[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 169 (Monday, October 30, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11426-H11433]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         H.R. 1833, THE PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canaday] is recognized for 60 
minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, while every abortion sadly 
takes a human life, the partial-birth abortion method takes that life 
as the baby emerges from the mother's womb--while the baby is only 
partially in the birth canal. The difference between the partial-birth 
abortion procedure and homicide is a mere three inches.
  Partial-birth abortion goes a step beyond abortion on demand. The 
baby involved is not ``unborn.'' His or her life is taken during a 
breach delivery. A procedure which obstetricians use in some 
circumstances to bring a healthy child into the world is perverted to 
result in a dead child. The physician, traditionally trained to do 
everything in his power to assist and protect both mother and child 
during the birth process, deliberately kills the child in the birth 
canal.
  This is partial-birth abortion: (1) Guided by ultrasound, the 
abortionist grabs the live baby's legs with forceps. (2) The baby's 
legs are pulled out into the birth canal. (3) The abortionist delivers 
the baby's entire body, except for the head. (4) Then, the abortionist 
jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to 
enlarge the hole. (5) The scissors are then removed and a suction 
catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out causing the 
skull to collapse so the delivery of the child can be completed.
  Because we believe that this procedure is an inhuman act, the 
gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hall], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], and I introduced a 
bipartisan bill to ban the performance of partial-birth abortion. We 
now have 162 Members from both sides of the aisle who have requested to 
cosponsor H.R. 1833.
  Opponents of H.R. 1833 now claim that the babies who are the victims 
of partial-birth abortion die, either before the procedure begins or 
shortly thereafter. But the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act'' does not 
cover a procedure in which the baby is delivered after he or she is 
dead. The definition of partial-birth abortion requires that the baby 
be partially delivered alive, then killed.
  Our opponents' argument that the baby is already dead when these 
abortions are performed betrays their desperation. They support 
abortion at any time, in any manner, for any reason. But they know the 
American people do not support this extreme position. They realize that 
this inhuman procedure which we have seen depicted here and the results 
of which we see in this chart, this inhuman procedure in which a body 
is partially delivered alive, then stabbed in the back of the 
head, cannot be justified. So, instead of defending the procedure as 
the practitioners have described it, they change their story and 
attempt to conceal the reality of this terrible procedure.

  However, the new claims of those who defend partial-birth abortion 
are directly contradicted by past statements of abortionists and by 
those who have witnessed the procedure. Brenda Shafer, a registered 
nurse who witnessed the procedure while working with Dr. Martin 
Haskell, an Ohio abortionist, wrote a letter to Congressman Tony Hall 
dated July 9, 1995 in which she described the procedure. Nurse Shafer 
wrote that witnessing the procedure was ``the most horrible experience 
of my life.'' She described watching one baby and again I quote nurse 
Shafer:

       The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were 
     clasping together. He was kicking his feet. All the while his 
     little head was still stuck inside. Dr. Haskell took a pair 
     of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's 
     head. Then he opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-
     powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's 
     brains out. * * *
       Next, Dr. Haskell delivered the baby's head, cut the 
     umbilical cord and delivered the placenta.

  Dr. Haskell and Dr. McMahon, two abortionists who prefer the partial-
birth abortion method, were interviewed by the American Medical News in 
1993. These doctors ``told the AM News that the majority of fetuses 
aborted this way are alive until the end of the procedure.''
  Dr. Dru Carlson--of Cedar-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles--wrote 
to Chairman Hyde in support of Dr. McMahon's use of partial-birth 
abortions. In the letter to Chairman Hyde she states that she has 
personally observed Dr. McMahon performing this procedure. She writes 
that after Dr. McMahon delivers the fetus up to the shoulders, he 
removes ``cerebrospinal fluid from the brain causing instant brain 
herniation and death.''

[[Page H 11427]]

  Once again, if the baby is not alive when it is delivered, H.R. 1833 
does not cover the procedure. But the statements of the practitioners 
and eyewitness accounts make it clear that these procedures are 
performed on living babies.
  Abortion advocates also claim that H.R. 1833 would ``jail doctors who 
perform life-saving abortions.'' This statement truly makes me wonder 
whether the opponents of the bill have bothered to read the bill. H.R. 
1833 explicitly makes allowance for a practitioner who reasonably 
believes a partial-birth abortion is necessary to save the life of the 
mother.

  Of course, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that a 
partial-birth abortion is ever necessary to save a mother's life. In 
fact, few doctors even know the procedure exists. The American Medical 
Association's Council on Legislation--which includes 12 doctors--voted 
unanimously to recommend that the AMA Board of Trustees endorse H.R. 
1833. The Council on Legislation of the AMA said partial-birth abortion 
was not a recognized medical procedure and agreed that the procedure is 
basically repulsive, and anyone who has seen this procedure described, 
anyone who understands the way this procedure is performed, would have 
to come to that conclusion in the end. The AMA board, which is on 
record in support of abortion rights, decided to remain neutral on H.R. 
1833. But it is indeed significant that the council of 12 doctors 
chosen by the AMA as an advisory board to the AMA Board of Governors 
did not recognize partial-birth abortion as a proper medical technique.
  Proponents of the partial-birth abortion method have also claimed 
that the majority of babies killed by this method of abortion have 
disabilities. Focusing the debate on babies with disabilities is a 
blatant attempt to avoid addressing the reality of this horrible 
inhuman procedure. In a partial-birth abortion the baby is partially 
delivered alive, then stabbed through the skull. No baby's life should 
be taken in this manner. It does not matter whether that baby is 
perfectly healthy or suffers from the most tragic of disabilities.
  Further, neither Dr. Haskell nor Dr. McMahon claims that this 
technique is used only in limited circumstances. In fact, their 
writings advocate this method as the preferred method for late-term 
abortions. Dr. Haskell advocates the method from 20 to 26 weeks into 
the pregnancy and told the American Medical News that most of the 
partial-birth abortions he performs are elective. In fact, he told the 
reporter, ``I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in 
that 20-24 week range . . . 80 percent are purely elective.''
  Dr. McMahon uses the partial-birth abortion method through the entire 
40 weeks of pregnancy. He claims that most of the abortions he performs 
are non-elective, but his definition of non-elective is extremely 
broad. Dr. McMahon sent a letter to the Constitution Subcommittee in 
which he described abortions performed because of a mother's youth or 
depression as ``non-elective.'' I do not believe the American people 
support aborting babies in the second and third trimesters for reasons 
such as youth or depression.
  Dr. McMahon also sent the subcommittee a graph which shows the 
percentage of, quote, ``flawed fetuses,'' that he aborted using the 
partial-birth abortion method. The graph shows that even at 26 weeks of 
gestation half the babies Dr. McMahon aborted were perfectly healthy 
and many of the babies he described as ``flawed'' had conditions that 
were compatible with long life, either with or without a disability. 
For example, Dr. McMahon listed 9 partial-birth abortions performed 
because the baby had a cleft lip.
  The National Abortion Federation, a group representing abortionists, 
also seemed to recognize that partial-birth abortions were performed 
for many reasons other than fetal abnormalities. In 1993 the National 
Abortion Federation counseled its members, ``Don't apologize: this is a 
legal abortion procedure,'' and went on to state:

       There are many reasons why women have late abortions: life 
     endangerment, fetal indications, lack of money or health 
     insurance, social-psychological crises, lack of knowledge 
     about human reproduction, etc.

  Now the National Abortion Federation is emphasizing only one of those 
reasons. In fact, NAF sent a letter to Members of Congress with 
pictures of babies with severe disabilities urging them to support the 
use of partial-birth abortion.
  I find it offensive to suggest that taking a baby's life in this 
manner is justified because that baby has abnormalities. The 
abortionist partially delivers the baby. Remember again this is the way 
the procedure is performed. The abortionist partially delivers the 
baby, stabs scissors through the baby's skull, and sucks the baby's 
brains out. Abnormalities do not make babies any less human or any less 
deserving of humane treatment. No baby's life should be taken in this 
manner.
  Abortion advocates are claiming that by banning partial-birth 
abortion we are mounting a direct attack on Roe versus Wade. Yet, in 
Roe, the Court explicitly rejected the argument that the right to an 
abortion is absolute and that a woman is entitled to terminate her 
pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason 
she alone chooses.
  The question I would raise to my friends who support abortion on 
demand is this: is there ever an instance when abortion, or a 
particular type of abortion, is inappropriate? Abortion advocates' 
vehement opposition to H.R. 1833 makes their answer to my question 
clear. For them there is never an instance when abortion is 
inappropriate. For them the right to abortion is absolute, and the 
termination of an unborn child's life is acceptable at whatever time, 
for whatever reason, and in whatever way a woman or an abortionist 
chooses.
  I do not believe that the American people accept that position. I do 
not believe that the American people wish to see this sort of procedure 
performed in this country. This is a procedure which should not be 
allowed. It is a procedure which is not necessary, it is a procedure 
which is an offense to the conscience of mankind, it is a procedure 
that this Congress should prohibit, and I am hopeful that when this 
bill comes to the floor on Wednesday of this week, we will see a 
resounding vote of support in favor of H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth 
Abortion Ban Act of 1995. This is a bill that this House needs to pass, 
this Congress needs to pass, and President Clinton needs to sign into 
law.
  Madam Speaker, now I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Weldon].

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] for introducing this bill. I 
remember first reading about this bill in the American medical news. I 
am a physician. I practice internal medicine. I still try to practice, 
occasionally seeing patients; and when I first read about this 
procedure, honestly, I was quite appalled, though I must say, I have 
been appalled for years at the United States abortion policies.
  As a physician, I took an oath when I graduated from medical school. 
It is called the Hippocratic oath: ``Do no harm.'' I have always felt 
that performing an abortion procedure is a direct violation of that 
Hippocratic oath.
  Probably nothing more graphically brings that to focus than doing the 
partial birth abortion. To take a baby, even if the baby has a 
disability, and I just want to touch briefly on this claim that these 
babies have disabilities. It is so ironic to me that some of the same 
people who would speak out against this bill and claim that it is used 
only on babies with disabilities, which has clearly been shown not to 
be true, are the same people who would seek so often to increase 
funding for programs for the disabled. I have found that to be so 
ironic, that so many of the liberal-leaning Members of this body, and 
people in government who are frequently some of the most vocal 
advocates for the disabled, are the ones who will say, This procedure 
is okay if the baby has a disability, which to me seems like the height 
of hypocrisy.
  Actually, before I took my Hippocratic oath, Mr. Speaker, I became 
quite convinced that abortion was wrong when I actually had the 
opportunity to see an abortion as a medical student. It was a 15-year-
old girl in her second trimester, and of course, this procedure had not 
been devised at that 

[[Page H 11428]]
time. They were doing a saline abortion on her. To see that personally, 
for me, was absolutely moving and convincing that this procedure is 
wrong, it is morally wrong, it is ethically wrong, and there is no way 
to justify it. However, this particular procedure is horrifying.
  I very much rise in support of this bill. Making this procedure 
illegal I think is mandatory. Even many people who advocate in support 
of abortion rights recognize that this is beyond the pale. To take 
a developed infant and partially deliver the child, where the baby has 
moving arms and moving legs, and is 3 inches away from being recognized 
by the Supreme Court of the United States as being a person and being 
protected by the full rights of the Constitution, and sucking its 
brains out so that it can be delivered through the undeveloped cervix, 
I think is just an outrage, a total outrage. To live in the United 
States, the land of the free and the home of the brave, the Nation that 
the rest of the world looks to for leadership, especially in the area 
of human rights and the dignity of human life, and to make a procedure 
like this legal I think is horrifying, and I very much speak out in 
support of the bill offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].

  However, I will say that I do that with a certain amount of grief in 
my heart, because when we make this procedure illegal, they will keep 
aborting these babies, but they will keep aborting these babies, but 
they will do it by a different procedure called dilation and 
extraction, where they dilate the cervix and then they tear the baby 
apart, limb by limb, and that, to me, is as evil as this is. But I very 
much, nonetheless, rise in strong support of the bill of the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Canady]. I highly urge all my colleagues to support 
this bill, and end this ghastly procedure.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida. I now yield to the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith].
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] for taking on something that is not 
easy, because the American people do not want to talk about this 
subject. It takes brave people to stand and talk about what the Nation 
has not wanted to face.
  This week we will be voting on the partial birth abortion ban 
legislation. I suspect the majority of the American people will never 
have heard of this heinous procedure. This is not surprising, because, 
as a Nation, we have created a veil of silence when it comes to the 
reality of abortion procedures. I know until about 10 years ago that I 
would not even talk about the procedure, saying it was the choice of a 
woman. However, tonight, if I had had this procedure before me, and had 
to be faced with the humanity of the baby, I would have changed to 
being for life sooner, because no woman who has delivered a baby, who 
has felt that baby inside of her and held a baby, could allow this 
procedure, whether she was for choice of abortion or adamantly against 
abortion.

  Madam Speaker, I was a breech baby. I did not know that. I did not 
know what it meant. My mother said ``You came out backward, and that 
meant you were backward for many years.'' It was a family joke. I just 
about did not make it. America needs to realize that this procedure we 
are talking about tonight, if it had been me, they would have stopped 
the birth. My mother would have gone into labor, my feet would have 
come out, and they would have stopped my head from coming out.
  Because we were pretty poor at that time and my mother had physical 
problems, she probably would have qualified for this if she could get a 
doctor to do it. They would have been able to kill me and then deliver 
me, and say that I had never been living. This is what we are facing 
tonight, with this procedure.
  Madam Speaker, I was thinking about America and how we have decided 
to hide from this. But I think tonight I am willing to stand here and 
say to the American people and to my colleagues, no matter where you 
are, the humanity and the inhumanity of man has to be reckoned with.
  There is an example that I am going to use. It was Gen. Dwight 
Eisenhower. After the war he required the allied soldiers to walk 
through Buchenwald, to see the inhumanity, and to see the damage, and 
to see the hate, and what this had done. He said, ``I made the visit 
deliberately and required my soldiers to, in order to be in a position 
to give firsthand evidence of these things if ever in the future there 
develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to propaganda.''
  General Eisenhower was not discussing abortion or this particular 
procedure, but he was understanding the necessity to look death in the 
face and call it for what it was, and it is certainly timely. While we 
may prefer to look away from abortion, the reality demands otherwise. I 
call on my colleagues to look at the humanity of these babies, see the 
pictures--that is not a blob, those are little legs and feet hanging 
out, that is a head--and make a decision, is that a baby; and if it is, 
vote today to protect that baby's life at least in this procedure; if 
you cannot protect him in others, at least in this.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].

  Mr. COBURN. I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] for 
yielding to me, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his efforts. On 
behalf of my profession as a physician, I am extremely disgusted that 
such a procedure would ever come about.
  As I thought about this procedure tonight and the discussions that we 
would have about it, I thought it would be very important for us to try 
to get a mental picture of it. As a practicing obstetrician delivering 
babies, I delivered two babies this weekend, to think that at times we 
inadvertently have to deliver babies at 24 and 25 weeks, if we think 
about it, those of us who know what that is like, of holding a small 
infant, an infant somewhat larger than this model, somewhat larger than 
this model in our hands and see it struggle for life, and know that in 
institutions throughout this country that we see efforts, great strides 
being made to save those infants, and now infants at 23\1/2\ weeks have 
made it to living, fully functional, capable adults, and healthy 
children; to know that we hold in our hands a child that, through this 
method, would no longer be viable.
  The difference is that we will spend untold hundreds of thousands of 
dollars when this accidentally falls in our lap to save this child, and 
then we allow a procedure such as this.
  I think one of the important points that needs to be made about this 
procedure, this procedure does not have anything to do with women. It 
has to do with the convenience of a doctor. For us to lose sight of 
that point will be a tragedy. If we want to terminate a pregnancy at 20 
to 24 weeks, there are many ways to do it. We do not have to do it this 
way. This way has been developed so that it is easy for the physician, 
it is easy for the operator to complete the task and collect their fee 
of terminating the life. I think it must not be lost sight of, as this 
was developed as a technology to make it efficient to kill babies.
  Finally, I wanted to just comment on a Dear Colleague letter that I 
got today, which so misstates this bill that it somewhat disappoints me 
in our Chamber that we would try to confuse situations away from the 
truth.
  This comes from one of our colleagues in California. It talks about 
how some of his constituents would not be allowed, because they had a 
trisomy 13 baby, a baby that had three 13 chromosomes, that their 
child, they would never have been able to abort their child should they 
have wanted to, if this procedure is banned.
  Of course, as the gentleman knows, that is not the case. If in fact 
there is a medical indication for this procedure it can be performed, 
although nobody can think of a medical indication now, not the 12 
doctors that are on the advisory panel, the scientific panel for the 
AMA, not anybody else out there can think of a medical reason why we 
should use this procedure.
  I also wanted to share with you also, one of my patients, his name is 
Kelsey Goss, Kelsey is 47 years old. Kelsey has Down syndrome. Kelsey 
has lived a wonderful life. The last 20 years or so has not been great 
in terms of the stroke that he had, but he has been a joy to his 
mother, a joy to his father until he died. To say that he was not 
valued, to say that he, because he had 

[[Page H 11429]]
three chromosomes in the wrong place, did not contribute to our society 
to me speaks at the very issue that we tend to want to cover up in our 
society.
  I want to thank the gentleman again for bringing this forward. As a 
physician who has performed abortions to save the life of a mother, I 
can think of no other reason why we should ever participate in any type 
of effort to terminate a life that is so helpless, so innocent, and 
this cannot be allowed to happen anymore. I will just tell you that I 
will fight hard to see that this is banned, I will fight hard to make 
sure that we expose those that continue to do it afterwards, to make 
sure that it is not carried out, because in fact when we hold that 
little 22-week baby, we know it can feel, it is gasping for air, it has 
pain fibers, it knows and senses the very precarious situation that it 
is in.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], a doctor, for his valuable insight into 
this procedure and what it really means. I think the gentleman from 
Oklahoma brings a unique perspective to this as an obstetrician, and I 
am very grateful for his support for this important legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant].
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida. I, too, join in expressing my appreciation to the gentleman 
for introducing this bill.
  As one who brings a different perspective to this podium, Madam 
Speaker, a practicing attorney in civil law, and also a former U.S. 
attorney, as a Federal prosecutor I am very familiar with the concepts 
of due process of law and when life begins and these kinds of things. 
It is amazing to me that you can talk about a number of very divisive 
and emotional issues in the debate of abortions, but eventually it 
comes down in all instances to the issue of when does life begin.

                              {time}  2115

  As a prosecutor, I was always amazed to see the most heinous of 
murderers, the John Wayne Gacys, the Ted Bundys, many of the people on 
death row today who were given years and years of due process of law, 
furnished with lawyers to represent them; they are furnished with the 
idea, the concept, of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a presumption of 
innocence, all of these processes of due process of law under our 
government, and years and years of appeal.
  On the other hand, we have an unquestionably, undeniably innocent 
preborn baby who is given none of this due process of law, and in fact, 
is subjected in this instance to the type of procedure that your bill 
attempts to outlaw.
  I believe the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] is a practicing 
attorney, and I would like to see if maybe the gentleman could answer 
this question for me, and I think I know the answer. If they brought a 
Ted Bundy into the electric chair or were about to execute him after 
these years of appeal and all of this, and the power failed and you had 
the media there and you had the victim's relatives there and you had 
the family members there observing this intended execution and the 
power failed, and someone came out and asked Mr. Bundy to put his head 
down and they hit him over the head with a screwdriver and knocked a 
hole in his head and drained out his brain, sucked out his brain, does 
the gentleman from Florida think that would be any cause for the civil 
libertarians in terms of cruel and inhuman punishment via this type of 
execution?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I do believe that there would 
be a rush to claim that that was cruel and unusual punishment. I 
believe that that sort of procedure would be universally condemned by 
people who are concerned about civil liberties in this country.
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Well, I think the gentleman is right. We 
know as attorneys and have studied cases in law school about cruel and 
inhuman treatment. In fact, there have been appeals in the past that 
have tried to hold the death penalty illegal, because of the type, the 
manner, of execution.
  It just astounds me that we could draw the law into play like we do 
for someone like a John Wayne Gacy or a Ted Bundy or people on death 
row who have committed the most heinous of murders, and yet we somehow 
allow this type of procedure to exist.
  I am pleased to see, and I will close my comments with this, that the 
fact that the American Medical Association, its council on legislation, 
as has been alluded to earlier tonight, has voted unanimously, 12 to 
nothing, after reviewing this procedure and has found that there is no 
medical need for this type of act to be done. I think that comes a long 
way, and I think that says a lot for the people in the medical field, 
the people who control the AMA, even though the AMA itself, as I 
understand, did not take a position on this. However, I am pleased that 
they have joined on with us and, in fact, look forward to a vote on 
this next Wednesday at a time when I understand many of our colleagues 
who are so-called pro choice will also join with us in outlawing this 
type of procedure.
  Madam Speaker, at this point I will simply thank the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Canady] for being the point man for us on this issue.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Tennessee for his helpful comments.
  I would now recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].
  Mr. LARGENT. Madam Speaker, I first want to thank my colleague from 
Florida, Mr. Canady, for his courage in introducing H.R. 1333 and I 
rise in support of it and encourage all of our colleagues to support it 
on Wednesday when it comes to the floor for a vote.
  I would like to say first of all that I think there is no humane way 
to end the life of a preborn baby, and I know many of my colleagues 
agree, but certainly not this technique that we are debating or 
discussing this evening that H.R. 1833 would ban.
  The folks in my district and in my State understand that this bill is 
not about health care, it is not about women's issues, it is not about 
the ability for doctors to practice medicine, it is about babies, and 
it is about a very inhumane way to end their lives.
  What I would like to do is, it has been said that originality is when 
you forget where you heard it first, and I will not forget where I 
heard this first. This is actually a story that I would like to read 
that was printed in the Daily Oklahoman as an editorial. It is 
entitled, ``The Littlest Angel'' and it is regarding H.R. 1333.
  It says:

       She remembers the baby. He had the most perfect, angelic 
     face she had even seen. Nurses working in obstetrics see lots 
     of babies, but this one stood out. Brenda Shafer still sees 
     that face, nearly 2 years later.
       The mother held the infant, wrapped in a blanket, and 
     cried, Shafer also cried. Tears come easily at births, but 
     these were tears of grief. The child with the face of an 
     angel had Down syndrome. ``I never realized,'' Shafer says, 
     ``how perfect these babies really are at this point.''
       Too perfect to die.
       In September 1993, Shafer went to work at the Women's 
     Medical Center in Dayton, OH. Pro choice and proud of it, the 
     nurse once told her daughters that if one of them got 
     pregnant while a teen, she would see to it they aborted.
       On the third day of her new job, Shafer assisted with the 
     delivery of the Down syndrome baby, who had gestated for more 
     than 26 weeks. She saw his heart beating on a monitor. She 
     saw him delivered in pieces, in chunks. He feet came out 
     first, then his legs, and then his little belly and arms.
       He was moving, his fingers were clasped together. He was 
     kicking his feet. But his head was still inside. Then the 
     doctor stuck some scissors in the back of the baby's neck. 
     Shafer almost threw up. The heart monitor went silent after 
     the baby's brains were sucked out.
       The baby with the face of an angel was placed in a medical 
     pan, but the mother wanted to see him. She insisted. Wrapped 
     in the blanket, the child got the only cuddling he would ever 
     have in this world. Later, a lab employee came by to dispose 
     of his remains.
       On Tuesday, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee voted to 
     impose jail terms of up to 2 years for performing the type of 
     abortion described above. To a person, Republicans on the 
     committee voted for a ban on these ``partial birth'' 
     abortions. Democrats on the panel voted against it.
       ``This is the beginning of the end of Roe versus Wade,'' 
     lamented Representative Pat Schroeder, Democrat, Colorado, 
     who held her face in her hands during the vote. ``They've 
     just taken a big chunk out of it and clearly want to go after 
     the whole thing.''
       How ironic. Her words perfectly describe the very procedure 
     she seeks to protect.
       Had he been given another 12 weeks, the baby with the face 
     of an angel could have survived outside of the womb. Had he 
     been aborted 12 weeks earlier, he would have been just 
     another fetus, courtesy of Roe versus Wade.

[[Page H 11430]]

       But this baby stood out. ``I still have nightmares about 
     what I saw,'' Shafer said. It has changed her life. Now 
     Shafer is trying to change the law. She needs your help.

  Our colleagues, we ask you to vote in favor of H.R. 1833.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, we are here this week to debate what some might call a 
simple medical question. Specifically, whether a certain procedure 
known as partial birth abortion should be left alone as good and 
permissible medicine, or legally banned as brutality, masquerading as 
medicine.
  This week the 22-year coverup of abortion methods is over. I applaud 
Chairman Canady for his courage in bringing this very thoughtful 
legislation to the floor and for exposing this particular abuse of 
little kids.

  For more than two decades the abortion industry has sanitized 
abortion methods by aggressively employing the shrewdest and most 
benign euphemisms market research can buy. They have engaged, without 
question, in coverup.
  Throughout the country there have been proposals at the State 
legislative level for informed consent legislation to provide, before 
the woman submits to abortion, a clear understanding of the child's 
humanity. Pictures, anatomically correct, about the child in utero.
  NARAL and the Abortion Rights lobby has opposed each and every one of 
those efforts to inform the woman about the humanity of the unborn 
child and about any possible deleterious effects that abortion could 
have on her life. Gov. Bob Casey recently told me that in Pennsylvania, 
where informed consent is the law, there has been a 13-percent drop in 
abortions, and Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist himself, has 
said that if wombs had windows, women would run out of abortion 
clinics, because they would see that the child that they carry is a 
little baby.
  Now we find ourselves in the midst of a sea change regarding how 
abortion is addressed by this House. This week, in addition to the 
debates on whether or not the Federal Government should fund abortions, 
we will, for the first time, begin to debate whether or not a 
particular heinous method of abortion, partial birth abortions, should 
continue to be legal in our land.
  This is serious business, Madam Speaker. It is therefore especially 
fitting that this debate in particular should not be about 
philosophical abstractions like choice, the rights of women and 
privacy, all of them laudable when considered only in the abstract. 
This debate, if it is to shed any light on the serious question at 
hand, if it is to be honest and thereby worthy of this House, must be 
about the very behavior, the methods themselves, and that is why the 
descriptions of this type of abortion needs to go forward without being 
gagged.
  Madam Speaker, as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] pointed out 
earlier, Dr. Martin Haskell, a medical doctor who unashamedly performs 
these methods of abortions by the hundreds, unashamedly does this kind 
of abuse to children, let him describe it in his own words as he told 
the National Abortion Federation's risk management seminar Abortion 
Federation's risk management seminar a couple of years ago.
  I quote him:

       The surgeon introduces a large, grasping forcep through the 
     vaginal and cervical canals into the corpus of the uterus. 
     Based upon his knowledge of fetal orientation, he moves the 
     tip of the instrument carefully toward the fetal lower 
     extremities. When the instrument appears on the sonogram 
     screen, the surgeon is able to open and close its jaws to 
     firmly and reliably grasp a lower extremity. The surgeon than 
     applies firm traction to the instrument causing a version of 
     the fetus and pulls the extremity into the vagina.

  Dr. Haskell goes on to say:

       The surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the lower 
     extremity, then the torso, then the shoulders, and then the 
     upper extremities. The skull lodges at the internal cervical 
     os. Usually there is not enough dilation for it to pass 
     through. The fetus is oriented dorsum or spine up.
       The surgeon then takes a bear of blunt, curved Metzenbaum 
     scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, 
     curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger 
     until he feels it contact at the base of the skull under the 
     tip of his middle finger.
       The surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the 
     skull. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the 
     scissors to enlarge the opening.
       The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction 
     catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. 
     With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the 
     fetus, removing it completely from the patient.

  Madam Speaker, that clinical description of child abuse is what is in 
the table and will be debated this week. Whether individuals should be 
permitted to pull a living child out of her mother's womb and stick a 
scissors through the back of her head and then suck her brains out 
until she is dead is the brunt and the crux of this legislation. Should 
that behavior be legal, or should it be criminal is what we must decide 
this week.
  This week, this legislation will, for the first time ever in this 
debate in this House or in the Senate, finally say whether or not we 
will approve or disapprove of legalized abortion, particularly in this 
method.
  It was mentioned earlier by my good friend, Mr. Canady, and also by 
some other Members during this special order, that one particular nurse 
saw this and got deathly sick from what she saw. She saw that living 
child, the heart beating, the feet kicking, the hands grasping and 
making little fists, and she walked out of there never to go back, and 
now she has turned State's evidence to bring a witness to the Congress 
and to the American people about partial birth abortions.
  It was pointed out earlier that the American Medical Association's 
legislative council saw fit to join in supporting this legislation, and 
shame on the American Medical Association when that recommendation came 
forward for not saying yes, we will stand for children as we have done 
so historically, going back to the 1860's and beyond, when they said 
that abortion takes the life of a baby. Unfortunately, politics 
intervened with its ugly head and unfortunately, they have now become 
``neutral'' on this particular legislation.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] is a great leader, and he is 
bringing this debate to this House, and I hope many people who call 
themselves pro choice will take a good, hard look at the reality of 
what abortion actually is.
  Madam Speaker, when you look at the methods of abortion, this is one 
of many that is a heinous act. If you look at D&C abortions where the 
baby is literally dismembered in utero, not so much different from this 
method. The suction methods which the other side likes to talk about 
with all kinds of euphemisms, suction curettage and all of those words 
they use, clinical words, to kill the baby, usually around the 12th 
week.

                              {time}  2130

  Those methods, too, destroy a living growing developing little baby 
boy or little baby girl.
  This legislation is human rights legislation. I hope this whole 
House, and I know it is hoping against hope because some Members are 
under instructions from the abortion lobby to oppose it and to speak 
out against it, but in their heart of hearts, that small still voice 
will say, that is a crime. That is child abuse.
  We need to speak out loudly and clearly because we have an 
affirmative obligation to protect children from that kind of abuse. I 
applaud the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] for his leadership. It 
is a good bill and deserves the support of every Member of this House.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his 
comments tonight. I want to also thank the gentleman from New Jersey 
for his long-standing leadership in defense of the unborn. There is no 
one in the Congress who has fought harder and more consistently to 
protect the rights of the unborn than our colleague from New Jersey, 
Mr. Smith. We all owe a debt of gratitude to him for his leadership.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members have 5 legislative days 

[[Page H 11431]]
within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my 
special order today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mrs. Seastrand). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good 
friend the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate, 
Charles, your leadership on this very, very difficult subject. I know 
it is not pleasant and I know this discussion this evening has not been 
easy and this has been difficult for you and that you do sponsor this 
and take the lead on this out of a deep sense of conviction. I admire 
you for it.
  Make no mistake about it, this hideous procedure should be outlawed 
and it should be outlawed now. It is a procedure that is predicated on 
stabbing the partially born baby's skull with surgical scissors 
and suctioning the child's brain out and it should not be tolerated in 
what professes to be a civilized society.

  The description that Mr. Smith from New Jersey gave is horrible but 
the reality as we know is far more horrible. Beyond the most important 
aspect of what we are doing in this legislation, in saving the lives of 
several hundred unborn children at least, the education benefit of this 
debate and what will happen tomorrow or Wednesday is also, I think, 
tremendously important. This method of abortion is simply indefensible, 
it is a late-term method used on unborn babies that can surely feel the 
pain of what is happening and are utterly defenseless. With an 
estimated 80 percent plus of these grisly late-term abortions being 
elective in nature, with hundreds of these repulsive procedures being 
performed in the United States annually, it is time for all people of 
decency to unite in passing this legislation.
  William Wilberforce, the great 18th and 19th century reformer who 
spent his life fighting the horrors of the slave trade said concerning 
slavery in his day, ``Our posterity looking back to the history of 
these enlightened times will scarce believe that it has been suffered 
to exist so long, a disgrace and dishonor to this country.''
  Madam Speaker, I believe someday history will look back to our so-
called enlightened times and they will scarce believe that we have 
suffered to exist so long a disgrace and dishonor to this country. It 
is time that we pass H.R. 1833.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas. I now 
yield 1 minute to my good friend the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to add 
to my colleague's remarks my appreciation to the gentleman for his 
courage in bringing this difficult issue before the House now.
  Madam Speaker, Mother Teresa said one time, ``How can people say that 
there are too many children? That is like saying that there are too 
many flowers.'' I very much appreciated that remark. I think of it when 
we discuss debates like this.
  I hope and look forward to a time when we can persuade America that 
there is room in this country for all of the souls that are created 
here. I believe that some day we will be able to persuade America of 
that. Until we can reach that point, at least we can take some 
incremental steps. At least we can outlaw procedures like this, the 
gruesome details of which have been discussed in specificity by some of 
my other colleagues.
  I want to make this point and that is why I asked the gentleman to 
yield a moment to me. I understand that those who oppose this bill are 
going to oppose it on the grounds that if we outlaw this particular 
gruesome procedure, it will mean somehow that Roe versus Wade cannot 
stand. I hope that that indeed is the case someday. But I would like to 
ask them this question. If they cannot justify Roe versus Wade without 
justifying procedures like this, if they feel so intellectually 
insecure or morally insecure about that decision that they believe it 
cannot stand as the result of a chain of events that would be let loose 
by outlawing gruesome procedures like this, then maybe it is time for 
them to reexamine their position about Roe versus Wade. No American can 
look at this diagram, can read what it means to babies all around this 
country and believe that this procedure can be justified in a civilized 
society.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Missouri. I 
appreciate his comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Florida for holding this 
very important special order this evening. Indeed during the course of 
this I am reminded of something which I believe was said by Abraham 
Lincoln. To paraphrase him now, he said, I believe the American people 
once fully informed of the facts will make the correct decision.
  Madam Speaker, as I have listened tonight, I have noted those 
speakers who have preceded me have made mention of the fact that in 
this debate, certain facts are ignored. It has been detailed here, some 
would say with perhaps great explicitness, the brutality and the 
violence of this procedure, and really ``procedure'' is almost too kind 
a word. It in itself is a euphemism.
  As I stand here, Madam Speaker, tonight in this Chamber, with 
colleagues and interested bodies and indeed via the technology of 
television many fellow Americans looking on, I think it is also 
important to talk about other facts, because those who oppose our 
efforts to ban this type of procedure will use certain ad hominem 
arguments, they will suggest that somehow those of us on this side of 
the debate would champion violence at various clinics.
  Let us go on record and be unequivocal about this point tonight. 
Madam Speaker, we, and indeed I think I can speak for all of us in this 
Chamber, abhor any act of violence toward any American. But we are 
talking about an incredibly violence act tonight. One of my colleagues 
called it child abuse.
  We pride ourselves on living in the so-called information age. Those 
who may take exception to the details of this procedure being 
delineated during the course of this debate, I would simply ask this 
question. Is it not important that all the facts be known? Is it not 
important that we be fully informed as we make this decision? Because 
again as Lincoln pointed out, once we are fully informed of the facts, 
then we make the correct decision.
  It is a very simple question, really, one that is often lost in the 
midst of rhetorical flourish, in the euphemisms that abound, in the 
abstractions of alleged constitutional rights, that indeed we champion, 
for this is the most basic of those rights, the right to life, the 
right that the innocent preborn be given an opportunity to live or at 
the very least through outlawing this heinous procedure, that this 
particularly gruesome method of extermination go the way of so many 
acts noted for cruelty and insensitivity and blatant violence.

  It is important to look at the facts. It is important to end this 
violence. It is an action that I am confident that many, who may have 
varying degrees of disagreement on other aspects of this debate, in the 
final analysis will rally behind.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. I would 
now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder].
  Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman very much and appreciate his 
leadership on this bill.
  I grew up in a very peace-loving family that would not destroy 
innocent children. I remember one time my mom said when I was little, I 
was worried about a spider that she wanted me to kill and I did not 
want to damage the spider, let alone a human life. But it was more kind 
of a general feeling than specific knowledge on the abortion issue.
  I happened to be at graduate school at the University of Notre Dame 
when the Supreme Court decision Roe versus Wade came down and I got 
very involved in the pro-life movement and heard about the methods of 
the candy apple babies, so-called because they burn off their skin and 
you just see the red, or the method of cutting up the babies and the 
sheer horror of the pictures and the knowledge is just so overwhelming 
and that is where if the American people knew the truth about the 
abortion issue it would not be tolerated. You would not allow this type 
of thing. If you knew somebody in your 

[[Page H 11432]]
neighborhood took their dog out in the street and did this to their 
dog, you would not want to associate with them. Yet people in your 
neighborhood do this to their babies.
  How can this be happening in this country? As a father I do not 
understand how a people can take their children that we love so dearly 
and that we care and do this cruel and inhumane punishment to them.
  We have heard all through this year about how speakers have come down 
here into the well and attacked us on our balanced budget proposals and 
say that we are heartless, that we are cold-blooded, that we are cruel, 
that we lack compassion, that we do not have human decency, that we are 
causing inordinate pain and suffering.
  This is those things. You can debate how much money we should spend 
on different programs, but these partial-birth abortions, when you 
stick a scissors into the back of a human life and you suck their 
brains out, there is no debating whether this ii compassionate or 
heartless. Let those who have been using those terms so loosely and 
throwing them around for political purposes defend this in their vote 
on Wednesday if they want to see compassion.

  Even the AMA's Council on Legislation agreed that the procedure was 
basically repulsive. Basically repulsive? It is disgusting. It has been 
hard to sit down here and listen to people talk about this without 
getting tears in your eyes about the children and the little tiny 
defenseless babies in this country who are being treated worse than 
animals in this society. It is very discouraging that we have all of 
these humane shelters, all of these people devoted to protecting 
animals, yet there is this double standard for human beings. I do not 
understand how this country has tolerated this, particularly this most 
flagrant of procedures, the last step.
  Many times they even want to suck out these brains in the name of 
science, they want to use it, the fetal tissue from these living babies 
to supposedly save somebody else's life or impact them. I do not know 
how we can stand here in this country, the land of freedom, and land 
where people died to have the right to life and the right to survive 
and do this.
  I want to close with the story about my cousin. We have heard about 
people who are handicapped and my cousin Kalisa was born with one stub 
and without another leg and her organs were not able to keep her alive 
and they knew she was going to die, they did not know what year but 
they said maybe 8 years and she lived until she was 10 years old and 
she could not continue living.
  But there is not one person who ever came in touch with my cousin who 
does not believe that her life brought more to this society than many 
of us who have all of our means, all of our arms and legs and all of 
our organs because Kalisa was always happy, she knew where she was 
going to go, she was a light to others, she knew that she was not going 
to live long and she was a positive influence on others. Those people 
who say that because somebody has a handicap or because somebody is 
less intelligent or something else deserve to die should be 
reprimanded, should be shamed in this House, and then to propose 
procedures like this, if they cannot stand with us on saying that we 
are not going to take the weakest in our society and destroy them with 
this most disgusting method, I am disappointed they would be reelected 
in this country and speak for the American people.

                              {time}  2145

  Thank you for your leadership on this.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, one of the great tragedies of 
our Nation is the practice of abortion. Since 1973, with the Roe versus 
Wade decision, we have seen a culture of death, as the Pope described 
it, brought about by over 30 million abortions. Thirty million 
abortions have cheapened the value of life in our Nation. But, Madam 
Speaker, if abortion is not bad enough, the procedure of partial birth 
abortions is the most hideous example of brutality that can be 
imagined. It is absolutely outrageous. The procedure is used in mid-
term, or the mid-term point in pregnancy, and the American Medical News 
reported most fetuses aborted this way are alive until the end. In 
fact, evidence indicates the mother's anesthesia often does not put the 
fetus to sleep. Therefore, the baby would have to endure the horrible 
pain.
  What are the pro-abortion arguments for this procedure? Pro-abortion 
forces say that procedure is used mostly on malformed babies or babies 
who would not live anyway. That is false. A doctor who performed more 
than 1,000 partial birth abortions said 80 percent are elective, that 
an even greater question is who should have the right to choose life 
and death for the other 20 percent.
  Pro-abortion forces say very few are performed. In the Louisville 
Courier-Journal earlier this year, an ACLU member said partial birth 
abortions are primarily limited to the third trimester. These make up 
less than 1 percent of all abortions. By that projection, that is more 
than 4,000 each year, or three or 4 abortions a day, and two doctors 
alone reportedly performed nearly 500 a year.
  Are we supposed to be reassured?
  Madam Speaker, I think H.R. 1833 is a good bill. This horrible, 
brutal practice that destroys the most innocent should be stopped and 
stopped immediately.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. 
Although I am opposed to abortion as a matter of conscience, I was 
particularly shocked when I learned of the cruelty and callousness of 
this procedure. As one of the Members earlier stated, the AMA in their 
Legislative Council voted without dissent to endorse this legislation, 
with one of the members saying that a partial birth abortion ``was not 
a recognized medical technique.''
  I think perhaps what is most disturbing about a partial birth 
abortion is how closely this comes to infanticide. While I respect the 
views of these who disagree with me on the matter of abortion, any 
validity their arguments may have surely disappears when discussing 
this grotesque procedure.
  When this issue comes to the House floor this week for debate, they 
will drag out euphemisms, never once addressing the issue we are 
talking about here, a viable unborn little baby.
  I believe the American people are solidly behind this legislation. I 
hope and pray that we can have a successful effort later this week.
  Pass H.R. 1833.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1833, the 
ban on partial-birth abortions. To me, there are two amazing 
observations surrounding this issue: one that it is legal and two, that 
there are people who are willing to stand up and defend it.
  I was shocked, as I am sure many of my colleagues were, to find out 
that in this country it is legal to partially deliver a baby, insert 
scissors at the base of its head and suction out the brains. Some 
suggest that the baby is already dead during the procedure, but I 
submit to you the following interview between the American Medical News 
[AMN] and abortionist, Dr. Martin Haskell:

       AMN. Let's talk first about whether or not the fetus is 
     dead beforehand . . .
       Haskell. No it's not. No, it's really not.

  This bill has the support of the 12 member American Medical 
Association's legislative council who unanimously agreed that this form 
of abortion should be abolished. One legislative council representative 
called the procedure basically repulsive, saying that it was not a 
recognized medical technique. And lest we forget what the American 
public has to say, I remind you that an overwhelming majority reject 
any type of late-term abortions.
  Unbelievably, there are a small number of people who defend this 
procedure by stating that it is necessary to provide the option to end 
the life of babies with severe abnormalities or to protect the life of 
the mother. What do you consider an abnormality? One abortionist has 
admitted performing this procedure on babies because they had a cleft 
lip. Dr. Haskell has stated, ``I'll be quite frank: most of my 
abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range . . . In my particular 
case, probably 20 percent are for genetic reasons. And the other 80 
percent are purely elective.'' With respect to a woman's health, no 
doctor is going to perform a 3-day procedure on a woman whose life is 
in danger. There are many other procedures available to a doctor to 
protect the life of the mother without killing her baby. 

[[Page H 11433]]

  Mr. Speaker, I am amazed. I thought that pro-life and pro-abortion 
advocates would finally be able to find some common ground in this 
contentious debate. I thought that no one would be able to defend such 
an abhorrent procedure. Sadly, I was wrong. Luckily, there is still 
time to review the facts, and I urge my colleagues to do just that. 
Read over the procedure. Read over the AMA legislative counsel's 
unanimous decision. Read over the polls on America's view on late term 
abortions. Then do the only thing you can do and vote for the ban on 
partial-birth abortions.
  Thank you.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the following 
editorial which appeared in the September/October issue of the American 
Enterprise magazine. Maggie Gallagher does an excellent job of 
describing the brutal reality of an inhuman procedure known as partial 
birth abortion.
  After you have examined the facts, I invite you to join with me in 
voting for H.R. 1833--the Partial Birth Abortion Act Ban of 1995.

         [From the American Enterprise, September-October 1995]

                      A Perfectly Legal Procedure

                         (By Maggie Gallagher)

       She still has recurring nightmares--flashbacks, like a 
     soldier back from Vietnam: ``I see the baby, its hands and 
     legs moving. Then the scissors jab, and the body goes limp. 
     It haunts me.''
       Despite what you might think, Brenda Schafer, a 38-year-old 
     registered nurse from Franklin, Ohio, is not a witness to a 
     gruesome crime. She is an eyewitness to a perfectly legal 
     procedure going on across America under the cover of 
     abstract, pious words that all sensible people believe in--
     words like, ``a doctor-patient relationship'' and ``a woman's 
     right to choose.''
       The procedure is called a partial-birth abortion, and 
     perhaps 500 to 4,000 of them are carried out every year. 
     According to Brenda, it is impossible to exaggerate the 
     procedure's horrors. Here is what she saw the day the temp 
     agency assigned her to Dr. Martin Haskell's Dayton, Ohio 
     abortion clinic: ``The whole baby was delivered, except for 
     its head. I could see the hands and legs moving. Have you 
     ever seen a baby fling out its arms when it is startled? 
     That's what it look like. I saw Dr. Haskell insert a pair of 
     scissors, then the baby flinched. He inserted a high-power 
     suction catheter [to remove the brain tissue], and the baby 
     went limp. I almost threw up all over the floor.'' The baby 
     was not defective and, at a gestational age of 26-and-a-half 
     weeks, was well past the 23 to 24 weeks doctors considered 
     the point of viability; most premature infants born at that 
     age do pretty well.
       There were six partial-birth abortions that day in that 
     clinic alone. Brenda assisted in three of them. One mother 
     sought an abortion because her baby had Down's syndrome; the 
     other two carried babies with no defects. One mother was a 
     17-year-old unwed woman. The other, whose partial-birth 
     abortion is described above, was a married 40-year-old with a 
     grown son who apparently decided, rather late, that she 
     didn't want a change-of-life baby.
       While the larger issue of abortion is of course enormously 
     controversial, we know that practices like partial-birth 
     abortions, abortion for sex selection, and late-term abortion 
     are strongly opposed by large majorities of Americans. Aiming 
     to bring some peace to the abortion wars by at least 
     eliminating these most offensive procedures, the House 
     Committee on the Judiciary recently approved a bill to ban 
     partial-birth abortions. Abortion-rights advocates, however, 
     have made it clear they will accept no limitations of 
     abortion on demand, at any time or for any reason. NOW 
     president Patricia Ireland has denounced the House bill, 
     while Barbara Bradford of the National Abortion Federation 
     sent out talking points for abortion defenders that urged: 
     don't apologize, it's legal procedure.
       Brenda says she once believed in the noble-sounding slogans 
     of the pro-choice movement: ``I have four teenage daughters. 
     I told them if they got pregnant, I'd make them have an 
     abortion.'' Like many Americans, she was fiercely committed 
     to abortion rights in the abstract; it was the reality she 
     literally couldn't stomach.
       When it was over, the mother who underwent a partial-birth 
     abortion that day insisted on seeing the results. So Brenda 
     and the other nurses cleaned it up, wrapped it in a blanket, 
     and put the corpse of a little baby in her arms. Face-to-face 
     with what she had done, the woman began crying inconsolably, 
     repeatedly pleading, ``God forgive me.''

                          ____________________