[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 171 (Wednesday, November 1, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11604-H11618]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 251 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1833.

                              {time}  1201


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
1833) to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth 
abortions, with Mr. Emerson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  The text of the Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 1833

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after chapter 73 the following:

                 ``CHAPTER 74--PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS

``Sec.
``1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited.

     ``Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

       ``(a) Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign 
     commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and 
     thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title 
     or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
       ``(b) As used in this section, the term `partial-birth 
     abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing 
     the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus 
     before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.
       ``(c)(1) The father, and if the mother has not attained the 
     age of 18 years at the time of the abortion, the maternal 
     grandparents of the fetus, may in a civil action obtain 
     appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the 
     plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to 
     the abortion.
       ``(2) Such relief shall include--
       ``(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and 
     physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and
       ``(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of 
     the partial-birth abortion.
       ``(d) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is 
     performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a 
     conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under 
     section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this 
     section.
       ``(e) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution or a 
     civil action under this section, which must be proved by a 
     preponderance of the evidence, that the partial-birth 
     abortion was performed by a physician who reasonably 
     believed--
       ``(1) the partial-birth abortion was necessary to save the 
     life of the mother; and
       ``(2) no other procedure would suffice for that purpose.''.

[[Page H 11605]]

       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to chapter 73 the following new item:

``74. Partial-birth abortions...............................1531''.....

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentlewoman from Colorado 
[Mrs. Schroeder] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, someone has observed that hard truths travel slowly. 
Ugly realities are often hidden from view. Uncomfortable facts are 
concealed or ignored. This is true in many areas of politics and of 
life. But nowhere is it more true than with respect to abortion.
  Today we consider a bill that deals with a hard truth. H.R. 1833 
addresses the ugly reality of partial-birth abortion. In this debate 
today, we confront the uncomfortable facts about this heinous 
procedure, facts that have been concealed for too long.
  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 3 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 breech 
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.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, the House is not in order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair observes that the House is in order, but the 
Chair will try to obtain better order. Will Members please cease and 
desist their conversation.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise because I had hoped the Speaker 
would exercise his authority under rule I, clause 2 to preserve the 
order and decorum in this Chamber.
  It seems obvious to me that we are going to have exhibits that I 
think are a breach of decorum. I would object to the use of these 
exhibits that have not been certified medically, and I would hope that 
the other side would withdraw them at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will put the question to the Committee under 
rule XXX if any Member objects to the use of an exhibit in debate. The 
gentlewoman from Colorado has objected.
  The question is: Shall the gentleman be permitted to use the exhibit 
that he has at his left?
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). The Chair will make a statement. A 
rollcall is in process, but the Chair understands that there is 
confusion. A ``yes'' vote on the question before the Committee permits 
the use of the material in question. A ``no'' vote would deny the use 
of the material in question. The vote will proceed.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 332, 
noes 86, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 755]

                               AYES--332

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--86

     Allard
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Beilenson
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cox
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     Deutsch
     Dooley
     Farr
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Horn
     Houghton
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennelly
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Martinez
     Martini
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nussle
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roukema
     Rush
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tanner
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walker
     Waters
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Clay
     Dicks
     Dornan
     Fields (LA)
     Gephardt
     McIntosh
     Olver
     Owens
     Tucker
     Waldholtz
     Weldon (PA)
     Wilson
     Wise
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1227

  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. KELLY and Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Messrs. GORDON, GEJDENSON, RICHARDSON, 
PALLONE, EVANS, LEWIS of Georgia, and BECERRA changed their vote from 
``no'' to `aye.''
  So, the gentleman was permitted to use the exhibit in question.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page H 11606]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] is permitted to 
utilize the exhibit in question.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the attempt to further conceal 
the truth about this horrible procedure has failed, and I am very 
grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who supported my 
right to display these charts and explain the reality of this 
procedure.
  This is partial-birth abortion: First, guided by ultrasound, the 
abortionist grabs the live baby's leg with forceps. Second, the baby's 
leg is pulled out into the birth canal. Third, the abortionist delivers 
the baby's entire body, except for the head. Fourth, then, the 
abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then 
opened to enlarge the hole. Fifth, 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.

                              {time}  1230

  This is a procedure which should not be allowed. This is a procedure 
which shocks the conscience.
  Many claims are being made in opposition to this bill. We have heard 
them today. The abortion advocates claim that H.R. 1833 would jail 
doctors who perform lifesaving abortions. This statement makes me 
wonder whether the opponents of the bill have even bothered to read the 
bill.
  H.R. 133 makes specific allowances for a practitioner who reasonably 
believes a partial birth abortion is necessary to save the life of a 
mother. No one can be prosecuted and convicted under this bill for 
performing a partial birth abortion which is necessary to save the life 
of the mother. Anyone who has any doubt about that should look at the 
text of the bill itself. No doctor who reasonably believes, he must 
simply reasonably believe, that he acted to save the life of the 
mother, will be arrested and go to prison under this bill.
  Of course, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that a partial 
birth abortion is ever necessary to save the life of the mother. 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 felt partial birth abortion was not a recognized 
medical procedure.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I will not yield. We have limited time, as the 
gentlewoman knows.
  The Council on Legislation agreed that the procedure is basically 
repulsive. In the end, the AMA board decided to remain neutral on H.R. 
18933, but it is significant that the council of 12 doctors did not 
recognize partial birth abortion as a proper medical technique.
  The truth is that the partial birth abortion procedure is never 
necessary to protect either the life or the health of the mother. 
Indeed, the procedure poses significant risks to maternal health--risks 
such as uterine rupture, and the development of cervical incompetence. 
Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education, Department of 
Obstetrics and Gynecology at Mount Sinai Hospital in Chicago has 
written:

       There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered 
     in this country which require a partially delivered human 
     fetus to be destroyed to preserve the health of the mother. 
     Partial-birth abortion is a technique devised by abortionists 
     for their own convenience . . . ignoring the known health 
     risks to the mother. The health status of women in this 
     country will . . . only be enhanced by the banning of this 
     procedure.

  Proponents of the partial-birth abortion method have also claimed 
that the procedure is only used to kill babies with serious 
disabilities. Focusing the debate on babies with disabilities is a 
blatant attempt to avoid addressing the reality of this inhuman 
procedure. Remember the brutal reality of what is done 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--the two abortionists 
who have publicly discussed their use of the procedure--claims that 
this technique is used only in limited circumstances. In fact, they 
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 . . . probably 20 percent are for genetic reasons. And the 
other 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 nonelective, 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 because the mother is young 
or suffers from 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 our 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, 
has also recognized that partial-birth abortions are performed for many 
reasons other than fetal abnormalities. In 1993, NAF counseled its 
members, ``Don't apologize: this is a legal abortion procedure,'' and 
stated:

       There are many reasons why women have late abortions: life 
     endangerment, fetal indications, lack of money or health 
     insurance, social-psychological crisis, 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. 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.''
  This is the question I would raise to my colleagues who support 
abortion on demand: Is there ever an instance when abortion, or a 
particular type of abortion, is inappropriate? The vehement opposition 
of abortion rights supporters 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.
  Despite their relentless effort to misrepresent and confuse the 
issue, the opponents of this bill can no longer conceal the 
uncomfortable facts about this horrible practice.
  The supporters of partial-birth abortion seek to defend the 
indefensible. But today the hard truth cries out against them. The ugly 
reality of partial-birth abortion is revealed here in these drawings 
for all to see.
  To all my colleagues I say: Look at this drawing. Open your eyes wide 
and see what is being done to innocent, defenseless babies. What you 
see is an offense to the conscience of humankind. Put an end to this 
detestable practice; vote in favor of H.R. 1833.

[[Page H 11607]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I regret the gentleman 
from Florida would not yield so I could correct the numerous 
distortions and inaccuracies in his statement. I will include the 
following materials for the Record.
  H.R. 1833 contains an extremely narrow affirmative defense, available 
only when the doctor reasonably believed that the banned procedure was 
the only method that would save the woman's life. This is not a life 
exception for several reasons:
  First, it is only an affirmative defense, not an exception to the 
ban. This means that it is available to the doctor after the handcuffs 
have snapped around his or her wrists, bond has been posted, and the 
criminal trial is underway.
  An affirmative defense shifts the burden of proof to the doctor, 
placing on him or her the medically difficult burden of proving that no 
part of the fetus passed through the cervix before fetal demise; or 
proving that no other procedure would have sufficed to save the woman's 
life. Representative Chet Edwards consulted his wife's obstetrician, 
who told him that although this procedure is safer for the woman, a 
doctor would not be able to meet the burden of proof required under 
this bill. Thus, doctors would refuse to perform the safer procedure 
even when the woman's life is threatened.
  Perhaps most important to the woman and her family, the affirmative 
defense is not available when, in the context of an abortion necessary 
to save her life, the woman and her doctor decide upon the banned 
procedure because it is the best method to preserve her health and her 
future fertility. These considerations are disallowed under the narrow 
affirmative defense found in the bill. Thus, doctors are in effect 
ordered by the Congress to set aside the paramount interests of the 
woman's health, and to trade off her health and future fertility to 
avoid the possibility of criminal prosecution.
  The California Medical Association of 38,000 doctors would answer the 
gentleman from Florida by saying:

       An abortion performed in the late second trimester or in 
     the third trimester of pregnancy is extremely difficult for 
     everyone involved, and CMA wishes to clarify that it is not 
     advocating the performance of elective abortions in the last 
     state of pregnancy. However, when serious fetal anomalies are 
     discovered late in a pregnancy, or the pregnant woman 
     develops a life-threatening medical condition that is 
     inconsistent with continuation of the pregnancy, abortion--
     however heart-wrenching--may be medically necessary. In such 
     cases, the intact dilation and extraction procedure (IDE)--
     which would be outlawed by this bill--may provide substantial 
     medical benefits. It is safer in several respects than the 
     alternatives, maintaining uterine integrity, and reducing 
     blood loss and other potential complications. It also permits 
     the parents to hold and mourn the fetus as a lost child, 
     which may assist them in reaching closure on a tragic 
     situation. In addition, the procedure permits the performance 
     of a careful autopsy and therefore a more accurate diagnosis 
     of the fetal anomaly. As a result, these families, who are 
     extremely desirous of having more children, can receive 
     appropriate genetic counseling and more focused prenatal care 
     and testing in future pregnancies. Thus, there are numerous 
     reasons why the IDE procedure may be medically appropriate in 
     a particular case, and there is virtually no scientific 
     evidence supporting a ban on its use.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, the hard truth is, sir, some can never 
conceive of a circumstance when an abortion is proper, even when it 
requires that the mother sacrifice her life. They call themselves pro-
life? What about the life of mother which is at stake here? Because 
that is what is involved.
  I have read this bill. It provides absolutely no protection to the 
physician who would go out and perform this procedure in order to 
preserve the life of the mother.
  You see, this is all part of a broader agenda. These antichoice 
militants have an agenda: Prohibit abortion. No matter what the reason 
for that abortion, prohibit it. Prohibit all family planning monies. 
Even go in and dictate what type of birth control a woman can use.
  Today's initiative reflects on the successes that some have had in 
this Congress: Successes like saying to an American service woman in a 
foreign land who is a victim of rape that she must bear that child; 
successes such as telling the minor daughter of a Federal employee who 
is the victim of incest, you must bear that child; successes such as 
telling a female prisoner who is beaten and raped, you must be a 
mother. That is the kind of successes that have come out of this 
Congress to date.
  We will compel you to carry that child to pregnancy; you have no 
right to privacy, these zealots say.
  Well, late term abortions are extremely rare. This procedure is even 
more rare. Indeed, I have yet to find a physician anywhere who ever 
heard the term ``partial birth abortion,'' until this bill came out. 
You see, it is not a medical term that they use in a medical school. It 
is a political term. It is a public relations term that they have come 
up with to describe a procedure that is used in the rarest of 
circumstances, when a woman's life is at stake. It is properly known as 
the intact dilation and evacuation procedure. In those circumstances, 
when it is used, it is necessary to use it to protect the life of the 
mother.
  Some of the zealots as recently as this past month for this position 
have said they will never cease until they are able to declare in 
Federal law that having an abortion or providing one is murder. That is 
where this bill is leading us.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus].
  (Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, the hard truth apparently is not what it 
used to be. I rise in strong support for banning partial birth 
abortions, and in defense of the innocent little victims of these 
procedures.
  Today we take another important step in protecting the lives of the 
unborn. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act will end this most cruel 
practice--a practice that even the American Medical Association's 
legislative council has publicly stated is, ``not a recognized medical 
technique.'' They also called this procedure, ``repulsive.''
  Abortion advocates argue that partial birth abortions are only used 
after 26 weeks of pregnancy in cases where the procedure is 
nonelective. But the abortionists' interpretation of nonelective has an 
enormous scope and includes: severe fetal abnormality, Down's Syndrome, 
cleft palate, pediatric pelvis--that's if the mother is under age 18, 
depression of the mother, and even ignorance of human reproduction.
  Today, those who would support this horrible procedure tell us that 
it is not a common practice. Can anyone really take comfort in debating 
the number of babies subject to this death? Whether it is a few hundred 
or tens of thousands or even one, wrong is wrong and no argument on how 
many will ever change that. A single life being taken in this way is 
reprehensible.
  In conclusion, I would like to introduce into the Record a copy of a 
recent editorial in the Washington Post by Douglas Johnson. It spells 
out some of the most important reasons to support this legislation. 
Support H.R. 1833, the ban on partial birth abortions.

               [From the Washington Post, July 16, 1995]

                      Ban Partial-Birth Abortions

                          (By Douglas Johnson)

       Congress is considering a bill to ban the ``partial-birth 
     abortion'' method, defined as ``an abortion in which the 
     person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a 
     living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the 
     delivery.''
       The bill is aimed at an abortion method usually used after 
     4\1/2\ months into pregnancy and often much later, even into 
     the ninth month. At 4\1/2\ months, a human being is about 
     eight inches long, and--in the words of columnist Richard 
     Cohen [op-ed, June 20]--``looks like a baby.''
       The method in question, as described in a June 16 Los 
     Angeles Times story, ``requires a physician to extract a 
     fetus . . . through the birth canal until all but its head is 
     exposed. Then the tips of surgical scissors are thrust into 
     the base of the fetus's skull and a suction catheter is 
     inserted through the opening and the brain is removed.''
       Some pro-abortion lobbying groups now claim that this 
     method is utilized mainly to save the life of the mother or 
     on fetuses that suffer from grave disorders incompatible with 
     life. A number of syndicated columnists, major newspaper 
     editorial boards and members of Congress have uncritically 
     embraced these claims, even though there is 

[[Page H 11608]]

     ample documentation that they are erroneous.
       How many partial-birth abortions are performed? In the mind 
     of Richard Cohen, ``they almost don't exist'' because ``just 
     four one-hundredths of one percent of abortions are performed 
     after 24 weeks.'' Why does citing such percentages give so 
     much comfort to defenders of late-term abortions? Consider 
     that Cohen's statistic, if accurate, would translate into the 
     death of 600 humans each year--more than twice as many as 
     resulted from  the recent Ebola virus  epidemic in Africa.
       Actually, there are 13,000 abortions annually after 4\1/2\ 
     months, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, whose 
     estimate should be regarded as conservative. There is really 
     no way to know how many doctors are using the partial-birth 
     abortion method, or how many partial-birth abortions are 
     performed.
       However, two specialists in the method, Dr. Martin Haskell 
     of Dayton, Ohio, and Dr. James McMahon of Los Angeles, have 
     between them performed more than 3,000 such abortions, and 
     have also circulated detailed papers and given interviews on 
     the subject. The polemical claims now being made by critics 
     of the pending legislation cannot survive a careful reading 
     of this material.
       Is the baby already dead when the abortionist partly 
     removes her from the uterus? The American Medical News--
     official newspaper of the ``pro-choice'' AMA--put that 
     question to Haskell in a tape-recorded interview in 1993. 
     Haskell replied, ``No, it's not. No, it's really not. . . . I 
     would think probably about a third of those definitely are 
     dead before I actually start to remove the fetus. And 
     probably the other two-thirds are not.''
       Brenda Shafer, a registered nurse, accepted assignment to 
     Haskell's clinic because she was strongly ``pro-choice.'' She 
     quit after witnessing, close-up, three partial-birth 
     abortions. In a July 9 letter to Rep. Tony Hall, Shafer 
     described the end of life for one six-month-old ``fetus'': 
     ``His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking 
     his feet. All the while his little head was still stuck 
     inside [the uterus]. Haskell took a pair of scissors and 
     inserted them into the back of the baby's head. Then he 
     opened the scissors up.''
       McMahon now claims that analgesia he administers to the 
     mother causes ``a medical coma'' and ``neurological fetal 
     demise.'' But Prof. Watson Bowes, co-editor of the Obsterical 
     and Gynecological Survey and an internationally recognized 
     authority on fetal and maternal medicine at the University of 
     North Carolina, responds: ``This statement suggests a lack of 
     understanding of maternal/fetal pharmacology. . . . Having 
     cared for pregnant women who for one reason or another 
     required surgical procedures in the second trimester, I know 
     that they were often heavily sedated or anesthetized for the 
     procedures, and the fetuses did not die. . . . Although it is 
     true that analgesic medications given to the mother will 
     reach the fetus and presumably provide some degree of pain 
     relief, the extent to which this renders this procedure pain 
     free would be very difficult to document.''
       A 1993 internal memo written by the then-executive director 
     of the National Abortion Federation explained that these late 
     abortions are done for ``many reasons,'' including ``social-
     psychological crises [and] lack of knowledge about human 
     reproduction.''
       An even more revealing statement appears in the American 
     Medical News interview transcript, in which Haskell said, 
     ``In my particular case, probably 20 percent are for genetic 
     reasons. And the other 80 percent are purely elective.''
       McMahon told American Medical News that he uses the method 
     for ``elective'' abortions up until 26 weeks (six months). 
     After that point, he said, he does only ``non-elective'' 
     abortions. But in materials provided to a House Judiciary 
     subcommittee, McMahon revealed that his definition of ``non-
     elective'' is extremely expensive. For example, he listed 
     ``depression'' as the largest single ``maternal indication'' 
     for such so-called ``non-elective'' abortions. A 1990 article 
     about McMahon by reporter Karen Tumulty, published in the Los 
     Angeles Times Magazine, found that many such abortions 
     involve not medical factors but young teenagers, who ``put 
     telling anyone as long as they can.''
       McMahon's materials also show that he uses the method to 
     destroy many ``flawed fetuses,'' as he calls them. These 
     include unborn humans with a wide variety of disorders--
     including conditions compatible with a long life with or 
     without disability (e.g., cleft palate, spina bifida, Down's 
     syndrome).
       True, some babies have more profound disorders that will 
     result in death soon after birth. These unfortunate members 
     of the human family should not be killed. In some such 
     situations there are good medical reasons to deliver such a 
     child early, after which natural death will follow quickly. 
     The bill itself permits use of the partial-birth abortion 
     method in any case in which it is really necessary because of 
     danger to the life of the mother.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], a member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation, and commend the gentleman from Florida for his leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I have seen and heard it all now with this effort to 
block the chairman's ability to bring to the floor these charts. It is 
no wonder that abortion proponents are opposed to having a mother 
having informed consent, to children and parents having the benefit of 
parental notification, if they would hide even this inhumane, 
abominable procedure from this Congress and the American people. 
Perhaps it is shame on the part of those most dedicated abortion 
proponents, who would cause a vote to block this information from being 
presented. Even they feel the shame, that we as a society would allow a 
partial birth abortion.
  By the way, those charts fully conform to this legislation. And by 
the way, this legislation fully protects the life of the mother. It is 
only the difference of 3 inches between full delivery and doing the 
same procedure which would be murder in this act.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legislation. Let us ban this 
procedure.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Becerra].
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, disgraceful. That is the only way I can 
describe the proponents' descriptions of what is going on. My wife, who 
happens to be a obstetrician-gynecologist in high risk pregnancies, 
these types of pregnancies, has never had to do this, but she tells me 
this is not what is going on. We are not partially aborting a baby that 
would be born alive. This is to preserve the mother's life.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand].
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of H.R. 1833, 
the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. As a mother of two adopted 
children, I clearly understand the importance and significance of this 
legislation.
  As a woman, I am amazed by claims of those who would suggest that I 
would support anything that would allow a woman's life to be placed at 
risk. Let me make this clear--the mother deserves and has the right to 
the best medical treatment possible. But partial birth abortions are 
not about saving the life of the mother.
  Doctors performing partial birth abortions have reported that most 
are done as purely elective--one doctor stating that he had performed 
nine partial-births because the baby had a cleft lip. A member of the 
American Medical Association's Council on Legislation stated recently 
that ``he felt this was not a recognized procedure.'' Other council 
members agreed that the ``procedure is basically repulsive.'' However, 
with great consideration given to our commitment to protect the life of 
a mother. H.R. 1833 allows for the procedure when it is clear that ``no 
other procedure would suffice for that purpose.''
  Incorrect information concerning H.R. 1833 has been spread by those 
who want to disguise the cruelty of this so-called normal medical 
procedure. The fact is nothing is normal or humane about extracting a 
baby, feet first, from the womb and through the birth canal until the 
head is exposed--thrusting scissors into the base of the baby's skull 
and inserting a suction catheter to remove the brain, I ask my 
colleagues to support H.R. 1833 and end this procedure that is the 
ultimate of child abuse.

                              {time}  1245

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  (Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in firm opposition 
to this bill and remind my colleagues that late-term abortions are, in 
fact, legal only in very exceptional circumstances. I ask my colleagues 
to ask themselves this question. If their daughter and son-in-law or 
their son and daughter-in-law were faced with the extraordinary tragedy 
of discovering extreme fetal deformity late in pregnancy, or a life-
threatening development, with abortion being the only 

[[Page H 11609]]

alternative, could they, would they want her to have available the 
procedure that was least life-threatening, most protective of her 
future reproductive capability, and most respectful of the fetus and 
the need of the parents and their living children to mourn this early, 
this eagerly anticipated child?
  Mr. Chairman, this debate is not about the grossness of reducing the 
circumference of a fatally deformed fetus' head to allow vaginal 
delivery. It is about women facing terrible tragedy and their right to 
have the safest appropriate medical treatment. I am truly appalled at 
the flipness with which the proponents of this bill suggest she can 
have a cesarean. It is almost criminal. Women die every year of the 
complications of cesarean sections. C-sections have four times the 
fatality rate of vaginal births.
  Why? Why would my colleagues ask their daughter to shoulder this 
small but real risk of death for a fetus with no potential of life. We 
are talking about extreme deformity. I am not going to keep this up 
here because I do not want children watching, I do not want people to 
have to be burdened with the terrible anguish and tragedy we are 
talking about when we say extreme deformity that prevents life. That is 
what these families are facing.
  Another alternative? Cesarean section is one. The only other 
alternative to this kind of vaginal delivery through which a needle is 
used to reduce the circumference of the head so that the delivery can 
take place, the only other alternative is the old traditional 
alternative that this alternative was developed in order to avoid the 
terrible dangers to a woman's reproductive health and to her life that 
the other method posed. The other method I did not bring pictures of. I 
would not impose that on the world like my other colleague imposed his 
diagrams, but the other method is uglier.
  The other method also endangers the birth canal and, therefore, the 
future reproductive capability of the woman. Why would my colleagues 
endanger their daughter's reproductive future for a fetus that cannot 
eat, has no kidneys, no heart? Not one physician in this body has ever 
performed a late-term abortion. No obstetrician I know has ever done 
one. That is because they are very, very rare. They are five-tenths of 
1 percent of all the abortions performed after 20 weeks. But of the 600 
third-trimester abortions performed last year, 450 were done through 
this method.
  Mr. Chairman, what does that tell us? Why? Because it is the safest. 
Less bleeding, lower complication rate for the mother, less painful, 
and the geneticists can better determine what went wrong and counsel 
the couple for future pregnancies.
  Men and women of this Congress, if it were our daughters, would we 
want her life and reproductive hopes and dreams protected? Will we vote 
for a bill that for the first time in history criminalizes a single 
procedure that could preserve life and health? No medical organization 
supports congressional censorship of treatment alternatives. None.
  As a mother who lost a child, I can tell my colleagues that the 
tragedy of death is miraculously assuaged by the miracle of birth. Do 
not vote to let the tragedy of one death create the tragedy of another 
death and banish the renewing miracle of life. Vote no on this bill.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma, Dr. Coburn.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we have just 
had a medical lesson from a Member of this body that is totally 
inaccurate. Late-term abortions can be performed in a number of ways. 
This, least of which, is mostly convenient for the abortionist, has 
nothing to do with safety of the mother. Other methods are far safer 
than this method, where the uterus itself is never instrumented, the 
risk of bleeding, the risk of incompetent cervix, and the risk of 
fertility is avoided by the other methods.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this most 
unwise legislation.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant], a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, as a freshman, I am very often 
disappointed with what goes on in Washington, but nothing disappoints 
me more than to hear the low level, on occasion, the debate on this 
floor reaches, especially when we hear people, like one of my 
distinguished colleagues on the other side, refer to the folks who 
disagree with him as zealots and anitchoice militants.
  I am very disappointed. That gentleman, as a former judge, I am sure 
if he were in the courtroom, and someone attempted to use this 
procedure as a means of execution in a capital murder case, his 
courtroom would have been full of civil libertarians hollering that 
this was cruel and inhumane punishment.
  I want to tell my colleagues who some of these zealots and antichoice 
militants are. It is the Council on Legislation for the American 
Medical Association, who unanimously voted to endorse this particular 
bill 12 to nothing. Some of those said this was not a recognized 
medical technique. One even called it repulsive.
  So, Mr. Chairman, if that is the kind of zealots, antichoice 
militants that we have, then I will stand with the Council on 
Legislation of the AMA every day.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren] who is also a member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, in many ways I feel very sad that we are 
here discussing this issue today. I have heard a lot of rhetoric. We 
saw charts, but one of the things that has been a real help to me in 
this discussion is the fact, through an odd quirk of fate, that I know 
real people who have had this procedure. I know a real family that has 
a mother today because this late-term abortion procedure is legal in 
America.
  It was about a year ago last spring that Suzy Wilson, my long-time 
colleague on the board of supervisors, confided to me and her other 
friends that she was going to be a grandmother again and she was so 
happy that she would have a little Abigail.
  Her son, Bill, and daughter-in-law, Vicky, were expecting. And it was 
late, very late in the pregnancy that Vicky and Bill discovered, much 
to their horror, that the birth defects of little Abigail were so 
severe that this child could not survive. They went to doctors seeking 
surgery in utero, could anything be done, and the sad truth was, no, 
nothing could be done.
  Now Vicky had had very strong contractions and believed that that 
meant this was a very strong child in her excitement. The truth was 
that little Abigail was having seizures in utero because this child's 
brains had formed entirely outside of the cranial cavity. And those 
brains that did form were not normal brains. This child could not live.
  Mr. Chairman, I voted to ban the use of charts, the cartoon charts, 
so I show this picture of Abigail with some trepidation but with the 
permission of the Wilson family. As Members can see, this child's 
brains are completely formed outside the cranial cavity. This child was 
a love child.
  The Wilson family is raising money in Abigail's memory for a 
playground in their hometown. The fact that Abigail had these life-
threatening deformities did not make her any less loved by her mother 
and father. What it did mean is that Abigail could not live.
  Because of this procedure, which the California Medical Association 
has said is the safest, and the safest in several respects, Abigail's 
mother is still alive to be a mother to her other two children. If this 
bill passes, Vicky Wilson would be dead and her two living children 
without a mother.
  I urge defeat of this bill.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support Mr. Canady's bill, 
which is an important step to help eliminate this tragic procedure. 
There is widespread agreement that this unfortunate and sickening act 
is not necessary and should not be permitted.

[[Page H 11610]]

  The partial birth abortion is not a legitimate medical procedure and 
it is not needed for any particular reason.
  While the American Medical Association has officially taken no 
position on this bill, the AMA's Council on Legislation has voted 
unanimously to recommend support of this bill. As one member of the 
council said, ``The council believes that this is not a recognized 
medical technique and the procedure is basically repulsive.''
  Listen to the words of a registered nurse who has witnessed partial 
birth abortions. Quote, ``The baby's feet were moving. His little 
fingers were collapsing together. He was kicking his feet. All the 
while his little head was still stuck inside. The doctor took a pair of 
scissors and inserted them in 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.''
  As the mother of two children, I do not comprehend how we can allow 
any baby to be subjected to such inhumane treatment. I wholeheartedly 
support Mr. Canady's bill and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

                              {time}  1300

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record the following 
medical statements on this bill:

            What the Medical Profession Says About H.R. 1833

       1. California Medical Association (approx. 38,000 doctors: 
     Strongly opposes H.R. 1833 as an unwarranted intrusion into 
     the physician-patient relationship by preventing physicians 
     from providing necessary medical care to their patients. 
     Further, it would impose a horrendous burden on families who 
     are already facing a crushing personal situation--the loss of 
     a wanted pregnancy to which the woman and her spouse are 
     deeply committed.
       2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 
     [ACOG]: Will not support or endorse H.R. 1833. Opposed to any 
     law that mandates against a specific medical procedure and 
     criminalizes such a procedure.
       3. American Medical Women's Association (approx. 13,000 
     women doctors): Opposes H.R. 1833 as legislation which unduly 
     interferes with the physician-patient relationship. H.R. 1833 
     represents a serious impingement on the rights of physicians 
     to determine appropriate medical management for individual 
     patients.
       4. American Medical Association: Refused to take a position 
     on H.R. 1833. Rejected a recommendation from its legislative 
     council, a 12-member council that includes no ob-gyns, to 
     endorse the bill.


                         individual statements

       Dr. Mitchell Creinin, Assistant Professor, U.  of  
     Pittsburgh  School  of  Medicine,  and Director  of  Family  
     Planning  and Family Planning  Research  in  the  Department  
     of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences: ``This 
     technique is a highly specialized operative procedure that is 
     used for pregnancy termination under special circumstances by 
     trained specialists. The usual patient has a desired 
     pregnancy that is complicated most commonly by a genetic 
     abnormality; this is not a procedure used arbitrarily by any 
     practitioner under any circumstances. * * * In performing the 
     abortion, the physician keeps in mind the woman's health, 
     life and future reproductive ability. As such, it should be 
     up to the physician to treat the patient with the procedure 
     that is most appropriate . . . . [T]he decision about how the 
     procedure is to be performed * * * is one that needs to be 
     made by the doctor and patient together given that 
     patient's individual needs and the specifics of the 
     underlying disease and other illnesses. . . . [I]t should 
     be obvious . . . that restricting the medical practice of 
     a safe and effective procedure would never act to serve a 
     patient's best interest.
       Dr. David A. Grimes, Chief, Department of Obstetrics, 
     Gynecology and Reproductive sciences, San Francisco General 
     Hospital /University of California, San Francisco; formerly, 
     Chief of the Abortion Surveillance Branch at the Centers for 
     Disease Control, the principal official responsible for 
     determining the safety of abortion in the U.S.:
       As I understand the term, opponents of abortion are using 
     [the phrase ``partial birth abortion''] to describe one 
     variant of the dilation and evacuation procedure (D&E), which 
     is the dominant method of second-trimester abortion in the 
     U.S. If one does not use D&E, the alternative methods of 
     abortion after 12 weeks' gestation are ``total birth 
     abortion,'' labor induction, which is more costly and 
     painful, or hysterectomy, which is still more costly, 
     painful, and hazardous. Given the enviable record of safety 
     of all D&E methods, as documented by the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention, there is no public health 
     justification for any regulation or intervention in a 
     physician's decision-making with the patient.
       . . . [A]bortions after 24 weeks gestation are exceedingly 
     uncommon and are done for compelling fetal or maternal 
     indications only. . . . D&E dramatically reduces medical 
     costs and patient suffering. . . . From a public health 
     perspective, any intrusion of Congress into this medical 
     issue is both unwarranted and unjustified. . . .
       Dr. Lewis H. Koplik, Albuquerque, New Mexico:
       This bill does not include any definitions. . . . These are 
     no small concerns. We who provide abortions may be at risk 
     for legal prosecution because of these omissions, even when 
     an abortion is done in the first trimester or early second 
     trimester.
       With any dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortion procedure 
     there is the possibility that the fetus may still have a 
     pulsating heart when a somatic element is grasped with a 
     forceps and brought through the dilated cervix. If this is 
     true would those physicians who do second trimester D&E 
     procedures, prior to viability, be at risk for being charged 
     under the proposed bill? . . . During a suction curettage 
     abortion is the fetus live if the heart muscle is contracting 
     as the fetal tissue passes through the suction tubing? If 
     this could be shown to be true would all suction abortions 
     also be outlawed?
       Though these considerations may seem far fetched, so was 
     the likelihood, a few years ago, that a physician would be 
     murdered because he or she was practicing medicine and 
     providing a legally sanctioned operative procedure. Now such 
     ``far fetched'' concerns and risks are what abortion 
     providers live with daily.
       [T]he D&X procedure is well recognized as a safe and 
     effective technique by those who provided abortion care. It 
     was originally developed to reduce the risk of complication 
     to women who had to undergo a distressing late abortion 
     procedure. With the D&X procedure the risk of severe cervical 
     laceration and the possibility of damage to the uterine 
     artery by a sharp fragment of calvarium is virtually 
     eliminated. Without the release of thromboplastic material 
     from the fetal central nervous system into the maternal 
     circulation, the risk of coagulation problems, D.I.C. does 
     not occur. In skilled hands uterine perforation is almost 
     unknown during D&X procedures . . . The fact that there are 
     few who are skilled in its use speaks more to the small (but 
     important) need for this care . . . Only the D&X procedure or 
     a hysterotomy is able to provide a geneticist or a 
     dysmorphologist with a specimen which is (almost) intact. The 
     D&X may allow some women to grieve more effectively because 
     they may hold their child, if they wish. . . .
       Dr. Bruce Ferguson, New Mexico Medical Group, Albuquerque, 
     NM:
       This bill is an unprecedented and unwarranted attempt to 
     legislate the type of surgical procedure that a physician may 
     use in a particular case. . . . Those promoting the bill have 
     used sensationalized drawings and graphic language to attempt 
     to inflate opposition to this surgery. They have left out or 
     distorted the realities that lead to difficult abortion 
     decision late in pregnancy, the facts about how this 
     procedure is performed, and how rarely this surgery takes 
     place. But more importantly, the bill's language is vague and 
     would probably apply to most second trimester abortions, even 
     those done using the more conventional techniques.
       [T]he language of the bill would make many doctors [who 
     don't perform third trimester IDE procedures] into criminals, 
     since there are many abortions in which a portion of the 
     fetus may pass into the vaginal canal and there is no 
     clarification of what is meant by ``a living fetus.''. . . 
     Does the doctor have to do some kind of electrocardiogram and 
     brain wave test to be able to prove their fetus was not 
     living before he allows a foot or hand to pass through the 
     cervix? The vagueness and the civil cause of action created 
     in the bill will create all the opening that woman's parents 
     need to file a suit against their daughter's physician. Even 
     though the physician prevails in court, the costs of 
     defending these suits by the patient's parents will cause 
     considerable increased costs to all doctors providing 
     abortion care, not just to those currently doing late third 
     trimester IDE procedures.

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 20 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], another distinguished member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, this is so very tough. It is grueling. 
It is overwhelming. It is in the name of Abigail. It is in the name of 
Tammy Watts, who came to our committee and said that she lost a child 
because of its severe abnormalities and inability to live. Her quote 
was that, ``I would have done anything to save its life.''
  Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be here. I do not want to have this 
debate, but the truth must be told and today, unfortunately, we are not 
telling the truth.
  This bill presumes a physician guilty. This bill allows our sheriff, 
our chief of police, our FBI, whatever law enforcement, to go into the 
office of a physician and say that although you have saved the life of 
the woman you have violated the law.
  This bill attacks Roe versus Wade. This bill presumes that saving the 
life of a mother is not a relevant part of what this physician or any 
physician has to do. This bill did not even allow 

[[Page H 11611]]

exception for the life or health of the mother.
  This debate has injected an ugly picture of incorrect representation 
about this medical procedure simply to inflame your emotions. The fetus 
is already deceased based on an excessive amount of anesthesia. This is 
the only way to allow a situation for that mother to then be a mother 
again, because of this safe procedure.
  Mr. Chairman, I only ask that my colleagues look realistically and 
not castigate those of us who painfully stand up here to ask that 
Americans' rights be protected and the rights of women and their right 
of good health to be able to become pregnant again. Vote against this 
bill. It does not help the American people. It breaks the hearts of 
mothers and criminalizes physicians.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1973, and more recently in 1992, the Supreme Court 
held that a woman has a constitutional right to choose whether or not 
to have an abortion. H.R. 1833 is a direct attack on the principles 
established in both Roe versus Wade and Planned Parenthood versus 
Casey.
  H.R. 1833 is a dangerous piece of legislation which would ban a range 
of late term abortion procedures that are used when a woman's health or 
life is threatened or when a fetus is diagnosed with severe 
abnormalities incompatible with life. Because H.R. 1833 does not use 
medical terminology, it fails to clearly identify which abortion 
procedures it seeks to prohibit, and as a result could prohibit 
physicians from using a range of abortion techniques, including those 
safest for the woman.
  H.R. 1833 is a direct challenge to Roe versus Wade, 1973. This 
legislation would make it a crime to perform a particular abortion 
method utilized primarily after the 20th week of pregnancy. This 
legislation represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional attempt to 
ban abortion and interfere with physicians' ability to provide the best 
medical care for their patients.
  If enacted, such a law would have a devastating effect on women who 
learn late in their pregnancies that their lives or health are at risk 
or that the fetuses they are carrying have severe, often fatal, 
anomalies.
  In Roe, the Supreme Court established that after viability, abortion 
may be banned by States as long as an exception is provided in cases in 
which the woman's life or health is at risk. H.R. 1833 provides no 
exceptions for cases in which a banned procedure would be necessary to 
preserve a woman's life or health.
  Instead the bill contains an ``affirmative defense'' that could be 
asserted by a doctor after he or she faces criminal prosecution or a 
civil claim. The affirmative defense covers only cases where a doctor 
could prove that he or she ``reasonably believed'' that no other 
procedure could have saved the woman's life. Few physicians would be 
willing to perform the procedure and risk the harsh penalties contained 
in the bill.
  This bill would create an unwarranted intrusion into the physician-
patient relationship by preventing physicians from providing necessary 
medical care to their patients. Furthermore, it would impose a 
horrendous burden on families who are already facing a crushing 
personal situation--the loss of a wanted pregnancy.
  The misconceptions surrounding this bill are as astonishing:
  First of all, the term ``Partial birth abortion'' is not found in any 
medical dictionaries, textbooks or coding manuals. The definition 
1531(b) of H.R. 1833 is so vague as to be uninterpretable, yet 
chilling. Many OB/GYNs fear that this language could be interpreted to 
ban all abortions where the fetus remains intact. Partial birth 
abortion is a term made up by the authors of H.R. 1833 to suggest that 
a living baby is partially delivered and then killed.
  Second, the fetus is not alive when it leaves the womb. The fetus 
dies of an overdose of anesthesia given to the mother intravenously. 
This dose is calculated for the mother's weight which is 50 to 100 
times the weight of the fetus. The mother gets the anesthesia for each 
insertion of the dilators, twice a day. This induces brain death in a 
fetus in a matter of minutes. Fetal demise, therefore, occurs at the 
beginning of the procedure while the fetus is still in the womb.

  Third, there are no scissors involved. Using the intact D&E 
procedure, a doctor can put into the cervix small dry cylinders that 
expand as they absorb fluid from the mother, causing gradual expansion 
of the cervix overnight. The patient can return home except for twice 
daily clinic visits to ensure that she is dilating and to replace the 
osmotic dilators if more dilation is required. She receives intravenous 
anesthesia for the insertion of the dilators as well as for the 
procedure.
  The procedure can be accomplished with less dilation--which means 
less trauma to the cervix and less chance of problems in the next 
pregnancy--if some of the fluid is removed from the fetal head--which 
is the largest part of the fetus--by using a spinal needle for 
aspiration. This technique reduces the chances of lacerating the cervix 
which contains large blood vessels.
  Fourth, late term abortions are not common. Ninety-five and one-half 
percent of abortions take place before 15 weeks. Only a little more 
than one-half of one percent take place at or after 20 weeks. Fewer 
than 600 abortions per year are done in the third trimester and all are 
done for reasons of life or health of the mother--severe heart disease, 
kidney failure, or rapidly advancing cancer--and in the case of severe 
fetal abnormalities incompatible with life--no eyes, no kidneys, a 
heart with one chamber instead of four or large amounts of brain tissue 
missing or positioned outside of the skull, which itself may be 
missing.
  Finally, there are no safer alternatives: First, a woman cannot 
simply wait and ``let nature take its course'' that is, let the woman 
go to term and go into labor. Fetuses with severe abnormalities have a 
high chance of dying, in utero, even before labor begins thus posing a 
severe health threat to the mother. When a fetus dies, its tissues 
begin to break down and are released into the mother's circulation. 
This can lead to major problems with the mother's clotting mechanism, 
making it more difficult for her to stop bleeding. This is a huge 
problem for a woman undergoing either labor or a surgical delivery and 
increases the chances of requiring blood products and/or an emergency 
hysterectomy.
  Second, induction of labor with drugs is not a safer alternative. The 
cervix, which holds the uterus closed during pregnancy, is very 
resistant to dilation until about 36 weeks. Inductions done before this 
time take between 2 to 4 days. Induction is also a physically painful 
process. Because of the danger of uterine rupture, inductions require 
constant nursing supervision and are therefore done on the labor and 
delivery ward. The physical pain is intensified by the emotional pain 
of losing a wanted pregnancy while spending days listening to other 
newborns cry and other families cheer in delight.
  Third, a cesarean is a dangerous procedure. A cesarean delivery 
involves twice as much blood loss as a vaginal delivery. Before 34 
weeks gestation the lower segment of the uterus is usually too thick to 
use a standard horizontal incision, so a vertical incision is 
necessary. Any uterine incision complicates future pregnancy, but a 
vertical incision is more dangerous and jeopardizes both the mother's 
health and any future pregnancies. When the uterus has a vertical scar, 
future pregnancies require a cesarean section and are more apt to be 
complicated by uterine rupture.

  An abortion performed in the late second trimester or in the third 
trimester of pregnancy is extremely difficult for everyone involved. 
However, when serious fetal anomalies are discovered late in a 
pregnancy, or the mother develops a life-threatening medical condition 
that is inconsistent with the continuation of the pregnancy, abortion--
however heart-wrenching--may be medically necessary.
  In such cases, the intact dilation and extraction procedure [IDE]--
which would be outlawed by this bill--may provide substantial medical 
benefits. It is safer in several respects than the alternatives, 
maintaining uterine integrity, and reducing blood loss and other 
potential complications. In addition, the procedure permits the 
performance of a careful autopsy and therefore a more accurate 
diagnosis of the fetal anomaly. Intact delivery allows geneticists, 
pathologists, and perinatalogists to determine what exactly the fetus's 
problems were. As a result, these families, who are extremely desirous 
of having more children, can receive appropriate genetic counseling and 
more focused prenatal care and testing in future pregnancies. Often, in 
these cases, the knowledge that a woman can have another child in the 
future is the only thing that keeps families going in their time of 
tragedy.
  Political concerns and religious beliefs should not be permitted to 
take precedence over the health and safety of patients. The 
determination of the medical need for, and effectiveness of, particular 
medical procedures must be left to the medical profession, to be 
reflected in the standard of care.
  In passing H.R. 1833, this Congress would set an undesirable 
precedent which goes way beyond the scope of the abortion debate. Will 
we someday be standing here debating the validity of a triple bypass or 
hip replacement procedure? Aren't these dangerous and unpleasant 
procedures?
  The legislative process is ill-suited to evaluate complex medical 
procedures whose importance may vary with a particular patient's case 
and with the state of scientific knowledge. The mothers and families 
who seek late-term abortions are already severely distressed. They do 
not want an abortion--they want a child. Tammy Watts told us that she 
would have done anything to save her child. She told 

[[Page H 11612]]

me, ``If I could have given my life for my child's I would have done it 
in a second.''
  Unfortunately, however, there was nothing she could do. For Tammy, 
and women like her, a late term abortion is not a choice it is a 
necessity. We must not compound the physical and emotional trauma 
facing these women by denying them the safest medical procedure 
available.
  This bill unravels the fundamental constitutional rights that 
American women have to receive medical treatment that they and their 
doctors have determined are safest and medically bet for them. By 
seeking to ban a safe and accepted medical technique, Members of 
Congress are intruding directly into the practice of medicine and 
interfering with the ability of physicians and patients to determine 
the best course of treatment. The creation of felony penalties and 
Federal tort claims for the performance of a specific medical procedure 
would mark a dramatic and unprecedented expansion of congressional 
regulation of health care.
  This bill is bad medicine, bad law, and bad policy. Women facing late 
term abortions due to risks to their lives, health or severe fetal 
abnormalities incompatible with life must be able to make this decision 
in consultation with their families, their physicians, and their god. 
Women do not need medical instruction from the Government. To 
criminalize a physician for using a procedure which he or she deems to 
be safest for the mother is tantamount to legislating malpractice.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, again to correct the medical facts, infants 
under this procedure who have received an anesthetic from their mother 
are not dead. They are not dead. They are as alive as my colleagues or 
I. The anesthetic required to terminate a fetus in utero would put the 
mother at great risk and it is never performed.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill as a prolife 
Democrat, not only concerned as we are talking about the process of 
birth today, but about the cycle of life for our Nation's children.
  Mr. Chairman, what are we talking about today with partial-birth 
abortions? On page 5 in this bill we define this as meaning: An 
abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially delivers 
a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.
  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage my colleagues to pay careful 
attention to that. ``Delivers a living fetus before killing the 
fetus.'' We have had disagreements on this floor before about States' 
rights and restricting abortion and health care plans. This debate 
today is about a gruesome and repulsive medical technique that we 
should act on in a bipartisan way to ban on this House floor.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a vote that should divide men and women or 
Democrats from Republicans. This is a vote to ban a procedure that is 
not proper, that is not ethical, and that is inhumane to children.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], a distinguished member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first, let us underline 
again the outrage of bringing up this bill under an absolutely closed 
rule. No Member was allowed to offer an amendment to explicitly allow 
for the protection of the life or serious health of the mother, except 
in the convoluted way in this bill because of only an hour of debate. I 
have rarely seen so important a subject so shabbily treated 
procedurally.
  Second, this once again shows the great gap that exists between the 
Republicans' profession about States' rights and the reality. This bill 
makes criminal procedures which the States could make criminal, 
presumably, if they wanted to or not. What this bill says is that 
States are not smart enough; they do not care enough about these 
children. We, the Federal Government, will step in.
  It does try to deal with that. It say this only involves abortions as 
crimes which are in or affect interstate or foreign commerce. How does 
the woman know that she is in foreign commerce or interstate commerce? 
Is her head in Canada and her feet in Detroit? What kind of nonsense 
are we talking about?
  What they are is embarrassed that they are so blatantly preempting 
the States, because they know how much it differs with what they 
profess. It says we will make it a criminal procedure if it happens to 
be in interstate commerce.
  Mr. Chairman, it also has a supposed defense if the doctor is worried 
about the life of the mother, but it becomes a defense that the doctor 
has to prove. To avoid a criminal proceeding here, a doctor will have 
to show that he was in interstate commerce. Nothing in here tells the 
doctor whether he is in interstate commerce or not.
  Second, the doctor would have the burden of proof before the jury to 
show that he was trying to save the woman's life. Obviously, it will 
keep people from doing it.
  This, obviously, once again shows that all that we hear about States' 
rights is just cover. When Republicans think the States are wrong, they 
will preempt the States. This is a disrespectful bill towards States' 
rights as well as the rights of women.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the Chair as 
to the remaining time on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emerson). The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] 
has 11 minutes and 15 seconds remaining, and the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mr. Schroeder] has 17 minutes and 10 seconds remaining.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I want to follow up on asking my colleagues 
to look at the bill. We have been looking at a lot of pictures today, 
but look at the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, we are lawmakers. That is what my colleagues were sent 
here to do. This law says whoever performs a partial-birth abortion. 
What is a partial-birth abortion? There is no medical description of 
that. We are making that up today.
  Whoever performs it shall be fined or imprisoned for not more than 2 
years, or both. This is a bad law. We need to vote it down, because we 
did not pass the rule to allow for a good debate and good amendments.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott].
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter my remarks in the Record 
in opposition to this terrible, terrible bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1833. As a medical 
doctor, I was trained to evaluate all viable options when accessing a 
patient's medical condition.
  I oppose H.R. 1833 because it will ban a legitimate medical 
procedure, and jeopardize the lives of thousands of child-bearing 
women.
  H.R. 1833 will ban a specific procedure used only in the most extreme 
and necessary cases of late-term abortions, usually when the health or 
life of the woman is at risk.
  This legislation provides no exceptions in cases where the health or 
even the life of the woman are at risk. It is inhumane to unnecessarily 
risk a woman's life simply to pursue a political agenda.
  This bill is not only bad public policy, but it is also bad medicine. 
Why should we interfere with the very personal, ethical, and medical 
decisions made between a patient and a doctor?
  Why should we deny a woman's constitutional right to decide whether 
or not to have an abortion. The answer is that it is not our job to 
step between a woman and her doctor.
  We know that the U.S. Supreme Court specifically recognized a woman's 
right to choose a safe abortion under the principles of Roe versus 
Wade, and those principles were again upheld in Planned Parenthood 
versus Casey.
  The Supreme Court has already ruled that States may restrict late-
term abortions, except when the woman's health or life are at risk. 
This bill is a blatant constitutional challenge to the rights outlined 
in Roe versus Wade.
  Mr. Chairman, let me stress that this bill is opposed by several 
reputable medical organizations including the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Medical Women's 
Association. It is not even endorsed by the American Medical 
Association.
  Do not be fooled by H.R. 1833. If you vote yes, you are voting to 
deny a patient's right to receive medically necessary care. I urge you 
to take a long look at the potential ethical and medical dangers of 
this bill. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 1833.

[[Page H 11613]]

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to alert the proponents of this 
bill that as we speak, two clinics have received bomb threats. I think 
we have to be very careful for our rhetoric and take responsibility for 
our words.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation is another attempt to make sure that 
doctors who perform abortions, which are legal in this country, are 
harassed. Around the country, anti-choice extremists are targeting 
doctors and their patients for harassment and violence, and it looks 
like on Capitol Hill anti-choice politicians seek to criminalize 
abortions and put the doctors who perform them in jail.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. Proponents of 
this bill attempt to exploit one of the greatest tragedies any family 
can ever face by using graphic pictures and sensationalized language 
and distortions.
  Families facing a late-term abortion are families that want to have a 
child. These couples have chosen to become parents and only face 
terminating the pregnancy due to unavoidable circumstances. 
Unfortunately, our technology is still not sophisticated enough to 
detect all possible medical problems early in a pregnancy.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, this bill is not about choice; 
it is about necessity. As the mother of three grown children, I thank 
God every day that my children were born healthy and strong. However, 
not everyone is so lucky.
  Yesterday, my office received a call from Claudia Ades. She lives in 
Santa Monica. She had heard about this bill and called to beg us, 
called to ask us if there was anything she could do to defeat it. 
Claudia said so passionately, ``this procedure saved my life and saved 
my family.''
  Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago Claudia was pregnant and happier than she 
had ever been in her life. However, 6 months into her pregnancy she 
discovered that the child she was carrying suffered from severe fetal 
anomalies and made its survival impossible and placed Claudia's life at 
risk.
  After speaking to a number of doctors, Claudia and her husband 
finally had to accept that there was no way to save this pregnancy. 
Again, this was a desperately wanted pregnancy and she had to make this 
very difficult decision; not the Congress.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick].
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I honestly believe that many of the 
societal problems we have today stem from the fact that we have no 
regard for human life. Partial-birth abortions, drive-by shootings, cop 
killings, they have all become a way of life.
  Mr. Chairman, call me old-fashioned, but I believe every individual 
born into this world is special, needed and important.
  Our forefathers shared this philosophy when they wrote into our 
Declaration of Independence that, ``We are endowed by our Creator with 
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness.''
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that we consider the difference. A doctor 
performs a painful, cruel, partial-birth abortion one day and it is 
accepted. Then, if that same mother gave birth to the same age child 
the next day and then she killed her child, she would be charged with 
murder.
  Mr. Chairman, only a few hours separate these two acts, but one is 
considered unjust and the other is accepted and even promoted. There is 
something wrong with our society today if we continue to justify such 
an unjust procedure.
  Mr. Chairman, let us show our respect for human life and support H.R. 
1833.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Pastor].
  (Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, this is in response to the question that 
the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut asked me to consider.
  Mr. Chairman, I have two daughters and they are in their mid-20s. My 
wife and I expect that they will have happy lives and we hope that they 
have children and are very productive. We pray to God that our 
daughters will never in their pregnancy have to face a situation in 
which their life is threatened or the fetus is developing in a very 
abnormal way.
  But, Mr. Chairman, if God wills it, then we hope that the decision of 
this medical practice will be determined by a doctor and not a 
politician.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill will force doctors to decide whether or not 
to perform this medical procedure under the threat of civil and 
criminal prosecution, even though my daughter's life may be threatened.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1833, 
a bill that is clearly pro-life. It protects the unborn from one of the 
most grotesque forms of death imaginable.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, who might otherwise not support a 
pro-life piece of legislation, to very carefully consider supporting 
this piece of legislation which simply and narrowly protects against 
partial-birth abortions.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to note that H.R. 1833 does in fact 
recognize that there may be circumstances in which a physician must 
have legal protection when called on to perform one of these procedures 
in order to save the life of the mother.
  While I do not believe there is evidence to suggest a partial-birth 
abortion would be necessary to save the mother's life, let me be clear, 
and the legislation is equally clear. If this procedure is ever needed 
for this reason, H.R. 1833 grants a defense to the physician performing 
it. Section E of the bill does this.

                              {time}  1315

  As a former prosecutor, I know it is not uncommon in the area of 
criminal law to provide an exception to a general prohibition in the 
form of a defense. For example, we have a general rule against 
homicide, but an exception to this general rule is carved out for those 
who are forced to kill another human being in order to defend 
themselves. We commonly call this exception self-defense. So in H.R. 
1833, we allow a partial-birth abortion to be performed if it is 
necessary to save a mother's life.
  There are more than 30 affirmative defenses in Federal law. These 
defenses share a common thread. The evidence for the defense is under 
the control of the defendant, and the defendant has special knowledge 
of the facts which establish the defense.
  The practitioner who has performed a partial-birth abortion and 
claims that he performed it in order to save the life of the mother has 
the specific knowledge of the circumstances which surrounded his action 
and has complete control of the evidence to show why he used this 
method of abortion. There is simply no reason to oppose this narrow 
piece of legislation to protect our children.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just add to the record, please read page 6 of the bill where on the 
affirmative defense, it is only after the doctor has been arrested and, 
No. 2, it says the doctor must also prove no other procedure would 
suffice. Not that it is the best, but none would suffice. I would like 
to counter what the gentleman has just said on the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Slaughter].
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely panicked and concerned 
today that a majority of this House believes that a young pregnant 
woman has no right to life. Her health status, her family's wishes have 
nothing to say here. It is simply that we will do everything we can to 
preserve a fetus, which on the face of it, has no chance at life 
itself.
  Remember that a third-trimester abortion is a medically necessary 
abortion to start with. The law specifies that. It has already been 
determined that the fetus will not live, cannot survive birth, or that 
the mother's life is in severe danger.

[[Page H 11614]]

  If you believe that a doctor having put his whole life in his medical 
practice, with a family of his own, faced with an emergency situation 
is going to act to save the life of the mother, putting himself up for 
arrest and to go to jail, then you pray to God that no member of your 
family is ever put in that position.
  What is next for us? Are we going to decide that no woman of child-
bearing age will be allowed to have a hysterectomy no matter what the 
circumstances? What do the great medical experts in the House of 
Representatives have in store for women of America next?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, prior to coming to the House of 
Representatives, I was practicing medicine and, indeed, I was sitting 
at my desk and reading a copy of the American Medical News where this 
procedure was first described back in 1993, where the originators of 
this procedure printed in the article that in about 80 percent of the 
cases, it is purely an elective procedure. It is not a fetus that has 
defects, and, indeed, they admitted that they do them in not only the 
late second trimester, but as well in the third trimester.
  I was shocked that these guys would admit it in public. I was not so 
much shocked by the grotesqueness of the procedure because all these 
abortion procedures are vile but the fact that these guys would admit 
how they do it to the public and admit that it is an elective 
procedure.
  I very much support the legislation of the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Canady]. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in support of 
this legislation and make partial-birth abortions illegal.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, make no mistake, you are hearing it. This 
bill is for one thing and one thing only and that is to criminalize 
late-term abortions and it is a cruel attempt to make a political 
point.
  H.R. 1833 is a frontal attack on Roe versus Wade, plain and simple. 
The radical right wants to do away with Roe, and this bill is the first 
step. So let us be honest about what this debate is really about. This 
legislation seeks to prohibit abortion techniques which are used in the 
late stages of a pregnancy, when the life of the mother is in danger, 
or when a fetus is so malformed that it has no chance of survival.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but make the comparison and connection 
that a lot of the proponents of this bill are the same people who are 
cutting Medicaid, who are doing away with the support systems for those 
children that are going to be born malformed and for the mothers who 
will be ill.
  Because of the gag rule which was just passed, the life or health of 
the mother, or the fetus will have zero consideration.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this antiwoman, extremist, 
unwise legislation. They would not even allow an amendment to save the 
mother's life. Apparently, the supporters of H.R. 1833 think it is more 
important to save a doomed fetus than to save the life of a woman and 
her ability to have children in the future.
  This is the first time that this body has moved forward to 
criminalize a medical procedure. As the mother of two children, I know 
firsthand the joy and excitement that a pregnant woman has when she 
awaits the birth of a very much wanted child. I cannot think of 
anything more horrible than to learn that the baby, the fetus, has 
abnormalities incompatible with life. In these situations, the family 
is confronted with the child dying in her womb, possibly killing the 
mother, or this lifesaving procedure.
  Vote to put people over propaganda. This legislation is bad medicine 
and bad policy.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  (Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I asked for 30 seconds so I could hear more 
from this excellent prolife freshman class, our prolife women, our 
prolife doctors, we have two of them on our side now. I will do a 5-
minute or a 60-minute, depending on how we conclude today, to analyze 
the vote and I welcome any participation.
  Thomas Aquinas died 721 years ago at age 50 and there was some 
discussion then about when life began. My pal, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer], said we all have different opinions. When you pull 
out feet, f-e-e-t, and you feel a little beating heart and you are 
sucking out brains, you know it is a human being. And it has a soul. S-
o-u-l, soul.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be here today 
and the AMA does not want to be here today, and the groups who protect 
the interests of women do not want to be here today.
  All of us agree that late-term abortions are terrible and we hope 
that none ever have to be performed. But we are here because others 
have decided that it is imperative that we vote on the floor of this 
House on the medical procedure.
  We know that after the 24 week, only .01 percent of all abortions are 
performed, .01 percent. There are two or three procedures that are 
used, meaning that this procedure is used in only a portion of that .01 
percent. Of these procedures, all are more terrifying and unpleasant 
than this one. But if a woman is carrying a fetus which has a severe 
abnormality or if she herself has a severe health condition which 
threatens her health if she continues to carry the fetus, one of these 
procedures must be used. The bill itself states that there are 
circumstances in which no other procedure will suffice.
  I believe strongly that we should not decide medical procedures on 
the floor of this House and am deeply concerned about where this might 
lead.

  I believe strongly that we should always provide exceptions to save 
the life of the mother, and this bill criminalizes that process.
  I do not think we should be voting on this process today, but because 
the bill is before us, I intend to vote ``no.''
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot].
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, some might argue otherwise but I would 
submit that this should not be controversial legislation. This bill 
would prohibit a particularly grotesque and inhuman practice. A partial 
birth abortion is literally the killing, in a most brutal fashion, of a 
late-term baby. It is incredible that a practice like this could go on 
in a civilized society. Adoption of this legislation would stop it.
  I hope my colleagues resoundingly support this bill. It is a major 
step in the battle to protect the lives of the unborn.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
freshman gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Rivers].
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, as we listen to the debate today, it is 
very clear that one side would like us to focus more on the procedure 
than on the circumstances that lead families to this decision. I think 
it is important that we do not do so. I think it is important that we 
recognize that this is a rare procedure that is performed under 
relatively narrow legal conditions. That, for the most part, the women 
involved are older, they are married, the pregnancies are wanted, 
planned for, joyously anticipated, and it is only when things go 
terribly, terribly wrong that families turn to this option when there 
is a fetal anomaly, when there is a threat to the mom.
  Many people have talked here today about their own experiences as 
parents and the joy and the happiness that they went through holding 
the baby for the first time, counting the fingers, counting the toes. 
You are right. It is an exciting and wonderful time, but it is 
particularly cruel to use those kinds of experiences as an attack on 
these families who, through circumstances they cannot control, are not 
going to have that opportunity.

[[Page H 11615]]

  We are talking about mothers who are carrying pregnancies that cannot 
survive, promises that cannot be fulfilled, and people are attacking 
them unfairly.
  We are leaving those moms with no avenue. We are saying they must 
risk their lives, because the fetus' condition can oftentimes cause 
infection, sometimes even sterility, taking away the opportunity for a 
later pregnancy. For what reason? To make a point.
  I think it is important that Congress makes a point, but I also think 
it is important that they consider a point, which is we have made a 
decision that the 435 people in this room should decide for families 
across America. So I ask you, which among us, who will step forward to 
be the messenger who will go into the homes and tell the husband that 
we will not step in to protect his wife, his helpmate, the love of his 
life, or the mother of a 5-year-old child? Who wants to carry that 
message?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia].
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1833, the 
Partial-Birth Abortion Act and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
this important legislation.
  As a pro-life advocate, I am committed to protecting the rights of 
unborn children. My primary concern is that abortion should not be 
treated like a routine medical procedure and my pro-life position is 
always foremost in my mind. although Some consider partial-birth 
abortions routine medical procedures, this could not be further from 
the truth. Partial-birth abortions are neither routine, legitimate or 
necessary.
  Partial-birth abortions are most often performed in the second or 
third trimester and I am particularly troubled by the horrifying 
prospect of late-term abortions. Even in Roe versus Wade abortions are 
limited to the first trimester. Today, we are considering continuing to 
allow abortions through the third trimester or fetal viability.
  H.R. 1833 not only bans the performance of this type of inhuman 
abortion but imposes fines and a maximum of 2 years imprisonment for 
any person who administers a partial-birth abortion. This gruesome and 
brutal procedure should not be permitted.
  I strongly believe in the sanctity of life and if 80 percent of the 
abortions are elective, we have to reconsider and reevaluate the value 
our society places on human life. this decision is not made in the case 
of rape or incest, not if the mother's life is in danger, and not if 
there are birth defects. In many cases, this is a cold, calculated, and 
selfish decision.
  This is not a choice issue. this is a life or death issue for an 
innocent child. Please join me in making this heinous procedure 
illegal.

                              {time} 1330

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond and remind my 
colleagues once more to be very careful of their rhetoric. The analogy 
between abortion and drive-by shootings is extremely inflammatory.
  I also would like to remind my colleagues that during this debate it 
has been reported that there are two serious bomb threats on clinics, 
so let us be careful to watch our rhetoric and not use political 
advantage in a very serious issue.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis].
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise with tremendous compassion for the victims of abortions that 
are walking around today. There are a lot of them in America that did 
not know what was going on. But that compassion gives way to the facts, 
or should here on the floor, that a lot of Members who persist in 
talking about this being an unfortunate choice, but 80 percent, 
according to published reports, 80 percent of these abortions are done 
in an elective manner.
  Surely the facts will come out on this floor, and surely we can vote 
in support of this very excellent piece of legislation that will ban 
this procedure.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bryant], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add one 
important point to this debate, and that is that I think we should be 
honest with ourselves and honest with the American people.
  The fact of the matter is that not one single person who has spoken 
in favor of this bill today can deny the fact that they are opposed to 
abortion entirely and do not support Roe versus Wade and do not believe 
in the right of the mother to choose. So we are really not talking here 
today about a procedure. We are talking about Roe versus Wade and about 
the right of a woman to be able to choose.
  I asked in the Committee on the Judiciary when this was being 
considered, of the chairman on the Committee on the Judiciary if it was 
not the case that the entire Republican majority, if it was just a 
little bit bigger, would bring a constitutional amendment before the 
House to totally criminalize abortion. He said, as far as he was 
concerned, he would do it in a minute. That is a matter of record.
  The fact of the matter is this bill represents the almost total 
politicization of this process, as you have brought a bill before the 
House today that really is a surrogate for what you want to do and that 
is make all abortions criminal. That is really what is at issue.
  I urge the Members to vote against it.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, this is a historic day for our 
Nation. The coverup of abortion methods is over.
  Today, Congress comes to grips with the specifics of what an abortion 
actually does, and it ain't pretty. From this day forward, we will no 
longer be able to say we did not know. We now know, and every Member of 
this Chamber should know, that every abortion takes the life of a 
child. Whether it be a partial-birth abortion or D&E abortion, where 
the baby is literally dismembered while in utero, or the suction 
abortions routinely done, thousands per day, where a high-powered 
vacuum, 20 to 30 times more powerful than a vacuum cleaner in one's 
home, literally dismembers the child. All of these methods kill the 
baby. This is all about human rights for children, and it is about 
preserving and protecting the right to life of baby girls and baby 
boys.
  Somebody said this is anti-woman. Half of those little infants killed 
are baby girls. Let us not ever forget that. Then again, let's also 
remember what Dr. Haskel himself has said. I would like to repeat it 
very briefly. Dr. Haskel said and I quote: ``The surgeon forces the 
scissors into the base of the skull.'' This is medical practice? And 
then a high-powered suction catheter is introduced, and the baby's 
brains are sucked out.
  This is not medical practice.
  This is child abuse.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield, 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address my comments to 
those who might be for this bill. You know, the great debate on 
abortion is--of course, it all boils down to when do you think life 
begins, and those who are pro-life fervently believe, and I respect it, 
that life begins at conception. Others of us do not believe that, and 
we believe ultimately that the choice ought not be made by the 
Government but ought to be made by each individual convening with his 
or her maker.
  Even if you believe that life begins at conception, why did you 
prohibit an amendment dealing with life of the mother? If it is the 
life of the mother versus the life of a child, why does this 
legislation impose the fact that it must be the life of the child that 
takes precedence over the life of the mother? That is what the bill 
does, plain and simple.
  If you are so sure it did not, you would not have prohibited us in 
the rule from having a clause in the bill that says that if the life of 
the mother 

[[Page H 11616]]

is at stake the choice should be between the woman and her doctor. That 
is the hypocrisy of this legislation.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, this bill in no way limits the ability of 
the doctor to care for a woman whose life is at risk with a late-term 
pregnancy.
  Having been involved in obstetrical care, delivering over 3,000 
children, caring for women with complicated pregnancies, anencephaly, 
neural tube defects, hydrocephaly and all the major complications 
associated with that, this procedure is an unneeded, gruesome attack on 
life.
  May God forgive this Nation for what we allow in terms of procedures 
to be performed on our unborn children.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not a doctor. But I am a lawyer. I am a mother. I 
have been married 33 years. I think I belong in the Marriage Hall of 
Fame, and I will put up my family values against anyone.
  I must say, as a woman today standing in this Chamber, I feel like I 
am in the Chamber of Horrors, because no one really talks about the 
mother. But let me begin my statement by reading a letter that we 
received from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 
saying that they do not support or endorse this bill, but they are 
opposed to any law mandating a specific medical procedure and against 
criminalization of the procedure, and these bills are flawed. They go 
on to say they have no idea where the rumor was that they supported the 
bill. It is incorrect. These are obstetricians and gynecologists whose 
main concern is the health of the mother, and they are also looking at 
the child.
  What we are talking about today is rolling back the road to save 
motherhood that this country began on. If you look at 1920, 800 women 
died for every 100,000 births. If you look at 1990, we got that 800 
down to 8, down to 8.
  For most people, going through pregnancy is not difficult; but for 
some it can be life-threatening; and, fortunately, medical science has 
made some progress that has been able to deal with these life-
threatening situations and also preserve the health of the mother so 
that if this pregnancy goes terribly wrong, they can have another one 
and be able to have the great privilege I have been able to have of 
being a mother.
  Today, what this Chamber is saying is we are going to limit one of 
these procedures for doctors. We are not going to allow them to be able 
to say the life of the mother is an exemption. No, we were not allowed 
to offer that amendment on this floor, nor were we allowed to bring the 
health of the mother to this floor; no; no; no; no; no. We show charts, 
but we do not show the chart with the face of the mother, the family, 
the decisions made.
  Does anybody here think someone would engage in a late-term abortion 
frivolously? Do you think that they have not thought about this in the 
last minute? Do you think doctors would engage in this frivolously? No, 
no and no.
  There is only a handful of these ever done in a year. These are 
tragic situations in which there are not many good choices yet.
  We hear people over there saying ``elective.'' It is not elective in 
the sense folks are claiming it is over there. Every doctor has said 
you only have limited procedures at certain points if you are concerned 
about the mother's health, and you must elect one of those.
  What we are talking about today seems to be one that for some women 
can help preserve their life and is the safest and best for them in 
that circumstance. Why are we taking that away? Why does this Congress 
think they have a better idea of what is going on, and why do we insist 
on criminalizing the doctor that would try to listen to their patient's 
best needs?
  Vote ``no.'' This is terrible. We are gagging women. This is 
terrible. We are not listening, and if you want to know why most of the 
speakers today were women is because they understand what is happening 
here. Wake up, America. This is an outrage.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I wish I had a lot of 
time. We got a very short hour of debate on this important issue.
  I would like to talk about how you would not treat an animal this 
way. You would not take a coyote, a mangy raccoon and treat that animal 
that way, because it is too cruel. I would like to talk about Dr. 
Joseph Mengele or Dr. Kevorkian. We talk about interfering with the 
doctor.
  Our job is to protect the weak from the strong.
  But, no, I want to talk about a love story. Here is a letter that 
came October 30 to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] from my own 
district, Oak Park, IL, Jeannie Wallace French. She says:

       Dear Congressman Canady: Opponents of H.R. 1833, ``The 
     Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act,'' claim that partial-birth 
     abortion is justifiable when performed on babies with 
     disabilities. Please consider the personal experience of our 
     family as you debate HR 1833 on the floor of the House.
       In June of 1993 I was 5 months along carrying twins. My 
     husband and I were notified that one of the twins, our 
     daughter Mary, suffered from a severe neural tube defect. 
     Mary's prognosis for life was slim, and her chance at normal 
     development nonexistent. Her severe abnormality complicated 
     the twin pregnancy and specialists encouraged amniocentesis 
     and Mary's abortion.
       Though severely disabled, we knew that Mary was a member of 
     our family and was entitled to live out her allotted time 
     without being assaulted by instruments or chemicals. When it 
     became clear that Mary, whose brain had developed outside of 
     her skull (an occipital encephalocele) would not survive 
     normal labor, we opted for a Cesarean delivery.
       Born December 13, 1993, a minute after her healthy big 
     brother Will, Mary lived 6 hours cradled peacefully in her 
     father's arms. She was with us long enough to greet her 
     grandparents and our close friends. She also gave a special 
     gift to other children: The gift of life. On the day of her 
     funeral we received a letter from the Regional Organ Bank of 
     Illinois. Our daughter's heart valves were a match for 2 
     Chicago infants, critically ill at the time of Mary's birth. 
     We have learned that even anencephalic babies and 
     meningomyelocele children like our Mary can give life, or 
     sight, or strength to others.
       The death of a child is the most tragic experience many of 
     us will ever face. As parents, we can do only what we can--
     insure that our children do not suffer. As we now know, when 
     their natural time comes it can be comforting that their 
     short life has become a gift to others.
       Our daughter, living less than a day, saved the lives of 
     two other children. Which of us, even after decades of 
     living, can make the same claim?
           Sincerely,
                                           Jeannie Wallace French.

                              {time}  1345

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state to the gentlewoman from Colorado 
[Mrs. Schroeder] that he was as generous with the gavel as it applied 
to her as he was with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, if I might say, I thought that was a 
moving letter, but I also must say I do not think we should mandate 
one's choice on everybody else in this Congress.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1833 would criminalize the use of one 
medical procedure, but not others, utilized rarely in cases where the 
health or life of a mother is at risk or a fetus is diagnosed with 
severe abnormalities.
  By making this procedure a crime, H.R. 1833 would subject doctors to 
prosecution for offering to a woman a chance to save her life. Further, 
H.R. 1833 is inconsistent with present law which allows States to ban 
abortions after viability except where the woman's life or health is at 
risk.
  This kind of decision barring women from utilizing a procedure when 
their health and life are involved does not belong in Washington, DC. I 
cannot support limiting a patient's right to receive medically 
necessary care, especially when her life is at stake.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
1833, the partial-birth abortion ban. The fact that we are voting on 
this bill today is a true testament to how extreme many of the Members 
of this House of Representatives and their agenda are. Further evidence 
that extremists are pushing their agenda through the House of 
Representatives is the fact that the Rules Committee would not allow 
any amendments to be offered, not even amendments to protect the health 
or life of the mother.
  Despite their campaign pledges to ``get the U.S. government out of 
your life'', today Republican Members are advocating that the 

[[Page H 11617]]

U.S. Congress take an unprecedented step into the personal lives of 
American women and their families--as well as into the doctor's 
office--in order to ban a particular type of abortion procedure.
  In order to promote H.R. 1833, Members are focusing on certain 
aspects of this medical procedure that are intended to elicit emotional 
responses. What they do not focus on, however, is that women who seek 
rare, third-trimester abortions are almost overwhelmingly in tragic, 
heart-rendering situations in which they must make one of the most 
difficult decisions of their lives.
  Often the women are faced with personal health risks that threaten 
their lives and/or their ability to have children in the future. Or, 
some women discover very late in their pregnancy, in some cases after 
they already know the sex of the child, have picked out a name, and 
gotten the baby's crib ready, that their child has horrific fetal 
anomalies that are incompatible with life and will cause the baby 
terrible pain before the end of its short life.
  Clearly, each of these situations are serious, tragic, and terribly 
difficult for the families involved, and the decision to seek such an 
abortion is one that is not made carelessly or lightly. The U.S. 
Congress is the last entity that should be intruding into this type of 
personal, family decision.
  The U.S. Congress also has absolutely no right to interfere with a 
doctor's medical judgment when he or she is making critical decisions 
affecting the life of a woman, her health, and her ability to bear 
children in the future.
  It is extremely important to note that this bill makes no exception 
for the health of the mother. In fact, it makes no mention of the 
health of the mother whatsoever. Clearly, her health and her 
reproductive future mean nothing to the extremists who are pushing this 
bill forward or else they would have included this essential exception.
  H.R. 1833 takes advantage of tragic circumstances and sacrifices the 
health and maybe lives of women in order to push an extremist agenda 
forward. We should reject it completely.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1833, the partial-birth abortion act. This bill would ban the barbaric 
acts of partial-birth abortions.
  I believe that life begins at conception and that it should be 
protected. I understand that there are those who differ with me, but a 
partial-birth abortion goes far beyond what is reasonably considered a 
pro-life versus pro-choice debate.
  A partial-birth abortion is just that--an abortion performed on a 
partially born child. The fetus is generally between 4\1/2\ months old 
to 9 months old when the doctor partially delivers the child through 
the birth canal, leaving the head in the uterus. The baby's arms and 
legs will squirm as the doctor inserts scissors into the base of the 
baby's skull. A high-powered suction tube is then inserted and the 
brains are literally sucked out.
  Remember when doctors were expected to do everything in their power 
to assist and protect both the mother and child during the birth 
process? Now the doctor is the executioner as the baby travels down the 
birth canal.
  This is barbaric in a partial-birth abortion. The only thing 
separating the child's head from the outside world is 3 inches. This is 
clearly homicide.
  H.R. 1833 would make it against the law to perform a partial-birth 
abortion. I cannot imagine how anyone could oppose this bill. Whether 
you are pro-life, as I am, or pro-choice there should be no 
disagreement about ending this abhorrent practice which so callously 
and cruelly destroys an infant during birth.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for H.R. 
1833.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned about the 
potential precedent H.R. 1833 would set. There are vast and dangerous 
implications of the Congress interfering with medical practice and 
procedure.
  H.R. 1833 would ban late-term abortions which account for only one 
half of 1 percent of all abortions. Annually, fewer than 600 abortions 
occur in the third trimester and they are performed in cases of severe 
fetal anomalies and/or risk to the life and health of the pregnant 
woman.
  This bill makes it a criminal offense for a doctor to make the 
professional decision of how best to protect the life and health of his 
patients. Imagine the repercussions of such legislation. What will be 
next. Will a physician end up in jail for performing a hysterectomy in 
order to save the life of a woman with cancer.
  Never before has Congress made such an unprecedented attempt to 
legislate the type of surgical procedure that a physician may use in a 
particular case. H.R. 1833 is an unwarranted intrusion by Congress into 
medical decision-making, and it poses a serious risk to women's health. 
If enacted, this bill will compromise the physicians ability to provide 
life and health preserving medical care to their patients. H.R. 1833 
represents a serious impingement on the rights of physicians to 
determine appropriate medical management for their patients.

  I urge my colleagues to vote against this deadly attack on the life 
and health of our Nation's women.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, as many of you know, I have 15 
grandchildren. Two of my grandchildren, the miracle twins, I call them, 
were born early at 7 months. They were so tiny that they could fit in 
your hands but they were perfectly formed little human beings and they 
are now 13 years old.
  It makes me shudder to think that somewhere, perhaps even today, in 
this country that there are other little preborn human beings 7 months 
old in their mothers' womb that are going to be subject to this brutal, 
horrible procedure known as a partial birth abortion.
  I am not the only one who finds this procedure horrifying. Recently 
the American Medical Association's legislative council unanimously 
decided that this procedure was not ``a recognized medical technique'' 
and that ``this procedure is basically repulsive.''
  I have also heard from my constituents who overwhelmingly object to 
this repugnant procedure, especially in light of the fact that 80 
percent of these types of abortion are done as a purely elective 
procedure. I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1833, which 
would ban this brutal procedure known as partial birth abortion.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, since many of my colleagues have already 
explained the procedure under debate today, I will spare our listeners 
an additional description. Suffice it to say that this is one of the 
most brutal, uncivilized assaults on human life imaginable.
  Abortion is wrong to begin with, but this procedure is so grotesque 
as to disgust the moral sensibility of anyone exposed to it.
  In this procedure, the feet, legs, chest and arms of the baby have 
already been delivered from the birth canal. Only the head has not. The 
distinction that the procedure's defenders make between the fully-
protected rights of a delivered baby and the total absence of rights of 
a three-quarters delivered baby is as irrational as it is disturbing.
  I have been especially interested in this bill, since my own State 
legislature has passed a similar measure. Governor Voinovich signed the 
bill and it is now law.
  There are a great many pieces of misinformation circulating about 
this bill. Let me try to address just one of them--the issue of whether 
this sort of procedure is used frequently or only in the most extreme 
emergencies.
  While opponents of this legislation argue that the procedure is 
rarely performed, some of their cohorts belie this characterization. We 
know that there are at least 13,000 late term abortions each year. How 
many of these are accomplished by this procedure? We do not know for 
sure. But what we do know is that two doctors who specialize in the 
method have publicly said they use this procedure about 450 times a 
year. Between the two of them, they have performed more than 3,000 such 
abortions.
  Doctor McMahon was quoted in the January 7, 1990 Los Angeles Times, 
as saying ``Frankly, I don't think I was any good until I had done 
3,000 or 4,000'' late term abortions. In his own literature, the doctor 
refers to having performed a ``series'' of more than 2,000 abortions by 
the partial birth method.
  Whatever the real numbers are, I think it is safe to say that this 
procedure is used more frequently than it would be if it were truly 
limited to the most extreme emergencies. Because the bill's opponents 
cannot possibly win this debate on the merits of the procedure, they 
have taken to distorting the facts about its use.
  I for one have heard enough to know that as a nation founded on and 
dedicated to the preservation of life and liberty, this procedure has 
no place in our society.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1833 to ban a 
late-term abortion procedure. This procedure is defined in the bill as 
the partial delivery of a living fetus, which is then destroyed prior 
to the completion of delivery. This is a particularly appalling 
procedure in which the difference between a complete birth and an 
abortion is a matter of a few inches in the birth canal.
  This bill does not ban all late-term abortions. Other procedures are 
available. This bill applies only to the procedure in which the living 
fetus is partially delivered prior to the abortion act being completed. 
It does not jeopardize maternal health in instances when the fetus has 
died in utero. There is an exception in the bill for instances in which 
the life of the mother is at risk and no other procedure will be 
sufficient to preserve the mother's life.
  Even if the procedure is rare, as is contended by the opponents of 
this legislation, it is a horrific procedure that should not be 
performed. Constitutionally, the Congress can legislate and regulate in 
protecting legitimate State interests, including protecting human life 
and encouraging childbirth over abortion.

[[Page H 11618]]

  This bill bans an abortion practice that offends most Americans who 
value the sanctity of life. H.R. 1833 would ban a cruel and inhuman 
method of abortion and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 
1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
  Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will attempt to 
frame this debate in terms of a woman's right to choose. But the 
Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is not about women, choice, or 
reproductive rights. The true issue that this legislation addresses is 
the brutal late-term abortion procedure called partial-birth abortion.
  Regardless of whether or not one believes that life begins at 
conception, a partial-birth abortion, which can be performed at any 
time following the 5-month period, is clearly the taking of an innocent 
human life. A baby is developed enough at 5-months to be able to live 
outside of the womb and there are many instances of infants being born 
prematurely at 5 months and surviving to live a full life.
  The partial-birth abortion procedure should be prohibited. I heartily 
support this effort to protect the sanctity of human life.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule and the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
is adopted.
  Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hansen) having assumed the chair, Mr. Emerson, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1833), to 
amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions, 
pursuant to House Resolution 251, he reported the bill, as amended 
pursuant to that rule, back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered and the amendment is adopted.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 288, 
nays 139, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 756]

                               YEAS--288

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--139

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Morella
     Nadler
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Houghton
       

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Becerra
     Fields (LA)
     Tucker
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1408

  Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________