's
no longer with us, Senator Dollinger, and
2592
whose, I suppose, debate I don't want to
repeat for the record -- I will just
highlight -- that he has constantly debated
this bill when he was in this chamber to
reference the fact that under criminal law,
Penal Code 125, Section 45 and 40 and 05,
we've already established that you can have
criminal charges against -- excuse me, you can
have criminal charges in the State of New York
for harming a pregnant woman and having the
result being an abortion, against the woman's
will, of her pregnancy.
So we have established that under
state law we already have criminal prosecution
options for people who commit such violent
acts. And it's also clear under state and
federal law that we have, under Roe v. Wade,
the right to protect a woman's right to choose
and to not, I repeat, not recognize that a
fetus or an embryo or a zygote has separate
legal rights, and that that does contradict
the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe
v. Wade, who has said that using the word
"person" as defined by the 14th Amendment of
this country does not include the unborn.
2593
And so I agree that this is a
carefully crafted piece of legislation. It is
not carefully crafted to protect women, it is
not carefully crafted to increase assurances
that there will be less violence against women
or protect women, and it is not needed under
our penal code to allow our courts to
appropriately prosecute people who do cause
harm to women, pregnant or otherwise.
It is intended to be a piece of
legislation to establish, as Senator Maltese
just said -- right? -- the fact that an unborn
has legal status as a person in New York state
law at any stage of gestation -- zygote,
embryo, fetus.
This bill is crafted to be the
slippery slope that Senator Hoffmann talked
about in her comments. I agree with her.
I also want to say I agree with
Senator Diaz. It is too easy to escape
controversial votes in this house because, as
he pointed out, you walk in, you sign in, and
you are voted yes.
This is the kind of legislation
where, one, we should make it very, very clear
2594
to the public what this does. It attempts to
undermine a woman's right to choose and the
Supreme Court decisions of Roe v. Wade. It is
not designed to accomplish any additional
protections for women that don't already exist
under state law. And we should all go on
record with our position in favor or in
opposition to this legislation.
I am opposed to this legislation.
I hope my colleagues will vote no with me.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. Very briefly on the bill.
I have to acknowledge what's been
said on both sides of this debate. This is an
extremely difficult area. I think Senator
Maltese and Senator Meier have raised the fact
that this is an issue that pulls many people
in many directions.
Listen, I am unapologetically
pro-choice. I respect that there are people
who are pro-life, and I respect people who are
2595
consistent in their pro-life stance to some
degree more than I do people who move around
on the issue for political convenience. If
you're pro-life, you're pro-life; if you're
pro-choice, you're pro-choice.
But I have to say there is a
distortion on behalf -- by some of my
colleagues, and I don't know that it's
intentional, about what it means to be
pro-choice.
This is not easy. No one likes
abortions. Being pro-choice doesn't mean you
think that, as Senator Meier said, an unborn
child is a blob of tissue. No one believes
that. It is a horrible, painful act.
Many people here know I worked in a
family planning clinic. I've been with many,
many women going through this. It is a
traumatic, terrible thing.
What being pro-choice is about is
very simple. It means the recognition that a
woman who cannot control her body is not free,
that being pregnant is different than being
seriously ill and dependent on medical support
for your life. Pregnancy is something that I
2596
believe a woman has to deal with according to
her own conscience; if she's a believer,
according to her own religion. But that the
ability to control her own body is a
fundamental element of freedom.
And I respectfully suggest that
this legislation is not something that is
separate from Roe v. Wade, is separate from
the issue of freedom of choice. And I would
like to cite for that proposition, for my
assertion, a Republican official who
recognized that if you make it illegal, if you
make it murder to unlawfully terminate a
pregnancy by a third party, how in the world
can you intellectually have a coherent
argument that it is not murder for the mother
to terminate the pregnancy?
And after California passed a
statute allowing some of the same provisions
as the law before us, a public official,
prominent Republican, cited a California
feticide law as support for regarding abortion
as murder, stating: "Isn't it strange that
the same woman could have taken the life of
her unborn child and it was abortion, not
2597
murder, but if somebody else does it, that's
murder?" This statement was made by Ronald
Reagan.
This law is about criminalizing
abortion. This law is about identifying the
termination of a pregnancy as an unlawful act.
And it is intellectually incoherent to argue
that a third party doing it makes it different
in a moral sense from the woman doing it.
I'm pro-choice. I recognize this
is a hard issue. I recognize that this is
something that is difficult for everyone to
deal with. I appreciate honest debate on the
issue. And it is very hard to have honest
debate on the issue. Reverend Diaz was
correct when he said a lot of people like to
walk out -- although I wish he was here to
hear me.
But this is an issue that we do
have to try and grapple with, not just here in
these debates but in our own consciences.
Those of us who are pro-choice do take very
seriously the gravity of what an act of
abortion is. But for me it's about freedom.
This law is something that you
2598
can't separate from the issue of abortion
rights. I would urge that Ronald Reagan was
right, it is intellectually incoherent -- I
know, you're not going to hear that from me a
lot. But Ronald Reagan was right, it is
intellectually incoherent to say it is murder
for a third party to terminate a pregnancy but
not for the woman to do it.
I vote no. I urge everyone to vote
no.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Madam
President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Brown, on the bill.
SENATOR BROWN: I'm going to try
to take pro-life and pro-choice out of the
discussion for a moment.
I know that this is a very
passionate issue. I know that Senator Maltese
feels very passionate about this issue.
But I feel that the most effective
way to protect a fetus is to protect the
mother. We must protect women in this state.
2599
A fetus can't be the victim of
violence unless the woman carrying it is the
victim of violence. We must protect women in
this state.
There should be additional
punishment when someone tries to terminate a
pregnancy by injuring the mother. We must
protect women in this state.
Just recently, I had the
opportunity to have a meeting with the Erie
County Coalition against Domestic Violence,
and they cited a statistic that really alarmed
me. And that statistic is that one in four
women in this country at some point in their
lives will become the victims of violence.
One in four.
We must protect women in this
state.
We talked about the Laci Peterson
case. And I'll tell you, every time I think
of that young woman and what she went through,
it brings tears to my eyes. I can only think
about the horror that Laci Peterson must have
felt as she was being murdered. We talk about
the baby that the very pregnant Laci Peterson
2600
was carrying. That baby would not have even
been visible outside of Laci Peterson's body
if her body wasn't dumped in a body of water.
We must protect women in this
state.
I don't think this bill does that.
I don't think this bill gives the added
protection to women and pregnant women that
they deserve. And for that reason, I'll be
voting no to this piece of legislation. And I
urge all my colleagues to vote no as well.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Sabini.
SENATOR SABINI: Madam President,
on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Sabini, on the bill.
SENATOR SABINI: I fully respect
the motives and hard work of Senator Maltese.
I think he's been one of the most effective
elected officials my county has had in many
years. And he feels very passionately about
this issue.
But I really believe that if we
2601
wanted to address the goals that this bill
purports to advance that we would amend the
hate crimes bill in this state and protect the
women who are the victims of the violence.
Now, I was visited recently by
someone supporting this bill, and I said,
"There are those that argue that this bill, if
it were passed into law, would open the door
to litigation that at some point would
criminalize a woman's right to abortion or
criminalize a doctor performing abortion."
And the person lobbying the bill said: "Let
us hope so."
So while that may not be the
intent, the fact of the matter is that most of
the supporters of this bill do not support Roe
v. Wade and would like to see it overturned.
And while this bill doesn't do that,
obviously, doesn't overturn a Supreme Court
ruling, the fact of the matter is that it goes
in the direction that takes us into a
dangerous position.
We heard recently, in a meeting I
had with some other legislators, from a
minister from Rockland County who was
2602
advocating for this bill because of a botched
procedure that his wife's obstetrician
conducted, and that he felt he couldn't
achieve civil damages.
This bill doesn't talk about civil
damages. This bill only talks about criminal
acts. So that argument really doesn't wash
here either.
And in fact, throughout the bill
there are protections for doctors. But
perhaps what worries me the most is that just
last week -- and I understand that there are
protections for the medical community in the
bill. But just last week, Mr. Kopp, who was
convicted of the murder of Dr. Slepian, right
here in this state, as he was carted out of
court said, "I'm just protecting the people
from weapons of mass destruction. That's why
I was going after a doctor's office."
And I must tell you that if this
bill were to become law, that gives aid and
comfort to that kind of thinking. And while
doctors are exempted from the bill, the fact
of the matter is that the warped minds of
people like James Kopp will then continue to
2603
justify in their minds the violence that they
commit against members of the medical
community who are just trying to do their
jobs.
So for those reasons -- and as I
say, I respect Senator Maltese's fervor on
this issue -- I'll be voting in the negative.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Is there
any other Senator who wishes to speak on the
bill?
Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, I too am a member of the Senator
Maltese fan club.
However, without repeating the
arguments that my colleagues have noted, I
have one additional concern. And that is the
fact that when an individual attacks a woman,
I don't -- I was going to say I can't
conceive, but I guess that's not the right
word -- I could not understand how he could
know that the woman is pregnant.
Madam President, I urge that this
bill be rejected.
2604
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I'd like to
explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Montgomery, to explain her vote.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Madam President.
I think the arguments have been
made here. And in addition to the arguments
that we've made, I'm looking at the memos in
opposition from groups that we certainly
recognize: the League of Women Voters;
2605
Concerned Clergy for Choice, who give us a
quote from Exodus regarding this issue to
consider; the Family Planning Advocates; the
Planned Parenthood; NARAL; NYCLU; the American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists;
the Coalition against Domestic Violence; the
National Organization for Women. And, I am
also happy to add, the Republican Pro-Choice
Coalition is certainly opposing this
legislation.
I think that statement in and of
itself is enough to say that we really are not
doing what we need to be doing today, and that
is protecting the interests of women and not
trying to divide a woman from her pregnancy.
So I'm voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Montgomery, in the negative.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 642 are
Senators Andrews, Breslin, Brown, Connor,
Dilan, Duane, Gonzalez, Hassell-Thompson,
Hoffmann, L. Krueger, C. Kruger, McGee,
Mendez, Montgomery, Oppenheimer, Parker,
Paterson, Sabini, Schneiderman, A. Smith,
2606
Spano, and Stavisky. Ayes, 36. Nays, 22.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
controversial reading of the calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could return to motions and resolutions,
there is a privileged resolution at the desk
by Senator Leibell. I ask that the title be
read and move for its immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Leibell, Legislative Resolution Number 1664,
honoring Captain Richard Randall Ozmun upon
the occasion of his retirement from the United
States Navy.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
question is on the resolution. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
2607
resolution is adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
no housekeeping at the desk.
SENATOR SKELOS: I'd like to
announce, on behalf of Senator Bruno, there
will be an immediate conference of the
Majority in the Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There
will be a conference of the Majority in the
Majority Conference Room immediately following
session.
Senator Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Madam President.
There will be an immediate
conference of the Minority in the Minority
Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There
will be an immediate conference of the
Minority in the Minority Conference Room.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
2608
President. I would like unanimous consent to
be recorded in the negative on Calendar 415.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will note.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there being no further business to come before
the Senate, I move we stand adjourned subject
to the call of the Majority Leader.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senate stands adjourned subject to the call of
the Majority Leader.
(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)