[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4742-S4743]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


            PERSPECTIVE: BACKS DR. HENRY FOSTER'S NOMINATION

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the President of the United States 
has nominated Dr. Henry Foster to become Surgeon General of the United 
States.
  I have had the chance to visit with him and see him at one public 
meeting in action, and I have been favorably impressed.
  I believe there has been great distortion of who he is and what he 
stands for.
  I was interested in seeing in the Chicago Defender the other day, a 
statement by the president of Fisk University on the Henry Foster 
nomination.
  Because of its insights, I ask that the statement be printed in the 
Record.
  The statement follows:

               [From the Chicago Defender, Mar. 13, 1995]

                  Backs Dr. Henry Foster's Nomination

                         (By Dr. Henry Ponder)

       I support Dr. Henry Foster's nomination to become the next 
     surgeon general of the United States.
       I would speak against the three most-mentioned reasons why 
     he should not be confirmed. They are: (1) the number of 
     abortion procedures he has performed over the last 30 years; 
     (2) his integrity; and (3) the bungling of his nomination by 
     the White House.
       Regarding the first point, it is yet to be proven that 
     Foster committee any crime or illegalities in the years that 
     he has practiced medicine as one of America's premier board-
     certified obstetrician/gynecologists.
       It must be reiterated that abortion is not considered 
     illegal in America for, under Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court 
     has ruled that abortion procedures performed by a doctor, 
     [[Page S4743]] however abhorrent and immoral it is to a 
     sizable portion of Americans, is still constitutionally 
     acceptable. Until that ruling is reversed, Foster and any 
     number of other doctors will not be in violation of the law.
       Ironically, Foster pointed out recently on ``Nightline'' 
     with Ted Koppel, that he ``abhors abortion.'' In cases which 
     he had to perform abortion procedures, he said they were only 
     ``for rape, incest and saving the life of the mother.'' 
     Should a man be castigated for something his society allows 
     or permits as lawful, or should his society confer good 
     behavior upon him for being law-abiding? I think rational men 
     and women would agree with the latter rather than the former.
       It can be clearly shown that Foster has done nothing wrong, 
     illegal or unconstitutional. He has stayed within the 
     confines of his professional ethical code and parameters and 
     societal jurisprudence. He should be commended and not 
     assailed.
       The second issue being used to stop Foster's nomination is 
     integrity. It is said that, at different times. Foster said 
     he performed about 12, 39 or some 700 abortions over the last 
     30 years. Foster said that he misspoke about the number of 
     abortion procedures he has performed in his career. How many 
     of us have not misspoken and corrected ourselves when we 
     learned the facts?
       I think the worst kind of man is the one who refuses upon 
     learning he is mistaken to correct himself. Foster, before 
     the nation and on ``Nightline,'' stated that upon reflection 
     and in hindsight, he should have consulted his records more 
     thoroughly about it. When Foster had the chance to reexamine 
     his files, he, as any man with integrity will do, correct 
     himself and apologized for the error.
       This should not taint one's character. It should rather 
     brighten it. But, unfortunately, in today's America, 
     contrition on the part of anyone is a sign of ``a damaged 
     good'' that is irreparable.
       Even the good book, the Holy Bible, says that one should be 
     forgiven in their contrition. Integrity to me is being able 
     to say you are wrong when you discover that you are.
       Foster should not be raked over the coals for admitting 
     error, if in the process, he sets his records straight.
       Thirdly, there is no question that the White House bungled 
     this nomination. They have said as much. this whole affair 
     could have been handled better in a straight and clearer 
     manner by presenting Foster as a nationally renowned medical 
     practitioner who, over 30 years, has performed abortion 
     procedures to save the life of the mother, or due to rape or 
     incest. It would also have been communicated that he abhors 
     abortions and only performed them under the rarest of such 
     cases.
       I accept the statements by the president's staff that they 
     made a mistake in handling the nomination and concur with 
     them that the strong credentials Foster brings to the 
     position of surgeon general outweighs presidential staff 
     bungling and error or at worst misjudgment.
       I wholeheartedly support foster's nomination and I ask the 
     Senate to confirm him and for the country to stand by the 
     president's excellent choice. He shouldn't be punished or 
     scapegoated for the controversy and the tensions that 
     abortion brings to the political arena for there are rational 
     people on both sides of the battle.
       Better yet, there are some who are working to eliminate at 
     the root, the instances that lead to teenage pregnancy. 
     Foster is a general in this army and he deserves to be 
     confirmed as surgeon general.
     

                          ____________________