[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.''
____________________