[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 175 (Tuesday, November 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16730-S16752]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT

  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, we have agreed to take this bill up at 2 
o'clock to accommodate a lot of our colleagues who were on a plane all 
night. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for not objecting to that 
process.
  We are going to take up H.R. 1833, which is a bill to ban partial-
birth abortions, and I think it is worth noting this bill passed by an 
overwhelming majority in the House. I know there will be efforts to 
amend the House bill and refer the bill to committee. I urge my 
colleagues to reject those efforts, because it is a straightforward 
bill. This isolates one procedure, one used up to the ninth month of 
pregnancy, and one procedure alone. It is not calling into question 
some of the larger abortion issues that so often divide us.
  The American Medical Association's Council on Legislation voted 
unanimously to enforce H.R. 1833. A member of that council described it 
as not ``a recognized medical technique.''
  The overwhelming majority vote in the House--including both those who 
consider themselves pro-choice and pro-life--underscores that this bill 
deserves immediate passage. After hearings and committee work in the 
House, nothing will be served by further delay. Those who seek to amend 
it are in effect trying to deprive this bill of any real meaning or 
significance.
  The only people in America trying to defeat this bill are abortion 
extremists who believe that no compassion, no common sense, should ever 
get in the way of an anything-goes approach. I do not think reasonable 
people, whatever their views on abortion, agree with that position.
  Opponents of this bill know that. As a result, we will instead hear 
soothing claims that opponents only want to amend the bill. There are 
those, for example, who argue that this bill needs to be amended to 
provide for an exception in cases where the life of the mother is at 
stake.

[[Page S 16731]]

  However, the bill already provides an affirmative defense in such 
cases. More to the point is the fact that arguments about life 
or health of the mother are designed to scare people and ignore the 
facts. The facts are these: This procedure is a 3-day procedure--that 
is right, 3 days. This is not something where a quick medical decision 
is called for in a life-and-death situation and opponents know it.

  Doctor Pamela Smith, director of medical education in the department 
of obstetrics and gynecology at Mount Sinai Hospital in Chicago, IL, 
put it best:
  Doctor Smith states unequivocally:

       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.

  This is a straightforward and balanced bill that allows the Congress 
to do something it rarely has a chance to do: Step past divisive 
abortion arguments of the past, stand up for those who cannot defend 
themselves and do it in a bipartisan way.
  I urge my colleagues not to allow those who have a very different 
agenda to defeat or delay this bill's passage.
  I hope as we get into the debate that we can debate this bill and not 
get into unrelated matters that have no possible reference to this 
bill. This is an important issue.
  So, hopefully, we can complete action on it or do whatever the 
opponents wish to do, if they are going to send it back to committee. I 
think there are a couple Members absent who support that approach and a 
couple absent who support another approach. Perhaps we can have that 
vote tomorrow. This is worthy of debate, and I thank my colleagues for 
letting us proceed to it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1833) to amend title 18, United States Code, 
     to ban partial-birth abortion.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I rise today to support very strongly 
H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995. I might also 
point out that this is identical legislation to legislation I 
introduced on the Senate side. It was originally cosponsored by Senator 
Gramm of Texas and had some dozen or so cosponsors, including the 
distinguished majority leader. But I decided that it would be just as 
easy to take the bill from the House side rather than to encumber the 
process with another piece of legislation.
  So I am delighted to be here, frankly, on behalf of small children 
who really do not have the opportunity to be here to speak for 
themselves.
  Last Wednesday, Madam President, was an extraordinary day in the 
history of the Nation's ongoing debate about abortion. There was a 
coalition of Members of the House from both political parties, from all 
across the philosophical spectrum. They were pro-choice. They were pro-
life. They had different degrees of what their pro-choice or pro-life 
positions were--Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, pro-
choice, pro-life. But they came together to form a supermajority, a 
two-thirds majority to pass this bill in the House, H.R. 1833.
  Two of the highest ranking Members of the House minority leadership, 
Congressman Gephardt and Congressman Bonior, joined together with the 
two highest ranking leaders of the majority leadership, Newt Gingrich 
and Dick Armey, in voting to pass this bill. I point this out, Madam 
President, because this is quite different from the debates that we 
have had here in the past on the issue of abortion. I think it goes 
right to the heart of how different this particular bill is to some of 
the other debates. Perhaps even more significant, the House's two-
thirds majority for this bill, again, transcended the usual voting 
patterns of abortion-related issues.
  It is interesting some of the names that came out of this debate: 
Pro-choice Democrats Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island and Jim Moran of 
Virginia joined with pro-choice Republicans like Susan Molinari of New 
York and Charlie Bass and Bill Zeliff of my own State of New Hampshire 
to pass this bill to ban partial-birth abortions.
  This does not mean that anybody compromises their views to do that. 
What it means is people looked at this issue very carefully with an 
open mind and realized what a bad, disgusting process this really is 
and decided that America, in no way, should be a participant or in any 
way add the weight of this great country in this issue to this 
horrible, horrible process and procedure.
  So, Madam President, this great coalition, this supermajority--
Democrats, Republicans, pro-choice, pro-life, liberal, conservative--
came together. That does not very often happen around this place, and I 
think that says something about this issue and the seriousness of it.
  They came together because they came to see this bill as presenting a 
fundamental question, a very fundamental question, and that question is 
a question of human rights.
  The question of whether the very youngest, tiniest, most innocent of 
Americans, those babies whose living, moving bodies have been brought 
into the birth canal--into the birth canal--who, indeed are in the very 
process--the very process--of being born are deserving of the 
protection of the law of the United States of America, because that is 
the fundamental question we are going to face today when we vote on 
this issue: Is this baby, moving 90 percent through the birth canal, 
except for the head, is this little baby in the birth canal 3 inches 
from full birth--3 inches from full birth--is this baby deserving of 
the protection of the law as depicted in the Constitution of the United 
States? That is the issue we face today. No other issue. No other 
issue. No other issue do we face today other than that one.
  The House of Representatives, to their great credit, Madam President, 
answered that fundamental question, and they answered it with a very 
resounding yes, by a supermajority of 288 to 139. When you look at the 
numbers, you know that was not all Democrats on one side or all 
Republicans on one side or all pro-life people on one side or all pro-
choice people on one side, it was a mix. They answered 
emphatically yes, yes, yes. These little children deserve the 
protection of the Constitution of the United States.

  I was never prouder, in the 11 years I have spent here in Congress 
between the House and the Senate, than I was that day when people on 
both sides of that issue came together. It was a magnificent day for 
the House and a great day for this Nation. It was a great victory for 
the cause of human rights, a great victory for the protection of an 
innocent child in the birth canal, three inches away from birth.
  It is hard for me to believe that it is necessary for me, or anyone 
else, to stand here on the floor of the Senate today and have to fight 
for that protection. It is hard for me to believe that. It has always 
been hard for me to believe that, but it is difficult for me to accept 
the fact that is necessary, that there are those who would deny that 
protection, as if somehow this was some generic process that did not 
impact young children.
  But beginning today, Madam President, the U.S. Senate, too, is going 
to face that same question. They are going to face the same question 
that the House faced: Will we vote to extend the protection of the law 
to the youngest of our fellow Americans, those whose little bodies have 
emerged from womb into the birth canal and are in the process of being 
born? That is the question we have to ask ourselves, and that is the 
question we are going to have to answer today.
  As we start this debate, I just want to say a word to my pro-choice 
colleagues. I do not agree with their positions on some matters of 
abortion, but I respect their right to have that position. This is 
America. This is not a pro-choice/pro-life debate as we know it under 
the other circumstances of the debate. It is certainly a life or death 
debate.
  As you listen to this debate, I say to my pro-choice colleagues, ask 
yourselves, why did Dick Gephardt, Patrick Kennedy, Susan Molinari, or 
any others, vote for this bill? You all know them. You are their pro-
choice colleagues. You know them and respect them, and you understand 
their views. Why did they do this? Why did 73 House 

[[Page S 16732]]
Democrats vote for this bill? I believe that if my pro-choice friends 
will keep an open mind and try to listen to this debate, as I try to 
honestly lay that debate out before you today, they will come to 
understand how and why that magnificent supermajority in the House came 
together to pass this bill.
  Madam President, the one and only purpose of H.R. 1833 is to ban a 
single method of abortion that is first performed--not last, but 
first--at 19 to 20 weeks of gestation. That is a 5-month-old baby in 
the womb. That is the beginning. It then goes beyond that. It goes to 
the 21st, 22d, 23d, 24th, right on up to birth, right on up to 9 
months--any particular time in this period. It is often later than 19 
or 20 weeks that this process can be performed. These are late-term 
babies, the youngest of whom may have a fighting chance to live on 
their own outside of the womb, and the older of whom unquestionably 
could live outside womb.
  Those of you who are parents, or have been parents, have gone through 
the process of feeling the heartbeat of your child--if you are a woman, 
inside your womb, and if you are a man, feeling that heartbeat inside 
womb of your wife.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, will the distinguished Senator yield for 
just a moment?
  Mr. SMITH. I am happy to yield to the Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. First of all, this is not a question; it is a statement of 
fact for the Record. I admire my friend from New Hampshire for taking 
this responsibility on the Senate floor. I have been here many times on 
the abortion issue along with others, and I am very, very proud of Bob 
Smith. I hope the people of New Hampshire understand that he is making 
a gallant fight.
  Now, my question: Has the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire 
seen the Chicago Tribune editorial of November 5?
  Mr. SMITH. I answer that yes, and I have it right here.
  Mr. HELMS. I wonder if he would read the first paragraph for me.
  Mr. SMITH. Yes, this is the Chicago Tribune editorial of November 5 
of this year, entitled ``Method and Madness on Abortion.'' It starts:

       In the national debate on abortion, the activists on both 
     sides invariably stake out absolutist positions. In so doing, 
     they often harm their respective causes by distancing 
     themselves from the people who make up the vast, ambivalent 
     middle ground of America.
       Those who champion the pro-choice position fell into that 
     trap last week.

  Mr. HELMS. If the Senator will hesitate a moment, now we get to the 
meat of the coconut. When the subject of abortion comes up and 
questions are asked of me, I have a ready question of my own to ask 
before we begin the discussion. I have asked it of young people, 
individuals who border on militancy on the abortion issue, and many 
others. It is a rather compelling question and it is this: What is an 
abortion?
  Now, I hope the people of America understand the question, and I hope 
they understand the answer. I ask the Senator from New Hampshire to 
answer that question.
  Mr. SMITH. Well, the answer to that question, from the perspective of 
the Senator from New Hampshire, is, I say to the Senator from North 
Carolina, that it is the process which interrupts the life of an unborn 
child.
  Mr. HELMS. I ask the Senator, it does not just interrupt the life, it 
concludes the life, does it not?
  Mr. SMITH. That is correct.
  Mr. HELMS. Would it be fair to say that an abortion is a deliberate 
intent to destroy the most innocent, most helpless of human life? Is 
that reasonably correct?
  Mr. SMITH. That is certainly my position. I think that if there were 
not to be any life there, there would not be any need to perform the 
action of abortion because there would not be anything to abort. So I 
draw from that conclusion that it is a life and, therefore, somebody 
had to take action to terminate that life.
  Mr. HELMS. I wonder if the Senator is familiar with the quotation so 
often attributed to the late Douglas MacArthur. General MacArthur said: 
``In all of recorded history, there is no nation that survived in 
prosperity that lost its moral and spiritual motivation.''
  Is the Senator familiar with that statement by Douglas MacArthur?
  Mr. SMITH. I have heard that statement, yes, sir.
  Mr. HELMS. The point is--and I ask the Senator further--Douglas 
MacArthur was talking about a whole range of things, was he not?
  Mr. SMITH. Yes.
  Mr. HELMS. MacArthur was speaking in terms of how a nation can self-
destruct by losing its sense of personal responsibility, its diligence, 
its willingness to work and to be constructive. I think the Senator is 
doing a great job on this issue, and I am not going to take up much 
more of his time.
  Again I ask the Senator to please read the fourth paragraph of the 
Chicago Tribune editorial, if he will.
  Mr. SMITH. ``One can support abortion rights and still be horrified 
at such a procedure. The argument that this particular method could be 
essential to save the woman's life was unconvincing.''
  Mr. HELMS. Now move back to the immediately preceding paragraph.
  Mr. SMITH. ``The House, by more than a 2-1 ratio, voted to outlaw a 
gruesome form of late-term abortion. It involves the pulling the fetus, 
feet first, through the birth canal and suctioning out the brains so 
the skull collapses and the entire fetus is more easily removed.''
  Mr. HELMS. Will the Senator read the sentence again beginning with 
``It involves''? Read it slowly so that everybody watching on 
television or sitting in this Chamber can understand exactly what is 
being discussed here today.
  Mr. SMITH. It involves the pulling of the fetus feet first through 
the birth canal and suctioning out the brain so the skull collapses and 
the entire fetus is more easily removed.
  Mr. HELMS. Now, let me clarify one more point with the Senator, and 
then I will conclude this particular line of questioning.
  One person said this procedure, in addition to being gruesome and 
cruel, is just 3 inches away from being totally unlawful.
  Mr. SMITH. That is correct.
  Mr. HELMS. What does the Senator think he meant by that?
  Mr. SMITH. I think that my interpretation, were it 3 inches further, 
if it were 3 inches further, the head would be delivered through the 
birth canal and it would be a living child under the full protection of 
the law.
  Mr. HELMS. And the law, until fairly recently, took one position with 
respect to the deliberate, intentional destruction of innocent human 
life.
  What did the law say the penalty was to a doctor who did that?
  Mr. SMITH. Well----
  Mr. HELMS. It was murder. And why murder? Because it was intentional?
  Mr. SMITH. If it was intentional, that is correct.
  Mr. HELMS. I will be back with some more questions but I want to 
compliment the Senator, and I thank him for yielding.
  Mr. SMITH. I thank the Senator from North Carolina for his comments 
and remarks. He has been a long-time supporter of the right to life.
  Since the Senator from North Carolina brought up the Chicago Tribune 
editorial, I will read a couple of other lines from it because I think 
it makes the point very, very well. ``While the majority in the Nation 
may support a woman's right to choose an abortion, most of the people 
who make up that majority do not take an absolutist view. Reasonable 
restrictions, such as parental notification requirements in the case of 
teen pregnancy, have significant national support. Public support for 
abortion also becomes much more tenuous in the case of fetuses that are 
near the point of viability outside of the womb.''
  These are not my positions, but I believe a life is a life. I also 
believe that there are many in America who do not go to the extreme 
that this particular procedure does.
  In conclusion, the editorial writer says, ``Indeed this may cause 
moderates who generally support abortion rights to rethink their 
comfort level with other forms of late-term abortion, particularly when 
they see in this last week's debate there was a method to the 
madness.''
  Madam President, a few weeks ago I took to the floor of the Senate 
and I used a series of medical drawings and a photograph of a child 
that was prematurely delivered. That is all I showed in terms of charts 
or graphs. 

[[Page S 16733]]

  From that particular presentation that I made I was amazed at the 
irresponsibility of the press in terms of how they reported that. Now, 
I assume that the media that reported on it either watched the tape 
from C-SPAN, saw the debate from the galleries, or took somebody else's 
word for it.
  Unfortunately, those who took somebody else's word for it did not get 
the truth. It was reported that I had shown graphic photographs of 
aborted fetuses--wrong. It was reported that I had somehow violated a 
woman's right to privacy by showing photographs of a woman with a child 
in the birth canal--wrong. Also photographs of an aborted child. It 
went on and on and on to the point of the ridiculous.
  Today I am going to try again to see if the press can get it right. I 
hope they can.
  These are medical drawings, medical drawings accepted by the American 
Medical Association. They are not photographs of women. They are 
medical drawings. They are straightforward depictions of the procedure 
as described in an 8-page paper written in 1992 by Dr. Martin Haskell 
who has performed over 1,000 of these abortions. In a tape recorded 
interview with the American Medical News on July 5, 1993, Haskell 
himself said ``The drawings were accurate from a technical point of 
view.''
  During a June 15, 1995, public hearing before the House Judiciary 
Constitution subcommittee, Prof. J. Courtland Robinson, M.D., 
testifying on behalf of the National Abortion Federation, was 
questioned by Congressman Kennedy about the same line drawings 
displayed in poster size next to the witness table. Dr. Robinson agreed 
they were technologically accurate, and also added ``This is exactly 
probably what is occurring at the hands of the two physicians 
involved,'' just as we see this.
  Also Prof. Watson Bowes of the University of North Carolina at Chapel 
Hill, who is an internationally recognized authority on fetal and 
maternal medicine, coeditor of the obstetrical and gynecological survey 
wrote a letter to Senator Kennedy: ``Having read Dr. Haskell's paper, I 
can assure you these drawings accurately represent the procedure 
described therein.''
  I hope the media this time would get it right so I do not have to 
read editorials about me showing photographs of aborted fetuses and 
photographs of women in the birth position and all this other nonsense 
that people have been reporting. Get it right this time, please, those 
of you in the media.
  I will show my colleague with these charts what is done to these 
late-term babies in the partial birth abortion procedure, because you 
need to know. You are going to be voting on whether or not to stop this 
practice, so therefore you should know what you are voting on.
  Many, if not most of you, have already seen the illustrations. They 
have appeared in advertisements in Roll Call, Congressional Quarterly, 
the Hill, and other publications as well as medical journals all over 
the country.
  Now, some have tried to say that they are inaccurate and you will 
probably hear that, but they have been published in the American 
Medical Association's own publication, which did not question their 
medical accuracy.
  Moreover, medical witnesses before the House Judiciary Committee 
hearing on this bill, even those who opposed the bill, conceded the 
illustrations are accurate from a technical point of view. So remember 
that.
  Now, in this first chart, with the aid of ultrasound, the abortion 
doctor or the abortionist, the aid of ultrasound, finds out what the 
position of the baby is. Then using forceps--remember now, these 
children, these babies, this is 20-week minimum, 19 to 20 week, 5-month 
fetus and beyond; it could be 6 months, 7 months, 8 months; that is the 
beginning--reaches into the womb with the forceps, takes the child by 
the foot, as you can see in this picture here and pulls the leg around.
  Why do they do that? To turn the baby around so that the baby is 
delivered by the feet first. Why? Because if the child comes through 
the birth canal feet first, the child is not breathing. If it is head 
first, that is a birth--a live birth, my colleagues, and we have a 
living baby under the protection of the law.
  So we have to turn it around and do it feet first. That is what the 
abortionist does. Put the forceps on the tiny leg of this little child, 
turn it around in the womb so that it can be delivered feet first.
  In the third chart, Madam President, we see that the abortionist here 
is pulling the child all the way out of the womb and into the birth 
canal with the exception of the child's head. That is what is happening 
in this particular chart.

  Now, I want to pause for a moment. I hope that everyone will think 
very seriously. I want everyone to think very seriously about what is 
happening here.
  I have witnessed the birth of my three children. It was the most 
beautiful thing I have ever witnessed in my life, and I am proud to say 
I was there. I am glad I was and I will never forget it; three children 
born into the world. It happens every day. Many will be born while I am 
speaking. Many will be aborted while I am speaking.
  But here we have the hand of what could be a doctor but it is not a 
doctor. It is a doctor, but his goal or her goal is not to save a life; 
it is to take one. Picture, if you can, those of you who have witnessed 
a birth or can imagine what it might be like, these hands taking this 
child--little feet, little legs, little torso, little behind--the arms, 
the fingers moving as they do move. Oh, yes, there are fingers and toes 
at 5 months and beyond. You bet. And there is a heartbeat. It is a 
living, breathing child. That little body 90 percent through the birth 
canal, everything but the head, is 3 inches from the protection of the 
Constitution of the United States, in the hands of this doctor or 
abortionist; totally at their mercy.
  Were it to be a doctor who was trying to deliver this child, it would 
be a beautiful thing. If it were a premature baby, we would rush that 
baby to what is called the preemie ward, hook it up to whatever tubes 
and essentials were necessary for life support to try to bring that 
child to where they can come home with their mother.
  But that is not the case here. That is not the case here. You see 
there is a different objective. The next part is the worst part. It is 
very difficult for me, frankly, to talk about it. That I have to stand 
here on the floor of the Senate and talk about it is necessary because 
by standing here on the floor of the Senate and talking about it, I 
might save one or more of these children from this horrible procedure. 
Let us look at what happens, my fellow Americans. Let us look at what 
happens.
  In the hands of the abortionist, the feet, the legs, the torso, the 
arms right to the neck--in the hands of the abortionist--moving feet, 
moving hands, beating heart--you can feel it. The abortionist takes a 
pair of scissors, no anesthetic--takes a pair of scissors, inserts the 
scissors into the back of the skull, pulls the scissors apart, opens up 
a hole in the back of the skull, inserts a catheter and sucks out the 
brains of the child so that the skull compresses and then he removes 
this dangling lifeless form from the womb. Think about it.
  Yes, I have to stand here and defend this life, and I am proud to do 
it. I am proud to do it, because this child cannot do it. We can get 
off into the generic concept of abortion and talk about the 
generalities of abortion, a woman's right to choose and all that. That 
is not the issue here, folks. That is not the issue here. This is not 
the way to do it--a lifeless form.
  I had occasion, a couple of occasions, frankly--many of you have--to 
take a pet that was old--it was very difficult. I had a dog one time, 
most recently, that I had to do this to, named Muffin; 12 years old. 
You know how close you get to pets. They are like--only they are not--
children. But they are like children. I took that dog, who was so old 
that she could not get around anymore, to the vet and I said, ``I have 
to do this. I don't know if I can handle it.''
  He said, ``You know, you ought to come in and watch me do it rather 
than leave her here, because you will feel better when you see it 
because it is peaceful. It is not painful. We give this dog a needle 
and she goes to sleep. No pain.''
  So I did. I am glad I did, really, because I feel better about it.
  Can you imagine--could you possibly imagine the pain of this child, 
without any anesthetic, having scissors put in the back of its neck and 
having its brains sucked out? Can you imagine 

[[Page S 16734]]
the pain? This is the United States of America. Why are we doing this 
to our children? Could somebody please tell me why we are doing this? 
Why are we doing this? Give me a reason. I cannot wait until I hear the 
other side. For what? Why are we doing this?
  At the beginning of this process we had an unborn child, an unborn 
child safe in her mother's womb. And yes, it could be a her, I say to 
my colleagues, pro-choice women of the Senate, it could be a her. We 
tend to use the word ``him'' but it could be her. We had an unborn 
child safe in her mother's womb.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield? I just want to ask a 
parliamentary question.
  Mr. SMITH. I am not going to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would inquire if the Senator is going to finish his 
statement or answer in debate?
  Mr. SMITH. I am not going to yield. I want to finish my remarks.
  Mrs. BOXER. If he will answer, could the Senator give me a sense of 
how long that will be? I need to know so I can plan my response.
  Mr. SMITH. I do not know. I honestly do not know.
  Mrs. BOXER. Could be an hour?
  Mr. SMITH. I do not know.
  Mrs. BOXER. The Senator can expect me to take an equal time.
  Mr. SMITH. We had an unborn child safe in the womb of her mother, in 
that little protected area. A watery mass, if you will--safe. Safe.
  You know, late-term babies have sleep cycles and wake cycles. They 
hear their parents. They hear their mother. You can feel them kick when 
they are excited, when they are awake. Any expectant mother knows that. 
They are moving. They are kicking. They are happy. They suck their 
thumb. Their little hearts are beating. Their little brains are 
working. It is a living thing.
  Many experts will testify that newborn babies hear their mother's 
voice. Not only do they hear it, they recognize it. It soothes them. It 
calms them down.
  Suddenly, however, Madam President--suddenly the baby's safe, warm, 
watery world is invaded by the forceps of an abortionist.
  The journey from the womb through the birth canal to birth, the 
miraculous journey, the so beautiful journey which so many of us have 
witnessed--especially women who give birth to those children, and those 
of us husbands who have been lucky enough to witness it--this 
miraculous journey that every one of us, every single one of us, we 
have all taken this journey on our birthday.
  (Mr. COATS assumed the chair.)
  Mr. SMITH. The Senator from Indiana, in the chair, took that journey. 
The Senator from California took that journey. We all took that journey 
down that birth canal. And in most cases we needed a little help, we 
needed a little help.
  But, when I look at that fourth picture--I am 54 years old. Maybe I 
do not look it but I am. I have seen a lot of rough things. I served in 
the Vietnam war. I have seen people die. I have seen people in agony, 
in near-death situations, with horrible diseases. I have seen quite a 
lot.
  But I cannot imagine a country as great as this one is where a people 
would sanction--I do not care what you call yourselves, pro-choice or 
pro-life. I do not care. How could you sanction this? How could you 
sanction that? Did those of us who are veterans fight to defend that? I 
did not.
  Mr. President, if this baby, if the head of this little baby, comes 
through the uterus, the child would slide right out of the mother's 
body and straight into the protection of law, just so easy--not so easy 
for the woman. But that little child comes out and is born kicking, 
hands and fingers and feet moving--you can picture that little baby--
straight into the protection of law.
  But, you know, that is a problem in this procedure for the 
abortionist. Do you know what they call it when the baby manages to 
come out? The dreaded complication. That is what they call it. That is 
the term that the abortionists use, the ``dreaded complication.'' That 
is a live birth, a live birth--the dreaded complication. That is the 
last thing an abortionist wants. So what do they have to do? They stop 
the child's head from coming through the birth canal. They have to. 
Otherwise it is a live birth and then they have a problem--the dreaded 
complication.
  I just want to remind my colleagues that when this procedure is 
taking place with the scissors and with the catheter, this child is 
alive. This is a child that moments before was happily kicking, moving 
its fingers and hands, listening to the sounds in the womb.
  In the final illustration, Mr. President, the scissors are then 
removed from the baby's head, and the abortionist inserts the suction 
catheter, completing the partial-birth abortion procedure--sucks the 
child's brains out, the skull compresses, collapses, and the baby's 
small lifeless body is then removed from the birth canal, and it is 
over. The work is done. Is it not interesting--the contrast? Is it not 
interesting?
  What could have been, but for somebody's decision? God knows it was 
not the baby's decision. It could have been a beautiful birth. We could 
have had nurses scrambling running to get the baby into the incubator, 
into the preemie ward. No. That was not to be. What we have seen that 
could have been a beautiful birth is now an unspeakable, brutal, ugly 
death, more brutal and more ugly than the way you would put any pet. 
Even livestock today that we eat are killed more humanely than that.
  A doctor who took the Hippocratic oath to do no harm--to do no harm--
has done the worst possible harm to the most innocent and defenseless 
little person, little patient, that he could possibly have. Here in 
America--700, 400, 500 times a year. Who knows? It happens.
  Mr. President, we know all about the partial-birth abortion procedure 
in all of its sickening and grotesque detail because two doctors who 
have performed it hundreds of times, Dr. Martin Haskell and Dr. James 
McMahon, have spoken and written frankly about it in the past several 
months. But the most moving testimony of all comes from a registered 
nurse, a beautiful lady. Her name is Brenda Pratt Shafer. This is her 
picture. She is here today for this debate, and I had the privilege of 
meeting her just an hour or so ago. She assisted Dr. Haskell in 
performing a partial-birth abortion. She was a nurse, pro-choice, and 
assisted Haskell in performing a partial-birth abortion.
  Brenda Shafer described what she saw in a letter to her Congressman, 
Representative Tony Hall, Democrat of Ohio. This is what she said. I 
hope the cameras can pick this up. Listen. These are not my words. 
These are the words of a nurse who took basically the same pledge to 
save lives as doctors to. But this is what she said:

        The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus. 
     The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and 
     his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors 
     through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out 
     in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he 
     thinks that he might fall.

  If you can think of your child in that situation.
  That is what she described the procedure as. She further states that:

       I am a registered nurse with 13 years of experience. But 
     one day in September 1993 my nursing agency assigned me to 
     work at a Dayton, Ohio, abortion clinic, and I had often 
     expressed strong pro-choice views to my two teenage 
     daughters. So I thought this assignment would be no problem 
     for me.
       But I was wrong. I stood at a doctor's side as he performed 
     the partial-birth abortion procedure--and what I saw is 
     branded forever in my mind. The mother was 6 months pregnant. 
     The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound 
     screen. The doctor went in with the forceps and grabbed the 
     baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then 
     he delivered the baby's body and the arms--everything but the 
     head. The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus.
       The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping. And 
     his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors 
     through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out 
     in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he 
     thinks he might fall.
       The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered 
     suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains 
     out. Now the baby was completely limp. I never went back to 
     that clinic. But I am still haunted by the face of that 
     little boy--it was the most perfect, angelic face I have ever 
     seen.

  America, Mr. President, America this is happening in--6 month child.
  God bless Brenda Pratt Shafer for having the courage to come forward 

[[Page S 16735]]
  with her testimony and her story because, without people like her, we 
would not know it happened.
  I have been in the Congress for 11 years, Mr. President, and until 
just a few months ago--I must confess my ignorance--I did not know that 
this procedure was performed in America.
  A registered nurse, very moving testimony, self-described pro-choice, 
who witnessed this procedure at the hands of Dr. Haskell. Thankfully, 
Nurse Shafer did tell Congressman Hall what she saw.

  I might just say to my colleagues, Nurse Shafer is here today. If you 
would like to talk with her, she is off the floor. You can talk with 
her. I think my colleagues now may have some understanding as to why 
the House voted to ban this barbaric, brutal, gruesome, inhumane 
procedure.
  By the 19th or 20th week of gestation, the point at which this 
unspeakably brutal method of abortion is used, the child is clearly 
capable of feeling what is happening to her. This is a living human 
being, one who, as I said before, if it had been born alive, would be 
called a preemie. If you read the commentary from neurologists, they 
would tell you that premature babies born at this stage of pregnancy 
actually may be more sensitive to pain stimulation than others.
  Earlier this year, I attended a press conference at which a 
neurologist spoke to that effect. He later so testified before the 
House Judiciary Committee's hearings on this bill. He does surgery on 
babies all the time, and he indicated there is really no doubt--no 
doubt, he said--that the unborn child who is attacked and killed in the 
partial-birth procedure suffers not just pain but horrible, intense, 
excruciating pain.
  I would ask you, all of us, as human beings, a few seconds, a few 
inches, and you are a living being, human being protected not only from 
pain but protected by the Constitution of the United States, and yet 
for a few inches, a few moments, you are the victim of the abortionist 
procedure, how could you not be appalled at this procedure? How could 
you possibly justify this procedure?
  As I said, I did not even know this took place 6 months ago, but I 
know it now. And if it takes the last breath in my body, I am going to 
stop it. I am going to stop it.
  Do you know why I am going to stop it, Mr. President? Because I 
believe in my heart that the American people will no longer tolerate 
this. I believe in my heart that people of good faith who differ on 
this issue, who listen to this debate, listen to this procedure, are 
going to make a decision. They are going to take the heat from the 
militant pro-choice people, and they are going to vote with us. We are 
going to stop this horrible procedure, as the House did. We are going 
to put it on the President's desk.
  President Clinton, I hope that you will pick up that pen and put your 
signature on that bill to stop it.
  It is very interesting; President Clinton was at one time an unborn 
child, like the rest of us, and his mother was in a very difficult 
situation, and his mother chose life. It is very interesting.
  I just say to my colleagues, this is the greatest country in the 
world, founded with a Declaration of Independence that speaks of a God-
given and ``unalienable'' right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness. What happened to the right to life of this child? What 
happened to it? Why cannot she be given the opportunity to enjoy the 
blessings of liberty? Why cannot she be given the chance to laugh, to 
cry, to get married, to have children, to go to college, to be in a 
high school play? Why? Why does she not have that right?
  The tragedy of accidents in life are bad enough. You lose a child to 
an accident because of alcohol; some alcoholic runs over a child. Those 
kinds of things happen every day in America, and they are terrible. But 
this is a deliberate act that stops this child from ever having the 
opportunity to do these things.
  This is the land of the free and the home of the brave. If freedom 
has come to this, if freedom has come to meaning the freedom of 
abortionists to execute children--because that is exactly what they are 
doing. Let us call it exactly what it is. That is exactly what they are 
doing in this case. They are executing little children just as they 
emerge in the birth canal, inches away from birth. If that is what 
freedom means, then we ought to be brave enough to do what the House of 
Representatives did last Wednesday and pass this bill and stop this 
horrible, horrible procedure.
  Defenders of this partial-birth abortion, whom you will hear from 
shortly, have a big job to do. They really do. It is almost an 
impossible job in trying to rationalize how you can be in favor of this 
process, because you will hear it all: We are getting in the way 
between a woman and a doctor. They will do everything they can to talk 
about something else other than this. They are not going to talk about 
this because they cannot talk about it. So they have to go use some 
other issue. They try to get you on to something else. As you listen to 
the debate, they will be off on something else because they cannot be 
on this.
  One of the ways is to say partial-birth abortions are rare; they are 
obscure; they are almost never used. Well, Dr. Martin Haskell, the 
abortionist whose brutal handiwork Nurse Shafer witnessed, had claimed 
personally that he did 700 of them as of 1993. So I do not know what 
``rare'' means--700 babies by one doctor.
  As I look at that depiction of that little baby in the womb, hanging 
there limp, you know what I say to myself? How many U.S. Senators are 
in that 700? How many doctors, lawyers, Nobel Peace Prize winners, 
teachers? How many? I do not know. We will never know. We will never 
know. The first black President, is he or she in there? We will never 
know. First Hispanic President? We will never know. First woman 
President? We will never know. Cure for cancer? It may be 1 of those 
700. We will never know. They will never have had a chance to be that 
little human being, to develop from that little human being to the 
ultimate that they are allowed under the Constitution of the United 
States. We will never know that that little life could have been a life 
like this. We all grow up to be our own personal beings. We are all 
different--a lot of life but very different little personalities. We 
will never know. We will never know.
  They are gone. Gone. Not by accident, not in an automobile accident, 
not in war. No. Stabbed in the back of the neck with a pair of scissors 
with their brains sucked out by a catheter.
  There was another abortionist by the name of James McMahon who died a 
few days ago. He made late-term abortions his specialty. He was 
profiled in a 1990 article in the Los Angeles Times. In that article, 
McMahon coldly claimed credit for having developed the partial-birth 
method, and this is very interesting. He did not call it partial-birth 
abortion. He called it ``intrauterine cranial decompression.'' In 
English, that means crushing the skull while it is inside of the womb. 
That is a nice clinical description, is it not? But you see, we have to 
use terms like that because we cannot talk about this, because this is 
so obnoxious and so sickening and so disgusting and so outrageous that 
we have to talk about something else. So we use terms like 
``intrauterine cranial decompression.'' I like plain English. Killing a 
child in the womb that is 90 percent born, that is what it is.
  Dr. McMahon continued, saying ``I want to deal with the head last 
because that's the biggest problem.''
  That is what he said. Those are the feelings he had. When I read 
that, I thought to myself, ``That little baby in the womb who happens 
to have Dr. McMahon, if it had been Dr. Frist or Dr. anybody else, they 
would have been allowed to be born, they would have been allowed to 
grow, to become a President, to become a lawyer, to become a father, a 
mother, but through no choice of their own, it was Dr. McMahon who was 
there, not with gentle loving caring hands but with the hands of 
destruction,'' this physician who took the Hippocratic oath to do no 
harm.
  Sadly and perversely, he came to see it as his role as a doctor to 
deal with the problem of the head of a little baby in the manner that I 
described here today--a problem. According to the American Medical 
News, Dr. McMahon performed abortions through all 40 weeks of 
pregnancy. Think about that. It made no difference to him--8\1/2\ 

[[Page S 16736]]
months, 9 months, a couple days overdue, call Dr. McMahon, he will take 
care of it. He said he would only do elective abortions through the 
first 26 weeks. How thoughtful of him.
  Mr. President, you see, when you hear this discussion, and my 
colleagues, about how rare this is, it is not rare. It is not rare. It 
is rare if you want to compare it to the number of births in America. A 
few hundred versus several million who are born in America. That I 
suppose you could call rare, but it is not rare to the 700 or so babies 
who have had that procedure, is it?
  After last week's House vote, an article in the New York Times, 
relying on data from the pro-choice National Abortion Federation, among 
others, estimated that the partial-birth abortion procedure is 
performed more than 400 times a year. In other words, on the average, 
more than once a day, and that is a conservative number. Those are the 
ones we know about. That is 400, more than 1 a day. I do not think that 
is rare. That is 400 babies. It is certainly not insignificant.
  Yesterday, the New York Times ran another article that indicates that 
the number of partial-birth abortions performed each year may, in fact, 
be much higher. The New York Times quotes a physician who it identifies 
as a gynecologist at a New York teaching hospital who spoke on the 
condition of anonymity.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
this article from the New York Times.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Nov. 6, 1995]

       Wider Impact Is Foreseen for Bill To Ban Type of Abortion

                            (By Tamar Lewin)

       Public health officials and doctors who perform abortions 
     say the bill passed by the House of Representatives last week 
     that would ban a type of later-term abortion is so broadly 
     written and ill defined that it could affect many more 
     doctors than originally thought.
       Indeed, they say, it could criminalize almost any doctor 
     who performs abortions in the second trimester, or after 12 
     weeks of gestation, and might force doctors to turn to less-
     safe methods to avoid the possibility of prosecution. Some 
     also say that it would shrink the pool of doctors who perform 
     second-trimester abortions.
       The sponsors of the bill, and the anti-abortion groups they 
     worked with, said their goal was to ban what they call 
     ``partial-birth abortions,'' in which a fetus at 20 weeks of 
     gestation or more is partly delivered, feet first, and then 
     to make it easier for the fetus to pass through the birth 
     canal, the skull is collapsed.
       But the House bill approved on Wednesday, the Partial-Birth 
     Abortion Ban Act, provides a far looser definition, with no 
     reference to fetal age or to the specifics of inserting 
     scissors into the neck to create a hole through which the 
     brains can be suctioned out to collapse the skull.
       The legislation, which will be considered in the Senate 
     this week, says only that ``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.''
       That language is so broad--and the term ``partial-birth 
     abortion'' so unfamiliar in the medical community--that many 
     doctors who perform only earlier abortions, by the most 
     common methods, say they have done procedures that would 
     probably be prosecutable under the law.
       ``I'm sure I've had a situation, with a 14- or 16-week 
     pregnancy, when the fetus presented feet first, where I did 
     something that a Federal prosecutor might take to court under 
     this language,'' said Dr. Lewis Koplik, who performs 
     abortions up to 20 weeks in Albuquerque, N.M., and El Paso. 
     ``The decision about what method to use is made in an 
     individual setting based on an individual woman's situation. 
     It's not one-size-fits-all, and it shouldn't be. I don't want 
     to make medical decisions based on Congressional language. I 
     don't want to be that vulnerable. And it's not what I want 
     for my patients.''
       Those who drafted the legislation said they did not believe 
     it would interfere with second-trimester abortions performed 
     by the standard method of dilation and evacuation, or D&E.
       ``An element of the crime is that the prosecution has to 
     prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the baby was living,'' 
     said an assistant counsel to the Constitution subcommittee of 
     the House Judiciary Committee, Keri Harrison, who helped 
     draft the bill. ``In a D&E, there's not a living fetus being 
     delivered. They're in there suctioning and cutting, and what 
     they deliver is body parts. This would not cover that.''
       Ms. Harrison said that in drafting the legislation, she and 
     others had rejected specifying the gestational age or 
     abortion technique it would cover. ``This isn't about a 
     viable baby or a nonviable one,'' she said. ``And we did not 
     want anything about inserting scissors into the base of the 
     skull, because we didn't want them to come up with a slightly 
     different technique and avoid the statute. What we want to 
     make a crime is the abortionist starting to deliver a baby 
     and then killing it.''
       About 13,000 of the nation's 1.5 million abortions a year 
     are performed after 20 weeks' gestation. And only two 
     doctors, who perform a total of about 450 of these abortions 
     a year, have said publicly that this method is the safest and 
     best. So most discussion of the proposed ban has been based 
     on the assumption that the method is rarely used, and only by 
     a small number of doctors.
       But the National Abortion Federation, which represents 
     several hundred abortion providers, says that more doctors 
     have recently reported that they sometimes use the method, 
     which they call ``intact D&E.'' And since the House vote, 
     some gynecologists at prominent hospitals have acknowledged 
     that they often use the method in late-term abortions.
       ``Of course I use it, and I've taught it for the last 10 
     years,'' said a gynecologist at a New York teaching hospital, 
     who spoke on the condition of anonymity. ``So do doctors in 
     other cities. At around 20 weeks, the fetus is usually in a 
     breech position. If you don't have to insert sharp 
     instruments blindly into the uterus, that's better and safer.
       ``Even in earlier abortions,'' the doctor continued, ``it 
     can happen that after you prepare the patient by dilating the 
     cervix, the feet move down, and the procedure might be 
     covered by this law.''
       ``This legislation would be a disaster for women's 
     health,'' the doctor said.
       Most of the doctors interviewed said they saw no moral 
     difference between dismembering the fetus within the uterus 
     or partially delivering it, intact, before killing it.
       Several said they saw the bill as an opening wedge to 
     outlawing all second-trimester abortions--and conceded that 
     anti-abortion groups had won an important public-relations 
     victory by focusing so much attention on late-term abortions, 
     which are the least common but most emotionally fraught 
     procedures.
       According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a private group 
     that studies reproductive health issues, almost nine out of 
     10 abortions are performed in the first trimester, when the 
     procedure is relatively simple. About 164,000 abortions a 
     year are performed during the second trimester, that is, at 
     13 to 26 weeks of gestation, but more than 9 out of 10 of 
     these are before the 20th week.
       Although second-trimester abortions are legal throughout 
     the nation for any reason, few doctors perform abortions 
     after 20 weeks, and while third-trimester abortions are legal 
     in some states only a few hundred take place each year. 
     Third-trimester abortions are performed almost exclusively by 
     a handful of doctors who get referrals from obstetricians 
     whose patients have serious health problems or are carrying 
     fetuses with profound abnormalities.
       Dr. Allan Rosenfield, dean of the Columbia University 
     School of Public Health and a professor of obstetrics, said 
     that he and a group of other doctors discussing the 
     legislation had been unable to agree on what the law would 
     cover--but did agree that it posed a threat to anyone who did 
     second-trimester abortions.
       ``In a standard D&E, the fetus generally doesn't come out 
     intact,'' Dr. Rosenfield said. ``But you might very well 
     bring down a leg at the start of the procedure, and if the 
     definition is a beating heart, potentially any second-
     trimester abortion could fit this bill. My big worry is that 
     if this becomes law, doctors will feel they have to go back 
     to the less-safe second-trimester abortion methods we did 
     until the 1980's, the installation procedures, in which the 
     uterus is flooded with saline or urea.''
       Many of the doctors interviewed expressed concern that the 
     legislation would shrink the pool of doctors willing to 
     perform late-term abortions, especially since many of these 
     doctors already face demonstrations and threats, and may not 
     be willing to take on an additional worry about criminal 
     prosecution.
       ``It really is such nonspecific and bizarre legislation 
     that it's hard to tell what exactly they're trying to ban,'' 
     and Dr. Mary Campbell, medical director of Planned Parenthood 
     of Metro Washington. ``Clearly they're anxious to prosecute 
     anybody who's doing second- or third-trimester abortions. I 
     know people who have said that this would be the end of their 
     third-trimester practice, and probably their second.''

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, here is what this doctor said on the 
condition of anonymity: ``Of course I use it''--partial-birth abortion 
procedure--``and I've taught it for the last 10 years.''

       ``I've taught it,'' said a gynecologist at a New York 
     teaching hospital who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
       ``So do doctors in other cities. At around 20 weeks, the 
     fetus is usually in a breech position. If you don't have to 
     insert sharp instruments blindly into the uterus, that's 
     better and safer.
       ``Even in earlier abortions,'' the doctor continued, ``it 
     can happen that after you prepare the patient by dilating the 
     cervix, the feet move down, and the procedure might be 
     covered by this law. This legislation would be a disaster for 
     women's health. . . .''

[[Page S 16737]]

  Not a word about the baby. And by the way, we cannot find much 
evidence of any concern at all about women's health in this particular 
issue.
  It is clear that the doctors that we referred to, McMahon and 
Haskell, respectively, are not the only abortionists who employ the 
partial-birth abortion procedure. You see, we do not know. People are 
not going to come out and admit this. So we do not know how prevalent 
it really is. In fact, given that Times story yesterday, we may be 
sitting on the tip of an iceberg we do not even know about.
  Besides trying to rationalize the opposition to this bill by claiming 
that partial-birth abortions are rare and insignificant, although I 
find it difficult to understand how insignificant that would be for the 
child, you are also going to hear on the floor of this Senate opponents 
that are going to try to rationalize their position by saying that the 
bill interferes with the doctor's professional discretion and invades 
the doctor-patient relationship. You are going to hear that because, 
again, we have to talk about things like that because we cannot talk 
about this. That is why I am talking about it.
  Mr. President, the American Medical Association's council on 
legislation did not see it that way. They voted not once but twice to 
endorse this bill, to stop this practice. Twelve doctors on that board, 
practicing physicians, AMA members all, leaders of their profession 
voted unanimously to endorse H.R. 1833--unanimously.
  A member of the AMA council later publicly commented that the 
partial-birth abortion procedure used by Drs. Haskell and McMahon is 
simply not even recognized as a medical procedure. Think about that, it 
is not recognized as a medical procedure. They got it right. You know 
why? Do you know why it is right? Because medicine is supposed to heal 
people, that is why they got it right. Thank God they had the courage 
to vote the way they did. Even though they could not get the rest of 
the AMA to do it, the council did. They got it right. A doctor is 
supposed to heal. A doctor who does a partial-birth abortion is not 
practicing medicine. Can any reasonable person take the floor of the 
Senate and tell me this doctor who does this is practicing medicine, 
healing? He is playing executioner, that is what he is doing.
  I ask my colleagues to keep the AMA legislative council's action in 
mind as the opponents of this bill try to argue, and they will, that 
this bill interferes with the practice of medicine. You are going to 
hear it. The American Medical Association council on legislation 
carefully and thoughtfully considered it and they said it does not. 
They endorse this bill, because they recognize that partial-birth 
abortions simply do not constitute the practice of medicine. It is not 
a medical procedure that they do not agree with, they do not even think 
it is medicine at all. And yet you are going to hear all about it, how 
this interferes with the doctor and his patient and this is a medical 
process. They will tell you it is not even necessary.
  Mr. President, the opponents of this legislation try to rationalize 
their opposition by claiming that the grotesque and inhumane partial-
birth abortion procedure is only used in the most extreme 
circumstances. This is where we get right down to the nitty-gritty and 
hear a lot about this, such as when the mother's life is in danger or 
her health is at serious risk or when the unborn child has what they 
call ``severe congenital abnormalities incompatible with life.'' I do 
not know what that means. We will talk about that in a few minutes.
  Once again, the facts belie their claims. McMahon and Haskell, 
doctors--I hesitate to use that term--are the only two abortionists 
with the brazen temerity to go public. They went public because they 
were proud of it. That is why they went public. They had no problem 
with it. They were not trying to hide it. They went public about their 
use of this procedure and to identify themselves personally with it. 
They advocate this partial-birth abortion method as the ``preferred 
method for elected late-term abortions.''
  Haskell advocates the partial-birth abortion method for 20 to 26 
weeks of pregnancy and Haskell told the American Medical News that most 
of the partial-birth abortions he performs are, in fact, elective. 
Speaking with what I would call chilling candor, Haskell told the AMA 
News, ``I'll be quite frank, most of my abortions are elective in that 
20- to 24-week range and probably 20 percent are for genetic reasons 
and the other 80 percent are purely elective.''
  For genetic, 20 percent and the other 80 percent are purely elective.
  So there you have it, I say to my colleagues. You will hear it all. 
You will hear some of our colleagues claim this hideous and cruel 
procedure is only reserved for the hard cases, the tough cases.
  Now we know the truth. Now we know that is not true. So when you hear 
it, I just gave you the facts. You have it straight from the horses 
mouth, from the people who do it. We heard from Martin Haskell--the 
proud practitioner of partial-birth abortions, the one Nurse Shafer 
witnessed in his grisly work--who told the American Medical 
Association's own newspaper that 80 percent of the partial-birth 
abortions that he performs are ``purely elective.'' He does them. It 
would be interesting to see where the other facts come from when we 
hear the other side of the argument.
  The National Abortion Federation--the official national organization 
of the Nation's abortion industry--has publicly acknowledged that 
partial-birth abortions are routinely done for purely elective reasons. 
Here is what they say. They told their members this in this memorandum. 
In anticipation of this debate, this was sent out to their members:

       Don't apologize. There are many reasons why women have late 
     abortions . . . lack of money or health insurance, social 
     [or] psychological crisis, lack of knowledge of human 
     reproduction . . .''

  That does not sound like dire emergency to me, Mr. President. Maybe I 
am missing something. What is the emergency about that? I told you what 
a partial-birth abortion is. I have read you Nurse Shafer's haunting 
eyewitness account. I have told you what the abortionists who have done 
partial-birth abortions have said about them. I have given you all 
that.
  Let me tell you what H.R. 1833--the bill in question--actually does 
because you are going to hear that distorted, too. They are going to 
have all kinds of lines on what this bill does and does not do. What it 
does do: The barbaric and brutal partial-birth abortion procedure that 
I have described and illustrated on the floor of the Senate today can, 
should, must and will be outlawed. It will be because I am not going to 
leave this Senate until it is outlawed. If we lose the vote today, it 
is going to come back. I am going to bring it back until we win it.
  Simply stated, H.R. 1833 does that. It outlaws that procedure. If you 
did not like what you saw on those charts, that is your vote. There is 
nothing else. Do not be swayed by the other arguments because they are 
not relevant. If you think what we saw in the charts is appropriate, 
then you should vote against me and this bill. If you think that 
process is OK, vote against me. I would not want you to vote otherwise. 
If you agree with me that this is wrong, then vote with me for H.R. 
1833.
  It amends title VIII of the United States Code and provides that 
``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 2 years, or 
both.'' The abortionist, not the woman. The abortionist is fined. That 
is the punishment for killing the child in this manner.
  You will probably hear that the woman is going to be punished. Not 
true. Read the law.
  H.R. 1833 defines a ``partial-birth abortion'' as ``an abortion in 
which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a 
living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.''
  That is what they do. Can anybody who sat here and listened to this 
debate honestly tell me that inserting scissors in the back of the head 
and sucking the brains out of a living, breathing child is not killing 
it? Beats me. But you will probably hear that it is not.
  H.R. 1833 would ban not only the brain suction, partial-birth 
abortion that I have described, but any other abortion that involves 
the partial delivery of the child into the birth canal 

[[Page S 16738]]
before he or she is killed. So the abortionist who commits this 
horrible act will not be able to escape culpability under the law by 
pulling the baby into the birth canal and stabbing her through the 
heart rather than sucking her brains out through a hole. There are any 
number of ways. Would that be any more barbaric? They could have 
stabbed her in the heart with the scissors.
  Let me say it again. H.R. 1833 authorizes the prosecution only of the 
abortionist. When you hear otherwise, not true. Not the mother of the 
child upon whom the partial-birth abortion is performed. That woman is 
the innocent victim because she was advised to do something that was 
barbaric or to agree to do something that was barbaric. This bill is 
aimed at the abortionists; it is aimed at the brutality of this act; it 
is aimed at the gross violation of just basic human rights that are 
protected under the Constitution of the United States of America, for 
everybody, including a baby who comes out of that birth canal.
  Finally, Mr. President, even though you are going to hear otherwise, 
H.R. 1833 provides a life of the mother exception. Absolutely, it 
provides a life of the mother exception.
  Frankly, my jaw has dropped every time I heard one of the opponents 
of this bill try to say with a straight face that there is no life of 
the mother exception in this bill. They are going to say there is no 
life of the mother exception, and they will say it with a straight 
face, and they will give you all kinds of documentary evidence. There 
has always been such an exception since the day the bill was first 
introduced. I introduced it on this side. I know what it says, and it 
is in there.
  The life of the mother exception is in the form of what we would call 
an ``affirmative defense.'' You will find it in section ``e'' of H.R. 
1833. Look at it. You will see it. So when you are told it is not in 
there, read it, and it is there. Look it up. The next time somebody 
says it is not there, read it. It is right there.
  That is the way this situation is dealt with in the United States 
Code. There are 31 affirmative defenses in the United States Code. 
Under H.R. 1833, if a doctor reasonably believes a mother's life is in 
danger and that a partial-birth abortion is the only procedure he can 
employ to save her life, he has an affirmative defense--written right 
into the statute. In other words, if what the doctor faced truly was a 
life-of-the-mother circumstance, he cannot be convicted of violating 
the law.
  I might also say there are very few, if any, opportunities where the 
life of the mother would be threatened here. Let me say it again. No 
doctor who reasonably believes that a mother's life is in danger and a 
partial-birth procedure is the only way to save it can be convicted of 
a crime, period.
  The key word in subsection ``e,'' Mr. President, is ``reasonably.'' 
No doctor who reasonably believes that the mother's life is in danger 
and that no other procedure could have saved her life can be 
successfully prosecuted under this bill. The word ``reasonably'' 
provides protection against an abortionists like Dr. Haskell or Dr. 
McMahon, who may otherwise try to abuse the life of the mother 
exception by claiming that every partial-birth abortion they do 
involves a threat to the life of the mother. We are not going to let 
them get away with that.
  Doctors have a way of projecting themselves as absolute. The doctor 
says it, so it must be true. The doctor says you have to have an 
abortion this way; it must be true. No. Doctors are human like 
everybody else. They are not God, and they are wrong sometimes. They 
are wrong when they say this is necessary procedure to save the life of 
the mother in all cases. A doctor against whom charges were brought 
under the new law would be required to demonstrate that his judgments 
were ``reasonable.'' He can have other medical doctors who are in the 
area, who are there, who can testify to that effect, that it was an 
emergency that had to be done.
  A doctor who abused the life of the mother exception in this bill 
obviously could not meet that burden. By the same token, a doctor 
acting in good faith to save the life of the mother obviously could and 
would meet that burden.
  To those who try to argue that this specific, carefully drafted life 
of the mother exception--in the form of an affirmative defense--somehow 
does not adequately protect doctors who act to save the life of the 
mother, I say that the American Medical Association's Council on 
Legislation formally voted on whether to endorse this bill twice. They 
endorsed it, flat out, with the affirmative defense as it is written in 
the bill before us, H.R. 1833. They did not qualify their endorsement 
by saying that the life of the mother provision should be changed or 
modified. They endorsed it. The life of the mother affirmative defense 
was fine with them.
  Again, all 12 doctors, the AMA legislative panel, voted unanimously, 
voted twice to endorse H.R. 1833--every last word. Every last 
provision. No exceptions.
  Why would they endorse the bill if they thought the life of the 
mother--affirmative defense does not adequately protect doctors who try 
to save the life of the mother? Why would they do it? They are in the 
business of protecting doctors. They did not do it. They said the bill 
was OK.
  This is a historic piece of legislation Mr. President, that 
originated, was voted on in the people's House, from Representative 
Canady. It is the most representative body of our Nation's democracy, 
and as the House considered this bill as I indicated in my earlier 
remarks, a magnificent majority, a supermajority, a two-thirds 
supermajority came together--liberals, conservatives, Democrats, 
Republicans, pro-choice, pro-life--many voted for this bill. Susan 
Molinari to Patrick Kennedy to Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich.
  We can do the same here in the Senate, Mr. President. We can look at 
this for the brutal act that it is and end it--never mind getting off 
into the generic discussion of abortion.
  Look at the facts--a baby about to enter from the birth canal into 
the world, denied that opportunity. Put aside the other differences; 
put aside where a life begins. I happen to believe it begins at 
conception. Others of my colleagues do not agree with me. That is not 
the issue today. Or whether there are fetal brain waves at such-and-
such a month. That is not the issue today.
  Some say abortion should be legal for sex selection. That is not the 
issue today. They may think a couple who have a girl unborn child and 
prefer a boy can go ahead and abort the girl. That is not the issue 
today.
  The partial birth ban will protect girl and boy babies alike. That is 
the issue today. We can all agree that a 19- or 20-week fetus in 
gestation at the onset of viability outside the womb is a human being. 
I would be interested to hear why it is not. I would like to know what 
it is if it is not a human being.
  We should put aside the other differences. I had debates here with 
the Senator from California and others on the abortion issue. That is 
not the issue here today. The issue is this process. The bill is about 
abortion in the late second and into the third trimester of pregnancy--
a brutal, horrible way.
  Poll after poll consistently shows that the divisions among Americans 
over a abortion narrow and narrow as the pregnancy progresses into the 
second and third trimester. Even the most pro-choice Americans become 
pro-life at some point in the process. That is not the issue today.
  This bill is about basic human rights, fundamental human rights, Mr. 
President. The right of a little baby to be born, grow up, to have a 
life. They do not depend on the polls. Do we really have to take a poll 
to find out whether a little baby should have the right to proceed and 
develop his little personality? They do not depend on politics. What do 
they know about politics? What do they know about polls?
  Do you know what they know? They know that they hear sounds outside 
their mother's womb and they have sensed that protection. They are in 
that little fluid sac where they have protection, but they invade that. 
The abortionist invades that--pulls them feet first to their death.
  Even the Supreme Court in the Roe versus Wade decision recognized 
that a born child--a born child--is a person entitled to the equal 
protection of the laws under our Constitution.
  Now we are starting to talk a little bit differently. Now we have a 
problem 

[[Page S 16739]]
with the semantics. What is a partially-born child? Feet out? Nothing 
else? Feet-knees? Feet-knees-behind? Torso? All the way to the neck? 
What is a partially born child? What is it?
  What makes it a nonchild while it is inside, while its inside is 
inside the womb or its shoulders or its torso? A few inches? A few 
moments. Does that make it something else?
  Is not a partially born child one whose entire body, except for her 
little head, is already in the birth canal, just as much a human being? 
Is she no less a human being? Is the line of a baby a nonentity who can 
be brutally slaughtered really just a matter of a few inches? A few 
moments?
  This is the world's greatest deliberative body, Mr. President. I am 
proud to be a Member. I hope and I believe that because we are the 
world's greatest deliberative body that we will rise to the challenge 
that the House has given us.
  That is the reason why I did not touch that bill. I did not use my 
own. I wanted that bill to come right over here and bring it right up 
without amendment. I want to pass it today if I can, tomorrow if 
necessary, whatever it takes, whatever time it takes, I want to pass it 
and I want to put it on the President's desk.
  Once it gets there, I hope that President Clinton will sign it into 
law. I hope that he will look at this brutal act and put an end to it 
because after all, his pen, William Jefferson Clinton--will stop the 
process. One signature, done. No more partial-birth abortions. Hundreds 
of innocent children saved.
  President Clinton, you were an unborn child once. The President's 
father died, you know, while his mother was pregnant. Is that not 
interesting? She faced a very tough decision. Do I raise a child alone 
without a father? Bill Clinton's mother chose life.
  Regardless of party, regardless of ideology, I think we could say we 
are thankful. He became a President of the United States. He could have 
been a victim. Bill Clinton could have been a partial-birth abortion. 
We never would have known. We never would have known.
  Think about it, my colleagues, because this is a very personal 
matter. Each and every one of us--each and every one of us--started out 
in life as an unborn child. Just like the one depicted in the first 
illustration that I showed earlier today.
  When you were born as you came through that birth canal your little 
fingers moved, your little feet moved, you kicked your legs, you moved 
your arms, and when you finally came into the world with a little slap 
on the behind, you started to cry.
  Every one of us came down that birth canal the same way--little bit 
differently sometimes but we came down the birth canal. We slept, we 
woke, we felt pain, we were happy, we were sad, our quarters were 
close, but we always heard our mother's voice. Our mother's voice was 
always there to soothe us.
  As I close, I am reminded of a great maxim. Do unto others as you 
would have them do unto you. Do unto others as you would have them do 
unto you.
  You and I deserved to be protected by law from a partial-birth 
abortion when you and I lived in our mother's womb.
  There are two reasons why we are here today. Either/or: one, because 
our mothers chose life and had no concern about aborting us; second, 
because there was no abortionist there to end our lives. We had value. 
We had worth. We had rights. We became U.S. Senators. And those little 
babies have the same rights that we have under the Constitution.

  As the Old Testament tells us, Almighty God knew us even then, and He 
loved us. Our fellow human beings, these youngest of Americans, deserve 
no less.
  My colleagues, I implore you for the sake of God, for the sake of 
life, for the sake of innocent children, pass this bill.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, first I thank my colleague from New 
Hampshire for agreeing to begin this debate at a little later hour than 
originally scheduled. Many of us, who are on both sides of this debate, 
went to the Middle East with the President and a bipartisan delegation, 
and we literally have not had any rest for many hours. So, it really 
gave us a chance this morning to get that first bit of rest. This is a 
difficult debate and I think we all needed to have that rest. I thank 
my colleague from New Hampshire and I thank the majority leader and 
minority leader for agreeing to bring this up at 2 o'clock rather than 
11 a.m.
  I stand here in favor of committing H.R. 1833 to the Judiciary 
Committee for at least one hearing on this bill, and to report back 
with any amendments, if they so deem, within a 45-day period.
  There are many reasons that I believe are quite rational for doing 
this, which I will get into in the course of the debate. But I want to 
say the motion that will be made to send this bill to committee will be 
a Republican motion offered by Senator Specter and supported by six 
other Republicans.
  This is a bipartisan issue. This is the first time, in my knowledge, 
that a particular procedure has been criminalized. And I agree with my 
colleague from New Hampshire when he says--and he has said it many 
times--the Senate is the greatest deliberative body. Therefore, let us 
make sure before we do this for the first time in history that we have 
held a hearing that brings all sides to the table where there can be a 
discussion with medical experts.
  We have one physician in the U.S. Senate. He was never an OB/GYN. We 
do not have anyone in the U.S. Senate who truly can understand the 
ramifications of criminalizing what has been a life-saving procedure. 
So I think the course of sending this bill to Judiciary is the proper 
course.
  I will cover a lot of ground. My colleague took almost a couple of 
hours. I do not think I will take as much time, but my presentations 
are usually quite brief. This will not be as brief because I think we 
have heard my colleague without possibility to, if you will, correct 
the Record or insert differing opinions. We have not had that chance. I 
would like to take this time to cover a good deal of ground.
  I think it is important to debate this bill, every word of this bill, 
the ramifications of this bill, the justifications for this bill and 
the tragedy that is addressed by this bill. But the one thing I hope I 
do not have to be lectured about is the joys of childbirth. Unlike my 
colleague from New Hampshire, I have had it. I have had it. I have had 
the joy of childbirth. I have had the joy of bringing two of the most 
wonderful people into this world, and now I have the joy of 
grandparenting. So I really do not need to be lectured about the joys 
of the travel down the birth canal because I have experienced it in my 
own body.
  I had two premature babies who were not safe in my womb. They were 
not safe in my womb toward the end of the pregnancy, and they had to 
struggle for their lives, and we won that struggle. They were difficult 
births, and very unpredictable as to what would happen.
  Now I am a grandmother, and we had complications in that one. This 
baby is our joy--my joy, his other grandmother's joy, his grandpa's 
joy, his uncle's and aunt's. So I know about the joy of children very 
personally, the joy of grandparenting.
  But do talk to me about the bill. Do talk to me about, for the first 
time that we can find in history, why we at the national level should 
outlaw a particular procedure that is sometimes the only way to save a 
woman's life or to avoid the most serious, long-lasting consequences to 
her health. Talk to me about that. Talk to me about that.
  Do not tell me that you speak for all the little children who cannot 
speak for themselves when you talk about this bill, because I want to 
talk to you about little children. Let us take a little child that is 
happy and alive, living in a wonderful family environment, and his mom 
gets pregnant and everything is wonderful and everything is joyful and 
they have a name picked out for the baby--if it a girl or a boy--and 
they think everything is right, and suddenly they learn that it is not 
right. I would tell you if that little child could talk--let us say he 
is just 2 or 3--he would say, ``Don't let my mommy die.'' So don't tell 
me you are talking for all children. We cannot speak for all children.
  I am going to give you a few cases. Viki Wilson, a registered nurse, 
a practicing Catholic, and her husband Bill, a 

[[Page S 16740]]
physician, they were the parents of two children and planning for a 
third. In the 8th month of pregnancy, an ultrasound showed the baby's 
brain was growing outside of the baby's skull. The brain was twice the 
size of her actual head and lodged in Viki's pelvis, causing pressure 
on what little brain the baby had.
  This was a wanted baby. They picked out a name for the baby. If Viki 
had carried the baby to term, Viki's cervix could not have expelled the 
baby. Viki's cervix would likely have torn or ruptured, causing massive 
hemorrhage and infection.
  I do not have a chart that shows what it looks like when there is a 
massive hemorrhage. I do not have a chart to show you what it looks 
like when the cervix is torn and ruptured. I do not have a chart that 
shows you what your wife would look like if she had to go through this 
circumstance, or your daughter. I do not have a chart that shows what 
the baby's skull would have looked like as it was crushed by passage 
through the birth canal. I do not have a chart that shows that. But we 
do know this. If the baby had survived somehow, at most she would have 
lived a few short agonizing moments gasping for air. Most likely she 
would have suffocated the moment the umbilical cord was cut, unable to 
breathe through her mouth.

  I do not have a chart. Viki Wilson is a practicing Catholic. If you 
want to meet her, you can meet her. If you want to talk to her, you can 
talk to her. She came forward in her grief because she could not stand 
to see what was happening here. She said, ``My daughter's death was 
with dignity instead of subjecting her to a process that would have 
taken away all her dignity.''
  I have other stories. I am going to share them with my colleagues. 
But let me tell you of a little child who thought his mother was going 
through that. He would say, ``Save my mother and do not allow my sister 
to go through this agonizing procedure.''
  The Senator from New Hampshire said, ``Do not listen to what 
opponents say. They will distort this bill.''
  I have a copy of the bill. I have read this bill over and over again. 
In every case when we have voted to restrict a woman's right to choose, 
there have been exceptions in the bill for the life of the mother, at 
least in every single case. Not here, not here. Oh, yes. When the 
doctor is thrown in jail, he can say in his defense, ``I had to do 
it.'' That is not the same as making exceptions to the life and the 
health of the mother.
  My colleague said, Look at the numbers of votes in the House. Well, 
the far-right forces in the House will not allow a vote on a moderating 
amendment for the life of the mother, for the health of the mother. 
They will not allow a vote on any of this. So there was no choice for 
people.
  I am so pleased that in the Senate we have the ability to get a vote, 
to stop the extremism, to stop the danger. We have a chance to do that. 
No. The House did not allow an amendment. That is why you had the vote 
that you had. I know because I did speak to some of the people over 
there. They said, ``Barbara, we did not have a chance to vote on any 
moderating language we wanted so desperately. We tried to, and the 
Rules Committee shut us down.''
  So we know what this is about. It is about politics. It is about 
politics because if it was about substance they would have allowed a 
vote.
  I have to say that I am not a doctor--and I am not God--and there are 
none in the Senate, except for one doctor who is not an OB-GYN, nor is 
anyone else. And no one is God.
  And people invoke the name of God. And I am glad that they do that 
because they feel it deeply, and I feel it deeply. And if one believes 
in God, one believes that God has made sure that there are medical 
procedures in place to help save lives.
  There were so many misstatements made on this Senate floor regarding 
this issue, and I am not going to take them on here because I am not a 
doctor. But I know about giving birth, and when babies are born, except 
in rare cases, the head comes first. The way this is described is it is 
described as if the woman is having a baby, and suddenly people say, 
``We do not want this baby.'' The mother is given anesthetic, large 
doses of it--this is a serious, complicated situation--large doses that 
go right to the fetus.
  That is just one example of the misstatement here. That is why we 
need hearings on this--to find out the facts.
  Even the name of this, ``partial-birth abortion''--there is no such 
terminology. That is not a medical term. And, yet, it is outlawing 
``partial-birth abortion'' when there is no such medical term. It is a 
term being used for political reasons, in my view. There is not a birth 
here. This is a late-term abortion, and it is tragic. It is tragic. And 
that is what we are talking about.
  There is talk here on the floor by men who never had the experience 
about what it is like for the baby to flow in the water, as it was 
said. That is the ambiotic fluid. Sometimes something happens in a 
woman, and the baby is not safe in the womb. And the ambiotic fluid is 
not there. We hope everything goes just right. We want everything to be 
just right. When we get to that stage of our pregnancy--I never got to 
those stages; I had two preemie babies. By then we were so excited 
about this event.
  And to make it sound like women are brutal, that doctors who take a 
Hippocratic oath are brutal, and that is their goal in life--is to be 
brutal. And they wake up every day saying, ``I am going to wait until 
the end of my pregnancy, and I am not going to have it, and I am going 
to be brutal.'' If you listen to this, calling doctors abortionists--
abortion is a legal procedure in this country. They are not without 
laws. They try to change it on the floor of the Senate all the time. 
They do not have the votes to do that. Do not call a doctor an 
abortionist. And do not try to be a doctor. You cannot be a doctor. You 
are not a doctor. You do not know the truth.
  We need a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. We have people on both 
sides of this issue on the Judiciary Committee. And, therefore, it will 
have a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, and both sides will be 
brought out. And they will have panels on one side and another.
  And when the word ``elective'' is used, let us straighten that out 
right here and now. Elective means anything but for the life. It can be 
the health. It can be the most severe health consequence which is given 
the term ``elective.''
  Let me talk about the organizations that are cited. The AMA my 
colleague from New Hampshire cited. The council he talked about--12 or 
13 people are on the council--voted to endorse the bill. There was not 
one OB-GYN on the council. The only testimony heard in the AMA was of 
the staff of the person who wrote the bill, and the AMA Board of 
Trustees unanimously rejected the recommendation of the committee. And 
they did not take it. So let us get that straight.

  The AMA does not support this bill. There are some organizations that 
oppose it--that oppose it: the American Medical Women's Association, 
the California Medical Association, which is the largest State 
organization in the country, the American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists. They oppose this legislation.
  Now, we believe, those of us who believe we should commit this to the 
Judiciary Committee for a report back in 45 days on the bill, that 
before Senators are asked to cast a vote on a measure that would 
criminalize a legal medical procedure, which is used under rare and 
tragic circumstances, the Judiciary Committee should have an 
opportunity to review it.
  I have raised some of the questions here today, and I am going to 
raise them again. This is what I think the committee ought to look at, 
whatever your view on this issue. They ought to look at the fact that 
there is no such term as partial-birth abortion, in any medical text, 
and that it was invented by the authors. And let us get down to what we 
are talking about here. They should also look at the fact that a doctor 
is threatened with criminal prosecution for trying to save a woman's 
life. They should look at that.
  What kind of chilling effect would it have on a physician? Oh, sure, 
there is an affirmative defense. That is like saying, ``I will arrest 
you if you disagree with me, but once you are in court you can have 
your chance to explain why you disagree with me.'' It is an affirmative 
defense. You put it in 

[[Page S 16741]]
the bill. You have a right to go to court and affirmatively say, ``Save 
the life of a mother.'' Let us look at what that means: Doctors 
threatened with criminal prosecution for trying to save the life of a 
woman. Let us look at that.
  Let us look at the fact that there are medical problems that compel 
women to seek late-term abortions that range from the extremely serious 
to the potentially fatal, including severe heart disease, kidney 
failure, and cancer in need of immediate treatment. Let us have those 
women who have had this tragedy befall them and their husbands and 
their families and their children, who some here said they speak for, 
come forward and say how they felt when they heard unless their mother 
could go through an emergency medical procedure, they would lose that 
mother forever. Let us hear from those people. The greatest 
deliberative body in the world, my colleague from New Hampshire says--
and I agree--let us deliberate.
  The procedure that this bill would outlaw is often considered 
considerably safer than other alternatives. Let us look at that from a 
doctor's perspective. I think it is inappropriate that the Senate vote 
on this bill without fully exploring these questions and others.
  I also have to address another issue, the issue of late-term 
abortion. The author of this bill--and there is a similar bill in the 
Senate--now the proponent of this House bill, in many ways by 
implication says that horrific things are going on in the country; let 
us stop it now; it is immediate; it is a crisis; does not tell you that 
under Roe versus Wade, which is the law of the land, the landmark 
decision in 1973, which has not been overturned by this Court, which 
has not been overturned by this Congress, says that in the late term of 
a pregnancy the States have the full and absolute right to make the 
rules governing these abortions. Now we have for colleagues to see the 
rules and regulations in every single State, and I urge my colleagues 
to look at that.
  What you will see is that in all States of the Union there are 
controls. In many States of the Union, there are stringent controls 
which require not only the attending physician but other physicians to 
sign on, and this is not considered likely in the States.
  What really interests me is that the party that controls this 
Congress--and, in particular, the people offering this legislation--
always are on this floor saying let the States decide. They are closer 
to the problem. They are closer to the people. Let them decide. And yet 
they would overstep all the States, outlaw a specific procedure which 
we believe is the first time in the history of the country it has ever 
been done, and trample on all the States that have very serious 
regulations on this. And we will go into what some of those regulations 
are.
  I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record a number of 
editorials.
  There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Outlawing an Abortion Method

       The House of Representatives succumbed to emotional 
     blackmail this week when it approved a bill that would ban a 
     specific abortion procedure and impose criminal penalties on 
     doctors who use it. The House action would undermine a 
     woman's constitutionally protected right to choose to 
     terminate a pregnancy and a doctor's right to determine what 
     is best for his patient. The Senate would be wise to exercise 
     more restraint.
       The procedure to be banned, known as intact dilation and 
     evacuation, is used only in late-term abortions, after 20 
     weeks of gestation, and even then its use appears modest. 
     About 13,000 of the nation's 1.5 million abortions each year 
     take place after 20 weeks, usually because of special 
     circumstances, such as a threat to the mother's health or 
     severe fetal abnormalities.
       While there are no reliable statistics, most late-term 
     abortions involve a procedure that breaks the fetus apart 
     before it is suctioned out of the uterus. But some doctors, 
     those who would be affected by the House bill, use a 
     procedure that involves partially extracting the fetus into 
     the birth canal and collapsing the skull in order to let it 
     be extracted. Anti-abortion groups call this a ``partial 
     birth'' abortion. They circulated graphic drawings in their 
     inflammatory campaign to impose a ban.
       The House majority allowed its distaste for the particular 
     procedure to start it down a course that could undermine the 
     constitutional right to abortion as outlined in Roe v. Wade. 
     Roe recognized a woman's right to end a pregnancy, in 
     consultation with her doctor, during the first trimester. I 
     also recognized the state's interest in imposing some 
     restrictions on abortions as a pregnancy progresses through 
     the second and third trimesters. But it did not try to 
     dictate the methods that could be used.
       The House bill would erode the judgment in Roe and 
     subsequent cases that while abortion's after fetal viability 
     can be forbidden, exceptions must be allowed to preserve the 
     mother's life or health. True, the bill would allow a doctor, 
     if criminally charged, to argue that the procedure was needed 
     to save the life of the mother and that no other procedure 
     would suffice. But that leaves scant room for a doctor to 
     exercise sound medical judgment as to the safest procedure in 
     a particular abortion.
       The House bill is harsh and intrusive. The Senate should 
     have more respect for women, and responsible doctors and for 
     Roe.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Los Angeles Times, Nov. 3, 1995]

                    A Gruesome Piece of Legislation


   the house--shown bloody photos--votes to outlaw a form of abortion

       There is no question that the ``partial-birth abortion'' 
     procedure that the House voted Wednesday to outlaw is 
     gruesome. No woman undergoes this late-in pregnancy procedure 
     without great psychological and physical pain. Few physicians 
     perform it, and those who do may experience deeply 
     conflicting emotions.
       The procedure is done typically only to avert an outcome as 
     gruesome as the operation itself--the death of the woman--or 
     to remove a severely deformed fetus that would not survive 
     after birth.
       One measure of the pain and conflict surrounding the 
     partial-birth abortion is its extreme rarity. It accounts for 
     only about 200 of the 1.5 million abortions done annually in 
     this country.
       The nature of the procedure should have been beside the 
     point; many medical procedures are bloody and hard to 
     witness. Nevertheless, supporters of the bill displayed 
     photographs of partial-birth abortions in the House chamber 
     to manipulate the emotions of Congress members.
       In banning this form of abortion, the House has set a 
     precedent with dangerous ramifications.
       Wednesday's vote is the first time a house of Congress has 
     asserted federal authority to ban a specific, established 
     medical procedure. As such, the action represents an 
     important legal and political step for anti-abortion forces.
       Under the House bill, doctors who perform this abortion 
     could face up to two years in prison or monetary fines or 
     both. A doctor must prove that no other procedure would have 
     sufficed. In effect, Congress is telling physicians that the 
     government will now supersede the medical judgment of a 
     woman's physician.
       Will Congress members, few of whom are physicians, now 
     outlaw other lifesaving procedures because they are difficult 
     to watch? Will this Congress, despite its promise to reduce 
     the intrusion of government into private life, increasingly 
     assert its authority at the medical bedside?
       The Senate should stop this perilous slide when the 
     legislation comes its way. And the President should be 
     prepared to veto.
                                                                    ____


                     [From the Des Moines Register]

                          Mean and Meaningless


 physicians, not members of congress, should decide on abortion methods

       The House vote Wednesday to ban one method of late-term 
     abortion and send doctors who perform it to prison is mean 
     and meaningless.
       It is mean because late-term abortions often are done to 
     preserve the health of the mother or because the fetus is 
     terribly deformed and not expected to live. About 13,000 of 
     1.5 million abortions performed in the United States are at 
     20 weeks or later. The bill puts an absurd burden on the 
     doctor being prosecuted to prove that this particular method 
     was necessary to save the life of the woman and that ``no 
     other procedure would suffice for that purpose.''
       It is meaningless because the legislation does not address 
     alternative ways of terminating a pregnancy at late stages, 
     among them Caesarean section and induced labor.
       The method the House would criminalize is intact dilation 
     and evacuation. The doctor pulls the fetus from the womb feet 
     first, through the birth canal, leaving only its head inside. 
     Surgical scissors pierce the skull, and the brain is 
     suctioned out, the skull collapses, and the fetus is taken 
     out.
       It is hideous. It may also be the best procedure under 
     certain circumstances. The New York Times reported that 
     Colorado physician Warren Hern, author of the standard 
     textbook on abortion practice, said: ``The medical community 
     has not determined the very best way to do late-term 
     abortions, which are uncommon anyway. This method is a minor 
     variation on what I've done for 20 years and could be 
     absolutely necessary under some medical circumstances. But 
     what's important is that the decision be left to the 
     doctor.''
       Certainly, it should not be left to Congress, with medical 
     issues so complex and personal issues so wrenching, when a 
     mother's health is in danger or the fetus is severely 
     damaged.
       Of course, when the mother is well and the fetus is 
     potentially viable but merely unwanted, a late-term abortion 
     is unacceptable by any method.

[[Page S 16742]]

       ``Yet this Congress is determined to interfere unthinkingly 
     in any way it can, regardless of circumstances. This is the 
     first time since Roe vs. Wade that it has acted to ban a 
     specific abortion method, but numerous other efforts to stop 
     abortion are under way, such as keeping funding from 
     international groups involved in abortion overseas. The 
     Supreme Court's landmark 1973 decision said states could not 
     limit the right to abortion in the first trimester of 
     pregnancy, but could regulate it in the second trimester to 
     protect a woman's health, and could limit or prohibit it in 
     the third trimester when the fetus is potentially viable. 
     Today, 41 states, including Iowa, have laws prohibiting late 
     abortions under most circumstances.
       The House vote Wednesday to ban one method of late-term 
     abortion, and a similar bill introduced in the Senate, mark 
     the determination of politicians to pander to anti-abortion 
     forces.
                                                                    ____


                     [From USA Today, Nov. 3, 1995]

            Attack on Rare Abortion Procedure Invites Misery


Our View: These cases are tragic, These cases are personal, Legislation 
                    is a clumsy and painful response

       Abortion is a wrenching decision under any circumstance. In 
     the later stages of a pregnancy, it's a nightmare.
       So it doubly painful to find the House of Representatives 
     voting to make the nightmare worse. It did so Wednesday, 
     voting to outlaw a last-report procedure to terminate some 
     late-term pregnancies.
       The procedure is one that would make anyone cringe. The 
     fetus dies from an overdoes of anesthesia given to its 
     mother. Sometimes, its skull is then drained so the fetus can 
     be aborted intact without risk to the mother (not to cause 
     death as critics of the procedure often claim).
       It's a process undertaken in desperate circumstances. Just 
     ask Viki Wilson, a 39-year-old registered nurse, doctor's 
     wife, and mother of two in Frenso, Calif. She was eagerly 
     awaiting the birth of her baby when the bad news arrived. 
     Just four weeks before her delivery date, she learned what 
     previous tests had failed to detect: two-thirds of her unborn 
     daughter's brain was in a sac outside the skull. The fetus 
     was suffering seizures and Viki Wilson's life was in danger. 
     The baby was doomed to die outside the womb no matter what 
     was done.
       After consulting with specialists, the Wilsons opted for 
     ``intact dilation and evacuation,'' the procedure banned by 
     the House. The anesthesia was administered and a needle used 
     to draw fluid from the baby's enlarged head so it could pass 
     through the birth canal without damaging her mother.
       ``This wasn't about choice, this was about medical 
     necessity,'' Wilson says.
       That's the case for most late-term abortions. A mother's 
     pregnancy is complicated by health problems such as cancer or 
     heart disease, so that continuing the pregnancy endangers her 
     life. Or an unborn baby is found to have unthinkable 
     deformities.
       If the Senate agrees with the House, other families won't 
     get the option available to the Wilsons. Or other choices. 
     The House language is so vague it can be read as outlawing 
     all late-term abortions. It bans ``partial-birth abortions,'' 
     a term not found in medical dictionaries. Doctors, facing 
     jail terms, may refuse to perform any late-term pregnancy 
     terminations.
       And that is the real story of this legislation. Its backers 
     say it is a wedge to challenge abortion rights broadly.
       The idea of aborting a healthy, late-term fetus for mere 
     convenience is reprehensible to all sides. And rare is the 
     doctor who would participate in such an abortion. Only a 
     handful will even perform late-term abortions for the more 
     compelling reasons.
       The legislation just isn't needed. And the broader assault 
     will do nothing to alter the national division on abortion.
       After 20-plus years of debate, there's no sign of national 
     consensus to ban abortion. And absent such social agreement, 
     the choice must be a personal one.
       Abortion's dilemmas are indeed painful. But they are best 
     resolved by appeals to hearts and minds, not dictates of law 
     like this one.

  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. One is from the Los Angeles Times. It 
says in part:

       In banning this form of an abortion, the House has set a 
     precedent with dangerous ramifications. Wednesday's vote is 
     the first time a House of Congress has asserted Federal 
     authority to ban a specific established medical procedure. 
     Under the House bill, doctors who perform this abortion could 
     face up to 2 years in prison or monetary fines, or both. A 
     doctor must prove that no other procedure would have 
     sufficed. In effect, Congress is telling physicians that the 
     Government will now supersede the medical judgment of a 
     woman's physician.

  ``Government will supersede the medical judgment of a woman's 
physician.''
  Wonderful, just what we were elected to do, decide what medical 
procedures should be used under what circumstances. We have never done 
that in history as far as I can tell. And this is a procedure that is 
used in most tragic, rare circumstances involving a woman's very life, 
and we are going to decide, without a hearing, unless we support the 
Specter amendment for a hearing--and I hope we do--this should be 
banned.
  I think this editorial raises another interesting point.

       Will Congress Members, few of whom are physicians, now 
     outlaw other lifesaving procedures because they are difficult 
     to watch? Will this Congress, despite its promise to reduce 
     the intrusion of Government into private life, increasingly 
     assert its authority at the medical bedside?

  What is next, I ask? Then the editorial concludes.

       The Senate should stop this perilous slide. When the 
     legislation comes its way, the President should be prepared 
     to veto it.

  And the President has clearly stated that abortion should be legal 
and rare, and his standard is life and health of the mother. This bill 
makes no such exception.
  Then the New York Times says:

       The House bill is harsh and intrusive. The Senate should 
     have more respect for women and for doctors and for Roe--

  Meaning Roe versus Wade,

     the Supreme Court decision that gives the right to the States 
     in the last trimester to set the rules and the standards.

  USA Today: ``Attack on rare abortion procedure invites misery.''
  They say:

       These cases are tragic. These cases are personal. 
     Legislation is a clumsy and painful response.

  And then the Baltimore Sun, and I see my colleague from Maryland is 
here, I think gets right to the heart of it:

       When a late-term abortion is necessary, usually to protect 
     the health or life of the mother, a physician should not have 
     to base his decision on how to proceed on the politics of the 
     issue.

  So under the House bill, we are not only putting physicians in peril 
for doing what they think is right, according to their medical training 
and their experience, to save a woman's life, we are putting them in 
peril, putting them in jail but we are bringing politics into the 
operating room as well, because make no mistake about it, this is about 
the agenda of the far right in this country, who put together a 
contract. They want to do away with the woman's right to choose, and 
even though late-term abortions are regulated by the States, this is 
high on their agenda.
  I know the phones are ringing off the hook. That is OK, that is fine, 
because they are ringing off the hook on both sides. Then we see the 
Des Moines Register, and they talk about this legislation as mean and 
meaningless. They say:

       Physicians, not Members of Congress, should decide on 
     abortion methods.

  Look, what procedure are we going to get into next? What are we going 
to ban next? What are we going to outlaw next? I mean, the sky's the 
limit if we go down this slippery slope, and that is why having a 
hearing is so important.
  I got a call today, they just sent it over to me: ``Please, Senator 
Boxer, tell these people that the women they are talking about are 
someone's baby.''
  And they talk about babies. The woman who is in peril was somebody's 
baby and now she is somebody's daughter and somebody's granddaughter. 
Let us talk about that baby, because, yes, my baby may be 27 years old 
and have her own baby, but she is still my baby, and she will be my 
baby until the day that I am not here.
  So this woman puts it into perspective. She wants me to put her name 
out. I do not know this woman. Dorothy Fox, from Santa Barbara, thank 
you for calling my office. ``Please, Senator Boxer, tell these people 
that the women they are talking about are someone's baby. My daughter 
had this procedure, and I would have done anything to save my baby, my 
36-year-old daughter who had to endure this horrible procedure to save 
her life and her reproductive health so that she could have healthy 
children in the future. Please tell them''--meaning the supporters of 
this bill--``that the fetus isn't the only baby involved. Those women 
were once somebody's baby.''
  I want to talk about the nurse that the Senator from New Hampshire 
points out, her emotional testimony about being in the room and seeing 
this procedure. And she is here to take questions, and that is good. I 
am glad 

[[Page S 16743]]
she is here, because I have a lot of people here, too, whose stories 
you are going to hear.
  Here is a letter from the Women's MedPlus Center in Cincinnati, OH, 
where this nurse worked.
  I want to point out that the nurse worked at the clinic for 3 days; 
she worked at the clinic for 3 days. This is the woman who now comes 
here as an expert on this procedure. So you should ask her about that 
experience.
  The letter we have here is from Cristy Galvin, RN, and here is what 
she says:

       I am a registered nurse and have worked since July 1993 in 
     the Dayton office of Dr. Martin Haskell. In this capacity, I 
     was the nurse that supervised the training of Brenda Pratt 
     during her brief temporary employment at the Women's Medical 
     Center of Dayton.
       As you know, we initially conducted a search of our 
     employment records under the name ``Brenda Shafer,'' as this 
     was the name she signed to the letter which was given to us.
       When provided with the correct last name, we did, in fact, 
     find the record of her 3-day employment at our Dayton 
     facility.
       The information provided by Ms. Pratt as to our practices 
     at the Women's Medical Center at Dayton is largely 
     inaccurate. First, she describes Dr. Haskell performing one 
     25-week and one 26-week abortion. Dr. Haskell does not 
     perform abortions past 24 weeks of pregnancy. This is a self-
     imposed limit to which he has scrupulously adhered to 
     throughout the time I have worked for him.

  So let us not be fast and loose with a doctor's lifetime commitment 
to health.

       Second, Dr. Haskell does not use the ultrasound in the 
     performance of second-trimester procedures. We use ultrasound 
     only to determine the pregnancy's gestation. Therefore, her 
     entire description of her experience when viewing the second-
     trimester abortion, which includes Dr. Haskell's using the 
     ultrasound while doing the procedure, is clearly 
     questionable.
       Finally, at no point during a D&E is there any fetal 
     movement or response that would indicate awareness, pain or 
     struggle. Ms. Pratt absolutely could not have witnessed fetal 
     movement as she describes. We do not train temporary nurses 
     in second trimester dilation and extraction since it is a 
     highly technical procedure and would not be performed by 
     someone in a temporary capacity. If, indeed, Ms. Pratt 
     entered the room at any point during a D&E procedure, she 
     clearly either is misrepresenting what she saw or remembers 
     it incorrectly.

  I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


                                   The Women's Medical Center,

                                            Dayton, July 17, 1995.
       Dear Congresswoman Schroeder: I am a registered nurse and 
     have worked since July, 1993, in the Dayton office of Dr. 
     Martin Haskell. In this capacity, I was the nurse that 
     supervised the training of Brenda Pratt during her brief 
     temporary employment at the Women's Medical Center of Dayton. 
     As you know, we initially conducted a search of our 
     employment records under the name ``Brenda Shafer,'' as this 
     was the name she signed to the letter which was given to us. 
     When provided with the correct last name, we did in fact find 
     the record of her three-day employment at our Dayton 
     facility.
       The information provided by Ms. Pratt as to our practices 
     at the Women's Medical Center of Dayton is largely 
     inaccurate. First, she describes Dr. Haskell performing one 
     25-week and one 26-week abortion procedure. Dr. Haskell does 
     not perform abortions past 24 weeks of pregnancy. This is a 
     self-imposed limit to which he has scrupulously adhered 
     throughout the time I have worked for him.
       Second, Dr. Haskell does not use ultrasound in the 
     performance of second-trimester procedures. We use ultrasound 
     only to determine the pregnancy's gestation. Therefore, her 
     entire description of her experience when viewing a second-
     trimester abortion, which includes Dr. Haskell's using the 
     ultrasound while doing the procedure, is clearly 
     questionable.
       Finally, at no point during a dilatation and extraction or 
     intact D&E is there any fetal movement or response that would 
     indicate awareness, pain or struggle. Ms. Pratt absolutely 
     could not have witnessed fetal movement as she describes. We 
     do not train temporary nurses in second trimester dilatation 
     and extraction, since it is a highly technical procedure and 
     would not be performed by someone in a temporary capacity. 
     If, indeed, Ms. Pratt entered the operating room at any point 
     during D&X procedure, she clearly either is misrepresenting 
     what she saw or remembers it incorrectly.
       If you have any further questions, please feel free to 
     contact our office.
           Sincerely,
                                            Christie Gallivan, RN.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I need just about another 10 minutes to 
finish my response, and I know that my colleagues here will 
participate.
  We are talking about pain and suffering. We are talking about 
tragedy, and I am going to read a couple of other stories of women who 
have had to face this. If you notice on the chart, when the chart is 
shown, there is no face of a woman shown. There is no face of a woman 
shown. There is no talk of the woman and the peril to her health and 
the horrible consequences of what could happen to her if she carried 
the fetus to term.
  I want you to hear about Coreen Costello. Coreen was 7 months 
pregnant with her third child when she discovered through ultrasound 
there was something seriously wrong with her baby. The baby, named 
Katherine Grace, had a severe neurological disorder. The movements 
Coreen had been feeling were not the healthy kicking of a baby. They 
were nothing more than bubbles and amniotic fluid which puddled in 
Coreen's uterus rather than flowing through the baby.
  The baby had not been able to move for months. Not move her eyelids, 
not move her tongue, nothing. The baby's chest cavity was unable to 
rise and fall to stretch her lungs to prepare them for air. Her lungs 
and chest were left severely underdeveloped, almost to the point of 
nonexistence.
  The doctors told Coreen and her husband the baby was not going to 
survive. They considered all the options, but all brought severe risks 
to the mother. If Coreen waited to go into labor naturally, there was 
concern her uterus would rupture. I am not going to go into all the 
detail of what that looks like. I am not going to show a chart. They 
considered inducing labor, but were told it would be impossible due to 
the transverse position of the baby, and the fact that the baby's head 
was so swollen with fluid, while the baby's body was stiff.
  Coreen and her husband faced a tragedy that most people never even 
have to face, thank God. In the end, they made a decision to save the 
mother's life, to save Coreen's life. She underwent a late-term 
abortion, and because of this procedure, she is alive today caring for 
her husband and her remaining two children.
  Michele Brydon was 23 weeks pregnant with her third child when she 
went for a routine ultrasound to ensure that her baby was doing OK. The 
result of this ultrasound turned Michele's family life upside down. The 
doctors informed them that the baby--a girl--was suffering from a 
diaphragmatic hernia. The diaphragm protects and separates the heart 
and lungs from the stomach and intestines. A diaphragmatic hernia is a 
hole in the diaphragm, which leaves the baby's heart unprotected and 
pushes abdominal organs, such as her stomach and intestines, into the 
chest. Because of the intrusion of the abdominal organs, there was no 
lung growth. Michelle sought answers from specialists and a pediatric 
surgeon, who might try to fix the hernia. She was told the baby would 
not live; the baby was not compatible with life. She chose, in this 
particular case, to have this procedure.
  In October 1992, Claudia Crown Ades was 6 months pregnant with her 
first child. Everything was perfect. At age 33, she was told there was 
no need for an amniocentesis. But, for some reason, she began to get 
anxious, and her doctor sent her to an ultrasound specialist to ease 
her mind. Three days and four doctors later, Claudia and her husband 
Richard were informed their baby was plagued with severe anomalies, 
including brain damage, heart complications, extra digits, and more. 
The abnormality is known as trisomy-13.
  Claudia and Richard were told their baby would likely not survive the 
pregnancy, and would have little or no chance of living through the 
first year. They were devastated. They were devastated. I do not have a 
chart to show you that they were devastated. They wanted this 
pregnancy, and they were faced with the most agonizing of decisions.
  After Tammy Watts and her husband found out she was pregnant in 
October 1994, they did everything prospective parents do--they 
discussed names, what kind of baby's room they wanted, whether it would 
be a boy or a girl. Everything looked fine.
  Then in a routine 7-month ultrasound, after a few minutes, the doctor 
said, ``There is something I did 

[[Page S 16744]]
not expect to see.'' A mass appeared outside the fetus' stomach.
  Tammy was sent to several specialists for more tests to determine if 
something was indeed wrong with the fetus, or whether the ultrasound 
machine was wrong. The doctors and the genetic counselor gave Tammy the 
worst possible news--the fetus, which was a girl, had no eyes, six 
fingers, six toes, and enlarged kidneys which were already failing. The 
mass on the outside of the stomach involved her bowel and bladder, and 
her heart and other major organs were affected.
  This condition is known as trisomy-13, where on the 13th gene there 
is an extra chromosome. The trisomy-13 was causing the slow death of 
their daughter in utero. If Tammy's baby had died in utero, it would 
have begun to breakdown, releasing fatal toxins into the woman's 
bloodstream.
  Tammy and her family made the hardest decision of their lives, but 
one that saved Tammy's life. These people are here to talk to you. 
Listen to them, look in their eyes, and look at how they love their 
families and their children.
  Women in their late-term pregnancies do not desire, do not 
anticipate, want, or even think about abortion. Women in the late term 
of their pregnancies are anticipating the joy of child birth, the 
fulfillment of motherhood and family.
  Doctors know late-term abortions are dangerous and difficult. They 
are emergency medical procedures done in the most tragic and painful 
circumstances. Yet, this bill would outlaw an emergency medical 
procedure. It will put a doctor in jail because he tried to save a 
woman's life. It is going to happen without a hearing in the Judiciary 
Committee, unless the Republican motion to commit, which will be 
offered by Senator Specter, passes. We were not elected to be doctors, 
and we were not elected to be God. And the States control late-term 
abortions. We have the list.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this list of 
the States with the postviability restrictions. Every single State has 
restrictions.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                States With Post-Viability Restrictions


                                alabama

       No abortion may be performed after viability at an abortion 
     or reproductive health center unless immediately necessary to 
     preserve the woman's life or physical health. Admin. Code r. 
     420-5-1-.03(2)(c) (Supp. 1990).


                                arizona

       No abortion may be performed after viability unless 
     necessary to preserve the woman's life or health. A second 
     physician must be in attendance at a post-viability abortion 
     to provide medical attention to the fetus. Sec. 36-2301.01 
     (1993).


                                arkansas

       No abortion may be performed after viability unless 
     necessary to preserve the woman's life or health or the 
     pregnancy is the result of rape or incest perpetrated on a 
     minor. A second physician must be in attendance at a post-
     viability abortion to provide medical attention to the fetus. 
     Sec. Sec. 20-16-705, -707 (Michie 1991).


                               california

       No abortion may be performed after the 20th week of 
     pregnancy. Health & Safety Sec. 25953 (West 1984). The 
     Attorney General has issued an opinion stating that this 
     provision is unconstitutional as applied to pre-viability 
     abortions and abortions necessary to preserve the woman's 
     life or health. 65 Op. Att'y Gen. 261 (1982).


                              connecticut

       No abortion may be performed after viability unless 
     necessary to preserve the woman's life or health. Sec. 19a-
     602(b) (West Supp. 1993).


                                delaware

       No abortion may be performed after the 20th week of 
     gestation unless continuation of the pregnancy is likely to 
     result in the woman's death. Tit. 24, Sec. 1790 (1987 & Supp. 
     1992). The Attorney General has issued an opinion stating 
     that this provision is invalid and inconsistent with Roe v. 
     Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).


                                florida

       No abortion may be performed in the last trimester of 
     pregnancy unless two physicians certify in writing that the 
     abortion is necessary to preserve the woman's life or health. 
     Sec. 390.001(2) (West 1993). This provision is 
     unconstitutional as applied to pre-viability abortions. A 
     state may not prohibit abortion prior to viability, a point 
     which varies with each pregnancy and may not be declared to 
     occur at a particular gestational age. Colautti v. Franklin, 
     439 U.S. 379, 388-89 (1979).


                                georgia

       No abortion may be performed after the second trimester 
     unless three physicians certify that an abortion is necessary 
     to preserve the woman's life or health. Sec. 16-12-141(c) 
     (Michie 1992). This provision is unconstitutional as applied 
     to pre-viability abortions. A state may not prohibit abortion 
     prior to viability, a point that varies with each pregnancy 
     and may not be declared to occur at a particular gestational 
     age. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89 (1979).


                                 Idaho

       No abortion may be performed after viability unless 
     necessary to preserve the woman's life or unless the fetus, 
     if born, would be unable to survive. Sec. Sec. 18-608(3), 18-
     604(6) (1987). This law unconstitutionally prohibits post-
     viability abortions in cases in which an abortion is 
     necessary to preserve the woman's health. See Roe v. Wade, 
     410 U.S. 113, 165 (1973).


                                illinois

       No abortion may be performed after viability unless 
     necessary to preserve the woman's life or health. A second 
     physician must be in attendance at a post-viability abortion 
     to provide medical attention to the fetus. Ch. 720, act 510 
     Sec. Sec. 5,6 (Michie 1993).


                                indiana

       No abortion may be performed after viability unless 
     necessary to prevent a substantial permanent impairment of 
     the life or physical health of the woman. A second physician 
     must be in attendance at a post-viability abortion to provide 
     medical attention to the fetus. Sec. Sec. 16-34-2-1(3), 16-
     34-2-3(b) (West Supp. 1993). This law unconstitutionally 
     prohibits some post-viability abortions that are necessary to 
     preserve the woman's health. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 
     164-165 (1973).


                                  iowa

       No abortion may be performed after the end of the second 
     trimester unless necessary to preserve the woman's life or 
     health. Sec. 707.7 (West 1979). This provision is 
     unconstitutional as applied to pre-viability abortions. A 
     state may not prohibit abortion prior to viability, a point 
     which varies with each pregnancy and may not be declared to 
     occur at a particular gestational age. Colautti v. Franklin, 
     439 U.S. 379, 388-89 (1979).


                                 kansas

       No abortion may be performed after viability unless the 
     attending physician and another, financially independent 
     physician determine that an abortion is necessary to preserve 
     the woman's life or the fetus is affected by a severe or 
     life-threatening deformity or abnormality. Sec. 65-6703 (1992 
     & Supp. 1993). The Attorney General has issued an opinion 
     stating that abortion cannot be prohibited at any time when a 
     woman's health is at risk, and has filed a lawsuit requesting 
     a court order stating that this law is unconstitutional and 
     enjoining its enforcement. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 91-130 (Oct. 
     15, 1991); Stephan v. Finney, No. 93-CV-912 (Kan. D. Ct. 
     filed Aug. 4, 1993).


                                kentucky

       No abortion may be performed after viability unless 
     necessary to preserve the woman's life or health. 
     Sec. 311.780 (Michie/Bobbs-Merrill 1990).


                               louisiana

       No abortion may be performed after viability unless 
     necessary to preserve the woman's life or health. A second 
     physician must be in attendance at a post-viability abortion 
     to provide medical attention to the fetus. Sec. 40:1299.35.4 
     (West 1992).


                                 maine

       No abortion may be performed after viability unless 
     necessary to preserve the woman's life or health. Tit. 22, 
     Sec. 1598 (West 1992 & Supp. 1993).


                                maryland

       Abortion may be prohibited after viability unless necessary 
     to preserve the woman's life or health or unless the fetus is 
     affected by genetic defect or serious deformity or 
     abnormality. Health-Gen. Sec. 20-209 (Supp. 1993).


                             massachusetts

       No abortion may be performed after the 24th week of 
     pregnancy unless necessary to preserve the woman's life or to 
     prevent a substantial risk of grave impairment to her 
     physical or mental health. Ch. 112, Sec. 12M (West 1983). 
     This provision is unconstitutional as applied to pre-
     viability abortions. A state may not prohibit abortion prior 
     to viability, a point that varies with each pregnancy and may 
     not be declared to occur at a particular gestational age. 
     Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89 (1979). This law 
     also unconstitutionally prohibits some post-viability 
     abortions that are necessary to preserve the woman's health. 
     See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 165 (1973).


                                michigan

       Any person who intentionally causes an abortion that is not 
     necessary to preserve the woman's life is guilty of 
     manslaughter if the abortion occurs after quickening. 
     Sec. 750.323 (West 1991) (enacted 1931). A court has ruled 
     that this law is not unconstitutional as applied to viable 
     fetuses. Larkin v. Cahalan, 208 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. 1973). This 
     law is unconstitutional as applied to pre-viability 
     abortions. A state may not prohibit abortions prior to 
     viability, a point that varies with each pregnancy and may 
     not be declared to occur at a particular gestational age. See 
     Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89 (1979). This law 
     is also unconstitutional as applied to post-viability 
     abortions necessary to preserve the woman's health. See Rose 
     v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 165 (1973).

[[Page S 16745]]



                               minnesota

       No abortion may be performed after the second half of the 
     gestation period (20 weeks) unless necessary to preserve the 
     woman's life or health. A second physician must be 
     immediately accessible at a post-viability abortion to take 
     all reasonable measures to preserve the life and health of 
     the fetus. Sec. Sec. 145.412(sub. 3), 145.411(sub. 2), 
     145.423(sub. 2) (West 1989). A court has ruled that the 
     provision restricting abortion after 20 weeks is 
     unconstitutional.


                                missouri

       No abortion may be performed after viability unless 
     necessary to preserve the woman's life or health. A second 
     physician must be in attendance at a post-viability abortion 
     to provide medical attention to the fetus. Sec. 188.030 
     (Vernon 1983).


                                montana

       No abortion may be performed after viability unless 
     necessary to preserve the woman's life or health. Sec. 50-20-
     109(1)(c) (1993).


                                nebraska

       No abortion may be performed after viability unless 
     necessary to preserve the woman's life or health. Sec. 28-329 
     (1989).


                                 nevada

       No abortion may be performed after the 24th week of 
     pregnancy unless that is a substantial risk that continuance 
     of the pregnancy would endanger the woman's life or gravely 
     impair her physical or mental health. Sec. 442.250 (1991). 
     This law is unconstitutional as applied to pre-viability 
     abortions. A state may not prohibit abortions prior to 
     viability, a point that varies with each pregnancy and may 
     not be declared to occur at a particular gestational age. See 
     Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89 (1979). This law 
     is also unconstitutional as applied to some post-viability 
     abortions necessary to preserve the woman's health. See Roe 
     v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 165 (1973).


                             new hampshire

       No abortion may be performed after quickening, unless 
     necessary to preserve the woman's life. Sec. 585:13 (1986). 
     This provision is unconstitutional as applied to pre-
     viability abortions. A state may not prohibit abortion prior 
     to viability, a point that varies with each pregnancy and 
     which may not be declared to occur at a particular 
     gestational age. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89 
     (1979). This law also unconstitutionally prohibits post-
     viability abortions that are necessary to preserve the 
     woman's health. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 165 (1973).


                                new york

       No abortion may be performed after the 24th week of 
     pregnancy unless necessary to preserve the woman's life. When 
     an abortion is performed after the 20th week of pregnancy, a 
     second physician must be in attendance to provide medical 
     attention to the fetus. Penal Law Sec. 125.05(3) (McKinney 
     1987); Pub. Health Sec. 4164 (McKinney 1985). These 
     provisions are unconstitutional to the extent that they 
     prohibit pre-viability abortions. A state may not prohibit 
     abortion prior to viability, a point that varies with each 
     pregnancy and which may not be declared to occur at a 
     particular gestational age. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 
     379, 388-89 (1979). This law also unconstitutionally 
     prohibits post-viability abortions that are necessary to 
     preserve the woman's health. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 
     165 (1973).


                             north carolina

       No abortion may be performed after 20 weeks of pregnancy 
     unless there is a substantial risk that continuance of the 
     pregnancy would threaten the woman's life or gravely impair 
     her health. Sec. 14-45.1(b) (1986). These provisions are 
     unconstitutional as applied to pre-viability abortions. A 
     state may not prohibit abortion prior to viability, a point 
     that varies with each pregnancy and may not be declared to 
     occur at a particular gestational age. Colautti v. Franklin, 
     439 U.S.C. 379, 388-89 (1979). This law also 
     unconstitutionally prohibits some post-viability abortions 
     that are necessary to preserve a woman's health. See Roe v. 
     Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 165 (1973).


                              north dakota

       No abortion may be performed after viability unless the 
     attending physician and two other licensed physicians who 
     have examined the woman concur that the procedure is 
     necessary to preserve the woman's life or continuation of the 
     pregnancy would impose on her a substantial risk of grave 
     impairment to her physical or mental health. A second 
     physician must be in attendance at a post-viability abortion 
     to provide medical attention to the fetus. Sec. Sec. 14-02.1-
     04, 14-02.1-05 (1991). This law unconstitutionally prohibits 
     some post-viability abortions that are necessary to preserve 
     the woman's health. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113,165 (1973).


                                  ohio

       No abortion may be performed after viability unless two 
     physicians certify in writing that it is necessary to 
     preserve a woman's life or to prevent a serious risk or 
     substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily 
     function. The physician must use the abortion method most 
     likely to result in fetal survival, a second physician must 
     be in attendance to provide medical attention to the fetus, 
     and the abortion must be performed in a health care facility 
     with access to neonatal services for premature infants. This 
     law is scheduled to become effective on November 15, 1995. A 
     lawsuit has been filed challenging the constitutionality of 
     these provisions. Women's Medical Professional Corp. v. 
     Voinovich, (S.D. Ohio filed Oct. 27, 1995).


                                oklahoma

       No abortion may be performed after viability unless 
     necessary to preserve the woman's life or health. A second 
     physician must be in attendance at a post-viability abortion 
     to provide medical attention to the fetus. Tit. 63, Sec. 1-
     732 (West 1984).


                              pennsylvania

       No abortion may be performed after the 24th week of 
     pregnancy unless the attending physician and another 
     physician who has examined the woman concur that the 
     procedure is necessary to preserve the woman's life or to 
     prevent a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major 
     bodily function. A second physician must be in attendance at 
     a post-viability abortion to provide medical attention to the 
     fetus. Tit. 18, Sec. 3211 (Supp. 1994). This law is 
     unconstitutional as applied to pre-viability abortions. A 
     state may not prohibit abortion prior to viability, a point 
     that varies with each pregnancy and may not be declared to 
     occur at a particular gestational age. Colautti v. Franklin, 
     439 U.S. 379, 388-89 (1979). This law also unconstitutionally 
     prohibits some post-viability abortions that are necessary to 
     preserve the woman's health. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 
     165 (1973).


                              rhode island

       No abortion may be performed after viability unless 
     necessary to preserve the woman's life. Sec. 11-23-5 (1981). 
     This law unconstitutionally prohibits post-viability 
     abortions that are necessary to preserve the woman's health. 
     See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 165 (1973).


                             south carolina

       No abortion may be performed after the 24th week unless the 
     attending physician and another independent physician certify 
     that the abortion is necessary to preserve the woman's life 
     or health. Sec. Sec. 44-41-20(c), -10(k), (l) (Law. Co-op. 
     1985 & Supp. 1990). A court has ruled that this provision is 
     unconstitutional as applied to pre-viability abortions. Floyd 
     v. Anders, 440 F. Supp. 535 (D.S.C. 1977), vacated without 
     opinion on other grounds, 440 U.S. 445 (1979).


                              south dakota

       No abortion may be performed after the 24th week of 
     pregnancy unless necessary to preserve the woman's life or 
     health. Sec. 34-23A-5 (1986). This provision is 
     unconstitutional as applied to pre-viability abortions. A 
     state may not prohibit abortion prior to viability, a point 
     that varies with each pregnancy and may not be declared to 
     occur at a particular gestational age. Colautti v. Franklin, 
     439 U.S. 379, 388-89 (1979).


                               tennessee

       No abortion may be performed after viability unless 
     necessary to preserve the woman's life or health. Sec. 39-15-
     201(c)(3) (1991).


                                 TEXAS

       No abortion may be performed after viability unless 
     necessary to prevent the death or a substantial risk of 
     serious impairment to the physical or mental health of the 
     woman or if the fetus has a severe and irreversible 
     abnormality. Art. 4495b, Sec. 4.011(b), (d) (West Supp. 
     1994). This law unconstitutionally prohibits some post-
     viability abortions that are necessary to preserve the 
     woman's health. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 165 (1973).


                                  UTAH

       No abortion may be performed after 20 weeks unless 
     necessary to preserve the woman's life, to prevent grave 
     damage to the woman's medical health, or to prevent the birth 
     of a child that would be born with grave defects. 
     Sec. Sec. 76-7-302(3) (1990 & Supp. 1993). A court has ruled 
     that this provision is unconstitutional. Jane L. v. 
     Bangerter, 61 F. 3d 1493 (10th Cir. 1995).


                                Virginia

       No abortion may be performed subsequent to the second 
     trimester unless the attending physician and two other 
     physicians certify that continuation of the pregnancy is 
     likely to result in the woman's death or substantially and 
     irremediably impair the woman's physical or mental health. 
     Sec. 18.2-74 (Michie 1988). This provision is 
     unconstitutional as applied to pre-viability abortions. A 
     state may not prohibit abortion prior to viability, a point 
     that varies with each pregnancy and may not be declared to 
     occur at a particular gestational age. Colautti v. Franklin, 
     439 U.S. 379, 388-89 (1979). This law also unconstitutionally 
     prohibits some post-viability abortions that are necessary to 
     preserve the pregnant woman's health. See Roe v. Wade, 410 
     U.S. 113, 165 (1973).


                               Washington

       No abortion may be performed after viability unless 
     necessary to protect the woman's life or health. 
     Sec. Sec. 9.02.110, 9.02.120 (Supp. 1994).


                               Wisconsin

       No abortion may be performed after viability unless 
     necessary to preserve the woman's life or health. Sec. 940.15 
     (West Supp. 1993).


                                Wyoming

       No abortion may be performed after viability unless 
     necessary to protect the woman from imminent peril that 
     substantially endangers her life or health. Sec. 35-6-102 
     (1988). This law unconstitutionally prohibits some post-
     viability abortions that are necessary to preserve the 
     woman's health. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113,165 (1973).

  Mrs. BOXER. So this is about politics. I can only conclude that it is 


[[Page S 16746]]
about a zeal to outlaw all abortion. We had that. I lived through that. 
Others lived through that. Women died because they could not get 
access. That is what this is about.
  I can only conclude that it is about a commitment to the extreme 
right, who has made this a litmus test issue. I can only conclude that 
their commitment to State rights which, by the way, when they repealed 
nursing home standards, they said let the States set those standards. 
We said, wait a minute, we need to have Federal nursing home standards 
because our seniors will go back to the days when they were scalded in 
the bathtubs, sexually abused, and worse. They said, no, no, no, we 
believe in States rights. Well, here they are overstepping the States. 
The States control this in the late term of a pregnancy.
  It is their desire to take the most painful and difficult and tragic 
circumstances and turn them into a political win. Without any 
hesitation, I can state that if it passes--and I know the President 
will not sign it because he already said he will not because it makes 
no exception to preserving the life and health of the mother--but if 
something happened that and President was not there and it was another 
President and that President signed the bill, women will die, and they 
will be our babies that we raised. Those are the babies that will die.
  What kind of country do we want to be? I say to my friend, we have to 
look at that. Is this going to be a country which outlaws a medical 
procedure that is used to save a woman's life? Are we going to put 
women to their death? What is next, the Government deciding when people 
should die? Maybe we will withhold life procedures that Senators do not 
think are nice, and they will have charts and say withhold that 
procedure from your grandmother. Well, not on my watch, not on my 
watch.
  I want to close by asking every male Senator to picture this: Your 
32-year-old daughter or your 28-year-old daughter comes home to you--
or, more likely, you get a call from the emergency room at the 
hospital, and the doctor says, ``I do not know how to tell you this, 
but if I am going to save your child's life, your baby's life, I have 
to act now because she is in danger and in jeopardy''--I beg my 
colleagues to put themselves in that position and be honest about this 
issue because you know what you would say. You would ask questions; you 
would find out if there is any way to save this pregnancy, if there is 
any way to save her life or the baby's. But if it came down to that, 
after you checked and double checked and found out that this one 
emergency procedure, and only that, could save her life, you would say, 
``Doctor, with the help of God, do what you were trained to do and save 
my baby's life.'' I think if Senators are really honest, they will vote 
to send this bill to the Judiciary Committee, where it will be in front 
of the committee that is sharply divided on the issue of abortion, 
where doctors can come forward, where nurses can come forward, where 
women can come forward, where they can be questioned, where a nurse who 
said she saw this can be questioned, where a doctor who performs this 
can be questioned, so that we can have all the information that we 
need.
  I ask my colleague from Maryland if she would like me to yield to her 
because I know she has been waiting here for hours.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate that, but I also note there is another 
Senator here. I have a very short statement. But I know the Senator has 
been waiting for some time, as well.
  Mr. DeWINE. Either way. It does not matter.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Is the Senator's statement long?
  Mr. DeWINE. Mine is probably about 10 minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Why do we not stick to the tradition of alternating. If 
I might respond to the Senator from California, I think the most 
important thing in a debate like this is for us to maintain civility 
and the traditions of the Senate. I will be happy to wait my turn. I 
thank the Senator for her concern.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friends, I really appreciate the spirit with 
which we entered this debate. I hope it will be the spirit that we have 
throughout this debate. It surely is difficult.

  I think I have made the case for why I think it is important to send 
this bill to the committee. I think I have made the point that when we 
talk about babies we have to talk about all of the life involved in 
this: My daughter and your daughter, your baby, the fetus in a late 
term which is so desperately wanted by the family, and why this is such 
a tragic decision for families.
  And why for the first time in history, for Congress to ban a medical 
procedure that sometimes is the only way to save the woman's life is 
getting us down a slippery slope, and why it is very important to have 
a closer look at this, to be the greatest deliberative body in the 
world.
  I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DeWINE. Let me thank my colleague from Maryland for her 
graciousness in regard to alternating back and forth on the two sides 
of the aisle regarding this bill.
  I rise today in strong support for the partial-birth abortion bill. I 
think everyone knows, in this Chamber at least, that I am pro-life. But 
the comments I make today are not really directed directly at those in 
the Chamber who are pro-life, but at those who would consider 
themselves to be pro-choice.
  I will address some of the concerns that might be raised in regard to 
this bill by people who do consider themselves pro-choice.
  As my colleague has so eloquently pointed out, when the House of 
Representatives took this bill up and ultimately voted on it, there 
were a number of people who I am sure still today describe themselves 
as pro-choice, who voted for this bill: Representative Bonior, 
Representative Gephardt, Representative Susan Molinari, Representative 
Patrick Kennedy. So I think it is clear that people who consider 
themselves pro-choice can, in fact, vote for this piece of legislation.
  I think it is important as we debate today, Mr. President, that we 
narrow the focus of the debate to the specific bill in front of us, to 
the language contained in that bill. I believe that, if Members of this 
Chamber will do that, they will find that the legislation does deserve 
the support, not just of those of us who consider ourselves pro-life, 
but also of those who consider themselves pro-choice.
  I have seen it quoted in the paper that there are those who argue 
that this particular piece of legislation will rollback Roe versus 
Wade. I do not think that is true. In fact, I know it is not true.
  It is perfectly possible, Mr. President, and intellectually coherent 
and intellectually consistent, to endorse this legislation and at the 
same time support the decision in Roe versus Wade. I do not happen to 
support Roe versus Wade, but I do believe that by narrowly focusing on 
this piece of legislation--what it will do, what it will prevent--a 
person would come to the conclusion that it is not inconsistent with 
Roe versus Wade.
  This bill, Mr. President, is not a ban on abortions. It is not even a 
restriction on when an abortion may be performed. Let me repeat that. 
It is not a restriction on when an abortion may be performed.
  Restrictions of that kind were actually envisioned by Roe versus 
Wade. If you carefully read Roe versus Wade, it is clear that was 
envisioned by the Court. Roe versus Wade did make the distinction 
between the different trimesters.
  Even though Roe versus Wade allowed for that kind of restriction, 
this bill does not restrict the timeframe for a woman contemplating an 
abortion. All this bill does is abolish one particular procedure. All 
this bill does is abolish one particular procedure.
  My friend and colleague from New Hampshire has described this 
procedure in great detail. It was unpleasant to listen. At one point I 
literally walked off the floor. But I compliment him for having the 
courage to come to this floor and to talk about the facts and to lay 
out before this Senate and before the American people what, exactly, we 
are talking about.
  Stripping away the pleasant rhetoric that is usually used in 
describing in great detail exactly what this single procedure and what 
this bill is about, and what it actually does. I think we all can agree 
that this procedure is especially cruel, unusual and inhumane.
  Prof. Robert White is the director of the Division of Neurosurgery 
and Brain 

[[Page S 16747]]
Research Laboratory at Case Western Reserve University. He testified 
before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.
  Let me just stop at this point in response to my colleague from 
California, her comment that this bill should be sent back, sent back 
to the Judiciary Committee of the Senate for hearings. There were 
significant hearings held in the Judiciary Committee in the House of 
Representatives that covered both sides of this particular issue.
  I think in this case, at least, any additional hearings would be 
redundant. The facts are basically here in front of us.
  Let me go back to the quote from Professor White when he testified 
before the House Judiciary subcommittee on the discussion. He said that 
fetuses that are subjected to this procedure are ``fully capable of 
experiencing pain;'' ``fully capable of experiencing pain.''
  Mr. President, they endure that terrible procedure that we have heard 
described, and they are fully capable during that time of experiencing 
this pain.
  We should, Mr. President, take some comfort in the fact that the 
procedure is not performed very frequently. It is rare. The fact is it 
should not be performed at all. It is an unnecessary procedure. Even 
from the perspective of the pro-choice community.
  Mr. President, some Senators have expressed concern about whether the 
mother will be adequately protected without the availability of this 
procedure. If you talk to the medical community about this they will 
tell you that if a mother's life is in danger they certainly have more 
humane ways of terminating the pregnancy to save her.
  Let me turn, if I could, Mr. President, to a matter that has been 
raised already on this floor and that I know will be raised again. That 
is, the exception for the life of the mother. In this bill, there is 
such an exception. It is called an affirmative defense.
  Let me read from the statute of the proposed bill.

       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 before a physician who reasonably believed, one, 
     the partial-birth abortion was necessary to save the life of 
     the mother and, two, no other procedure would suffice for 
     that purpose.

  This is the only way, I submit, that as a practical matter such an 
exception can be included in this type of legislation.
  Affirmative defenses are not new. Affirmative defenses, as the 
occupant of the chair, the Presiding Officer knows very well, go back 
throughout history. They include things that we all know about: 
insanity, for example, or self-defense. In fact, they are contained in 
the Federal Code in 30 or 31 different statutes.
  For those who have prosecuted at the State level, we all know about 
affirmative defenses, as well. Affirmative defenses are usually written 
into the statute when the knowledge about the fact is uniquely in the 
hands or control of the defendant.
  I submit that is true in this particular case. To not have it 
included as an affirmative defense, but rather to write it directly 
into the statute, would pose a situation that would be virtually 
impossible to deal with in court, as the prosecutor would have to 
basically prove a negative in every single case and then would, in 
fact, have to get inside the mind of the defendant. This is the type of 
situation where affirmative defenses are historically used. In the 
Federal Code, 30 or 35 times affirmative defenses are mentioned and 
are, in fact, built into the statute.
  The legal test, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, never changes. Every 
element has to be proven. It has to be proven beyond a reasonable 
doubt. The question of the affirmative defense comes in as raised by 
the defendant and there, when it is raised by the defendant, the legal 
standard is a very, very low standard; that standard is preponderance 
of the evidence, evidence which is of greater weight, more convincing 
than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it. It is a 
balancing test. That is all the defendant has to do.
  To summarize, to those who are especially concerned about the life of 
the mother in this regard, as we all should be, this bill does contain 
an affirmative defense for doctors who act with a reasonable belief 
that this procedure is necessary to save the mother's life. As a former 
prosecutor, I can state it is relatively common in criminal law, both 
at the Federal level and State level, to provide this exception, to 
provide exceptions to general rules. Among the most common examples are 
self-defense and the insanity defense. There are more than 30 of these 
affirmative defenses in the current Federal law.
  For example, to a charge of witness tampering, there is an 
affirmative defense that the intent of the defendant was to encourage 
truthful testimony. In cases of failure to appear, there is an 
affirmative defense of uncontrollable circumstances. In cases of 
knowing endangerment, there is an affirmative defense that the 
endangered person consented to a professionally approved medical 
treatment.
  These protections for defendants are relatively common, and the 
Federal courts know how to deal with them. The affirmative defense in 
this bill is a sensible and rational provision to protect doctors and 
patients.
  We should not lose sight of the real health issue involved here. 
According to Dr. Pamela Smith of the department of ob-gyn at Mount 
Sinai Hospital in Chicago, the procedure of partial abortion itself 
poses risks to the health of the mother. She cites several examples, 
and then she concludes:

       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.

  This is a pretty clear medical conclusion. Frankly, as I examine the 
facts, I see no reason why this Senate--those who consider themselves 
pro-life and those who consider themselves pro-choice--should not 
approve overwhelmingly this bill. This debate will continue, I am sure, 
into the night tonight and into tomorrow.
  I ask, again, that my colleagues listen to the narrow focus of the 
debate. Look at the language in the bill. Recall the basic facts that 
we have in front of us in regard to what this medical--medical 
procedure--actually entails.
  I think, after Members do this, there is only one logical conclusion 
that they can come to, and that is, whether pro-life or pro-choice, 
they have to vote to ban this horrible, brutal operation.
  I thank my colleague from Maryland, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the pending 
business before the U.S. Senate. Let me say at the outset, I believe 
that good people can differ on the matter of abortion. I believe this 
is an issue so profound that it requires the utmost thoughtfulness and 
the utmost dignity, even as we debate this.
  I would also like to state what pro-choice means. We often use the 
phrase pro-choice or pro-life. We pro-choice people happen to think we, 
too, are pro-life. We are not anti-life. For us, the question is not 
what is decided; the question is who decides. For the pro-choice 
community, we believe that decisions related to abortion should not be 
made on the floor of the U.S. Congress but should be left in the 
doctor's consultation room.
  So our position, when we say pro-choice, is that we believe it is a 
decision not to be made by Congress, not to be made by a conference 
committee, not to be determined through a Presidential veto, but should 
be determined between a physician and the patient. That is why we say 
we are pro-choice.
  There are any number of circumstances why an abortion is either 
medically necessary or medically appropriate. There is no way the U.S. 
Congress can look at these issues or even anticipate what a variety of 
these medical circumstances are. Within this great institution, there 
is only one physician, and I know there are no nurses. Some have strong 
scientific background, but we are not capable of that. These are 
decisions that need to be made on a case-by-case basis, based on the 
medical circumstances and the religious convictions of the individual 
families that are involved, not the collective wisdom or lack of it by 
the U.S. Congress.
  This is why, when we say we are pro-choice, I say we are not anti-
life. We are for appropriate decisions to be made based on what is 
medically appropriate and what is the individual 

[[Page S 16748]]
family circumstances and their own religious convictions. So that is a 
general statement. But on this bill, I would like to say, too, that 
this bill requires very careful study. It is far reaching. It strikes, 
too, at that very core of the doctor-patient relationship that I have 
just commented upon.
  I bring to everyone's attention, there have been no hearings on this 
bill in the U.S. Senate. Yes, there was a hearing in the House. But 
this is the U.S. Senate. If a House hearing counted, we would not hold 
hearings on anything. We would have not held hearings on the tax bill, 
we would not hold hearings on the budget, we would not hold hearings on 
welfare reform. We, the U.S. Senate, must act as our own body, and I 
believe it is up to the Senate to conduct its own hearing on this most 
sensitive, most difficult issue.
  The ban that is being proposed would have an effect far beyond the 
issue of abortion. For the first time, the Congress would be directly 
regulating what medical procedures a doctor can and cannot provide. It 
is a tremendous intrusion into medical practices.
  I know tomorrow morning, the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator 
Specter, will be offering a motion to send the bill back to the 
committee for a hearing, with a time certain for reporting it back. I 
will support the motion, and I want everyone to understand that the 
motion to recommit for a hearing is not dodge ball, where we, by 
referring it back, we avoid the vote. It is to be sure that when we do 
vote, we will have heard from all who have an interest in this 
legislation.
  Under this legislation, I want to bring out that Congress could make 
criminals out of doctors who perform a procedure which, in their expert 
opinion, is medically necessary to save a woman's life or to prevent 
serious adverse risk to her health. Supporters of the legislation like 
to point out that the bill contains a so-called affirmative defense 
which allows for procedures performed to save a woman's life. But what 
does that mean? If you read the bill carefully, you see that this is 
not a life exception. It means that after a doctor has suffered the 
humiliation of arrest, being handcuffed, forced to hire an attorney, 
and posted bond and a trial is underway, the doctor can testify that he 
or she believed the procedure was the only method that would have saved 
the woman's life. This completely shifts the burden of proof to the 
doctor after an arrest has been made. We criminalize this. The doctor 
has to prove that the procedure was the only procedure that could have 
saved the woman's life.

  What is more, there is no such affirmative defense for cases where 
the woman and her doctor have decided the procedure is necessary to 
preserve the woman's health and future fertility.
  The bill before us is a tremendous assault on Roe versus Wade. Under 
Roe, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the constitutional right 
of women to seek an abortion, and has rejected as unconstitutional 
those laws that do not allow for late-term abortions necessary to 
preserve the life or health of the mother. The Court has repeatedly 
affirmed the right of the physician to make that decision, along with 
the woman, as to what is in the best interest. The Court has rejected 
laws that would require the physician to put the health of the fetus 
before the health of the woman. In decision after decision, the Court 
has affirmed that the woman's health must remain the doctor's paramount 
concern. This bill would overturn that premise.
  So this bill is carefully crafted to directly attack the 
underpinnings of Roe versus Wade, and the bill's sponsors, particularly 
in the House, have already served notice that their intention is to 
completely outlaw abortion, one procedure at a time.
  Mr. President, I believe this bill is radical and far reaching. This 
bill has not been the subject of a single day of hearings in the 
Senate. We have not heard from one witness, especially the medical 
community. No committee has deliberated on the language of the bill and 
understands the full consequences of this. This is simply unacceptable.
  The abortion issue is a sensitive and controversial one. Emotions run 
high whenever we debate this issue. That is why it is so crucial that, 
before we vote on this bill, it should be subject to the careful study 
that committee hearings and deliberation would provide. I would support 
a limit on the time being referred to the committee, a 30- to 40-day 
limit. We could vote before this Congress adjourns for the holiday 
recess.
  For myself, I would like to hear the testimony from the proponents of 
the bill about why they believe Members of Congress are better able 
than physicians to decide what medical procedures are appropriate for 
women facing the tragedy of a late-term abortion. I think the Senate 
should hear from women who face the painful decision of terminating a 
wanted pregnancy, and whose doctors have selected this method.
  I think the Senate should hear from the physicians who perform this 
procedure so that we can understand why it is sometimes necessary, and 
what would happen to these women if this procedure were banned. I want 
to hear from the American College of ob-gyn's. They are the experts in 
this field. The Senate should hear their testimony about what they 
think about this bill. I have been informed that they think it is 
misguided. Let them present the testimony. Let us have a discussion 
with that.
  There are 13,000 physicians of the American Medical Woman's 
Association who oppose this bill. We should hear why. Is it the 
procedure, or is it the Federal intrusion? We hear so much about the 
Federal intrusion into people's lives. This is the most profound of 
Federal intrusions. But again, let us hear from the doctors. Let us 
hear from the doctors about this issue.
  This issue is too complex, and its implications too profound to let 
it come to the floor for debate without due consideration through the 
committee process. Regardless of any Senator's views on abortion, I 
believe that every Senator should support the motion that will be 
offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania to send the bill to the 
committee. This is not an undue delay. It is a responsible thing to do. 
The Senate is known as the world's greatest deliberative body. On 
something so sensitive, and so complex, I do believe that we should 
hear from the American medical community who can give us guiding advice 
on this, and also for those women who face this issue, many of whom 
will tell us their story, and others who have faced this issue and 
chose another path.
  I believe the Senate should be open-minded, listen to advice, and 
then in a rational and deliberative way which is characteristic of both 
this body and I believe those in the House who even differ on the 
abortion--that our decisions be based on a rational set of information 
going through the traditional committee process in which there can be 
the questioning back and forth of the witnesses.
  So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the motion that 
will be offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania tomorrow and urge, if 
that does not pass, the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. President, I thank you for your attention. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I believe Senator Ashcroft will speak 
momentarily, and I will be happy to yield to the Senator when he gets 
here.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SMITH. Certainly.
  Mrs. BOXER. I understand Senator Kennedy will be here momentarily.
  Mr. SMITH. If Senator Kennedy gets down, or Senator Ashcroft, I would 
be happy to yield.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the motion that will 
be offered by several of our Republican colleagues to refer this bill 
to the Judiciary Committee.
  Many of us oppose this legislation and believe it should not pass in 
any form. This measure is the latest attack by some of our colleagues 
in their continuing all-out assault against a woman's constitutional 
right to choose whether to continue her pregnancy. The proponents of 
this misguided legislation make no secret that their goal is to ban all 
abortions.
  The procedure involved in this case is extremely rare. It involves 
tragic and 

[[Page S 16749]]
traumatic circumstances late in pregnancy in cases where the mother's 
life or health is in danger. These cases should not be dealt with by 
the criminal law, and our colleagues are wrong to try to criminalize 
them.
  Who in this Chamber would second-guess the medical judgment of a 
physician if such a case arose affecting a member of a Senator's own 
family?
  Who in this Chamber would sacrifice a wife or daughter by rejecting 
the medical procedure needed to save her life?
  Surely, the debate by the Senate on the serious issues raised by this 
bill should take place after, not before, the Senate Judiciary 
Committee has had a reasonable opportunity to consider it fairly and 
hear testimony on both sides.
  It is sad to see the leadership of the Senate so bent on meeting the 
right-wing's antiabortion litmus tests that they are willing to trample 
the integrity of the Senate legislative process.
  Clearly, this legislation is not ready for final action by the full 
Senate at this time. It is a travesty of responsible deliberation for 
some Senators to pretend that it is. It is irresponsible for supporters 
of this measure to insist on such action without benefit of regular 
committee consideration.
  Extremely important issues are at stake, and the Senate should not be 
stampeded by the shock tactics of the shock troops of the extremists 
who oppose all abortions at any stage of pregnancy.
  The Senate has a duty to act responsibly, and to hear from both sides 
in this controversy, especially the views of the medical profession. 
Let us reject this Alice in Wonderland approach to serious 
legislation--sentence first, verdict afterward.
  Clearly, in light of the far-reaching questions raised by the purpose 
of this bill and the confusing details of its provisions, it would be 
premature for the Senate to act.
  Enactment of this legislation would represent the first time in 
American history that Congress has outlawed a specific medical 
procedure.
  It would represent the first time in American history that Congress 
has threatened doctors with prison terms for practicing their 
profession.
  It would threaten the life or health of hundreds of American women 
each year.
  It would undermine the Supreme Court's landmark 1973 decision in Roe 
versus Wade, which guarantees a woman's right to choose whether or not 
to continue a pregnancy. In fact, the legislation is so poorly drafted 
that it is likely to be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court 
under Roe and subsequent decisions.
  This issue raises fundamental questions about the Federal 
Government's proper role, if any, in the doctor-patient relationship. 
Few aspects of the lives of ordinary citizens are as sensitive and as 
deserving of privacy as the relationship between patients and their 
physician. Yet this bill puts the Federal Government directly into the 
doctor's office in the most intrusive way, by attempting to substitute 
Congress' political judgment for a doctor's medical judgment.
  Despite the importance and complexity of these issues, this bill has 
received no consideration whatever by any Senate committee. The bill 
was passed by the House of Representatives last week. It had only 1 day 
of hearings in the House, and that day could hardly be called fair or 
balanced or objective.
  A Senate bill similar to the House bill was introduced earlier this 
year by Senator Smith.
  But it was placed directly on the Senate Calendar--in an obvious 
effort to avoid the kind of committee consideration it clearly needs.
  This bill is not a resolution to establish National Ice Cream Week, 
or to honor a sports championship team. This is a bill that would 
criminalize a particular medical procedure and send doctors who use it 
to prison.
  The bill purports to ban a procedure that the bill's proponents refer 
to as ``partial-birth abortion.'' The term was invented by politicians, 
not doctors. It appears in no medical textbook and has no well-
understood meaning in the medical or scientific community.
  Medical experts should have an opportunity to testify about any bill 
that presumes to rewrite medical procedures and ban them, especially 
when Congress is defining and naming a medical procedure that the 
medical profession does not recognize. If Congress wants to play 
doctor, it should hear from doctors first.
  The Judiciary Committee should also hear from constitutional scholars 
about the constitutionality of this bill under Roe versus Wade and 
subsequent Supreme Court decisions.
  In addition, the committee should hear from constitutional scholars 
about its constitutionality under the void-for-vagueness doctrine. As 
recent press reports make clear, this bill's terminology is so vague 
that doctors will not know what it means or which medical procedures 
are actually being criminalized.
  Obviously, the proponents of this legislation are making a political 
statement with this bill.
  One purpose of their vague language is to intimidate as many 
physicians as possible by threatening them with possible prosecution if 
they perform medical procedures that could be covered by the vague 
nonmedical language of this bill in its present form. Those who want to 
ban all abortions do not mind this kind of vagueness in a criminal 
statute--but the Constitution does.
  The Supreme Court is likely, therefore, to rule that this bill is 
unconstitutional twice--once under Roe versus Wade, and once under the 
void-for-vagueness doctrine.
  When this bill was debated in the House, its proponents actually 
boasted that it was the first step in an effort to reverse Roe versus 
Wade and deny women the constitutional right to choose whether or not 
to bear a child.
  I believe that a solid bipartisan majority of the Senate supports Roe 
versus Wade and a woman's right to choose, and that this legislation 
will ultimately be defeated.
  But that is not the issue here. The motion to send this bill to the 
Judiciary Committee protects all sides in this controversy. It directs 
the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on the bill and report it back 
to the full Senate with amendments, if any, in 45 days.
  Surely, legislation so far-reaching and unprecedented deserves at 
least that degree of responsible consideration. What are its proponents 
trying to hide?
  I urge the Senate to refer the bill to the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support H.R. 1833, the 
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. When the Founding Fathers drafted the 
Constitution of the United States, they made it abundantly clear that 
one of the most crucial roles of government is to ``secure the 
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.''
  Yet, over the past few decades, the value of life in America has been 
substantially cheapened, and the opportunity for liberty diminished. 
The rise in drive-by shootings, gang warfare, and abandoned babies, all 
point to the fact that life in America is not considered as precious as 
it used to be.
  One of the most gruesome indicators of the decline in the value of 
life is the practice of partial-birth abortions. A partial-birth 
abortion is an abortion in which the person performing the abortion 
partially delivers a living baby before killing the baby and completing 
the delivery.
  H.R. 1833 will bring an end to this grisly procedure. Opponents of 
this bill try to disguise partial-birth abortions as reproductive 
health services, but a close examination of the procedure shows it is 
no such thing. When performing a partial-birth abortion, the individual 
first grabs the live baby's leg with forceps and pulls the baby's legs 
into the birth canal. He then delivers the baby's entire body, except 
for the head; jams scissors into the baby's skull and opens them to 
enlarge the hole. Finally, the scissors are removed and a suction 
catheter is inserted to suck the baby's brains out. This causes the 
skull to collapse, at which point the dead baby is delivered and 
discarded.
  Mr. President, this procedure is cruel and indefensible, and it is an 
assault to the common values of the American people. Listen to what 
nurse Brenda Pratt Shafer, who witnessed one of these abortions, had to 
say in her letter to Congressman Tony Hall:

       The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were 
     clasping together. He was kicking his feet. All the while his 
     little head was still 

[[Page S 16750]]
     stuck inside. Dr. Haskell took a pair of scissors and inserted them 
     into the back of the baby's head. Then he opened the scissors 
     up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole 
     and sucked the baby's brains out. I almost threw up as I 
     watched him do these things.

  Mr. President, several medical experts have recently stated that this 
is not a medically necessary procedure. The American Medical 
Association's Council on Legislation--which unanimously supports 
banning this procedure--also stated that partial-birth abortions are 
``not a recognized medical technique'' and concurred that the 
``procedure is basically repulsive.''
  I agree this procedure is repulsive; it is the grotesque killing of a 
new-born baby. Its feet are out, its hands are out, its legs are 
kicking, its arms are reaching. It is a new-born baby. Think of what 
kind of society we live in when we fine and arrest people for affecting 
the habitat of an endangered kangaroo rat but explicitly allow the 
abhorrent practice of sucking out the brains of a new-born baby.
  Moreover, most partial-birth abortions are performed for purely 
elective reasons. Martin Haskell, who is one of the chief advocates of 
this procedure, stated to AMA News in a July 1993 interview that, 
``I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 
week range. In my particular case, probably 20 percent are performed 
for genetic reasons. And the other 80 percent are purely elective. * * 
*''
  Despite the consensus in the medical community that these procedures 
are not used to save the life of the mother, H.R. 1833 contains a 
safeguard for any practitioner who reasonably believes this procedure 
is necessary to save the life of the mother. This legislation is 
balanced and well-reasoned, and it merits our support.
  Mr. President, we need to return to the premise that life in America 
is precious and sacred. Our Nation's children are our hope and our 
future, and government at all levels has an incumbent responsibility to 
protect these children who cannot protect themselves. I support this 
legislation and urge my colleagues to support it as well.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 
debate only during the remainder of today's consideration of H.R. 1833, 
and at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow Senator Specter be recognized to make a 
motion to commit the bill to the Judiciary Committee, and that a vote 
occur on the motion at a time to be determined by the majority leader 
after consultation with the Democratic leader, with no amendments in 
order during the pendency of the motion to commit; and further, that 
the time between 9:30 and 12:30 tomorrow morning be equally divided 
between Senator Smith and Senator Specter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object--as 
a matter of fact, I think this is an excellent request--I just want to 
clarify with my friend that we are looking at a vote around the 12:30 
hour. In other words, it is our intention certainly by 1:30 to have 
disposed of the motion. Is that his understanding of it?
  Mr. SMITH. That is correct. We anticipate a vote sometime in the 
vicinity of 12:30, not before 12:30. It could be 12:45 or 1:30. But 
there is no intention to delay matters beyond that. It is our intention 
to have any speakers who may wish to speak this evening or tomorrow 
morning on the bill on either side, and we would divide that time 
equally.
  Mrs. BOXER. Clearly, I say to my friend, if we do decide to go over 
another 45 minutes, we could equally divide it in the same fashion. I 
know that is not in the request, but I am sure that is the way we would 
work together.
  Mr. SMITH. I have no objection to that.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, in light of this agreement, on behalf of 
the majority leader, I will announce that there will be no more votes 
during the remainder of today's session.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking the senior 
Senator from New Hampshire for his work on this legislation. Few have 
done more for the unborn than has Senator Smith, I am pleased to join 
him as an original cosponsor of the bill before us today.
  In just the past several months our work has been witness to acts of 
terror in Oklahoma City and again over the weekend in Israel. Each of 
these cases has been surrounded by voices of concern for the harsh 
rhetoric many feel provoked the atrocities. While I do not know how 
thoroughly I agree with that analysis, it does point out the need for 
our national debate on even the most divisive issues to be civil, to be 
reasoned--to win, arguments must not merely move the heart, they must 
persuade the mind.
  And so today, that is what I want to accomplish--to speak with 
civility and reason about the horror of partial-birth abortions which 
literally rip a child from its mother's womb.
  As I mentioned earlier, abortion is the divisive moral issue of our 
day. It hits at our deepest notions of liberty and questions our most 
fundamental assumptions about life.
  For more than 20 years now, abortion-on-demand has been the law of 
the land. I think it a poor law and I think it an immoral one. But for 
now it is the law and it must be observed.
  The bitter fruits of this law have been the death of over 30 million 
human begins who will never know what it means to learn and live and 
laugh among us. The inhumanity of this loss can never be gauged, never 
be measured, never fully be felt. We saw yesterday humanity's grief at 
the funeral of Yitzhak Rabin. A great man was mourned by a grateful 
world. How much greater the grief of 30 million lives that will never 
know peace, never know love, never know the warmth of a father's 
embrace or the strength of a mother's love?
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Missouri 
for his comments on the bill and on the procedure and for his comments 
with regard to my involvement in this issue. I appreciate it. No one in 
the Senate is more committed to this issue and a more honorable man. I 
appreciate very much his friendship and support on this bill.
  Mr. President, I would like to make a couple of comments on this 
motion to refer back to the Judiciary Committee. As a recap here, bear 
in mind that the House Judiciary Committee held a number of hearings. 
The Judiciary Committee held a hearing. They had a subcommittee markup, 
a committee markup, they had a committee report. The House had a full 
debate. It passed after that full debate by a vote of 288-139. And so 
to say that somehow we need to refer this bill back to committee, back 
to the Judiciary Committee, is nothing more than a dilatory process. 
And really the reason for it is quite simple. It is an effort not to 
have to make this vote. It is a reason to avoid the tough question. It 
is a reason for those who basically want abortion on demand to not have 
an opportunity to vote on this procedure, which we have all heard is 
the most outrageous procedure.
  In addition, the AMA Legislative Council voted twice to endorse it. 
They did not need further study. They are the experts. We are having a 
full debate here on the Senate floor.
  I just want to point out to my colleagues, if you do not approve of 
this process, this motion to refer is a hostile motion to that issue. 
If you refer this matter to the Judiciary Committee, you are saying 
that you want this process to continue. That is really what you are 
saying. Some will say that is not true, we want to study it more and 
have more hearings. How much more study do you have to have 

[[Page S 16751]]
than what we have already had with the process that we see? Why do we 
have to study something as obvious as this is? We have all the medical 
experts, we have all the testimony from people who worked in abortion 
clinics, who have observed Dr. Haskell and others. We have the nurse's 
testimony. We have the testimony of the abortion doctors. We have the 
testimony of other medical doctors. It is an effort to make sure that 
the full Senate does not have to face this matter.
  This is one of the things about politics and politicians that just 
turns the American people off. Whatever your position is, if you feel 
that taking the life of a child with only its head in the womb is 
right, then vote that way. Go ahead and vote that way. That is your 
right. You have the right. That is your vote and I respect that.
  But to delay it further and send it back to the Judiciary Committee--
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee does not want the bill sent 
back. Yet, apparently, Senator Specter is going to try to send it back 
there against the wishes of the chairman. I hope that we will respect 
the wishes of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, not some member 
of the committee, who simply supports this process, who wants this bill 
to be delayed. This is the reason for it. It is not to have hearings. 
We can have hearings until hell freezes over. It is not going to change 
anything. How many more hearings do you have to have? How many more 
people do you have to have testifying saying that we are killing babies 
this way? How many more times do you have to hear it? How many more 
times do you have to see these charts? How many more times?
  So I want my colleagues to understand when you come in here tomorrow 
and we deal with this issue between the hours of 9:30 and 12:30, that 
there will be an effort here to send this bill back to Judiciary 
Committee--not to have hearings. That is just a facade. It is to delay 
the bill and eventually kill it so that we do not have to vote on it.
  You are killing more than a bill if you do this, you are killing 
hundreds of children. On average, remember, there is at least one 
partial-birth abortion per day. So every day we delay it, there is one 
more child. We are not talking about the debate. I happen to believe 
that, after conception, it is a living child. That is not what we are 
talking about. We have been through this before. I will not repeat it 
all. But we are talking about a child in the birth canal, and one a day 
is killed.
  So I just say to my colleagues, is there really anything that you are 
going to hear or see in the Judiciary Committee hearings that is going 
to change your mind? You either support this procedure or you do not. 
If you do not support it, do not delay it by sending the thing back to 
the Judiciary Committee.
  So I encourage my colleagues, if you have something to say on this, 
to be here tomorrow and be prepared to express yourself. Please bear in 
mind that delaying this accomplishes nothing except delay. That is what 
the American people get so upset with us about--that we do not make 
decisions. We just debate and talk.
  Let me tell you, if debate and words could solve the world's problems 
and America's problems, we would sure do it here on the floor of the 
Senate because we are all good at debating. But that does not get the 
job done. Do you support this process of taking the life of an unborn 
child--partially-born child--or do you not? If you do not, then do not 
vote to delay further the vote to stop it. That is the issue, pure and 
simple.
  The American people, I think, are up to here, Mr. President, with 
everybody dodging issues. I really think they are up to here with it. 
Why do we not just face up to it? I would respect that. Let us face up 
to it and just say that we are going to have an up-or-down vote, we are 
not going to have these phony issues of sending it to the Judiciary 
Committee or maintaining that there is not a life of the mother 
exception when there is one, or that there is deformity, or that 
somehow it is right to take a child that is deformed from the womb. Let 
us deal with the issue at hand, which is this process, this procedure. 
Let us have an honest up-or-down vote on it, tomorrow hopefully, and 
get it to the President's desk. That is what the issue is about.
  Mr. President, at this time, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think we are winding down debate this 
evening and we will have an opportunity tomorrow to cast a very 
important vote on a motion by Senator Specter, a Republican Member of 
the Senate, cosponsored by six other Republican Members of the Senate, 
to take an issue that is precedent-setting, precedent-breaking, and 
refer it to a committee that needs to look at it. Why do I say that? I 
say that because if this House bill passes the Senate as it is, this 
would be the first time, that anyone around here can verify, that a 
medical procedure has been banned by the Congress of the United States 
of America--a medical procedure that is used in the most tragic, most 
difficult circumstances, where a life is at stake, a life of the 
mother, with serious health implications for the mother.
  As one of my constituents who called during the debate said, there is 
more than one baby involved here, because the mother was somebody's 
baby at one time.
  As I said, I ask Senators not to dodge this at all, but before they 
vote, close their eyes and think it was their daughter--their 
daughter--who they adore, where there was an emergency call and the 
doctor they respected and admired who had brought other children into 
the world said, ``Your daughter is facing a tragic situation. If I do 
not perform a particular medical procedure, she could be dead. I cannot 
guarantee that she would live if I use any other procedure.''
  You would say, I believe--believe me, I am not putting words in your 
mouth, this is what I think you would have said--``Have you double 
checked? Have you triple checked? Have you tried another idea? Have you 
tried another approach? How do you know? Have you done all the tests?''
  If the doctor answered those questions to your satisfaction, you 
would say, ``With the help of God, save my child.''
  I think that is what we are coming down to here--not somebody's 
contract, not somebody's ideology, but with a human decision that must 
be made, tragically, by too many American families.
  So we have never before banned a medical procedure as far as we can 
verify. This is one where it is used in these tragic circumstances--and 
I went through some of those circumstances --we have people here 
willing and ready to talk to colleagues, people who have gone through 
this procedure, who have made gone through this tragic choice, who are 
happy to talk about it.
  They are not political. I do not know what party they are in. I can 
just tell you they are human beings, they suffered, they struggled, and 
they want to spare other people, frankly, not only the pain, but the 
loss of life that will ensue if a lifesaving procedure is, in fact, 
outlawed by this Congress.
  It is not about ducking issues; it is about making informed choices 
here for us.
  How can we make an informed choice, I say to my friends and 
colleagues, if the committee that writes the laws about criminalization 
does not even have a look at this, and this would criminalize a 
procedure that is used by a doctor in tragic and terrible 
circumstances. We are going to put that doctor in jail. This greatest 
deliberative body in the world is not even going to hold a hearing.
  I am very pleased to see seven Republican colleagues put this motion 
forward. It is common sense. It is highly appropriate.
  I happen to believe if we did this willy-nilly and President Clinton 
was not there and there was another President who did not believe that 
it is important to save the life of the mother or protect her health 
and another President signed this, women would die.
  Why do I say that? Not to be sensationalist. I do not have charts. I 
do not have pictures. But we know this is used in tragic circumstances. 
I think we should come together as a Senate, regardless of our view on 
this issue, and send this to the Judiciary Committee.
  There is a time certain. It is 45 days. It could be sooner. It could 
be sooner. That is an outside date. 

[[Page S 16752]]

  I just hope colleagues will consider this, recognize the precedent-
setting nature of this House bill, and vote to send it to the Judiciary 
Committee, which is a very, very fair committee to send it to in terms 
of its membership. We get a fair hearing. Hear from the doctors.
  Do not have Senators come on the floor who never spent a day in 
medical school describe a procedure, tell you how it feels when a baby 
comes down the birth canal. I know how that feels. I can talk about 
that. But I am not a doctor. We are not doctors. We are certainly not 
God.
  I believe that we need to do the prudent thing here: Send this to the 
Judiciary Committee. They will look at some amendments. Yes, there is 
an affirmative defense for a physician. If he uses this procedure 
because he thinks under the Hippocratic oath, this is the only way he 
can save the life of this mother, he has committed a criminal act--he 
or she, as the case may be. That physician--in the bill--yes, can go to 
the court and defend himself or herself and explain why he did this.
  What kind of society is this where we will haul a doctor into a 
courtroom for saving a woman's life? That is not a society that is a 
good society. That is not a society that looks after its people.
  We are not doctors here. We are not God. We have to do the best we 
can to make wise and sound decisions.
  It always strikes me as being very strange when we hear States' 
rights advocated on this floor of the Senate day in and day out. We 
even voted in this Senate, the Republicans did, with a couple of 
exceptions--not many--to completely abolish nursing home standards, and 
when we won a vote to restore them, that was overturned by the Roth 
amendment, which says there is a waiver in the process so States could 
have no Federal standards for nursing homes. Why? They said, ``Oh, we 
trust the States.''
  Well, my friends, under Roe versus Wade the States control abortion 
after the first trimester. That is clear. I have printed in the Record 
a list of every State and all the restrictions in those States. This 
would wipe out all those restrictions.
  I find it amazing that some of my Republican friends, and certainly 
not all--some--would argue States rights in repealing Federal standards 
for nursing homes, but then come right around and say, ``We do not 
trust the States when it comes to late-term abortion.''
  This is about a whole other agenda. That is why I hope we can rise 
above a political agenda--this is a political agenda--and do what is 
right for the American people.
  Let me say this. We do not put people in jail for political crimes in 
this country. This is what is so great and unique in America. We do not 
put people in jail for political crimes.
  But I honest to God believe this, that if we outlaw a procedure which 
might be the only procedure to save a woman's life, and a doctor uses 
it and the doctor does wind up in jail because there is no exception 
for the life of the mother in this radical legislation, he would be 
serving time for a political crime. He would be in there for a 
political reason--somebody's agenda. I just hope that we can come 
together.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________