[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 175 (Tuesday, November 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11783-H11784]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the National Abortion Rights 
Action League has called H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act 
of 1995, ``[O]ne of the most extreme, outrageous, and anti-choice 
measures ever to come before Congress.''
  Mr. Speaker, this must come as news to the gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Gephardt], the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln], and the 
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy], three of the many staunchly 
pro-choice Members who voted for the bill.
  One Member who had a 100-percent voting record with the National 
Abortion Rights Action League said, and I quote, ``I'm not just going 
to vote in such a way that I have to put my conscience on the shelf.'' 
He continued by stating that it ``undermines the credibility of the 
pro-choice movement to be defending such an indefensible procedure.''
  So, how have abortion advocates mounted a defense of such an 
indefensible procedure? They do so by ignoring the painful reality, by 
denying the undeniable truth, and by twisting and distorting the well-
established facts.
  Abortion advocates claim that H.R. 1833 would jail doctors who 
perform lifesaving abortions. This statement makes me wonder whether 
the opponents of H.R. 1833 have even bothered to read the bill. H.R., 
1833 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 take a look 
at the text of the bill itself.
  Of course, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that a 
partial-birth abortion is ever necessary to save a mother's life. In 
fact, the American Medical Association 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 technique and agreed that the 
procedure is basically repulsive.'' In the end, the AMA board decided 
to remain neutral on H.R. 1833, 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 risk to maternal health, risks 
such as uterine rupture and the development of cervical incompetence.
  Dr. Pamela Smith, director of medical education at the department of 
obstetrics and gynecology at Mount Sinai Hospital in Chicago has 
written, and I quote, ``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 risk 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 partial-birth 
abortion. The baby is partially delivered alive, then stabbed through 
the skull. No baby's life should be taken in this manner, 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 this procedure, claim that 
this technique is used only in limited circumstances. In fact, Dr. 
Haskell told the American Medical News, and I quote, ``I'll be quite 
frank: Most of my abortions are elective in that 20- to 24-week range. 
Probably 20 percent are for genetic reasons and the other 80 percent 
are purely elective.'' 

[[Page H 11784]]

  Dr. McMahon claims that most of the abortions he performs are 
nonelective, but his definition of nonelective is extremely broad. He 
describes abortions performed because of a mother's youth or depression 
as ``nonelective.'' I do not believe that the American people support 
aborting babies in the second and third trimesters because the mother 
is young or suffers from depression.
  Dr. McMahon sent me a graph which shows that even at 26 weeks of 
gestation, half the babies he aborted were perfectly healthy, and many 
of the babies he described as flawed had conditions that were 
compatible with long life, either with or without a disability. For 
example, Dr. McMahon listed nine partial-birth abortions performed 
because the baby had a cleft lip.
  The National Abortion Federation, a group representing abortionists, 
has admitted that partial-birth abortions are performed for many 
reasons. In 1993, the National Abortion Federation counseled its 
members, and I quote, ``Do not 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, health 
insurance.'' All of these are reasons that are advanced, and have been 
advanced in the past, these are not reasons that justify this terrible 
procedure. This procedure should be banned by the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, the supporters of partial-birth abortion seek to defend 
the indefensible by misrepresentations and deception. But House 
Members, who voted by more than two-thirds in favor of H.R. 1833, did 
not fall victim to the ferocious campaign of deceit waged by the 
supporters of partial-birth abortion. It is my hope that Members of the 
Senate will also see the truth and support H.R. 1833.
  In the October 16 issue of the New Republic, feminist author Naomi 
Wolf made an observation that I think should be taken to heart by 
abortion advocates as the Senate considers the Partial-Birth Abortion 
Ban Act. Ms. Wolf wrote:

       What Norma McCorvey [the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade] wants, 
     it seems, is for abortion-rights advocates to face, really 
     face, what we are doing. ``Have you ever seen a second-
     trimester abortion?'' she asks. ``It's a baby. It's got a 
     face and a body, and they put him in a freezer and a little 
     container.'' Well, so it does; and so they do.

  In a partial-birth abortion, a baby--who has a face and a body--is 
delivered, feet first, until all but the baby's head is outside the 
womb. The abortionist then forces blunt scissors through the base of 
the baby's skull creating a hole. The abortionist then inserts a 
suction catheter and extracts the baby's brains. Mr. Speaker, it is 
time for abortion advocates to admit the truth about this terrible 
procedure--and to stop their campaign to conceal the truth from the 
American people.

                          ____________________