[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 175 (Tuesday, November 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11785-H11786]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  A DARK DAY FOR WOMEN ON CAPITOL HILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] is recognized 
during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for recognition, and 
I rise to say this is really a very dark day for women in this Capitol, 
because is appears that what we did with such rush in this House last 
week is going to be rushed through the Senate even faster; that they 
are going to move expeditiously to outlaw a certain procedure and 
criminalize doctors that to it for late-term abortions, without having 
any hearings.
  Mr. Speaker, in this House we acted on a 2-hour hearing where only 
one of the two panels was able to participate. The doctor who was 
accused was not able to come, and may other things; with drawings that 
have been discredited. Now, they seem to be actively moving to only 
compound the error.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say no matter what anyone's position on abortion 
is, I feel these are ones that if you sat down and gave the life 
stories and the circumstances around them, almost every family, almost 
every grandmother in America would feel that the woman and her family 
had the right to that kind of medical treatment.
  I have just come from a rally going on outside the Supreme Court 
where, again, women came forward and explained their very, very tragic 
circumstances around having to have this procedure.
  Today a woman named Vicki Seles stood up and said she was diabetic. 
Everything went very well until about her 28th week, and at that point 
they realized that the fetus had so many anomalies they were totally 
inconsistent with life and that her life too could be threatened, 
because being a diabetic they had to be very careful about what kind of 
procedures she could and could not go through. And so it was with great 
pain, great sorrow, great everything that this pregnancy was ended with 
this method which was determined to be the safest for her because it 
preserved her reproductive organs. It kept the bleeding to a minimum, 
which is so important for diabetics and so many other things. But I do 
not want to pretend that I am practicing medicine without a license 
because obviously I do not have a medical license.

                              {time}  1245

  But she stood out there on the steps of the Supreme Court saying she 
is now 30 weeks pregnant with a healthy fetus, that this is going along 
well, how excited she it. She has had this opportunity to once again 
try to become a mother and that she and her husband have been so 
excited about this happening. It appears now that all of this is going 
well and that she would not have had that option had the fetus died in 
utero, which it appeared it could, and then all sorts of emergency 
procedures start happening and probably in all instances her entire 
reproductive system would have been removed in some kind of an 
emergency procedure.
  Now, these are the types of things that we criminalized last week. We 
did not even allow an amendment for the life of the mother or the 
future health of the mother to be considered. I find 

[[Page H 11786]]
that absolutely astounding that this body would shut off that kind of 
debate and ram it through here only to be even more astounded this week 
that the other body is going to ram it through even faster it they 
possibly can.
  I think the real reason this issue is so terribly painful is that you 
are talking about the life of the mother plus a future life of a 
potential fetus. But do we really as a Congress, men and women, think 
we have the right to come down and make that determination, and do we 
really have the right to criminalize any doctor, to excuse him of being 
a criminal for providing that procedure. If you read the bill, it is 
very clear that the doctor can only use the woman's life as a defense 
after he is arrested and on trial and then only if that doctor alleges 
there was no other procedures available, not a safer procedure, just no 
other procedure.
  Of course, you can have a total removal of the organs; you could have 
all sorts of other procedures that might be much more dangerous for the 
women, but that is not a defense. So I must say, it is a sad day, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter that I have sent to 
Members of the other body about this issue and another letter dealing 
with the inaccuracies of the drawings this body was exposed to last 
week done by a doctor.

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, November 6, 1995.
       Dear Senator Specter: I understand that H.R. 1833, the 
     Canady-Smith bill to ban late term abortion procedures, will 
     be before the Senate tomorrow. The issue before you is about 
     one of the greatest tragedies that can befall a family--a 
     wanted pregnancy that goes terribly wrong, either because 
     serious fetal anomalies are discovered late in the pregnancy, 
     or because the woman develops a life-threatening medical 
     condition that is inconsistent with continuing the pregnancy.
       The bill you will debate on Tuesday would horribly burden 
     these families. It would preclude many women from having 
     access to the best option available to them in terms of 
     reducing the risk to their lives, their health, and their 
     future fertility. Please, on the behalf of these families, 
     send this bill back to the appropriate Senate committee for 
     thorough hearings.
       The House bill is based upon an incomplete hearing record 
     and a cursory House debate. The legislation criminalizing an 
     abortion procedure is unprecedented and demands a hearing 
     record and debate more thorough than the House conducted.
       As a member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on 
     Constitutional Rights, I can attest that the hearing record 
     was incomplete. First, we held only one two-hour hearing. Two 
     panels were originally scheduled to testify. The hearing was 
     cut short and the scheduled second panel to deal with legal 
     issues did not occur. The only scheduled witness was to 
     present the proponents' legal interpretation of the bill. 
     Only the Ranking Democrat, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), was 
     allowed to ask questions of the first panel. It was only 
     after considerable protest that I or any other members 
     opposed to the legislation were allowed to ask further 
     questions.
       Second, no one with first-hand experience with the 
     procedure testified. Dr. Martin Haskell, whose words were 
     taken out of context and used as arguments to pass the 
     legislation, never got a chance to testify, although as the 
     enclosed letter explains, was willing to.
       Further, proponents of H.R. 1833 pointed as reasons for 
     passing the bill, an ``eyewitness'' account by Nurse Brenda 
     Shafer who worked for three days as a temporary nurse in Dr. 
     Haskell's office, yet Ms. Shafer never testified and her 
     account has been contradicted and discredited by both Dr. 
     Haskell and his head nurse Christie Gallivan, who supervised 
     Ms. Shafer.
       Third, throughout the hearing, proponents of H.R. 1833 
     displayed an illustrator's interpretation of the procedure. 
     Yet, the illustrations were never medically certified by a 
     qualified physician with first hand knowledge of the 
     procedure attesting to its medical accuracy. In fact, Dr. J. 
     Courtland Robinson, an M.D., M.P.H. from Johns Hopkins 
     University School of Hygiene and Public Health, has labeled 
     these illustrations ``highly imaginative and misleading.'' 
     (See attached letter.)
       The rule in the House barred any amendments from being 
     offered and provided only one hour of debate. Opponents of 
     the bill were not able to offer amendments to allow doctors 
     the discretion to use the proposed banned procedures if the 
     life or health, including a woman's future fertility, were 
     endangered. The short time allotted for debate did not allow 
     opponents time to discuss the type of health problems that 
     would cause a family to consider this procedure. Nor did it 
     give us any time to discuss why this option for some women 
     may be the safest option for their situation.
       It would be a legislative travesty if this bill is 
     hurriedly passed based upon the House's deficient hearing 
     process. American families who may find themselves in these 
     tragic situations deserve better.
           Sincerely,
                                               Patricia Schroeder,
     Member of Congress.
                                                                    ____

                                                    June 28, 1995.
     Hon. Charles Canady,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Canady: I would like to submit, for the 
     record, a clarification regarding statements I made in the 
     House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on H.R. 1833, July 15, 
     1995. Evidently these statements are being misinterpreted by 
     those who support your legislation to imply that I revised 
     earlier comments submitted to Members of Congress. These 
     interpretations are incorrect.
       When discussing drawings presented to the hearing which 
     purport to be depictions of an intact D&E or, as it is 
     sometimes called, a D&X abortion, I stated that the drawings 
     presented were ``technically correct.'' This is true--the 
     drawings are ``technically correct'' in that they represent a 
     rough characterization of what is present, and in what 
     position, during such a procedure. A representation--in words 
     of pictures--can be technically accurate, however, and still 
     fall far from the mark in representing the truth of what it 
     describes.
       There are many substantive inaccuracies in the drawings 
     presented. For example, the clear implication of the drawings 
     is that the fetus is alive until the end of the procedure, 
     which is untrue. The stylized illustrations further imply 
     that the fetus is conscious and experiencing pain or 
     sensation of some kind--which is also obviously untrue. 
     Finally, the fetus depicted is shown as perfectly formed 
     (indeed, proportionally larger in relationship to the woman 
     than it ought to be), when in fact a great number of such 
     procedures are performed on fetuses with severe genetic or 
     neurological defects. All of these factors, as well as the 
     rudimentary, even crude, nature of the sketches added up to a 
     picture that is, as I previously stated, highly imaginative 
     and misleading.
       Just as the drawings presented misrepresent the nature and 
     practical reality of the surgery, your edited public 
     distribution of some of my words misrepresents the substance 
     of my statements. I would respectfully request that you and 
     your staff refrain from further mischaracterizations of my 
     comments and my medical opinion on this matter. Please 
     include this letter as part of the formal record of the 
     above-mentioned hearing.
           Sincerely,
     J. Courtland Robinson, MD, MPH.

                          ____________________