[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 192 (Tuesday, December 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18002-S18011]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 1833
  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. 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.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from 
California, Senator Feinstein, be allowed to speak until such time as 
the majority leader comes to the floor and has a chance to discuss with 
the manager of the bill how we are going to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as everyone knows, about a week ago 
the Judiciary Committee held hearings on this so-called partial-birth 
abortion legislation. I wanted to speak today on what I learned from 
the hearings and my reasons for opposing this bill. Let me summarize 
those reasons up front, and then go into each one specifically.
  First, I believe that this bill attempts to ban a specific medical 
procedure which is called, in this bill, a ``partial-birth abortion,'' 
but there is no medical definition for what a ``partial-birth 
abortion'' is.
  Second, the language in the bill is so vague that I believe it will 
affect more than any one single medical procedure.
  Third, the bill presumes guilt on the part of the doctor, so that 
every physician may have to prove that in fact he did not perform this 
procedure, or justify his reasons for so doing if he did.
  This bill could be an unnecessary, I think an unconscionable 
complication to families who face many tragic circumstances involving 
severely deformed fetuses. I also believe it is an unnecessary Federal 
regulation, since 41 States have already outlawed post-viability 
abortions, except to save a woman's life or health.
  Finally, I hope to make a case that this bill is very carefully 
crafted to provide a direct challenge to Roe versus Wade.
  First and foremost, this legislation claims to outlaw a medical 
procedure called a partial-birth abortion. As I said, this medical term 
does not, in fact, exist. It does not appear in medical textbooks. It 
does not appear in medical records. The medical doctors who testified 
before the Senate Judiciary Committee 2 weeks ago could not identify, 
with any degree of certainty or consistency, what medical procedure 
this legislation refers to.
  I would like to read some of the responses to my question in the 
committee, when I asked these doctors what a partial birth abortion is.
  Dr. Pamela Smith, director of ob/gyn medical education at Mt. Sinai 
Hospital in Chicago, said it was ``* * * a perversion of a breech 
extraction.''
  Dr. Nancy Romer, a practicing ob/gyn and assistant professor at 
Wright State University School of Medicine, said it is ``a dilation and 
extraction, distinguished from dismemberment-type D&Es.''
  Dr. Norig Ellison, President of the American Society of 
Anesthesiologists, who was at the hearing to represent 
anesthesiologists who supposedly participate in these procedures, said, 
``I pass on that one. I am as confused as you are.''
  And, Dr. Mary Campbell, medical director of planned parenthood of 
Washington, defined it as ``* * * a procedure in which any part of the 
fetus emerges from the cervix before the fetus has been documented to 
be dead.''
  Others have said it is an ``intact dilation and evacuation,'' or a 
``total breech extraction.''
  I asked Dr. David Grimes of the University of California at San 
Francisco this same question, and he put it in writing.

       First, the term being used by abortion opponents, 
     ``partial-birth abortion,'' is not a medical term. It is not 
     found in any medical dictionary or gynecology text. It was 
     coined to inflame, rather than to illuminate. It lacks a 
     definition.
       As I understand the term, opponents of abortion are using 
     this phrase to describe one variant of the dilation and 
     evacuation procedure, known as a D&E, which is the dominant 
     method of second trimester abortion in the United States.
       Second trimester abortion.
       If one does not use the D&E, the alternative methods of 
     abortion after 12 weeks gestation are total birth abortion--
     labor induction is more costly and painful--or hysterotomy, 
     which is the more costly, painful, and hazardous.
       Given the enviable record of safety of all D&E methods as 
     documented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
     there is no public health justification for any regulation or 
     intervention in a physician's decisionmaking with the 
     patient.

  Then I asked one of the professors who testified at the hearing about 
this. I will get to what he said in a moment. But for just 1 minute let 
me read the exact language of the bill. We have heard testimony from 
the authors that this refers to a breech extraction by stopping the 
head from leaving the birth canal and injecting scissors into the base 
of the skull and draining fluid. But the definition of the bill is 
entirely different. The bill says, ``The term `partial-birth abortion' 
means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially 
delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the 
delivery.'' There is no reference to scissors in the bill. There is no 
reference to drawing fluid from the brain in this bill. In fact, many 
people believe that the purpose of this bill is really to get at second 
trimester abortions.
  I believe that the language in this bill, Mr. President, is vague for 
very deliberate reasons, because by making it vague every doctor that 
performs even a second trimester abortion could face the possibility of 
prosecution in that he or she could be hauled before a court and have 
to defend their abortion. So this bill in effect could affect all 
abortions.
  I asked the legal and medical experts who testified at the Judiciary 
Committee hearing last week if this legislation could affect abortion--
not just late-term abortions but earlier abortions of nonviable fetuses 
as well. Dr. Louis Seidman, professor of law from Georgetown, gave the 
following answer, and I quote:

       . . . as I read the language, in a second trimester pre-
     viability abortion where the fetus will in any event die, if 
     any portion of the fetus enters the birth canal prior to the 
     technical death of the fetus, then the physician is guilty of 
     a crime and goes to prison for 2 years.

  That is a law professor's reading of the bill. He then continued his 
testimony, and I quote:

       If I were a lawyer advising a physician who performed 
     abortions, I would tell him to stop because there is just no 
     way to tell whether the procedure will eventuate in some 
     portion of the fetus entering the birth canal before the 
     fetus is technically dead, much less being able to 
     demonstrate that after the fact.


[[Page S 18003]]

  Dr. Richardson, associate professor of gynecology and obstetrics at 
Johns Hopkins, in testimony before a House Committee said, ``[the 
language] . . . is vague, not medically oriented, and just not correct. 
In any normal second trimester abortion procedure by any method, you 
may have a point at which a part, a one-inch piece of [umbilical] cord, 
for example, of the fetus passes out of the cervical [opening] before 
fetal demise has occurred.
  So contrary to proponents' claims, this bill could affect far more 
than just the few abortions performed in the third trimester and far 
more than just one procedure being described.
  Another part of this bill which is very troubling to me is that an 
affirmative defense automatically presumes guilt. The legislation 
provides what is known as the ``affirmative defense,'' whereby an 
accused physician could escape liability only by proving that he or she 
``reasonably believed'' that the so-called banned procedure--whatever 
that procedure is proved to be--was necessary to save the woman's life 
and that no other procedure would have sufficed. I think it also opens 
the door to the prosecution of any doctor who performs a second or 
third trimester abortion for any purpose whatsoever.
  As has been said, there is no health exception in this bill at this 
point. With that, it offers a direct challenge to both Roe versus Wade 
and Planned Parenthood versus Casey, both of which provide a health 
exception.
  So, if this legislation were law, a pregnant woman seriously ill with 
diabetes, cardiovascular problems, cancer, stroke, or any other health-
threatening illness would be forced to carry the pregnancy to term or 
run the risk that her physician could be challenged and have to prove 
in court, A, what procedure he actually used, and B, whether or not the 
abortion partially, vaginally delivered a living fetus before the death 
of that fetus.
  One of the things that also came forward very clearly in this and is 
important to point out is that any third trimester abortion is 
virtually always used in the case of severe fetal abnormality, and the 
fact is that not always is this fetal abnormality able to be detected 
early in the pregnancy. Many women undergo sonograms and other routine 
medical procedures in the early weeks of pregnancy to monitor fetal 
development. If a woman is over 35 years of age, she may also undergo 
amniocentesis. These tests are not routine in women under 35. 
Ultrasound could also provide early detection of fetal anomalies. But 
these tests also add considerable expense and are not routinely used 
until late in pregnancy.
  As a result, some women carry fetuses with severe birth defects late 
into pregnancy without knowing it. For example, fetal deformities that 
are not easy to spot early on in the pregnancy include: cases where the 
brain forms outside the skull, or the stomach and intestines form 
outside the body, or do not form at all; or fetuses with no eyes, ears, 
mouths, legs, or kidneys--sometimes tragically unrecognizable as human 
at all.
  But even with advanced technology, many serious birth defects can 
only be identified later, often in the third trimester when the fetus 
reaches a certain size. Among those is hydrocephaly. Another 
abnormality is polyhydramnios--too much amniotic fluid.
  So families that face these unexpected tragedies are often only 
diagnosed late in their pregnancy. In fact, both Senator Smith, I 
believe, and Senator Hatch said none of the women who came before the 
committee and talked about their third trimester abortion--all of which 
were the product of major fetal deformities--would be affected by that 
legislation, but every one of them testified after reading the bill and 
believing that they would have been affected by this legislation.
  I think that only points out the vagueness and the flaws in the 
drafting of this legislation. In fact, no one knows who would really be 
affected by this legislation.
  The next point I would like to make is that Roe already allows States 
to ban late-term abortions. It clearly allows States to ban all post-
viability abortions unless necessary to protect a woman's life or 
health. And 41 States have already done that. So all I can believe is 
that the purpose of this bill is to invade a guarantee provided by Roe 
versus Wade, and that is to protect the health of the mother or the 
life of the mother.
  As a matter of fact, my colleagues have made much of a statement made 
by an obstetrician/gynecologist, Dr. Martin Haskell, of Dayton, OH, who 
indicated that 80 percent of the late-term abortions he performed were 
so-called elective. I would like to point out that just this year Ohio 
became the 41st State to ban all post-viability abortions. So, clearly 
that State has taken care of whatever it was that Dr. Haskell was doing 
by banning all third-trimester abortions. As I said, 40 other States 
have done this. So this legislation is effectively unnecessary.
  The whole focus of this Congress has been to remove the Federal 
Government where it is within the rights of the State to legislate. Yet 
this is the first time I can remember in this Congress, when the State 
has a clear right and ability to legislate and, in fact, has done so in 
41 States, that the Federal Government is now saying, no, that is not 
enough. We want to legislate federally.
  Let me touch for a moment on the commerce clause. I believe, and 
others do as well, that this legislation is meaningless under the 
commerce clause because it would only apply to patients or doctors who 
cross State lines in order to perform an abortion under these specific 
circumstances, whatever they may eventually be adjudicated to be. So 
what is the point?
  The point is, that this legislation, I believe, has little or nothing 
to do with stopping the use of some horrific and unnecessary medical 
procedure performed by evil or inhumane doctors. If that were simply 
the case, we would all be opposed. I believe this legislation's major 
purpose is the camel's nose under the tent to get at second-trimester 
abortions and to put a fear over all legitimate physicians, 
obstetricians who do perform an abortion when an abortion is 
necessary--a fear that they could be hauled into court and have to 
defend themselves and prove that they did not perform whatever a 
partial-birth abortion is eventually adjudicated to be.
  So the legislation is vague, it is flawed, and it presumes guilt on 
the part of the doctor. It ignores the vital health interest of women. 
I believe these are strong reasons to vote against this bill.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is H.R. 1833.


                           Amendment No. 3080

          (Purpose: To provide a life-of-the-mother exception)

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3080.

  Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 2, at the end of line 9, insert the following:
       ``This paragraph does not apply to a partial-birth abortion 
     that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is 
     endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury, 
     provided that no other medical procedure would suffice for 
     that purpose.''


                Amendment No. 3081 to Amendment No. 3080

  Mr. DOLE. I send a second-degree amendment to the Smith amendment to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3081 to amendment No. 3080.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       In the pending amendment, strike all after the word 
     ``This'' and insert in lieu thereof 

[[Page S 18004]]
     the following: ``paragraph shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion 
     that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is 
     endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury, 
     provided that no other medical procedure would suffice for 
     that purpose.
       This paragraph shall become effective one day after 
     enactment.''

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we now return to important legislation to 
ban a reprehensible procedure that has no place in a civilized society. 
The ban on the so-called partial-birth abortions passed the House by a 
vote of 288 to 139 on November 1. The Senate called for a hearing on 
the legislation before the Committee on the Judiciary which was held on 
November 17.
  The testimony before the Judiciary Committee reinforced what we 
already knew--this is a straightforward and narrowly crafted bill that 
bears no similarity to the caricature offered by those who oppose the 
bill.
  Thus, for example, the hearing highlighted what medical authorities 
have already made clear--there is no situation where the life of a 
mother is at risk that calls for a partial-birth abortion. After all, 
this is a procedure that takes place over several days. In short, 
arguments about protecting the life of the mother are merely an attempt 
to scare people and avoid defending the indefensible.
  Nonetheless, since there is no situation where the life of the mother 
calls for a partial-birth abortion, there is no reason not to make 
clear with explicit language that this legislation would not apply in 
any situation where the life of the mother is endangered. I therefore 
support the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Smith, in taking this 
issue off the table.
  Mr. President, this is a bill that deserves overwhelming bipartisan 
support. This is our opportunity to show the American people that we 
can rise above the argument that says that compassion must give way to 
a rigid ideology that refuses to recognize any constraints of decency.
  I therefore urge my colleagues to support Senator Smith's amendment 
and to support the bill on final passage.
  I now understand the Senator from Arkansas is going to set these 
amendments aside and offer a different amendment.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, with that understanding, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from 
New Hampshire, second-degreed by the majority leader from Kansas, be 
set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SMITH. Reserving the right to object. Just to clarify, that is 
amendment No. 3080 and amendment No. 3081 to amendment No. 3080, is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the Chair's understanding.
  Mr. SMITH. No objection.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 3082

  (Purpose: To clarify certain provisions of law with respect to the 
         approval and marketing of certain prescription drugs)

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I have an amendment that I send to the desk 
at this time and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], for himself, Mr. 
     Chafee, and Mr. Brown, proposes an amendment numbered 3082.

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . APPROVAL AND MARKETING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

       (a) Approval of Applications of Generic Drugs.--For 
     purposes of acceptance and consideration by the Secretary of 
     an application under subsections (b), (c), and (j) of section 
     505, and subsections (b), (c), and (n) of section 512, of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355 (b), (c), 
     and (j), and 360b (b), (c), and (n)), the expiration date of 
     a patent that is the subject of a certification under section 
     505(b)(2)(A) (ii), (iii), or (iv), section 505(j)(2)(A)(vii) 
     (II), (III), or (IV), or section 512(n)(1)(H) (ii), (iii), or 
     (iv) of such Act, respectively, made in an application 
     submitted prior to June 8, 1995, or in an application 
     submitted on or after that date in which the applicant 
     certifies that substantial investment was made prior to June 
     8, 1995, shall be deemed to be the date on which such patent 
     would have expired under the law in effect on the day 
     preceding December 8, 1994.
       (b) Marketing Generic Drugs.--The remedies of section 
     271(e)(4) of title 35, United States Code, shall not apply to 
     acts--
       (1) that were commenced, or for which a substantial 
     investment was made, prior to June 8, 1995; and
       (2) that became infringing by reason of section 154(c)(1) 
     of such title, as amended by section 532 of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act (Public Law 103-465; 108 Stat. 4983).
       (c) Equitable Remuneration.--For acts described in 
     subsection (b), equitable remuneration of the type described 
     in section 154(c)(3) of title 35, United States Code, as 
     amended by section 532 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
     (Public Law 103-465; 108 Stat. 4983) shall be awarded to a 
     patentee only if there has been--
       (1) the commercial manufacture, use, offer to sell, or 
     sale, within the United States of an approved drug that is 
     the subject of an application described in subsection (a); or
       (2) the importation by the applicant into the United States 
     of an approved drug or of active ingredient used in an 
     approved drug that is the subject of an application described 
     in subsection (a).
       (c) Applicability.--The provisions of this section shall 
     govern--
       (1) the approval or the effective date of approval of 
     applications under section 505(b)(2), 505(j), 507, or 512(n), 
     or the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355 
     (b)(2) and (j), 357, and 360b(n)) submitted on or after the 
     date of enactment of this Act; and
       (2) the approval or effective date of approval of all 
     pending applications that have not received final approval as 
     of the date of enactment of this Act.


                Amendment No. 3083 to Amendment No. 3082

(Purpose: To clarify the application of certain provisions with respect 
  to abortions where necessary to preserve the life or health of the 
                                 woman)

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3083 to amendment No. 3082.
       At the end of the amendment, add the following new 
     sentence: ``The prohibition in section 1531 (a) of Title 18, 
     United States Code, shall not apply to any abortion performed 
     prior to the viability of the fetus, or after viability 
     where, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, 
     the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the woman 
     or avert serious adverse health consequences to the woman.''.
  Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. First, I would like to just take a very, very few moments 
of the Senate's time this evening to explain basically what my 
amendment does. I know there will be no vote on this amendment this 
evening, Mr. President. I realize that. I know that to accommodate some 
schedules tomorrow, it is likely that we will come back to this 
legislation late in the afternoon.
  But having said that, Mr. President, I would like to state that this 
amendment relates to the issue of GATT and prescription drugs. I have 
spoken on this issue on several occasions on the floor of the Senate. 
And I would like, if I might, to just take a very few moments to 
explain basically what we have done and what I plan to speak about 
tomorrow.
  When Congress voted on the GATT treaty, Mr. President, we did two 
things. First, we extended all patents from 17 to 20 years in duration. 
Second, we said in the GATT treaty that a generic drug company could 
market their product on a 17-year expiration date if they had already 
made a substantial investment and were willing to pay a royalty to the 
particular drug company that they were going in competition with.
  We all considered and all agreed that this was a fair balance of 
interests. The treaty, Mr. President, applies in our country to every 
person, to every product, to every company and every industry in our 
country. We thought it was fair. We thought it was universal. But we 
were wrong. We simply made a mistake.
  We accidentally left the prescription drug industry out of the 
picture. Today there are certain prescription drug companies that get 
the patent extension, but the GATT loophole shields them from any 
generic competition. Why is this, Mr. President? 

[[Page S 18005]]

  First, because we by our own mistake--and we should admit that 
mistake; and, by the way, we have the opportunity to correct that 
mistake--we failed to have the food, drug and cosmetic law of our 
country comply to the GATT treaty language.
  Second, the Food and Drug Administration tried in vain to correct 
this mistake. The U.S. Patent Office tried in vain to correct this 
mistake, but to no avail because the law was written and we failed to 
conform the food, drug, and cosmetic law to the specific GATT treaty 
language.
  The drug industry is the only industry which enjoys this special 
protection under GATT. The American consumers are going to be paying, 
therefore, much more for their drugs as a result, as much, as a matter 
of fact, $2 to $6 billion a year more.
  If we take Zantac, for example, Mr. President, the world's best 
selling drug for uclers, we will have to pay a price twice as much as 
we would be paying for a generic competitor. As a matter of fact, Mr. 
President, tomorrow, on Wednesday, we will see the drug company that 
manufactures Zantac--we will see that particular company taking in 
profits that they did not expect of $2 to $6 billion a year, unless we 
correct this outrageous loophole.
  There is no conceivable reason why we should allow this loophole to 
remain uncorrected. Mickey Kantor, our own U.S. Trade Representative, 
the Patent Office, and the FDA all agree that it should be fixed. Even 
the drug companies admit that it was all a mistake.
  Mr. President, we think that our cause is correct, and on behalf of 
Senator Chafee of Rhode Island and Senator Brown of Colorado, I submit 
this amendment this evening. We will be talking about this amendment 
and what it does tomorrow. But I urge my colleagues to remember: 
Congress made a mistake. It led to consumers being forced to subsidize 
an unjustified multibillion-dollar windfall to a few undeserving 
companies. And tomorrow, we will have our sole opportunity to do the 
right thing and correct this mistake.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, yesterday I spoke, I thought, at great 
length about this bill. For the first time, it would criminalize a 
medical procedure that saves lives. The important part, I thought, of 
the Judiciary hearing was that we had testimony from physicians who 
said clearly it is sometimes extremely risky to use other procedures. 
Cesarean sections or induced labor could cause the woman to bleed to 
death, to have serious health consequences even if she pulled through, 
and sometimes those consequences impact on her ability to have children 
at a later date.
  What I did last night, and what I intend to do throughout the course 
of this debate--I will not go on at length tonight--is to try and put 
the woman's face on this issue. We see many times my colleague from New 
Hampshire bring out the diagram, and it shows the lower part of a 
woman's body. It is almost as if a woman's body is a vessel. It does 
not show the woman's face. It does not show her anguish when she learns 
that her baby is in serious trouble and could even die if she went 
forward with birth. So it is my intention to put that face on.
  The women who came forward at that hearing were magnificent in their 
courage. I received many other letters from other women who said, 
``Please, Senator Boxer, don't let them talk about this as if it 
doesn't affect real, living moms and dads and families who desperately 
want these children but who come upon these horrible outcomes of 
pregnancies.''
  We deal here with situations in life that we hope never happen to any 
of us or our loved ones or anyone at all. We do not wish these things 
on anyone: When a woman, who is so excited about this pending birth of 
a child, goes to the physician in the late stages of her pregnancy and 
suddenly is told the most horrible news that the baby's brain is 
growing outside the skull, that there are no eyes. My colleague, 
Senator Feinstein, talked about that. These anomalies go along with a 
great threat to the woman's life if the fetus is carried to term.
  My colleagues say nobody ever talks about baby. Yes, I want to talk 
about baby. This is a baby. This is a late-term abortion. This is an 
emergency medical procedure, and I hope that the Senate will not go 
down the slippery slope of outlawing a procedure.
  Where do we stop? Senator Simon said yesterday he has heard about 
some procedures that are used for brain tumors and he has questions 
about them. We are not a medical school here. As Senator Kennedy said, 
we should not be Senators practicing medicine without a license. We 
should leave that to physicians. And physicians are split. The 
physicians that came before the Judiciary Committee, some said this is 
a necessary procedure, we need it to save the life of a mother, protect 
her health and her fertility. Others said it is not.
  I say, let us be conservative. Even if several physicians--and their 
qualifications were never questioned by the committee--say it could 
mean a woman's life, let us not take away her option to have a safe 
conclusion to a very tragic event because of some political agenda. We 
have a lot of work to do around here. We have a lot of debate to do 
around here with the budget, where we are seeing looming ahead on 
December 15 another shutdown, another crisis, while we are taking up a 
bill to tell physicians what they cannot do.
  It seems to me a very dangerous course for Government, particularly a 
Republican Congress that says we should not interfere in local 
decisions, we should not interfere with States. States already control 
these abortions in the late term.
  I have to say, the amendment that my friend has offered, I think, is 
quite interesting, because all through this debate the Senator from 
California was saying there is no exception, there is no exception if 
there is really a problem. And now here we have it. Here we have it, an 
exception now for life of the mother.
  I think that is progress. I think that is progress, because when we 
started, there was no exception. It was an affirmative defense. My 
friend kept saying, ``Oh, no, you don't need an exception, you don't 
need an exception.'' We went on television and debated this, and I 
said, ``You do not even have an exception here.''
  He said, ``It is already in the bill.''
  It was not in the bill. We knew it; that is why we slowed this train 
down, that is why we had hearings.
  I have offered a second-degree amendment to the amendment of my 
friend, Senator Pryor. He is trying to protect the consumers of this 
country, and I offered an amendment that essentially says that, yes, if 
we are going to outlaw this procedure--and by the way, I do not think 
we should get into that slippery slope--but if we are going to do that, 
it should apply only to the late-term abortion, which is what it is 
supposed to do, and it clears it up and says, in the medical judgment 
of the attending physician, the abortion is necessary for the life of 
the woman or to prevent serious adverse health consequences to the 
woman.
  I feel these amendments are moving in the right direction, but the 
whole issue of telling doctors what to do, of interfering in an 
emergency medical procedure has no place in the U.S. Senate. To quote a 
woman whose testimony I read yesterday, Coreen Costello, she said so 
beautifully the last thing she wants to see happen when a family is in 
crisis like this is for the Government to be involved.
  It is such a tragedy, and these women who have gone through this were 
so eloquent. No matter what your view on a woman's right to choose, if 
you will simply read the testimony--and I handed it out today to my 
colleagues for them to read her words--it seems to me outrageous that 
politicians would insert themselves into matters that impact a family, 
matters like this.
  As we get back to this bill, and I understand we will be back to it 
tomorrow evening about 5, I am going to bring out those photos of those 
women who have shared their stories with the Senate and want to share 
it with the American people and let us get this issue out there.
  Let us not outlaw a medical procedure that doctors have testified is 
necessary to save the life of a mother and, in fact, if it is outlawed, 
could lead to her family losing her. A lot of these women have other 
healthy children. Let us think about those babies as well. 

[[Page S 18006]]

  So, Mr. President, I shall not go on much longer at all tonight 
because, again, it looks like we are delaying this debate, and that is 
fine with me, because, as far as I am concerned, we do not need this 
law. This is an intrusion into the hospital room. This is a 
criminalization of a procedure, and, as far as I am concerned, it has 
no place here at all. We are not doctors, and we are not God. We are 
U.S. Senators. We should leave medical decisions up to medical doctors, 
and we should leave these tragic matters to the families and let them 
face it with their God and with each other.
  I yield the floor.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that four members 
of my staff, Steven R. Valentine, Tom Hodson, Ed Corrigan, and Noah 
Silverman, be granted the privilege of the floor simultaneously during 
the consideration of H.R. 1333, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to pass 
the partial-birth abortion ban. I have looked at the testimony 
presented before the Judiciary Committee, I have gotten letters and 
phone calls, and I have come to the conclusion that this is not about 
being pro-life or pro-abortion. It is not even about a woman's choice. 
Laws have already established that they have that choice.
  This is about a procedure--a procedure that I do not know how anyone 
can perform or even condone, once you know what it is. We are talking 
about the practice of late-term abortion, but a specific procedure in 
which the fetus is turned around so that it is delivered feet first. 
And before the head is delivered, while it is still in the birth canal, 
the physician makes a hole with scissors in the base of the skull and 
suctions out the brains. And the majority of the time, the baby is 
alive when this procedure is performed. The heart is beating, the limbs 
are functioning, they feel, they react, they may even have a good 
chance of living if they had been allowed to be fully born.
  To me this just sounds repulsive, absolutely inhumane. And it makes 
me wonder, if they were doing this to dogs or horses, whether we would 
have more support to ban this procedure. My daughter, who is a third 
year medical student, assures me that I would probably find most 
surgeries pretty hard to stomach. But even she agrees that this 
procedure is intolerable.
  And I find it interesting that the American Medical Association's 
Council on Legislation has unanimously supported this bill. The 
argument is made that these procedures are done to save the life of the 
mother. Yet, even some physicians who specialize in this procedure 
claim otherwise. Dr. Martin Haskell conceded that 80 percent of his 
late-term abortions were elective.
  Dr. Pamela Smith, up at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago, recently wrote 
that ``There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in 
this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be 
destroyed to preserve the life of the mother.'' And that is what I 
would think. If you are going to put the mother through delivery of a 
24- or 26-week-old or even a full-term fetus, and the fetus is almost 
completely delivered, except for the head, why not just finish the 
birth?
  I will tell you why. Because once the head is out, it is a child, a 
human being by legal standards, with all the constitutional rights that 
come with being alive and then it cannot be killed. But by common 
sense, not just conservative sense, that fetus is not any less human 
just because the head is still in the birth canal. And I found it 
ironic that, if the head does slip out and a live baby is born, the 
physician calls this a complication.
  I realize that, for parents who have been told their long-anticipated 
child will be deformed or has little chance of living, this is a 
horrendous decision. And some may decide to abort. This bill does not 
restrict late-term abortions--only this method of doing it.
  I have read some of the personal experiences of families who have 
chosen this option, and in the cases where the fetus developed organs 
outside the body, the recurring sentiment is that that baby would never 
have survived outside the mother's womb. If that is the case, why then 
should the fetus be killed while the head is still in the uterus?
  Some say this is the safest procedure for the mother. But even the 
doctor who wrote ``Abortion Practices,'' the Nation's most widely used 
textbook on abortion standards and procedures, disputes this. Dr. Hern 
states that he could not imagine a circumstance in which the partial-
birth abortion procedure would be the safest. And after all, I think 
that is what we should be aiming for.
  I am not doubting for an instant that carrying to term or delivering 
a baby that has little to no chance of survival would be difficult. And 
that's an understatement. You would need the mental fortitude of 
Jeannie French, whose testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee 
was inspiring. She delivered by C-section twins, one of which she knew 
would not live. Against her doctor's recommendation to abort, she opted 
to go ahead with delivery and here little Mary's vital organs were used 
to save the lives of two children. Some may not think that is heroic, 
but I would bet you those two children are glad that Jeannie chose to 
deliver Mary.
  Mr. President, our debate here today is not a debate on choice. It is 
not even a debate on abortion. Let no one convince you of that. The 
debate is whether or not this procedure, a procedure that most 
physicians do not approve of, and that most agree is not safe for the 
mother--certainly not safe for the fetus--should be legal. I believe it 
should be banned. For the health of the mothers and the health or our 
Nation, we should pass the partial-birth abortion ban bill.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, some of the debate and comments made on the 
floor on this issue never cease to amaze me. The distinguished Senator 
from California, Senator Feinstein, a few moments ago on the floor of 
the Senate, made the statement that the doctors, in the medical 
testimony that she had seen or heard, said that partial-birth abortion 
procedures do not exist. If they do not exist, then why is there a 
problem in banning it? Maybe the Senator from California, Senator 
Feinstein, could come back and explain that to me. If the procedure 
does not exist, as she says, then there ought not to be any problem 
banning something that does not exist.
  Again, these things never cease to amaze me. Also, Senator Boxer of 
California, a few moments ago again referred to the case of Coreen 
Costello, who spoke very passionately--and it was a very compelling 
story--before the committee of her terrible tragedy of losing a child. 
And, again, Mr. President, let me repeat that Miss Costello's abortion 
was not a partial-birth abortion. So that is not what we are talking 
about here today.
  We are talking about partial-birth abortions, when a child is allowed 
to come through the birth canal, with the exception of the head, and 
then is killed with the use of scissors and a catheter. That is what we 
are talking about--no other type of abortion.
  I have made it very clear, and I think most of my colleagues know, 
that I oppose abortion. I believe abortion takes an innocent human 
life, no matter what stage of life it is in, whether the day after 
conception or the day of birth. But that is not the issue today. The 
issue here is partial-birth abortion.
  Yesterday, we learned on the floor of the Senate, even though 
information was presented to the contrary, that when the witnesses came 
to testify before Senator Hatch's Judiciary Committee on this matter, 
there were no doctors called to testify, or no doctors who testified 
that had ever performed a partial-birth abortion, and there were no 
women who ever had one who testified. And we asked Dr. Haskell, who 
performed a thousand of them, partial-birth abortions, to come, and he 
refused. No women who had partial-birth abortions came. So it is 
interesting that Senator Feinstein says that partial-birth abortion 
procedures do not exist when Dr. Haskell has performed 1,000 of them. 
Maybe somebody can explain that to me with some logic. But it beats me, 
Mr. President. You have a doctor who is an abortion doctor, who has 
performed 1,000 partial-birth abortions, and then the Senator from 
California comes to the floor and says it does not exist. I will leave 
that to my colleagues to decide what the facts are.

  Mr. President, the amendment that I submitted a short time ago, which 
was 

[[Page S 18007]]
second-degreed by the majority leader, Senator Dole, would make a very 
explicit exception to the ban on partial-birth abortions for cases in 
which the life of the mother is in danger. It is very specific. The 
language could not be clearer.
  To be perfectly candid about it, Mr. President, I do not believe that 
this amendment is really necessary. In the first place, there was no 
medical evidence--no medical evidence--presented at the November 17 
Judiciary Committee hearing that the partial-birth abortion procedure, 
that brutal procedure that has been described a number of times here on 
the floor, which is banned by this bill, is ever necessary to save the 
life of the mother. There was no testimony to that effect.
  In the second place, Mr. President, the bill already includes an 
affirmative defense for cases in which the doctor reasonably believes 
the mother's life is in danger. For all intents and purposes, this 
affirmative defense provision, found in subsection (e) of the bill, is 
a life-of-the-mother exception.
  But that did not satisfy a number of my colleagues because they 
expressed to me their discomfort with the affirmative defense approach 
and asked me to consider placing a more explicit, more clear, if you 
will, life-of-the-mother exception in the bill, because I support a 
life-of-the-mother exception. Even though we cannot find any testimony 
anywhere in the record that I know of--no one has produced it yet--that 
it is necessary to do it to save the life of the mother, I am still 
willing to put that exception there. That is what I have done with the 
amendment that I have offered.
  I do not believe it is necessary because the affirmative defense 
provision provides for that exception, and the amendment now before the 
Senate would place an explicit life-of-the-mother exception into 
subsection (a) of the bill. I am more than happy to do that. I am more 
than happy to clarify for my colleagues. The issue is the life-of-the-
mother exception here, even though there was no evidence presented at 
the hearing that a mother's life was threatened. No one testified to 
that effect. But I am willing to do that because I think it is fair, 
and colleagues of mine have expressed the concern that we clarify the 
language, and that is what I have done.
  So the language of this life-of-the-mother exception amendment is 
clear, Mr. President. It states, ``The ban on partial-birth abortions 
shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save 
the life of a mother whose life is in danger by a physical disorder, 
illness, or injury, provided that no other procedure would suffice for 
that purpose.''

  That is very clear and explicit. Even though Senator Feinstein says 
there are no such procedures as partial-birth abortions, it is 
interesting that they also want an exception to a procedure that does 
not exist, and they ignore the testimony of a doctor who has performed 
1,000 of them.
  So the first part of the amendment is designed to make it very clear 
and certain that the exception only applies to cases where the mother's 
life is genuinely physically threatened by some physical disorder, 
illness, or injury.
  Let me also state that, yesterday, when we discussed this process, 
this brutal procedure, we discussed the fact that this baby--this is a 
late-term baby, Mr. President, as you know, anywhere from the fifth 
month of gestation to the ninth--is prevented, physically restrained, 
from completely exiting the birth canal. The baby is turned in the 
uterus with forceps so that it comes out feet first, and the baby is 
then restrained and not allowed to be completely born, if you will, 
where it is then killed by using an incision with scissors and a 
catheter which sucks the brains from the child.
  We heard very compelling testimony at the hearing. We recited it here 
on the floor. There was testimony of a nurse who had witnessed this and 
had become so upset by it that she left the clinic because, as she 
stated it, after looking into the ``angelic face'' of this child that 
was aborted in this fashion, it was more than she could bear. She was 
horrified. We have heard a lot about the life of the mother and the 
eyes of the mother. We looked into this young woman's eyes, too, this 
mother of two daughters, and she was horrified by what she saw, that 
this child, contrary to what has been stated again on the floor of the 
Senate over and over again, this child's life was terminated for one 
reason--one reason, Mr. President. This child had Down's syndrome, so 
somebody made a decision to take the life of this child who had Down's 
syndrome.

  I remind my colleagues, not that they need reminding, there are a lot 
of very productive people in our society today who happen to have 
Down's syndrome. There is a television show involving people with 
Down's syndrome.
  The point I made yesterday, I guess we really did not need the 
Americans with Disabilities Act if we are going to terminate all the 
people who are going to be born disabled. I guess we could have it for 
those people who might be injured during the course of their lifetime. 
If anybody is going to be born disabled or in any way not normal, if 
you will, we would not need to have any coverage for them because we 
could just elect to terminate the pregnancy.
  I was accused--because I was horrified by that--I was accused of 
playing God. I do not know where that comes from. It would seem to me 
someone who chooses to terminate a pregnancy simply because a child has 
Down's syndrome, perhaps they may be playing God.
  Again, the issue here is 80 percent of the cases--not 20, not 10, not 
5, not 1, in 80 percent of the cases--this is an elective procedure for 
no other reason other than that particular woman decides to have that 
abortion because--for whatever. ``I do not want a child, I do not want 
a child with Down's syndrome,'' or whatever. Mr. President, 80 percent 
of the cases are elective, not some horrible threat to the life or the 
health of the mother at all.
  The second part of this amendment is intended to ensure that in such 
dire emergencies, a partial-birth abortion could only be performed if 
it were the medical procedure, the only medical procedure available to 
save the life of the mother. I support that. I have no problem 
supporting it because I have no problem in understanding the fact that 
there is not any need, absolutely no medical need that anyone has ever 
testified to, that says that this is necessary to protect the life of 
the mother.
  Let me say why. How would restraining a child from coming through the 
birth canal, that could come through the birth canal, enhance the life 
or the health of the mother? I do not understand that. I do not think 
any reasonable person could understand it. We have had testimony that 
in the case of the hydrocephalic children, where the head is enlarged 
with fluids, that that can be drained so that the head can be a normal 
size and can be allowed to come through the birth canal.

  So we are talking about a brutal practice here, in 80 percent of the 
cases elective, and nothing to do with the life of the mother.
  Be that as it may, I agree with my colleagues. I agree with the 
Senator from California that a life-of-the-mother exception should be 
there, even though I disagree with her that there is a threat to the 
life of the mother. At least I have not seen any evidence to that in 
terms of testimony, but even that does not mean it cannot happen in the 
future. I am willing, certainly willing to protect the life of the 
mother.
  Mrs. BOXER. Would my friend yield about timeframe? I would be 
appreciative, if my friend would yield 5 minutes, I will finish my 
remarks for the evening and leave him the rest of the evening if we 
could agree not to take any other action or lay down any other 
amendments.
  Mr. SMITH. I know of no other amendments on my side. I certainly will 
not be offering any, and I do not intend to go very long.
  I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. I know my friend and I have different things pulling on 
us.
  Mr. SMITH. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. I just want to say that we are going to have a very 
interesting debate about the competing amendments that will come before 
the Senate on this issue. One is Senator Smith's and Senator Dole's 
amendment, which they call a life-of-the-mother exception. The other is 
the Boxer amendment, which makes a life-of-the-mother exception and a 
serious adverse health consequences exception to the woman. 

[[Page S 18008]]

  I have to just say to my colleagues if they may be watching, and I 
will discuss this with them at great length, that the Smith-Dole 
amendment which is stated as if it is, in fact, an exception, I have 
now had an opportunity to read it. I want everyone to know that it is 
really not an exception for the life of the mother because what it says 
is, essentially, that this procedure will be banned, except it will not 
apply to partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a 
mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or 
injury.
  I say to my friend, that is not a life-of-the-mother exception. That 
is a preexisting situation. So, yes, if a woman had diabetes or some 
other disease, there would be an exception, but if, in fact, the birth 
endangered her life there would be no exception.
  So this so-called exception, life-of-the-mother exception that has 
been offered by my friend from New Hampshire with Senator Dole, is 
not--let me repeat, is not--in any way a life-of-the-mother exception.
  We have life-of-the-mother exceptions in many other bills that deal 
with Medicaid funding, and they never use this language. It just simply 
says ``except if the life of the mother is threatened.'' No such thing 
as ``if she is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.''
  Let me repeat, most of the women would not fall in this category.
  The first fight we had, or argument or debate, was over the issue of 
the life-of-the-mother exception in the bill as it was referred here to 
the Senate. My colleague from New Hampshire said there is a life-of-
the-mother exception, and he insisted on it. We debated it over and 
over again. I said there was not; he said there was.
  Now, today, he and the majority leader say, oh, you were right, there 
was not a life-of-the-mother exception. Here it is. And this one is not 
a life-of-the-mother exception; it is only an exception for a woman who 
comes to the birth with a preexisting condition or injury.
  So we will make that debate clear, I hope tomorrow, or we can get 
more into this issue.
  My goodness, let us not endanger a woman who has no preexisting 
condition such as diabetes. Let us not take away an option for her to 
have a safe outcome of a tragic situation.
  I hope that Members will, in fact, vote for the Boxer amendment and 
not for the Smith-Dole. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I might just respond briefly. It is amazing 
what you can do with semantics. This language is as clear as it can 
possibly be. This paragraph is exactly the line--referring back to the 
paragraph in terms of the issue of whether or not you can have a 
partial-birth abortion--this paragraph does not apply to a partial-
birth abortion.
  Here is the language: ``That is necessary to save the life of a 
mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or 
injury, provided that no other medical procedure would suffice.''
  The focus of the remarks of Senator Boxer is physical disorder, a 
complication resulting from a pregnancy; if it is not a physical 
disorder, what is it? What is it? Of course it covers that. The Senator 
knows it. You cannot make it any clearer. We could play word games, but 
it is very, very clear.
  Again, the argument is so unbelievable here because, A, they use the 
line that the partial-birth abortion procedure does not exist, yet they 
still say we should not have to ban it.
  If it does not exist, what are they worried about the life-of-the-
mother exception for? The truth of the matter is, of course, it exists. 
There are 1,000 that have been performed by Dr. Haskell alone. There 
are at least one or two that we know of, roughly, per day, that are 
still being performed in this country. Some people say that is not very 
many. Well, that is somewhere between 365 and 700 or 750. How many 
physicians who might cure cancer are in that group? How many future 
Presidents are in that group? Future Senators--perhaps from California 
or New Hampshire? Who knows, maybe even from Minnesota? Who knows who 
is in that group?
  It is interesting. We have heard on the floor here that President 
Clinton will veto this horrible bill as soon as he gets to it, this 
bill to ban partial-birth abortions that execute innocent children, 
three-quarters of the way out of the womb, but we heard it proudly 
stated on the floor that the President is going to veto this bill.
  I might say to the President of the United States--I know he is not 
listening tonight, probably--but, if he is, I would like to have the 
opportunity to have 15 minutes in the Oval Office to discuss this bill 
with him, because I do not believe, if he looked at the facts, that he 
would veto it because this process is so horrible that I think we have 
more important things to do in America than do that.
  Let me just conclude on this point this evening, again, on the 
amendment. This amendment is designed to assure that no baby will be 
subjected to this brutal procedure unless this partial-birth abortion 
procedure is the only way to save the mother, in other words, in a true 
case of self-defense. Everyone has the right to self-defense.
  In sum, I believe this is very carefully crafted language. It is 
fully adequate to provide the explicit life-of-the-mother exception to 
the bill's ban on partial-birth abortions. And those people who are now 
taking the words and fiddling with the words a little bit, trying to 
make things out of the words that are not there--do you know what the 
real issue is here, Mr. President? It is not that they object to this 
life-of-the-mother exception. No, it is not that. Their real problem is 
they do not want any exceptions. They do not want any exceptions. They 
want abortion on demand for whatever reason, mongoloid child, Down's 
syndrome child, a child with a cleft palate, a female child, a child 
with blue eyes, whatever.
  I call on any one of my colleagues who is opposed to me on this issue 
to come down to the floor and say to me, ``I will not support an 
abortion, partial-birth or otherwise, because it was a female child.'' 
Come down to the floor and state that right now. I think you will find 
the silence is quite deafening, because it is abortion on demand. But, 
and this is the key, it is abortion on demand in the most horrible way 
that any abortion could ever be performed.
  In spite of the fact that all of us have different opinions about 
when life begins--and everyone knows my position on that--that is not 
the issue here, my position on when life begins. That is not relevant 
today. What is relevant today in this discussion is whether or not we 
have the right, morally or otherwise, to kill an unborn child who is 
held in the hands of this doctor with the exception of the head. Three 
or four more inches and that doctor could place that tiny little head 
into his hand and cradle it. But, instead, he turns that baby over and 
executes him, with no novocaine, no anesthetic, nothing-- with a pair 
of scissors and a catheter, a child.

  That is what this is about. That is why, when this bill came to the 
floor for a vote, even without the language that I have now crafted for 
the life-of-the-mother exception--but with language that perhaps was 
not as clear but did have the life-of-the-mother exception--even with 
the old language, it passed overwhelmingly in the House. Why? Why did a 
pro-choice Republican woman like Susan Molinari vote for it? Why did a 
liberal Democrat like Patrick Kennedy, son of Senator Ted Kennedy, vote 
for it? Because it is reasonable. Because it is sickening to think of 
the fact that we would do this to our children here in America. That is 
the reason. This is not a radical, extremist position. The radicals and 
the extremists are the people who do this.
  So, I urge my colleagues to oppose Senator Boxer's amendment whenever 
we vote on it, tomorrow or whenever. Because basically it provides the 
opportunity to drive a truck through this whole process. It is a killer 
amendment. It might as well be called the partial-birth abortion-on-
demand amendment, because it is designed to gut the bill.
  When you say ``health,'' you say anything. What is health? A sore 
toenail? A sore knee? I mean, it is a totally gutting amendment. If you 
want to gut the bill, then you would vote for Boxer. If you want 
abortion on demand, if you want to abort a perfectly normal, healthy 
child at 9 months because that child has blue eyes, or is a female, or 
a male, or whatever, then vote for Boxer. That decision is quite easy.
  But, again, the health-of-the-mother issue is a phony issue. It is 
not the 

[[Page S 18009]]
issue at all. Everyone knows it. We have had this debate here before. 
We have had the votes before. It has always been voted down. So the 
issue is, if you want to truly protect the life of the mother, then you 
would vote for the Smith-Dole amendment because that is exactly what it 
does, it protects the life of the mother.
  Mr. President, Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National 
Right to Life Committee, has prepared an outstanding, comprehensive 
analysis of H.R. 1833. It is entitled ``The Facts On Partial-Birth 
Abortions.'' For the benefit of my colleagues, I ask unanimous consent 
that this document be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  The Facts On Partial-Birth Abortions

                          (By Douglas Johnson)

       The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833) was introduced 
     in Congress on June 15, 1995. From that day on, many 
     opponents of the bill--including the National Abortion and 
     Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), Planned 
     Parenthood, and the National Abortion Federation--have 
     manufactured and disseminated blatant misinformation 
     regarding partial-birth abortions and about the bill. Some of 
     this misinformation has been adopted and widely disseminated 
     by some journalists, columnists, editorialists, and 
     lawmakers. This feature summarizes key facts on partial-birth 
     abortions and on HR 1833. For additional documentation, 
     contact the NRLC Federal Legislative Office at (202) 626-
     8820.
       What is the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833)?
       The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833) is a proposal 
     currently under consideration in Congress, which would place 
     a national ban on use of the partial-birth abortion procedure 
     (except when a doctor could show that he ``reasonably 
     believed'' that the procedure would prevent the death of a 
     pregnant woman, and that no other medical procedure would 
     suffice).
       The bill would ban abortions that are performed by an 
     abortionist (1) delivering a living fetus/baby into the 
     vagina, and then (2) killing him or her. The bill 
     specifically 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.'' Abortionists who 
     violate the law would be subject to both criminal and civil 
     penalties, but no penalty could be applied to the woman who 
     obtained such abortion.
       What is the Status of the Bill?
       The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833) was passed by 
     the House of Representatives on November 1 by a vote of 288 
     to 139. As of November 28, the bill is awaiting action by the 
     full U.S. Senate, which could occur as early as December 4.
       The bill strongly opposed by pro-abortion advocacy groups 
     and by their Senate allies, who will attempt to amend it to 
     death--for example, by a proposed amendment to allow partial-
     birth abortions to be performed for ``health'' reasons. 
     Legally, with reference to abortion, ``health'' is a term 
     that covers emotional ``well-being.'' Thus, addition of a 
     ``health exception'' would in practice allow unrestricted use 
     of the partial-birth abortion procedure.
       President Clinton opposes the bill.
       How is a Partial-Birth Abortion Performed?
       The bill is aimed at the basic method practiced by Dr. 
     Martin Haskell of Dayton, Ohio, and by the late Dr. James 
     McMahon of Los Angeles, among others. The Los Angeles Times 
     accurately described this abortion method in a June 16 news 
     story:
       ``The procedure requires a physician to extract a fetus, 
     feet first, from the womb and through the birth canal until 
     all but its head is exposed. Then the tips of surgical 
     scissors are thrust into the base of the fetus' skull, and a 
     suction catheter is inserted through the openings and the 
     brain is removed.''
       In 1992, Dr. Haskell wrote a paper on this abortion method. 
     The paper (``Dilation and Extraction for Late Second 
     Trimester Abortion'') describes in detail, step-by-step, how 
     to perform the procedure.
       Dr. Haskell wrote that he ``routinely performs this 
     procedure on all patients 20 through 24 weeks LMP [i.e., from 
     last menstrual period] with certain exceptions'' [4\1/2\ to 
     5\1/2\ months]. He also wrote that he used the procedure 
     through 26 weeks [six months] ``on selected patients.'' Dr. 
     McMahon used essentially the same procedure to a much later 
     point--even into the ninth month. (Dr. McMahon died of cancer 
     on Oct. 28).
       How many partial-birth abortions are performed?
       Nobody knows. Pro-abortion groups claim that ``only'' 450 
     such procedures are performed every year. But the practices 
     of Dr. Martin Haskell and the late Dr. James McMahon alone 
     would approximate that figure, and press reports indicate 
     that other abortionists also utilize the procedure.
       Both Haskell and McMahon have spent years trying to 
     convince other abortionists of the merits of the procedure. 
     That is why Haskell wrote his 1992 instructional paper. For 
     years, McMahon was director of abortion instruction at the 
     Cedar Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. It is impossible 
     to know how many other abortionists have adopted the 
     procedure, without choosing to write articles or grant 
     interviews on the subject. The New York Times reported in a 
     Nov. 6, 1995 news story about the bill:
       ```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.'''
       There are 164,000 abortions a year performed after the 
     first three months of pregnancy, and 13,000 abortions 
     annually after 4\1/2\ months, according to the Alan 
     Guttmacher Institute (New York Times, July 5 and November 6, 
     1995), which should be regarded as conservative estimates.
       For what reasons are partial-birth abortions performed?
       The Planned Parenthood Federation of America recently 
     issued a press release that asserted that the procedure is 
     ``done only in cases when the woman's life is in danger or in 
     cases of extreme fetal abnormality.'' Many reporters, 
     commentators, and members of Congress have accepted such 
     assertions uncritically and publicly disseminated them as 
     ``facts.''
       Yet, the claim that partial-birth abortion procedures are 
     done only (or mostly) in life-endangerment or grave-fetal-
     disorder cases cannot be reconciled with many documents and 
     reliable reports that are readily available.
       In Dr. Haskell's 1992 instructional paper, he wrote that he 
     ``routinely performs this procedure on all patients 20 
     through 24 weeks'' (4\1/2\ to 5\1/2\ months). In 1993, after 
     NRLC's publicizing of Dr. Haskell's paper engendered 
     considerable controversy, the American Medical News--the 
     official newspaper of the AMA--conducted a tape-recorded 
     interview with Dr. Haskell concerning this specific abortion 
     method, in which he said:
       ``And I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are 
     elective in that 20-24 week range. . . . In my particular 
     case, probably 20% [of this procedure] are for genetic 
     reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective.''
       Recently, during testimony in a lawsuit in Ohio, Dr. 
     Haskell was asked to list some of the medical problems of 
     women on which he'd performed second-trimester abortions. 
     Among the conditions he listed was ``agoraphobia'' (fear of 
     open places).
       Moreover, in testimony presented to the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee on November 17, ob/gyn Dr. Nancy Romer of Dayton 
     (the city in which Dr. Haskell operates one of his abortion 
     clinics) testified that three of her own patients had gone to 
     Haskell's clinics for abortions ``well beyond'' 4\1/2\ months 
     into pregnancy, and that ``none of these women had any 
     medical illness, and all three had normal fetuses.''
       Dr. James McMahon voluntarily submitted to the House 
     Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee a breakdown of a self-
     selected sample of 175 partial-birth abortions that he 
     performed for what he called ``maternal indications.'' Of 
     these, the largest single category of ``maternal 
     indications''--39 cases, or 22% of the total sample--were for 
     ``depression.''
       Dr. McMahon's self-selected sample of ``fetal indications'' 
     cases showed he had performed nine of these procedures for 
     ``cleft palate.''
       Even though this data is cited in the official report of 
     the committee, when NARAL President Kate Michelman was asked 
     at a November 7 press conference about ``arguments . . . that 
     these procedures . . . are given for depression or cleft 
     palate,'' Ms. Michelman responded, ``That is . . . not only a 
     myth, it's a lie.''
       Reporter Karen Tumulty wrote an article about late-term 
     abortions, based in large part on extensive interviews with 
     Dr. McMahon and on direct observation of his practice, which 
     appeared in the Los Angeles Times Magazine (January 7, 1990). 
     She concluded:
       ``If there is any other single factor that inflates the 
     number of late abortions, it is youth. Often, teen-agers do 
     not recognize the first signs of pregnancy. Just as 
     frequently, they put off telling anyone as long as they 
     can.''
       (Dr. McMahon used the term ``pediatric indications'' to 
     refer to abortions performed on these young mothers.)
       In 1993, the then-executive director of the National 
     Abortion Federation (NAF) distributed an internal memorandum 
     to the members of that organization which acknowledged that 
     such abortions are performed for ``many reasons'';
       ``There are many reasons why women have late abortions: 
     life endangerment, fetal indications, lack of money or health 
     insurance, social-psychological crisis, lack of knowledge 
     about human reproduction, etc.'' [emphasis added]
       Likewise, a June 12, 1995, letter from NAF to members of 
     the House of Representatives noted that late abortions are 
     sought by, among other, ``very young teenagers . . . who have 
     not recognized the signs of their pregnancies until too 
     late,'' and by ``women in poverty, who have tried desperately 
     to act responsibly and to end an unplanned pregnancy in the 
     early stages, only to face insurmountable financial 
     barriers.''
       True, some partial-birth abortions involve babies who have 
     grave disorders that will result in death soon after birth. 
     But these unfortunate members of the human family deserve 
     compassion and the best comfort-care that medical science can 
     offer--not a scissors in the back of the head. In some such 
     situations there are good medical reasons to deliver such a 
     child early, after which natural death will follow quickly.

[[Page S 18010]]

       Is the baby already dead before she is pulled feet-first 
     into the vagina?
       In his 1992 paper explaining step-by-step how to perform 
     this type of abortion, Dr. Martin Haskell wrote that he 
     performs the procedure ``under local anesthesia'' [emphasis 
     added], which would have no effect on the baby/fetus. 
     Nevertheless, since HR 1833 was introduced in June, many 
     critics of the bill have insisted that the unborn babies are 
     killed by anesthesia given to the mother, prior to being 
     ``extracted'' from the womb.
       For example, syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman wrote in 
     November that, based on her review of statements by 
     supporters of the bill, ``You wouldn't even know that 
     anesthesia ends the life of such a fetus before it comes 
     down the birth canal.''
       Likewise, Kate Michelman, president of the National 
     Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), said 
     at a Nov. 7 press conference, ``These experts have made it 
     very clear that the fetus undergoes demise before the 
     procedure begins. And because of the anesthesia, which is, 
     you know, something like 50 to 100 times what a fetus can 
     withstand, because it's given according to the weight of the 
     woman.''
       However, according to testimony presented to the Senate 
     Judiciary Committee (Nov. 17) by the American Society of 
     Anesthesiologists, such claims have ``absolutely no basis in 
     scientific fact.'' The ASA says that regional anesthesia 
     (used in many partial-birth abortions and most normal 
     deliveries) has no effect on the fetus. General anesthesia 
     has some sedating effect on the fetus, but much less than on 
     the mother; even pain relief for the fetus is doubtful, and 
     certainly anesthesia would not kill the baby, the ASA 
     testified.
       Dissemination of the false claim that anesthesia kills the 
     baby is endangering the health and lives of pregnant women 
     and their unborn children, because such erroneous information 
     may frighten pregnant women away from obtaining medically 
     necessary surgical procedures while they are pregnant, for 
     fear of harming their unborn children, the ASA said.
       Moreover, American Medical News reported in 1993, after 
     conducting interviews with Drs. Haskell and McMahon, that the 
     doctors ``told AM News that the majority of fetuses aborted 
     this way are alive until the end of the procedure.'' On July 
     11, 1995, American Medical News submitted the transcript of 
     the tape-recorded interview with Haskell to the House 
     Judiciary Committee. The transcript contains the following 
     exchange:
       ``American Medical News. Let's talk first about whether or 
     not the fetus is dead beforehand.
       ``Dr. Haskell. No, it's not. No, it's really not. A 
     percentage are for various numbers of reasons. Some just 
     because of the stress--intrauterine stress during, you know, 
     the two days that the cervix is being dilated [to permit 
     extraction of the fetus]. Sometimes the membranes rupture and 
     it takes a very small superficial infection to kill a fetus 
     in utero when the membranes are broken. And so in my case, I 
     would think probably about a third of those are definitely 
     are [sic] dead before I actually start to remove the fetus. 
     And probably the other two-thirds are not.''
       In another interview, quoted in the Dec. 10, 1989 Dayton 
     News, Dr. Haskell again conveyed that the scissors thrust is 
     usually the lethal act: ``When I do the instrumentation on 
     the skull...it destroys the brain tissue sufficiently so 
     that even if it (the fetus) falls out at that point, it's 
     definitely not alive,'' Dr. Haskell said.
       Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse from Dayton, Ohio, 
     stood at Haskell's side while he performed three partial-
     birth abortions in 1993. In testimony before the Senate 
     Judiciary Committee (Nov. 17), Mrs. Shafer described in 
     detail the first of the three procedures--which involved, she 
     said, a baby boy at 26\1/2\ weeks (over 6 months). According 
     to Mrs. Shafer, the abortionist.
       ``...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 that 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.''
       Since the baby is usually not dead before being removed 
     from the womb, does the baby experience pain? Yes, according 
     to experts such as Professor Robert White, Director of the 
     Division of Neurosurgery and Brain Research Laboratory at 
     Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, who testified before 
     the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee: ``The fetus 
     within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is 
     fully capable of experiencing pain.'' After analyzing the 
     partial-birth procedure step-by-step for the subcommittee, 
     Prof. White concluded: ``Without question, all of this is a 
     dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to 
     such a surgical procedure.''
       Dr. Harlan R. Giles, a professor of ``high-risk'' 
     obstetrics and perinatology at the Medical College of 
     Pennsylvania, performs abortions by a variety of procedures 
     up until ``viability,'' but he does not perform partial-birth 
     abortions. In sworn testimony in the U.S. Federal District 
     Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Nov. 13, 1995), 
     Prof. Giles said:
       ``In my own personal opinion, particularly when there are 
     other techniques available, that the introduction of a sharp 
     instrument into the brain and sucking out the brain 
     constitutes cruel and unusual fetal punishment.''


 is the term ``partial-birth abortion'' misleading, or is it accurate?

       In his 1992 paper, Dr. Haskell referred to the method as 
     ``dilation and extraction'' or ``D&X''--noting that he 
     ``coined the term.'' However, that nomenclature was 
     rejected by Dr. McMahon, who refers to the method as 
     ``intact dilation and evacuation'' and (in an interview in 
     the Los Angeles Times Magazine in 1990) as ``intrauterine 
     cranial decompression.'' There are also some variations in 
     the procedure as performed by the two doctors.
       None of the terms that the abortion practitioners prefer 
     would be workable as a legal definition. The bill creates a 
     legal definition of ``partial-birth abortion,'' and would ban 
     any variation of that method--no matter what new 
     idiosyncratic name any abortionist may invent to refer to 
     it--so long as it is ``an abortion in which the person 
     performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living 
     fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.''
       Beyond the legal point, the term ``partial-birth abortion'' 
     is accurate and in no way misleading. In explaining how to 
     perform the procedure in his 1992 instruction paper, Dr. 
     Martin Haskell wrote:
       ``With a lower [fetal] extremity in the vagina, the surgeon 
     uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, 
     then the torso, the shoulders and the upper extremities.'' 
     [Haskell paper, page 30, emphasis added]
       In sworn testimony in a lawsuit pending in U.S. District 
     Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Nov. 8, 1995), Dr. 
     Haskell said that he first learned of the method when a 
     colleague
       . . . described very briefly over the phone to me a 
     technique that I later learned came from Dr. McMahon where 
     they internally grab the fetus and rotate if and accomplish--
     be somewhat equivalent to a breach type of delivery.''
       Are the drawings of the procedure circulated by NRLC 
     accurate, or are they misleading?
       At a June 15, 1995, public hearing before the House 
     Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Dr. J. Courtland 
     Robinson, a self-described ``abortionist'' who testified on 
     behalf of the National Abortion Federation, was questioned 
     about the drawings by Congressman Charles Canady (R-Fl.). Mr. 
     Canady directed Dr. Robinson's attention to the drawings, 
     which were displayed in poster size next to the witness 
     table. Dr. Robinson agreed with Mr. Canady's statement that 
     they were ``technically accurate,'' and added:
       ``That is exactly probably what is occurring at the hands 
     of the two physicians involved.'' [Transcript, page 80.]
       Moreover, American Medical News (July 5, 1993) reported: 
     ``Dr. [Martin] Haskell said the drawings were accurate `from 
     a technical point of view.' But he took issue with the 
     implication that the fetuses were `aware and resisting.' ''
       Professor Watson Bowes of the University of North Carolina 
     at Chapel Hill, co-editor of the Obstetrical and 
     Gynecological Survey, wrote in a letter to Congressman 
     Canady: ``Having read Dr. Haskell's paper, I can assure you 
     that these drawings accurately represent the procedure 
     described therein. . . . Firsthand renditions by a 
     professional medical illustrator, or photographs or a video 
     recording of the procedure would no doubt be more vivid, but 
     not necessarily more instructive for a non-medical person who 
     is trying to understand how the procedure is performed.''
       On Nov. 1, 1995, Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder and her 
     allies actually tried to prevent Congressman Canady from 
     displaying the line drawings during the debate on HR 1833 on 
     the floor of the House of Representatives. But the House 
     voted by nearly a 4-to-1 margin (332 to 86) to permit the 
     drawings to be used.


    Does the bill permit the partial-birth abortion procedure to be 
 utilized to save the life of the mother? Are partial-birth abortions 
                relatively safe for the pregnant woman?

       Under the bill, a doctor is not subject to penalty if he 
     shows that he ``reasonably believed'' that the mother's life 
     was in jeopardy and that no other medical procedure will save 
     her life. However, many medical authorities, both pro-life 
     and pro-abortion, say that this procedure would never be 
     necessary to save a woman's life.
       Moreover, some medical experts--on both sides of the 
     abortion issue--say that the procedure itself carries special 
     risks for the pregnant woman. American Medical News, the 
     official newspaper of the American Medical Association, 
     reported in its November 20, 1996 edition: `` `I have very 
     serious reservations about this procedure'' said Colorado 
     physician Warren Hern, MD. The author of Abortion Practice, 
     the nation's most widely used textbook on abortion standards 
     and procedures, Dr. Hern specializes in late-term procedures. 
     . . . [O]f the procedure in question he says, ``You really 
     can't defend it. I'm not going to tell somebody else that 
     they should not do this procedure. But I'm not going to do 
     it.' ''
       ``Dr. Hern's concerns center on claims that the procedure 
     in late-term pregnancy can be safest for the pregnant woman, 
     and that 

[[Page S 18011]]
     without this procedure women would have died. `I would dispute any 
     statement that this is the safest procedure to use,' he said. 
     Turning the fetus to a breech position is `potentially 
     dangerous,' he added. `You have to be concerned about causing 
     amniotic fluid embolism or placental abruption if you do 
     that.'
       ``Dr. Hern said he could not imagine a circumstance in 
     which this procedure would be safest. He did acknowledge that 
     some doctors use skull-decompression techniques, but he added 
     that is those cases fetal death has been induced and the 
     fetus would not purposely be rotated into a breech 
     position.''
       Dr. Harlan R. Giles, a professor of ``high-risk'' 
     obstetrics and perinatology at the Medical College of 
     Pennsylvania, performs abortions by a variety of procedures 
     up until ``viability.'' In sworn testimony in the U.S. 
     Federal District Court for the Southern District of Ohio 
     (Nov. 13, 1995), Prof. Giles said:
       ``[After 23 weeks] I do not think there are any maternal 
     conditions that I'm aware of that mandate ending the 
     pregnancy that also require that the fetus be dead or that 
     the fetal life be terminated. In my experience for 20 years, 
     one can deliver these fetuses either vaginally, or by 
     Cesarean section for that matter, depending on the choice of 
     the parents with informed consent. * * * But there's no 
     reason these fetuses cannot be delivered intact vaginally 
     after a miniature labor, if you will, and be at least 
     assessed at birth and given the benefit of the doubt. 
     [transcript, page 240]
       ``I cannot think of a fetal condition or malformation, no 
     matter how severe, that actually causes harm or risk to the 
     mother of continuing the pregnancy. I guess one extremely 
     rare example might be a partial hydatidiform mole. But that's 
     a one-in-a-million situation. In most cases, mothers carrying 
     an abnormal fetus, such as with Down's syndrome, anencephaly, 
     the absence of a brain itself, dwarfism, other severe, even 
     lethal chromosome abnormalities--those mothers, if you follow 
     their pregnancy, have no higher risk of pregnancy 
     complications than for any other mother who's progressing to 
     term for a delivery. [court transcript, pp. 241-42]
       ``There is no need to perform a D and X [`dilation and 
     extraction,' i.e., partial-birth] procedure. That is not part 
     of the required teaching of the D and E [`dilation and 
     evacuation,' the technique of dismembering the baby inside 
     the uterus]. [court transcript, p. 260.]''
       Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education in the 
     Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, 
     Chicago, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the 
     partial-birth abortion procedure is an adaptation of the 
     ``internal podalic version'' procedure that obstetricians 
     occasionally use to purposely deliver a baby breech (feet 
     first)--but that this procedure is risky to the mother, and 
     its use is recommended only to deliver a second twin. ``Why, 
     if it's dangerous to the mother's health to do this when your 
     intent is to deliver the baby alive, that this should 
     suddenly become . . . the safe method when your intention is 
     to kill the baby?'' Dr. Smith said.
       Dr. Smith also gave the Judiciary Committee her analysis of 
     a sample of 175 cases, selected by Dr. McMahon himself, in 
     which he claimed that he had used the procedure because of 
     maternal health indications. Of this sample, the largest 
     group, 39 cases (22%) were for maternal ``depression,'' while 
     another 16% were ``for conditions consistent with the birth 
     of a normal child (e.g., sickle cell trait, prolapsed uterus, 
     small pelvis),'' Dr. Smith noted. She added that in one-third 
     of the cases, the conditions listed as ``maternal 
     indications'' by Dr. McMahon really indicated that the 
     procedure itself would be seriously dangerous to the mother.
       What would be the effect of adding to the bill an exception 
     to allow partial-birth abortions for ``health'' reasons, as 
     proposed by pro-abortion Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) and 
     others?
       In the context of abortion-related law, ``health'' is a 
     legal term of art. In Doe v. Bolton (the companion case to 
     Roe v. Wade), the Supreme Court defined ``health'' to include 
     ``all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, 
     and the woman's age--relevant to the well-being of the 
     patient.'' Thus, the bill with a ``health'' exception would 
     permit abortionists to perform partial-birth abortions at 
     will--even for ``depression,'' as Dr. James McMahon did (see 
     page 4). Adding the word ``serious'' before ``health'' 
     changes nothing, because it is the abortionist who would 
     determine whether the ``depression'' or other distress was 
     ``serious.''
       Does the bill contradict U.S. Supreme Court decisions?
       In its official report on HR 1833, the House Judiciary 
     Committee makes the very plausible argument that HR 1833 is 
     not an ``assault'' on Roe v. Wade, but rather, could be 
     upheld by the Supreme Court without disturbing Roe. In Roe, 
     the Supreme Court said that ``the unborn fetus is not a 
     person'' under the Constitution (even during the final months 
     of pregnancy). So, in the Supreme Court's doctrine, a human 
     being becomes a legal ``person'' upon emerging from the 
     uterus. But a partial-birth abortion kills a human being who 
     is four-fifths across the `line-of-personhood' established 
     by the Supreme Court. Thus, the Supreme Court could very 
     well decide that the killing of a mostly born baby, even 
     if done by a physician, is not protected by Roe v. Wade.
       What position has the American Medical Association taken on 
     H.R. 1833?
       On September 23, the national Council on Legislation of the 
     American Medical Association (AMA) voted unanimously to 
     recommend AMA endorsement of H.R. 1833. (Congress Daily, Oct. 
     10.) The Council on Legislation is made up of about 12 
     physicians of different specialities, who are charged with 
     studying proposed federal legislation with respect to its 
     impact on the practice of medicine. A member of the Council 
     told Congress Daily that ``this was not a recognized medical 
     technique'' and that ``this procedure is basically 
     repulsive.''
       However, meeting in October, the AMA Board of Trustees was 
     divided on this recommendation, and therefore took no 
     position either for or against the bill. According to an 
     October 23 letter from AMA headquarters in Chicago, ``The AMA 
     Board of Trustees has determined that it will not take a 
     position on H.R. 1833 at this time.''
       From the perspective of those who believe that unborn 
     children should be protected from all methods of abortion, 
     what is the point of supporting a bill that would ban only 
     one method?
       Each human being is a unique individual with immeasurable 
     worth. Pro-abortion advocates often try to dismiss the 
     significance of partial-birth abortions by observing that 
     they appear to account for ``only'' less than one percent of 
     all abortions. But for each and every human individual who 
     ends up at the pointed end of the surgical scissors, the 
     procedure is a 100 percent proposition.
       Should Congress be in the business of banning specific 
     surgical procedures?
       Some prominent congressional opponents of the bill to ban 
     partial-birth abortions, including Rep. Schroeder (D-Co.), 
     argue that Congress should not attempt to ban a specific 
     surgical procedure. But Rep. Schroeder is the prime sponsor 
     of HR 941, the ``Federal Prohibition of Female Genital 
     Mutilation Act.'' (The Senate companion bill is S. 1030.)
       This bill generally would ban anyone (including a licensed 
     physician from performing the procedure known medically as 
     ``infibulation,'' or ``female circumcision,'' which is 
     practiced by some immigrants from certain countries. The 
     bill provides a penalty of up to five years in federal 
     prison. Supporters of this bill argue, persuasively, that 
     subjecting a little girl to infibulation is a form of 
     child abuse. But then, so too is subjecting a baby to the 
     partial-birth abortion procedure.


why did the bill pass the house of representatives by a more than 2-to-
                               1 margin?

       In the House, the bill won support from more than a few 
     lawmakers who generally favor legal abortion. Once they had 
     the facts, a significant number of those self-described 
     ``pro-choice'' lawmakers experienced an authentic moral 
     revulsion regarding the procedure. In certain other cases, 
     the revulsion was probably more political than moral. For 
     whatever combination of these reasons, HR 1833 won support 
     from a broad spectrum of House members, including: 73 
     Democrats and 215 Republicans (37% of voting Democrats, 93% 
     of Republicans); nearly one-third of the women in the House 
     (15 of 47), Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt (Mo.); 
     Democratic Whip David Bonior (Mi.); Rep. John Dingell (Mi.), 
     ranking Democrat on the Commerce Committee; Rep. Lee Hamilton 
     (D-In.), ranking on the International Relations Committee; 
     Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wi.), and Congressman Patrick Kennedy (D-
     RI), the son of Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.)

                          ____________________