[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 193 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18071-S18086]
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, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       (1) Smith amendment No. 3080, to provide a life-of-the-
     mother exception.
       (2) Dole amendment No. 3081 (to amendment No. 3080), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       (3) Pryor amendment No. 3082, to clarify certain provisions 
     of law with respect to the approval and marketing of certain 
     prescription drugs.
       (4) Boxer amendment No. 3083 (to amendment No. 3082), to 
     clarify the application of certain provisions with respect to 
     abortions where necessary to preserve the life or health of 
     the woman.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. The Senate will 
please come to order.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Boxer 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 3081 to Amendment No. 3080

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I now call for the regular order with 
respect to the Dole amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The pending 
question is the Dole amendment No. 3081 to the Smith amendment 3080.
  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.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Dole 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I want to make it clear that my hope is to 
offer two amendments to this bill for consideration by the Senate. One 
would deal with the problem of a deadbeat father having standing to 
bring lawsuits, and the other one would deal with the question of who 
is civilly or criminally liable under the bill. At the appropriate 
time, with the concurrence of the sponsor of the bill, I will offer 
those amendments.
  Mr. President, at the appropriate time I will try to offer those 
amendments for the Senate's consideration. I will make copies available 
in the Record.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, it is my intention to offer an amendment 
concerning deadbeat dads. The amendment would make it clear that 
fathers who are deadbeat and do not marry the mother do not have the 
right to sue under this bill and thereby gather a financial bonanza. I 
circulated a draft of that amendment to the parties who are leading the 
debate on this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to offer that amendment 
without a second-degree amendment being in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside so that I may offer the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I would ask that we go 
into a quorum.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. 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. Will the Senator yield for a question before he begins? 
And I am fully supportive of his amendment, the way he is approaching 
it.
  Mr. BROWN. I am happy to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. I just want to get on the record that it is not the 
Senator's intention to have his amendment voted on prior to the Boxer 
amendment and the Dole amendment but, rather, after the Boxer and the 
Dole amendments are disposed of?
  Mr. BROWN. That is an accurate statement of my intention, and my hope 
would be that absent agreement, we would save my amendment until after 
the disposition of those two amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator needs to make a request.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no vote occur 
on the Brown amendment, which I am about to offer, until the Boxer and 
Dole amendments are disposed of.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend, and I wish him the best of luck with 
his amendment, which I will support.
  Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
temporarily set aside so that I may offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3085

(Purpose: To limit the ability of dead beat dads and those who consent 
  to the procedure to collect relief as provided for in this section)

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3085:
       On page 2, line 14, strike ``(c)(1) The father,'' and 
     insert the following: ``(c)(1) The father, if married to the 
     mother at the time she receives a partial-birth abortion 
     procedure,''.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, as drafted, the bill now extends the right 
to sue a physician and others involved in the partial-birth abortion 
process, to the father and other parties.
  It is this Senator's belief that extending the right to sue under the 
bill to a father, who has assumed the responsibilities of fatherhood, 
is appropriate, but it is also my belief that to extend the privilege 
of standing and the potential enrichment it could convey to someone who 
has not assumed the real responsibilities of fatherhood would be a 
tragic mistake. To allow someone a financial windfall when they have 
not married the mother, when they have not lived up to their 
responsibilities in our society, would send exactly the wrong message. 
It would have the effect of granting possibly substantial financial 
remuneration to someone who has not been willing to meet his commitment 
to society or to meet the commitments of fatherhood. It would reward a 
deadbeat dad, something I believe is simply wrong. So this amendment 
makes it clear that someone who has not married the mother does not 
have the right to be enriched.
  Mr. President, I think that sums up the amendment, and I hope the 
Senate will favorably consider it after it has had an opportunity to 
consider and dispose of the Dole and Boxer amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I just want to say to the Senator from 
Colorado that we support his amendment. We think it is a good amendment 
and 

[[Page S 18072]]
enhances the bill, and we are pleased to support it. I appreciate the 
fact that the Senator has offered it.
  Mr. President, is the pending business the Smith-Dole amendment?


                           Amendment No. 3081

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the Dole amendment, which is a second-
degree amendment to the Smith amendment, amendment 3081, I believe.
  Mr. SMITH. I thank the Chair. That being the case, at this time I 
rise in very strong support of this pending amendment, Dole-Smith or 
Smith-Dole, life-of-the-mother exception amendment.
  In addition, I also, in the course of my remarks, would be addressing 
another amendment that the Senate will be considering later this 
evening, which is the Boxer amendment, Senator Boxer's partial-birth 
abortion-on-demand amendment.

  Mr. President, the underlying bill, H.R. 1833, which came to us from 
the House, bans what I have described as the brutal and inhumane 
partial-birth-abortion procedure. That is the only abortion procedure 
that it bans. Testimony to the contrary notwithstanding, this is the 
only abortion technique, the only abortion method that is banned under 
1833. It includes an affirmative defense exception under which a 
physician would be subject to no penalty if that physician is able to 
demonstrate that he or she reasonably believed that the mother's life 
was in danger and no other medical procedure would suffice to save her 
life.
  Obviously, Mr. President, a two-thirds majority of the House of 
Representatives believed that the affirmative defense provision of H.R. 
1833 fully protected the life of the mother. It was an overwhelming 
vote in the House, and, of course, as we indicated yesterday, there 
were pro-choice Republicans, pro-choice Democrats, and pro-life 
Democrats and Republicans who supported overwhelmingly this 
legislation. So in spite of the fact that it has been called extremist, 
the truth of the matter is many people on all sides of the issue 
supported H.R. 1833 in the House.
  In addition, as I have noted previously, the American Medical 
Association's Council on Legislation voted unanimously to endorse H.R. 
1833 with the affirmative defense provision in it.
  It is clear then, based on that decision, that the AMA Council also 
believed that the affirmative defense provision would fully protect any 
doctor who performed a partial-birth abortion if it was performed to 
save the mother's life when no other procedure was available to save 
the mother's life, even though, as we have indicated over and over in 
the testimony and debate in the Chamber of the Senate, we have not seen 
any witnesses who have come forth in the hearing who said that the 
mother's life was threatened. But, nevertheless, to be fair, we have 
put in this exception.
  In spite of all that, a number of Senators have argued on the floor 
and have made the same point to me in private, frankly, that the 
affirmative defense approach may not give doctors who encounter an 
exceedingly life-endangering condition of the mother the sufficient 
latitude that they need. There is no medical evidence in the record 
produced as a result of the hearing on November 17 before the Judiciary 
Committee that the partial-birth-abortion procedure is ever necessary 
to save the life of the mother. As I said, there simply was no 
testimony. But Senators have expressed discomfort, as I said, in 
private to me, some wanting to vote for this but felt that they were 
not comfortable with the affirmative defense approach. In a good-faith 
effort to accommodate these concerns, last night Senator Dole and I 
offered a life-of-the-mother exception amendment, and the new language 
which would be added immediately at the end of subsection (a) of the 
pending bill reads as follows:

       This paragraph shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion 
     that is necessary to save the life of the mother whose life 
     is endangered by a physical disorder, illness or injury, 
     provided that no other medical procedure would suffice for 
     that purpose.

  Now, we heard some debate here last night from some as if to say a 
physical disorder would not cover the complications that may arise from 
a pregnancy where a partial-birth abortion would be performed.
  Of course, that would be covered. We are playing semantic games. The 
intent is to cover this if, in fact, there is a need to protect the 
life of the mother, which at this point we have never seen any 
testimony before any of our committees.
  The language of this Smith-Dole life-of-the-mother exception 
amendment is very clear. It could not be clearer. The first part of the 
amendment is designed to make certain that the exception only applies 
to cases in which the mother's life is genuinely, physically threatened 
by some physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury.
  Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENTS

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 90 
minutes equally divided between myself and Senator Boxer for debate on 
the Dole amendment No. 3081 and the Boxer amendment No. 3082, and that 
following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the amendments be 
laid aside, and the votes occur first on the Dole amendment, to be 
followed immediately by a vote on the Boxer amendment on Thursday, 
December 7, with the time to be determined.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH. I also ask unanimous consent that immediately following 
the disposition of the State-Justice-Commerce appropriations conference 
report, that there be 60 minutes to be equally divided in the usual 
form for closing debate on the two amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH. I further ask unanimous consent that if the Dole amendment 
No. 3081 is adopted, the Smith amendment No. 3080, as amended, be 
deemed agreed to without further action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that immediately 
following the two back-to-back votes tomorrow, that Senator Smith or 
his designee be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH. In light of this agreement, Mr. President, the leader has 
asked me to announce there will be no further votes this evening.


                           Amendment No. 3081

  The second part of the Smith-Dole amendment is intended to ensure 
that in such dire emergency cases that we talked about, a partial-birth 
abortion could only be performed if it were the only medical procedure 
available to save the life of the mother. After all, as we all know 
now, the partial-birth abortion procedure is, first, brutal, and 
second, inhumane. It cannot possibly be justified except in a case of 
true self-defense when there is no other way--no other way--for a 
doctor to save the mother's life. In that case, self-defense is 
certainly legitimate and, of course, I would be supportive.
  In sum, Mr. President, both Senator Dole and I believe that this 
carefully drafted life-of-the-mother exception amendment is fully 
adequate. You will hear words to the contrary, but it is fully adequate 
to address the good-faith concerns of those Senators who are not 
satisfied with the affirmative defense provision in the underlying 
bill.

  As I indicated, I am satisfied with it. But others are not, and I 
respect the fact that others are not and am willing therefore and have 
been willing, and Senator Dole and others have been willing, to change 
it to clarify it more, to make sure there is no doubt that we support 
the life-of-the-mother exception.
  We are satisfied that our language assures that this exception will 
not be abused by doctors who are not acting in good faith to save 
mothers' lives. We feel we have taken care of that in the amendment. 
Let me be very clear, Mr. President, as clear as I can be. Under the 
Smith-Dole amendment, no doctor could be convicted of violating the 
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995 unless the Government proved 
beyond a reasonable doubt that the doctor had performed a partial-birth 
abortion that was not covered--not covered--by this life-of-the-mother 
exception.
  As I indicated, Mr. President, this Smith-Dole life-of-the-mother 
exception amendment fully satisfies--fully--any legitimate concerns 
that the affirmative defense provision of H.R. 1833 

[[Page S 18073]]
does not adequately protect any doctor that might act to protect the 
life of the mother where no other procedure is available. We have gone 
the extra mile by doing this, even though--even though--those of us 
that have put this amendment forth believe that the affirmative defense 
provision does, in fact, protect such doctors.
  Mr. President, one of the Senators who has consistently made the 
argument that the affirmative defense provision does not protect 
doctors in life-saving situations is my colleague on the other side of 
the issue, the other side of the management here this evening, Senator 
Boxer. Last night after Senator Dole and I offered our life-of-the-
mother exception amendment, Senator Boxer responded by saying--I want 
to quote from the Congressional Record. ``Here we have it, an exception 
now for life of the mother. I think that is progress. I think that is 
progress, * * *.''
  And in the spirit of comity, c-o-m-i-t-y, as opposed to comedy, I 
welcome Senator Boxer's positive remarks. Senator Dole and I acted in 
good faith. We were pleased when she responded in good faith. But later 
in that same debate there was an about-face by the Senator from 
California.
  I say this with the utmost respect. There was an abrupt change in 
tune. Here is what Senator Boxer had to say about the Smith-Dole life-
of-the-mother exception amendment in the same debate a few minutes 
after the statement that I just read:

       This so-called 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.

  I am going to repeat those two lines. First, early in the debate, a 
quote from Senator Boxer:

       Here we have it, an exception now for the life of the 
     mother. I think that is progress. I think that is progress.

  And I welcome those remarks.
  Then, later in the same debate, the same evening, quoting Senator 
Boxer:

       This so-called 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.

  So, if there is confusion on the part those who are trying to figure 
out what Senator Boxer's view is on this, then I certainly understand 
that confusion.
  It is rather curious, is it not, that throughout the Senate's debate 
on this bill, the other side has repeatedly demanded a life-of-the-
mother exception--repeatedly demanded a life-of-the-mother exception. 
Yet, when we offer one, we get praised for it, then the gears are 
switched and we are denounced.
  I do not know what a flip-flop is, but if that is not one, I do not 
know what is.
  Mr. President, after abruptly changing the position, we then get into 
rationalization. Then we hear the quote from Senator Boxer:

       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.

  That just simply is not true. It simply is not true, and any 
reasonable person who looks at this amendment will see that it is not 
true, because it specifically provides for a life-of-the-mother 
exception.
  This is bizarre. I mean it really is bizarre. I have been involved in 
a lot of debates. I have served in the Congress for 11 years--I served 
in the Senate for 5 and the House for 6--and I have been involved in 
debates on everything. You name it, I think I have debated it here 
somewhere. But I do not think I have ever heard a statement that was as 
quick a turnaround in the same debate as that.

  And I guess my question is, what is the position of the Senator from 
California? What is the position of the spokesman on the other side of 
this issue? Is it that we have a life-of-the-mother exception or we do 
not? She said both. I am curious what the position is. Maybe we will 
hear it. I do not know.
  I said last night if a complication resulting from a pregnancy is not 
a physical disorder, what is it? I am not a physician. I do not pretend 
to be a physician. I have never advocated being a physician. I have 
never said I was a physician, but if a physical disorder, a 
complication resulting from a pregnancy is not a physical disorder, I 
do not know what it is.
  (Ms. SNOWE assumed the chair.)
  Mr. SMITH. Let me reiterate that we can play games with words, we can 
play semantics and obfuscate and distort the issue, and that is exactly 
what is occurring here, but the truth of the matter is, this is a life-
of-the-mother exception. The other side knows it, but that is not the 
agenda.
  A perfectly normal pregnancy is not a disorder. That is what the 
agenda is. That is the agenda. They want the right to have an 
elective--elective--abortion, whether there is a life-of-the-mother 
exception or not. That is the agenda.
  A perfectly normal pregnancy is not a disorder in the sense that some 
complications arise. It is not an illness, and it is not an injury. It 
is rather a perfectly normal and natural condition in which millions of 
women all over the country, all over the world, find themselves in at a 
given time. Sometimes, however, a woman develops a physical condition 
or a preexisting condition worsens as a result of the pregnancy and 
that physical condition poses a grave physical threat to her life.
  That situation which I just described, where there is a threat to her 
life, clearly, in the words of the Smith-Dole amendment, is a physical 
disorder, and it is covered. To put it more simply, Madam President, 
normal pregnancy is a natural physical order. It is not a disorder, it 
is an order, a natural physical order, and a life-threatening pregnancy 
is a physical disorder.
  In short, our amendment could not be clearer. This is a fully 
adequate, genuine life-of-the-mother exception. Period. And not only 
that, it is exactly what Senator Boxer repeatedly--over and over and 
over and over and over again--on the floor of this Senate prior to the 
hearing said that she wanted. ``I want the life-of-the-mother 
exception,'' she said. She said it again in the debate last night. We 
have it. Then she said we do not have it. First she said we have it, 
then we do not have it.

  Let me say what I think is really going on here. I think that those 
on the other side, the Senator from California and others, know what 
this amendment is. They know, in fact, that it is a fully adequate, 
good-faith life-of-the-mother exception. That is what it is.
  What I suspect that they might be afraid of is that the Senate's 
adoption of the Smith-Dole amendment will make it much more difficult 
to achieve the real objective. Let us talk about that real objective.
  Do you know what the real objective is? To gut this bill. To gut the 
bill. To kill this bill with a life or health exception, which opens up 
big doors. The keyword is ``health.'' Everyone really knows in the 
abortion context what that really means. It means abortion on demand, 
but we are not talking, I say to my colleagues, about abortion on 
demand under any circumstances at all in this bill, except the partial-
birth abortion. That is the only issue before us today. Nothing else.
  Whether or not you support, some time between the 5th and 9th month 
of gestation, the opportunity for any woman to say--let us just use, 
for example, at 8\1/2\ months gestation, that this is a female child 
and ``I don't want it. Therefore, because I don't want it, because it 
is a female, I am going to abort it in the following manner: I'm going 
to allow a doctor to enhance, induce the delivery of everything except 
the head.'' So all parts of the child come out of the birth canal with 
the exception of the head. It is then restrained by the doctor. It is 
held. Delivery stops because the doctor forcefully stops the child from 
being born, and then the child is killed by using scissors to the back 
of the head, with no anesthesia, and a catheter to suck out the child's 
brains. That is what happens. That is the type of abortion we are 
talking about here. It is the only type of abortion that we are talking 
about here. I say to my colleagues, let us not talk about these issues 
now, such as deformities. We will talk about those later. Let us talk 
about a healthy female child that somebody decides they do not want 
only because it is a little girl--no other reason--and they abort it in 
the manner that I described. That is what the agenda is for those who 
oppose this amendment.

  The Senate will consider, later this evening, this killer amendment. 
It is an amendment that is designed, again, 

[[Page S 18074]]
to gut the bill. You may as well call it the partial-birth abortion-
upon-demand amendment. That is what it is. I know my colleagues in the 
House--good colleagues, who have strong views on this issue, pro-choice 
views, like Susan Molinari and Patrick Kennedy, a moderate Republican 
and a liberal Democrat--voted for this ban, because they were so 
incensed, outraged, horrified, and sickened by a process that would 
take the life of a child in this manner.
  We have seen testimony, Madam President, of people who aborted 
children in this manner. This is what we are talking about. Let us not 
forget the manner, because that is what we are talking about--in this 
manner: by scissors and a catheter in the back of the neck, because 
they had Down's syndrome. We had testimony on that. My colleagues will 
recognize and I am sure many of us know that people with Down's 
syndrome are very productive people. It is very interesting that some 
of those same people who were staunch advocates for the Americans With 
Disabilities Act would not want to protect an innocent child who may be 
born with a disability. That is the height of hypocrisy. It just does 
not get any worse than that.
  When one seriously examines the Boxer amendment, it becomes clear 
that the ``partial-birth abortion-on-demand amendment'' is what it is. 
It totally and completely removes all of the protections of the 
underlying bill from any baby who is not, in the sole judgment of the 
abortionist, viable. In other words, under the Boxer amendment, any 
abortionist who wants to use this brutal and inhumane partial-birth 
abortion procedure to kill an unborn child who is not yet viable--and 
viability occurs somewhere around 24 weeks--can do so with total 
impunity.
  The amendment denies previable babies any protection at all. I have 
no doubt that Martin Haskell, the Nation's foremost partial-birth 
abortionist, would be very pleased, indeed, if this amendment were 
adopted. Do you know why he would be pleased? Because Dr. Haskell, by 
his own admission in statements--he refused to come and speak to the 
Senate--said he performed a thousand of these abortions like I just 
described--a thousand of them. Guess what, Madam President? Twenty 
percent--in other words, 200--were because the child had some medical 
deformity--Down's syndrome, or who knows--and 80 percent, or 800, by 
his testimony, were perfectly normal children, who were aborted 
selectively and electively by someone other than that child, that is 
for sure. That is what is going on in America. That is all I am trying 
to stop. That is all I am trying to do here.

  I say to my colleagues, as I have said before, and to anybody 
listening, if you had a pet that you had to euthanize, put to sleep, 
would you do it by using scissors to insert a hole in the back of the 
head and suck the brains out of your puppy or your dog without 
anesthesia? Would you do that? You would be horrified if the local SPCA 
did that and that was in the paper tomorrow. You would be down there 
closing the place down, trying to adopt all the pets to get them away 
from there. That is what you would do. But this goes on. Every day a 
baby dies like this--in America, at least. We cannot stand here and 
stop it, with all of the problems we face in America today, such as 
balancing the budget, keeping the Government from closing down so 
people do not lose their jobs and are out of work for Christmas, 
deciding whether or not troops should go to Bosnia? We have to stand 
here and try to stop something as brutal as this, which should not even 
be happening? My God.
  This amendment that the Senator from California has offered allows 
any partial-birth abortion on any viable baby. If you do not believe 
that, I would urge Senator Boxer, when she speaks, to say I will make 
an exception if it is a little girl, I will make an exception if it is 
healthy, I will make an exception if it has blue eyes, I will make an 
exception if it is a little boy, I will make an exception--let me hear 
it. You will not hear it. You will not hear it because that is not the 
agenda, because we use it in this cloudy term called the ``right to 
choose.''
  We are going to see pictures of happy families from the Senator from 
California. But one picture that is not going to be in that happy 
family is that little baby who, yes, may have had Down's syndrome, who 
could be productive, or maybe a normal little girl. You will not see 
their picture in the happy family, because they did not get a chance to 
be a part of that happy family.
  The post-viability language in the Senator's bill, like her pre-
viability language, effectively removes all babies from the protection 
of this underlying bill. I want my colleagues to understand--and they 
all know my position on abortion. I believe life begins at conception 
and that life is sacred and should be protected. But that is not what 
we are debating today. We are debating one specific type of abortion, 
an abortion in which labor is induced and the child comes into the 
birth canal and it is executed with scissors and catheters, brutally, 
in late-term pregnancies. That is what we are talking about, nothing 
else. Do not be confused by the debate on something else because that 
is not what we are talking about.

  So the Boxer amendment would essentially leave the judgment of 
whether a post-viability partial-birth abortion is necessary to protect 
the mother's health to the totally wide-open discretion of the abortion 
doctor. That, Madam President, is a prescription--to use a medical 
term--for abortion on demand.
  Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 24 minutes, 5 seconds.
  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, to show more precisely why this amendment 
would gut the bill, let me focus on the legal meaning of the term 
``health'' in the abortion context. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed 
that very question in the 1973 decision of Doe versus Bolton. ``Whether 
the health of the mother requires an abortion is a judgment,'' the 
Court said, ``to be made in the light of all factors--physical, 
emotional, psychological, the woman's age, and relevant to her well-
being.''
  That is very clearly stated. In other words, the Court has given the 
broadest, most liberal terms imaginable to the term ``health'' in the 
abortion context. As U.S. Court of Appeals Judge John Noonan said, ``. 
. . it would be a rare case where a doctor willing to perform an 
abortion would not be convinced that his patient's well-being required 
the abortion she asked for.''
  I am not trying to get into the debate about when a woman's health is 
at risk. We have had testimony, and we have called for witnesses to 
come before the committee of the Senate. We have heard testimony in the 
House. We sought to find people who would come in here, physicians, 
from anywhere in America, to come in and testify and tell us, the 
Senate or the House, where there is a case where you would need to do 
this type of abortion to save the life of a woman. No one testified to 
that effect.
  No one. They could not produce one. They could not even produce 
somebody that had a partial-birth abortion at the hearing we had, 
although they asked for the hearing.
  The Senate, in recent votes, has rejected this massive health 
loophole when it decisively defeated the Mikulski medical necessity 
amendment with respect to abortion coverage under the federal employees 
health benefit plan a few weeks ago.
  The Senate was not fooled then. The Senate will not be fooled now. 
This Boxer amendment would preserve the status quo, under which 
barbaric, cruel, and partial-birth abortion procedures are available on 
demand, a status quo under which a partial-birth abortionist like Dr. 
Haskell can freely take the lives of babies, like the Down's syndrome 
little boy that nurse Brenda Shafer saw him destroy.
  Brenda Shafer, for those that missed the debate, was a nurse who 
witnessed a partial-birth abortion, a little boy who had Down's 
syndrome. She was horrified. She called his little face an angelic 
face. She said, ``I looked into that face and I walked out of that 
clinic.'' She was a pro-choice woman who believed in abortion, taught 
her daughters that, but not this type of abortion. She was horrified, 
as any ordinary, normal person would be.
  My colleagues, all I am asking, in spite of my own personal feelings 
about this issue, all I am asking my colleagues to do today, all I am 
asking them to do is to vote to stop this single 

[[Page S 18075]]
horrible, disgusting type of abortion which is unnecessary.
  The only circumstance under which such a hideous and cruel procedure 
could possibly be justified would be in a true, absolute case of self-
defense where the doctor had no other way to save the mother's life.
  That situation--were it ever to happen in a most extreme case anyone 
can imagine--is provided for under the life-of-the-mother exception 
amendment that I believe the Senate will adopt.
  Stabbing an innocent, tiny baby through the skull and sucking her 
brains out--how can you justify that, in order to safeguard some 
vaguely defined expansive notion of the mother's health? How does it 
help the mother's health to do that?
  If it is hydrocephalic, you can drain off the fluid. In the 1 out of 
100 that Dr. Haskell performed that was hydrocephalic--the rest were 
something also, 80 percent elective.
  I urge my colleagues, before you vote on this amendment, look at the 
Supreme Court's decision of health in the context as set forth in Doe 
versus Bolton. Health involves all factors: physical, emotional, 
psychological, and the woman's age relevant to her well-being.

  In light of that definition, a vote for this is a vote for partial-
birth abortion on demand because there just is not any reason why you 
could not have one under that definition. A health exception to this 
bill's ban on partial-birth abortions is, quite literally, an exception 
that would consume the rule.
  In other words, in the abortion context, the word ``health'' in an 
exception, is a legal term of art, translated into plain English means 
abortion on demand.
  I say, if that is not the case, then I ask my colleagues on the other 
side, including the Senator from California, to simply stand up and 
say, ``I would not support aborting a child by the partial-birth 
abortion method.''
  If a woman came in and said, ``I am 8 months pregnant, Dr. Haskell. I 
have a single baby and I do not want it.'' I say she should not have 
that abortion. If the Senator from California should stand up and say 
that, we will have made progress. I hope she says it, but do not hold 
your breath. If she does not say it, we know what the real agenda is--
abortion on demand, not just regular abortion.
  This kind of abortion, scissors, catheter, something you would not do 
to your dog or your cat. You know you would not. You know you would not 
do it. There is no way that you would do it. Why would you do it to a 
child? Why would you allow it to be done to a child?
  To be sure, Senator Boxer made a cosmetic attempt to narrow the 
definition of health by saying, ``Serious adverse health consequences 
to the woman.'' But the fact remains that under Senator Boxer's 
amendment, whether there is a serious adverse health consequence to the 
mother is left solely to the judgment of the attending physician. In 
other words, the sole medical judgment of the abortionist, the sole 
medical judgment of Dr. Haskell and his fellow birth abortionists.
  The interesting point, all this talk of life of the mother, if it is 
your daughter and she is in that situation, or your wife, would you 
take her to an abortion clinic if her life was threatened or would you 
take her to a hospital? These are performed in abortion clinics. That 
is interesting, is it not?
  In short, Madam President, this narrowing language does not narrow 
her health exception one iota. The words ``serious and adverse'' are so 
clearly subjective, vague and broad as to be utterly meaningless and 
provides no meaning. Senator Boxer's amendment remains the partial-
birth abortion on demand amendment.
  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues, I plead, plead, plead with my 
colleagues one time, let us end this one, horrible, disgusting type of 
abortion. Let us have the courage to do it. These little kids cannot 
stand up here on the floor of the Senate. They do not have anybody. 
They cannot stand here. The ones that are killed never get a chance to 
stand here. They are not going to be the first woman President. They 
are not going to be the first minority President. They will not be 
President of anything.
  Do you know what their sin is? They happen to be in the womb of 
somebody who does not want them. That is their sin. If they were in the 
womb of somebody who wanted them after 8\1/2\ months, they would be 
allowed to be free and be born and live under the Constitution of the 
United States. That is their sin. That is their sin. We can do better 
than that in this country. We have more important things to do than 
that.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HELMS. First of all, Mr. President, I think all of us who 
understand this issue are grateful to the Senator from New Hampshire 
for his courage and his tenacity in standing up for the unborn, 
particularly those who have been and otherwise may be destroyed in the 
most gruesome and horrible way--a partial-birth abortion. I personally 
am indebted to Senator Smith, and I admire him very much.
  Mr. President, about a month ago, the Senate decided to send H.R. 
1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, to the Judiciary Committee 
with instructions that Senator Hatch and his committee hold at least 
one hearing and then return the bill to the Senate calendar within 19 
days.
  The Judiciary Committee has held that hearing and despite the 
rehashed charges of opponents of this bill, the U.S. Senate can no 
longer shirk its responsibility. Senator Dole, by offering a life-of-
the-mother exemption to H.R. 1833, has offered a provision that 
preserves the innocent lives of babies but also answers charges that 
the original bill did nothing to preserve the lives of the mothers.
  Mr. President, Senators have no more excuses. Senators must decide, 
and should decide soon, whether they will approve a gruesome procedure 
that is both inhuman and heartless. Senators have heard the partial-
birth abortion procedure described. They have seen the graphic 
depictions. It can easily and factually be said, as Senator Smith and I 
discussed when the bill first came to the Senate on November 7, that 
these innocent, tiny babies are just 3 inches from the protection of 
the law, only to be mercilessly deprived of their right to live and to 
love and to be loved.
  Senators should also decide whether they will disregard the medical 
facts and enlightening testimony presented to the Judiciary Committee 
which confirmed what proponents of the original bill have argued in the 
House of Representatives and in the Senate--that the voices of tiny 
babies are being silenced so that a woman can continue to choose to 
have an abortion in the third trimester.
  Let me add, if Senators miss this opportunity to criminalize partial-
birth abortions, they will be thumbing their noses at the American 
public whose outcry against partial-birth abortions is overwhelming.
  Mr. President, I was pleased as the House of Representatives listened 
to the American people and overwhelmingly passed the Partial-Birth 
Abortion Ban Act by a vote of 288-139 on November 1. If the Senate now 
follows, as it should, the House's example--and I sincerely hope that 
the Senate will--the burden then will shift to President Clinton who is 
more than ready, he says, to use his veto pen in order to appease the 
pro-abortion lobby unless weighty restrictions are added to the bill.
  And that is where we stand today as the Senate has heard from the 
chorus of Senators, many of whom have taken their marching orders from 
the powerful abortion lobby. Opponents of the bill have done their best 
to explain the medical necessity of a procedure that legally allows a 
doctor to partially deliver a baby, feet-first from the womb, only to 
have his or her brains brutally removed via the doctor's instruments.
  However, Mr. President, these objections by the bill's opponents are 
hollow attempts to whitewash a hideous wrong. For instance, they 
continue to persuade Senators that partial-birth abortions are 
medically necessary in order to preserve the health of pregnant women.
  Of course, ask NARAL and the other proabortion groups to define a 
``medically necessary'' situation and you'll hear a variety of answers 
including ``emotional stress,'' ``depression,'' or ``psychological 
indecision.'' NARAL even defined ``medically necessary'' abortions as 
``a term which generally 

[[Page S 18076]]
includes the broadest range of situations for which a state will fund 
abortion.''--``Who Decides? A Reproductive Rights Issues Manual--
1990''.
  Mr. President, I suggest we ask the American people who are ringing 
the phones off the hooks of Senate offices whether they see eye to eye 
with NARAL and other pro-abortion groups. They are not fooled. They 
recognize these semantic games as a smokescreen to demand abortion at 
any time, for any reason.
  More importantly, the medical evidence declares that this procedure 
is not needed to protect the health of the mother in a late-term crisis 
pregnancy. Don't take it from me. Take it from Dr. Pamela E. Smith, 
Director of Medical Education in the Department of Obstetrics and 
Gynecology at Chicago's Mount Sinai Hospital.
  Dr. Smith, in her November 4 letter to me, states that assertions 
implying that a partial-birth abortion is needed to protect the health 
of a woman in a late-term complicated pregnancy is ``deceptive and 
patently untrue.'' Dr. Smith even goes as far to explain in her October 
28 letter to Congressman Charles Canady that such a procedure, in fact, 
presents medical risks to the patient.
  In her testimony before the Judiciary Committee on November 17, Dr. 
Smith asks an important question that I wish every opponent of this 
bill would attempt to answer, and it is this:

       Why would a procedure considered to impose a significant 
     risk to maternal health when it is used to deliver a baby 
     alive, suddenly become the ``safe method of choice'' when the 
     goal is to kill the baby?

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Smith's letter from 
November 4, 1995, her letter from October 28, 1995, and her November 17 
testimony before the Judiciary Committee be printed in the Record at 
the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HELMS. Even Dr. Warren Hern--author of ``Abortion Practice,'' 
considered by the American Medical Association as the Nation's most 
widely used textbook on abortion standards and procedures--boldly 
disputes the safety of this late-term abortion, calling it 
``potentially dangerous.''
  Ask Dr. Hern what he thinks about partial-birth abortions as a safe 
option for late-term abortions. Let me repeat Dr. Hern's comments from 
a November 20 article in the American Medical News. He says, ``You 
really can't defend it,'' referring to a partial-birth abortion. He 
continues, ``I'm not going to tell somebody else that they should not 
do this procedure. But I'm not going to do it.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the November 20, 1995, 
American Medical News article titled, ``Outlawing Abortion Method,'' be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, allow me to address one more objection 
raised by opponents of this bill. In fact, the National Abortion 
Federation raised it with me in a November 3 letter, complete with 
pictures of severely abnormal babies. The NAF claims that it is the 
tragedy of deformed and abnormal babies that has produced a need for 
partial-birth abortions. Without this procedure, they portend, a 
pregnant woman's health will be threatened--Dr. Smith and other doctors 
have already refuted this point--and such abnormalities are 
``incompatible with life.''
  Now, Mr. President, nobody, in their right mind, would ever wish for 
a mother and father to face the heartbreaking experience of their 
newborn being delivered with a severe abnormality. Nobody would ever 
want a child to endure the physical and emotional scars of a physical 
deformity. Yet, for these reasons, they claim partial-birth abortions 
should remain legal.
  Again, I disagree and ask opponents of the bill to consider the 
reasons given by Dr. Martin Haskell, a noted proponent and practitioner 
of partial-birth abortions, as to why this procedure is conducted. Dr. 
Haskell, in a 1993 interview with American Medical News, states that 20 
percent are conducted for genetic reasons, and the other 80 percent are 
purely elective--purely to get rid of the child.
  And according to materials presented to a House Judiciary 
subcommittee, the non-elective reasons given for a partial-birth 
abortion conducted by the late Dr. James McMahon included such 
``flaws'' as a cleft palate. Are these the type of genetic reasons 
these babies suffer painful deaths?
  Mr. President, the facts are in and I will not belabor them further. 
But they clearly prove that partial-birth abortions are unnecessary to 
preserve the health of a woman in a late-term complicated pregnancy. 
Simply put, a partial-birth abortion is another means for a woman to 
terminate her unwanted child very late in pregnancy.
  I urge my colleagues, do not be deceived by the pro-abortion rhetoric 
which would have you believe that this cruel procedure is needed. 
Instead, listen to the advice of medical experts. Consider the outcry 
of the American people who recognize partial-birth abortions as inhuman 
and stand up for the most helpless and innocent human beings 
imaginable.
  I thank the distunguished Senator from New Hampshire, and I admire 
him and the great work he has done. I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                 November 4, 1995.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: I am a medical doctor, board certified in the 
     specialty of obstetrics and gynecology. I am also in the 
     process of completing a master's in public health with 
     enhanced analytical skills in maternal and child health at 
     the University of Illinois at Chicago. For the past 15 years 
     I have practiced in the inner city of Chicago and currently I 
     am the Director of Medical Education in the Department of 
     Obstetrics and Gynecology at Mt. Sinai Hospital; a member of 
     the Association of Professors in Gynecology and Obstetrics; 
     and the President Elect of the American Association of 
     Profile Obstetricians and Gynecologists. It has recently been 
     brought to my attention that on November 7th the Senate will 
     consider the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. As a fellow citizen 
     I urge you to support this legislation.
       As you are probably aware the partial birth abortion 
     procedure involves delivering a human fetus by breach 
     extraction until only the head remains inside the birth 
     canal. The practitioner then kills the baby by inserting a 
     pair of scissors into the base of the skull and removing the 
     baby's brains with a vacuum. This is the procedure the 
     proposed bill seeks to ban.
       Last week, despite a tremendous amount of medical 
     misinformation given by the opponents of H.R. 1833, the 
     Partial Birth Abortion Ban received strong support in its 
     passage in the House. As this measure is now being presented 
     for Senate consideration please be aware of the following 
     medical facts:
       1. Opponents insinuated that aborting a living human fetus 
     is sometimes necessary to preserve the reproductive potential 
     and/or life of the mother. Such an assertion is deceptive and 
     patently untrue. Even if the fetus is grotesquely malformed, 
     a living intrauterine pregnancy is not a health risk to its 
     mother unless the woman suffers from extremely rare medical 
     problems that would preclude pregnancy under any 
     circumstances.
       2. Partial birth abortion is a surgical technique devised 
     by secluded abortionists in the unregulated abortion industry 
     to save them the trouble of ``counting the body parts'' that 
     are produced in dismemberment procedures. It is not a 
     ``standard of care'' for anything. Equally important is the 
     fact that the risks involved in dismemberment procedures and 
     partial birth abortion include istrogenically produced 
     cervical incompetence and uterine rupture. Medical 
     alternatives (like prostaglendine) do not pose these risks 
     but have the undesirable ``side effect'' of sometimes 
     producing a living child. Women who were ``counseled'' by 
     abortionists that they were submitting themselves to a 
     procedure that was ``safe'' and that would insure their 
     future reproductive potential were deceived and lied to. 
     These women actually risked losing their uterus or their 
     lives by submitting to these dangerous intrauterine 
     extractions.
       3. In breach extractions frequently the baby's head ``slips 
     out.'' Since the practitioners of this procedure (who by 
     their own reports up until 1993 had performed at least 3,000 
     of these procedures) have never reported a survivor you can 
     be assured that some of these fetuses were constitutional 
     persons who were murdered.
       4. The baby is alive throughout the entire procedure until 
     the scissors are jammed into the base of the skull.
       5. There are absolutely no obstetrical situations 
     encountered in this country which require a partially 
     delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the health 
     of the mother.
       Additionally, given the recent attempts by the ACGME to 
     coerce OBGYN residents into becoming abortion providers, many 
     profile and prochoice physicians in training are concerned 
     that they will be forced to witness and/or participate in 
     gruesome abortion 

[[Page S 18077]]
     techniques. Most of these individuals support the decriminalization of 
     abortion . . . but are extremely uncomfortable with 
     procedures that destroy a life that is undeniably human.
       I therefore urge you to consider these factors during the 
     deliberations on this bill. The health status of women and 
     children in this country can only be enhanced by banning 
     partial birth abortions.
           Sincerely,
     Pamela E. Smith, M.D., FACOG.
                                                                    ____

                                                 October 28, 1995.
     Hon. Charles Canady,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, House Committee 
         on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Canady: It has recently been brought to my 
     attention that opponents of HR 1833 have stated that this 
     particular abortion technique should maintain its legality 
     because it is sometimes employed by physicians in the 
     interest of maternal health. Such an assertion not only runs 
     contrary to facts but ignores the reality of the risks to 
     maternal health that are associated with this procedure which 
     include the following:
       1. Since the procedure entails 3 days of forceful 
     dilatation of the cervix, the mother could develop cervical 
     incompetence in subsequent pregnancies resulting in 
     spontaneous second trimester pregnancy losses and 
     necessitating the placement of a cerclage (stitch around the 
     cervix) to enable her to carry a fetus to term.
       2. Uterine rupture is a well known complication associated 
     with this procedure. In fact, partial birth abortion is a 
     ``variant'' of internal podalic version . . . a technique 
     sometimes used by obstetricians in this country with the 
     intent of delivering a live child. However, internal podalic 
     version, in this country, has been gradually replaced by 
     Cesarean section in the interest of maternal as well as fetal 
     well being (see excerpts from the standard text Williams 
     Obstetrics pages 520, 521, 865 and 866).
       Furthermore, obstetrical emergencies (such as entrapment of 
     the head of a hydrocephalic fetus or of a footling breech 
     that has partially delivered on its own) are never handled by 
     employing this abortion technique. Cephalocentesis, (drainage 
     of fluid from the head of a hydrocephalic fetus) frequently 
     results in the birth of a living child. Relaxing the uterus 
     with anesthesia, cutting the cervix (Duhrssen's incision) and 
     Cesarean section are the standard of care for a normal, head 
     entrapped breech fetus.
       There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered 
     in this country which require a partially delivered human 
     fetus to be destroyed to preserve the health of the mother. 
     Partial birth abortion is a technique devised by abortionists 
     for their own convenience . . . ignoring the known health 
     risks to the mother. The health status of women in this 
     country will thereby only be enhanced by the banning of this 
     procedure.
           Sincerely,

                                        Pamela E. Smith, M.D.,

                                    Director of Medical Education,
     Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
                                                                    ____


    Testimony of Pamela Smith, M.D. on H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth 
  Abortion Ban Act, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC, 
                           November 17, 1995

       Mr. Chairman, honorable members of the Judiciary Committee, 
     my name is Pamela Eleashia Smith. I am a medical doctor, 
     board-certified in the specialty of obstetrics and 
     gynecology, having received my training at Cornell 
     University, Yale University, the University of Chicago, and 
     Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago.
       For the past 15 years I have practiced in the inner city of 
     Chicago. I am currently the Director of Medical Education in 
     the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Mt. Sinai 
     Hospital; an Assistant Professor at the Finch University/
     Chicago Medical School; a member of the American College of 
     Obstetrics and Gynecologists; and the President-elect of the 
     American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and 
     Gynecologists.
       Honorable senators, before I testified on this legislation 
     on June 15, before the House Judiciary Committee's 
     Subcommittee on the Constitution, I went around and described 
     the procedure of partial-birth abortion to a number of 
     physicians and laypersons who I knew to be pro-choice. They 
     were horrified to learn that such a procedure was even legal.
       I believe that it is safe to say that until the recent 
     publicity occasioned by the movement of this legislation, 
     most physicians, including obstetrician-gynecologists, knew 
     nothing of this technique as an abortion method. But the 
     partial-birth abortion method is strikingly similar to the 
     technique of internal podalic version, or fetal breech 
     extraction. Breech extraction is a procedure that is utilized 
     by many obstetricians with the intent of delivering a live 
     infant in the management of twin pregnancies, or single-
     infant pregnancies complicated by abnormal positions of the 
     pre-born infant.
       I would invite the members of the subcommittee to review 
     the drawings of the fetal breech extraction method that I 
     have attached to my written testimony, reproduced from 
     Williams Obstetrics, a standard textbook. Compare this with 
     the partial-birth abortion procedure, as laid out step-by-
     step by Dr. Martin Haskell in his instructional paper, 
     ``Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester 
     Abortion.'' (In that paper, Dr. Haskell says that he 
     ``coined'' the term ``dilation and extraction.'' Neither that 
     term nor the term now favored by opponents of H.R. 1833, 
     ``intact dilation and evacuation,'' can be found in any 
     standard medical literature. There is nothing whatever 
     misleading about the term utilized in the bill, ``partial-
     birth abortion.'')
       In a total breech extraction, the physician--frequently 
     with the aid of ultrasound--grasps the lower extremities of 
     the baby. With the bag of waters serving as a buffer and 
     cervical wedge, the physician pulls the infant towards the 
     cervix and vagina. To facilitate the delivery of the head by 
     flexion, care is taken to maintain the baby's spine in a 
     position that points towards the mother's bladder.
       Depending upon the size of the infant, an attempt may be 
     made to delivery the baby without rupturing the bag of 
     waters. In such a case, the bag of waters facilitates 
     delivery of the head by mechanically maintaining cervical 
     dilation. Should the bag of waters rupture and the head 
     become entrapped, it can be released by cutting the 
     cervix, or a Cesarean section can be performed to deliver 
     the baby abdominally.
       Partial-birth abortions, which according to the physicians 
     who perform them have been done on babies from the ages of 19 
     weeks to full term, represent a perversion of the above 
     technique. In these procedures, one basically relies on 
     cervical entrapment of the head, along with a firm grip, to 
     help keep the baby in place while the practitioner plunges a 
     pair of scissors into the base of the baby's skull. The 
     scissors also creates an opening for the insertion of a 
     suction curette to remove the baby's brains.
       If, my chance, the cervix is floppy or loose and the 
     abortionist does not keep a good grip, he may encounter the 
     dreadful ``complication'' of delivering a live baby--
     undoubtedly, a constitutional ``person'' with an inalienable 
     right to life. Thus, the practitioner must take great care to 
     insure that the baby does not move those additional few 
     inches that would transform its status from one of an abortus 
     to that of a living human child.
       Another brazen attempt to mislead the American public as to 
     the reality of the pain experienced by the victims of this 
     procedure is the assertion that the anesthesia kills the 
     baby. Such a statement runs contrary to published reports 
     made by abortion practitioners, is not consistent with basic 
     principles of the pharmacology of drug distribution in the 
     pregnant female, and violates common sense. Twenty-five 
     percent of all pregnancies in this country are delivered by 
     Cesarean section and many women receive potent narcotics to 
     relieve their pain during labor. Yet it is essentially 
     unheard of that a human fetus in labor dies secondary to 
     anesthesia given to its mother.
       I note that the American Society of Anesthesiologists 
     issued the following statement recently:
       Recent debate in the U.S. House of Representatives and 
     Senate regarding late-term abortions has resulted in the 
     distribution of misleading and potentially dangerous 
     information to the public. The procedure, described in the 
     media and during congressional debate, was developed by the 
     late Dr. James T. McMahon. In testimony before Congress last 
     June, Dr. McMahon incorrectly stated that the fetus dies from 
     the anesthesia administered to the mother.
       According to the president of the American Society of 
     Anesthesiologists (ASA), Dr. Norig Ellison, the anesthesia 
     administered to the mother in connection with such a 
     procedure does not kill the fetus. Very little anesthesia 
     crosses the placenta when general anesthesia is administered 
     to the mother, and many pregnant women are safely 
     anesthetized every day without ill effects to the fetus.
       ASA is concerned that because of publicity given to Dr. 
     McMahon's erroneous testimony, pregnant women may delay 
     necessary and perhaps lifesaving medical procedures due to 
     misinformation regarding the effect of anesthetics on the 
     fetus.
       Of course, if a baby really were dead, H.R. 1833 would not 
     apply, since the definition of ``partial-birth abortion'' is 
     ``an abortion in which the person performing the abortion 
     partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing 
     the fetus * * *''
       The cruelty of this treatment of the human fetus is quite 
     evident to those who do not avert their gaze or close their 
     minds. But these abortion procedures also carry with them 
     significant risks to maternal health.
       Partial-birth abortion is not a standard of care for 
     anything. In fact, partial-birth abortion is a perversion of 
     a well-known technique used by obstetricians to delivery 
     breech babies when the intent is to delivery the child 
     alive. However, as the enclosed references in Williams 
     ``Obstetrics'' readily document, this technique is rarely 
     used in this country because of the well known associated 
     risk of maternal hemorrhage and uterine rupture. The 19th 
     edition of Williams ``Obstetrics'' states the following in 
     regards to the safety of this method of breech delivery:
       ``Despite numerous attempts to defend or condemn this 
     procedure, there is presently insufficient evidence to 
     document its safety . . . There are few, if any indications 
     for internal podalic version other than the delivery of a 
     second twin. The possibility of serious trauma to the fetus 
     and the mother during internal podalic version of a cephalic 
     presentation is apparent . . .''
       Why would a procedure that is considered to impose a 
     significant risk to maternal 

[[Page S 18078]]
     health when it is used to delivery a baby alive, suddenly become the 
     ``safe method of choice'' when the goal is to kill the baby? 
     And if abortion providers wanted to demonstrate that somehow 
     this procedure would be safe in late-pregnancy abortions, 
     even though its use has routinely been discouraged in modern 
     obstetrics, why didn't they go before institutional review 
     boards, obtain consent to perform what amounts to human 
     experimentation, and conduct adequately controlled, 
     appropriately supervised studies that would insure accurate, 
     informed consent of patients and the production of valid 
     scientific information for the medical community?
       It is also noteworthy that even leading authorities on 
     late-term abortion methodology have expressed the gravest 
     reservations regarding this technique. Consider, for example, 
     this excerpt from an article in the November 20 edition of 
     American Medical News, the official newspaper of the American 
     Medical Association.
       ``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 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 
     in those cases fetal death has been induced and the fetus 
     would not purposely be rotated into a breech position.
       The behavior of the abortion industry in regards to this 
     current controversy is chillingly reminiscent of the Tuskegee 
     syphilis experiment conducted by medical and public health 
     personnel over two decades ago. In this infamous study, poor 
     black men were deceived and lied to and a known lifesaving 
     treatment option was withheld so that the researchers could 
     follow the ``natural course'' of the disease. Apparently some 
     individuals in our country failed to learn a valuable lesson 
     from this tragic chapter in our nation's recent history. 
     Pregnant women should not be experimented upon under the 
     guise of a deceptive rubric called ``choice.''
       Furthermore, since the partial-birth abortion procedure 
     requires three days of forceful dilation of the cervix, the 
     mother could develop cervical incompetence in subsequent 
     pregnancies, resulting in spontaneous second-trimester 
     pregnancy losses and necessitating the placement of a 
     cerclage (stitch around the bottom of the womb) to enable 
     her to carry a baby to term. It is therefore a fact that 
     this procedure represents a risk to future fertility of 
     the patient. It does not represent the safest way for the 
     patient to maintain her fertility, as abortion advocates 
     proclaim.
       Opponents of HR 1833 have also argued that ``decreasing the 
     size of the fetal head to allow delivery'' is done to save 
     the mother the risk of ``ripping and tearing'' the bottom of 
     the womb. But in fact, the standard of care for handling a 
     baby who is breech with an entrapped head at the cervix is 
     not partial-birth abortion. Caphalocentesis (drainage of 
     fluid from the head of a hydrocephalic fetus) frequently 
     results in the birth of a living child. Relaxing the uterus 
     with anesthesia, cutting the cervic (Duhrssen's incision), 
     and Cesarean section are the recognized options in the 
     medical community to deal with this obstetrical problem.
       In short, there are absolutely no obstetrical situations 
     encountered in this country which require a partially 
     delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or 
     health of the mother.
       Opponents of HR 1833 have similarly erroneously declared 
     that the partial-birth abortion method is necessary to 
     protect the ``emotional health'' of the mother. Certainly, I 
     do not lightly dismiss the accounts of women and families who 
     have experienced the anguish of learning, late in pregnancy, 
     that their babies have serious or even lethal disorders. In 
     my own years of practice and training, I have taken care of 
     many women who were carrying babies with fatal fetal 
     anomalies. My most recent such patient was a 19-year-old 
     female who was pregnant for the third time. Her previous two 
     pregnancies were remarkable for severe nausea and vomiting, 
     and she delivered two children who died before they were two 
     months old secondary to heart abnormalities. With her current 
     pregnancy the patient was weak, dehydrated, and emotionally 
     torn between the desire to bear a child and the horrible 
     prospect of attending another funeral. Our clinic staff, all 
     of whom are pro-life, counseled her on her options, supported 
     her medically in the hospital, and respected her initial 
     decision to terminate her pregnancy. However, the next day, 
     the patient's nausea and vomiting receded, she changed her 
     mind, and now intends to carry the baby to term.
       Which brings to mind another erroneous insinuation 
     presented by opponents of HR 1833: the assertion that as soon 
     as a patient is discovered to have a fetus with an anomaly, 
     the pregnancy must be aborted immediately because the baby 
     has a high chance of dying before labor begins, representing 
     a threat to the life of the mother. Such a claim is 
     deceptive. It is often intended to sell the patient on the 
     abortion option.
       First of all, it is not the standard of care to immediately 
     terminate the life of a living fetus just because that baby 
     has abnormalities. What is appropriate is to inform the 
     patient of your clinical suspicions, discuss with her all of 
     the options, as well as the risks associated with terminating 
     her pregnancy prematurely, and then develop a plan of 
     management that respects the patient's values and emotional 
     needs. Many women opt to continue such pregnancies.
       Although it is highly unlikely that the partial-birth 
     abortion procedure would ever be needed to save a woman's 
     life, HR 1833 specifically states that the procedure would be 
     allowed if the doctor ``reasonably believed'' that it was 
     necessary to save the mother's life, and that no other 
     procedure would suffice. Abortion providers, however, are 
     fully aware that a lot of other procedures would suffice--
     but they are primarily interested in making sure that 
     their job of terminating human life can be done according 
     to their own convenience. With the partial-birth method of 
     abortion, the provider is saved the trouble of assembling 
     ``baby parts'' to make sure that nothing was left inside.
       Earlier this year, the late Dr. James McMahon provided to 
     the House Judiciary subcommittee a list of a self-selected 
     sample of 175 cases in which he utilized the partial-birth 
     procedure for so-called ``maternal indications.'' Of this 
     list, one-third (33%) of the time the partial-birth procedure 
     would be more appropriately classified as a contraindication, 
     because the mother already had medical problems that are 
     associated with excessive bleeding, infection or a need to be 
     delivered quickly. These conditions include eclampsia, 
     abruptio placenta, amnionitis, premature rupture of 
     membranes, incompetent cervix, and blood clotting 
     abnormalities.
       In addition, another 22% (39 cases) were for maternal 
     ``depression,'' and 16% for conditions consistent with the 
     birth of a normal child (e.g., sickle cell trait, prolapsed 
     uterus, small pelvis).
       Opponents of HR 1833 have also asserted that the term 
     ``elective'' means that the doctor elects to do this 
     procedure rather than to do some other one. I would invite 
     any individual in this country to ask their doctor what the 
     term ``elective surgery'' means. Or look the word up in the 
     dictionary. It refers to procedures that are optional. In a 
     tape-recorded 1993 interview with American Medical News, Dr. 
     Martin Haskell explicitly distinguished between the 20 
     percent of his ``extraction'' procedures (as he calls them) 
     that he said involved fetuses with genetic problems, and the 
     80 percent that are, in his words, ``purely elective.''
       HR 1833 has already been immensely useful in educating the 
     American public as to the need to keep a watchful eye, in the 
     interest of maternal well being, on the activities of the 
     abortion industry. Enactment of this legislation is needed 
     both to protect human offspring from being subjected to a 
     brutal procedure, and to safeguard the health of pregnant 
     women in America.

                               Exhibit 2

            [From the American Medical News, Nov. 20, 1995]

                       Outlawing Abortion Method

                         (By Diane M. Gianelli)

       Washington.--His strategy was simple: Find an abortion 
     procedure that almost anyone would describe as ``gruesome,'' 
     and force the opposition to defend it.
       When Rep. Charles T. Canady (R, Fla.) learned about 
     ``partial birth'' abortions, he was set.
       He and other anti-abortion lawmakers launched a 
     congressional campaign to outlaw the procedure.
       Following a contentious and emotional debate, the bill 
     passed by an overwhelming--and veto-proof--margin: 288-139. 
     It marks the first time the House of Representatives has 
     voted to forbid a method of abortion. And although the 
     November elections yielded a ``pro-life'' infusion in both 
     the House and the Senate, massive crossover voting occurred, 
     with a significant number of ``pro-choice'' representatives 
     voting to pass the measure.
       The controversial procedure, done in second- and third-
     trimester pregnancies, involves an abortion in which the 
     provider, according to the bill, ``partially vaginally 
     delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and 
     completing the delivery.''
       ``Partial birth'' abortions, also called ``intact D&E'' 
     (for dilation and evacuation), or ``D&X'' (dilation and 
     extraction) are done by only a handful of U.S. physicians, 
     including Martin Haskell, MD, of Dayton, Ohio, and, until his 
     recent death, James T. McMahon, MD, of the Los Angeles area. 
     Dr. McMahon said in a 1993 AMNews interview that he had 
     trained about a half-dozen physicians to do the procedure.
       The procedure usually involves the extraction of an intact 
     fetus, feet first, through the birth canal, with all but the 
     head delivered. The surgeon forces scissors into the base of 
     the skull, spreads them to enlarge the opening, and uses 
     suction to remove the brain.
       The procedure gained notoriety two years ago, when abortion 
     opponents started running newspaper ads that described and 
     illustrated the method. Their goal was to defeat 

[[Page S 18079]]
     an abortion rights bill then before Congress on grounds it was so 
     extreme that states would have no ability to restrict even 
     late-term abortions on viable fetuses. The bill went nowhere, 
     but strong reaction to the campaign prompted anti-abortion 
     activities to use it again.

                           *   *   *   *   *



                       Mixed feelings in medicine

       The procedure is controversial in the medical community. On 
     the one hand, organized medicine bristles at the notion of 
     Congress attempting to ban or regulate any procedures or 
     practices. On the other hand, even some in the abortion 
     provider community find the procedure difficult to defend.
       ``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 text-book on 
     abortion standards and procedures, Dr. Hern specializes in 
     late-term procedures.
       He opposes the bill, he said, because he thinks Congress 
     has no business dabbling in the practice of medicine and 
     because he thinks this signifies just the beginning of a 
     series of legislative attempts to chip away at abortion 
     rights. But of 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 women, and 
     that 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.''
       Pamela Smith, MD, director of medical education, Dept. of 
     Ob-Gyn at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago, added two more 
     concerns: cervical incompetence in subsequent pregnancies 
     caused by three days of forceful dilation of the cervix and 
     uterine rupture caused by rotating the fetus within the womb.
       ``There are absolutely no obstetrical situations 
     encountered in the country which require a partially 
     delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life of 
     the mother,'' Dr. Smith wrote in a letter to Canady.
       The procedure also has its defenders. The procedure is a 
     ``well-recognized and safe technique by those who provide 
     abortion care.'' Lewis H. Koplik, MD, an Albuquerque, N.M., 
     abortion provider, said in a statement that appeared in the 
     Congressional Record.
       ``The risk of severe cervical laceration and the 
     possibility of damage to the uterine artery by a sharp 
     fragment of calvarium is virtually eliminated. Without the 
     release of thromboplastic material from the fetal central 
     nervous system into the maternal circulation, the risk of 
     coagulation problems, DIC [disseminated intravascular 
     coagulation], does not occur. In skilled hands, uterine 
     preformation is almost unknown,'' Dr. Koplik said.
       Bruce Ferguson, MD, another Albuquerque abortion provider, 
     said in a letter released to Congress that the ban could 
     impact physicians performing late-term abortions by other 
     techniques. He noted that there were ``many abortions in 
     which a portion of the fetus may pass into the vaginal canal 
     and there is no clarification of what is meant by `a living 
     fetus.' Does the doctor have to do some kind of 
     electrocardiogram and brain wave test to be able to prove 
     their fetus was not living before he allows a foot or hand to 
     pass through the cervix?''
       Apart from medical and legal concerns, the bill's focus on 
     late-term abortion also raises troubling ethical issues. In 
     fact, the whole strategy, according to Rep. Chris Smith (R, 
     N.J.), is to force citizens and elected officials to move 
     beyond a philosophical discussion of ``a woman's right to 
     choose,'' and focus on the reality of abortion. And, he said, 
     to expose those who support ``abortion on demand'' as ``the 
     real extremists.''
       Another point of contention is the reason the procedure is 
     performed. During the Nov. 1 debate before the House, 
     opponents of the bill repeatedly stated that the procedure 
     was used only to save the life of the mother or when the 
     fetus had serious anomalies.
       Rep. Vic Fazio (D. Calif.) said, ``Despite the other side's 
     spin doctors--real doctors know that the late-term abortions 
     this bill seeks to ban are rare and they're done only when 
     there is no better alternative to save the woman, and, if 
     possible, preserve her ability to have children.''
       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 
     in those cases fetal death has been induced and the fetus 
     would not purposely be rotated into a breech position.
       Even some physicians who specialize in this procedure do 
     not claim the majority are performed to save the life of the 
     pregnant woman.
       In his 1993 interview with AMNews, Dr. Haskell conceded 
     that 80% of his late-term abortions were elective. Dr. 
     McMahon said he would not do an elective abortion after 26 
     weeks. But in a chart he released to the House Judiciary 
     Committee, ``depression'' was listed most often as the reason 
     for late-term nonelective abortions with maternal 
     indications. ``Cleft lip'' was listed nine times under fetal 
     indications.
       The accuracy of the article was challenged, two years after 
     publication, by Dr. Haskell and the National Abortion 
     Federation, who told Congress the doctors were quoted ``out 
     of context.'' AMNews Editor Barbara Bolsen defended the 
     article, saying AMNews ``had full documentation of the 
     interviews, including tape recordings and transcripts.''
       Bolsen gave the committee a transcript of the contested 
     quotes, including the following, in which Dr. Haskell was 
     asked if the fetus was dead before the end of the procedure.
       ``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. Sometimes the membranes rupture and 
     it takes a very small superficial infection to kill a fetus 
     in utero when the membranes are broken.
       ``So in my case, I would say probably about a third of 
     those are definitely dead before I actually start to remove 
     the fetus. And probably the other two-thirds are not,'' said 
     Dr. Haskell.
       In a letter to Congress before his death, Dr. McMahon 
     stated that medications given to the mother induce ``a 
     medical coma'' in the fetus, and ``there is neurological 
     fetal demise.''
       But Watson Bowes, MD, a maternal-fetal specialist at 
     University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said in a letter 
     to Canday that Dr. McMahon's statement ``suggests a lack 
     of understanding of maternal-fetal pharmacology. . . 
     Having cared for pregnant women who for one reason or 
     another required surgical procedures in the second 
     trimester, I know they were often heavily sedated or 
     anesthetized for the procedures, and the fetuses did not 
     die.''


                        Next move in the Senate

       At AMNews press time, the Senate was scheduled to debate 
     the bill. Opponents were lining up to tack on amendments, 
     hoping to gut the measure or send it back to a committee 
     where it could be watered down or rejected.
       In a statement about the bill, President Clinton did not 
     use the word ``veto.'' But he said he ``cannot support'' a 
     bill that did not provide an exception to protect the life 
     and health of the mother. Senate opponents of the bill say 
     they will focus on the fact that it does not provide such an 
     exception.
       The bill does provide an affirmative defense to a physician 
     who provides this type of abortion if he or she reasonably 
     believes the procedure was necessary to save the life of the 
     mother and no other method would suffice.
       But Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D, Colo.) says that's not 
     sufficient. ``This means that it is available to the doctor 
     after the handcuffs have snapped around his or her wrists, 
     bond has been posted, and the criminal trial is under way,'' 
     she said during the House debate.
       Canady disagrees. ``No physician is going to be prosecuted 
     and convicted under this law if he or she reasonably believes 
     the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother.''


                   Organized medicine positions vary

       The physician community is split on the bill. The 
     California Medical Assn., which says it does not advocate 
     elective abortions in later pregnancy, opposes it as ``an 
     unwarranted intrusion into the physician-patient 
     relationship.'' The American College of Obstetricians and 
     Gynecologists also opposes it on grounds it would ``supersede 
     the medical judgment of trained physicians and . . . would 
     criminalize medical procedures that may be necessary to save 
     the life of a woman,'' said spokeswoman Alice Kirkman.
       The AMA has chosen to take no position on the bill, 
     although its Council on Legislation unanimously recommended 
     support. AMA Trustee Nancy W. Dickey, MD, noted that although 
     the board considered seriously the council's recommendations, 
     it ultimately decided to take no position, because it had 
     concerns about some of the bill's language and about Congress 
     legislating medical procedures.
       Meanwhile, each side in the abortion debate is calling news 
     conferences to announce how necessary or how ominous the bill 
     is. Opponents highlight poignant stories of women who have 
     elected to terminate wanted pregnancies because of major 
     fetal anomalies.
       Rep. Nita Lowey (D. N.Y.) told the story of Claudia Ames, a 
     Santa Monica woman who said the procedure had saved her life 
     and saved her family.
       Ames told Lowey that six months into her pregnancy, she 
     discovered the child suffered from severe anomalies that made 
     its survival impossible and placed Ames' life at risk.
       The bill's backers were ``attempting to exploit one of the 
     greatest tragedies any family can ever face by using graphic 
     pictures and sensationalized language and distortions,'' Ames 
     said.
       Proponents focus on the procedure's cruelty. Frequently 
     quoted is testimony of a nurse, Brenda Shafer, RN, who 
     witnessed three of these procedures in Dr. Haskell's clinic 
     and called it ``the most horrifying experience of my life.
       ``The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were 
     clasping together. He was kicking his feet.'' Afterwards, she 
     said, ``he threw the baby in a pan.'' She said she saw the 
     baby move. ``I still have nightmares about what I saw.''
       Dr. Hern says if the bill becomes law, he expects it to 
     have ``virtually no significance'' clinically. But on a 
     political level, ``it is very, very significant.''
     
[[Page S 18080]]

       ``This bill's about politics,'' he said, ``it's not about 
     medicine.''

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator from California for sharing 
time and I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of her 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam President, I continue to be astounded when I 
consider the extent to which a woman's constitutional right to choice 
has been taken away in this, the 104th Congress.
  First came the Hyde amendment limiting a poor woman's reproductive 
choice because Government contributed to the payment of her health 
care. Then came the battle of parental notification, limiting very 
young women in their reproductive choices because of their age--not 
their condition. Then came the battle over military hospitals, limiting 
military women in their reproductive choices because they or their 
spouse chose to serve their country. Then came the battle over Federal 
health insurance, limiting Federal employees and their reproductive 
choices because they work for the Government.
  Now, Madam President, the battle is over this legislation to fine or 
jail doctors who perform safe, legal, medical procedures, abortions for 
women who need them late in their pregnancy.
  Madam President, today as it has been since the landmark 1973 Supreme 
Court decision of Roe v. Wade, the concept of reproductive freedom is 
under assault. Choice is a matter of freedom. Choice is a fundamental 
issue of the relationship of female citizens to their Government. 
Choice is a barometer of equality and a measure of fairness. Choice is 
central to our liberty.
  While, Madam President, I do not believe in abortion personally, I do 
believe very strongly and fundamentally in the right to choose.
  Today, the assault on reproductive choice has taken on a new 
ferocity. The procedure that has become the focus of this newest 
assault on choice is a very rare--which you have heard many times--a 
rare medical procedure used to terminate pregnancies late in the term 
when the life or health of the mother is at risk and/or when the fetus 
has severe--severe--abnormalities.
  Only one or two doctors in the entire country perform this procedure, 
the procedure you have heard described. Yes; it is gruesome. But so is 
the circumstance. This procedure, however, although rare and even 
though it is gruesome, can be the most medically sound option for 
preserving the health and life of the woman whose life is at stake, the 
citizen whose life and liberty is at stake.
  Madam President, H.R. 1833, the bill that this amendment relates to, 
is an unconstitutional, vague ban on the procedure that we have 
discussed here on the floor and is the vehicle for the newest assault 
on choice.
  A doctor who performed an abortion, one of these late-term abortions, 
would face up to 2 years in prison and fines. The doctor and the house 
or the clinic where he or she worked would also be liable for civil 
action brought by the father of a fetus or the maternal parents of the 
woman, if she was under 18 years old.
  As I said, this bill is vague. The definition of abortion as covered 
under this legislation is ``partial birth,'' a term used for its shock 
value, Madam President, not for its medical accuracy. There is no such 
medical term as partial birth.
  Because doctors cannot agree on what this legislation is intended to 
ban, they are going to be frightened from performing legal abortions 
and medically necessary abortions because of the threat of civil or 
criminal prosecution.
  This bill further provides no exception in cases where the banned 
procedure is used to save the life of the mother. Instead, a doctor 
would be required after being criminally charged to provide affirmative 
defense. We flip the whole presumption of innocence on its head and 
make a doctor provide an affirmative defense that he or she reasonably 
believed that no other method would save a woman's life.
  Madam President, this is foolish and dangerous for us to do. The 
affirmative defense will result in doctors going to court and maybe 
even to jail for their efforts to save a citizen's life.
  Madam President, even if a true life exception is substituted, there 
is no exception in this bill in cases where the health of the mother is 
endangered. It does not allow a doctor to do everything he or she can 
to protect the health and fertility of his or her patient.
  Madam President, this bill is also the first time, to my knowledge, 
that Congress has attempted to tell a doctor what specific medical 
procedures he or she cannot perform. By choosing to arbitrarily 
prohibit one type of procedure and not others--and there are other 
options as has been discussed--by choosing just one type of procedure 
regardless of the effect on the life and health and the future 
reproduction options of the woman involved, this Congress will be 
micromanaging decisions that are best made in a physician's office.
  If a doctor wants to perform an abortion that is covered by this 
bill, it is because he or she considers the procedure to be the most 
medically sound for the woman who is involved. Women are going to face 
life and health risks as well as the loss of fertility as they are 
forced--forced--to undergo even more hazardous procedures when their 
own life may be at stake.
  Madam President, a couple weeks ago the Senate sent this bill to the 
Judiciary Committee for a hearing. At that hearing we were able to 
actually see firsthand some women and talk with some women who had made 
the hardest choice that any woman can make. Two of the women had the 
procedure that is referenced in this bill and one woman actually gave 
birth. All the women had agonized over the decision. It is, after all, 
the most intimate and most personal decision.
  Before I talk about the constitutional policy implications of the 
legislation, I would like to retell the story of one of the women, 
Viki, from Naperville, IL. She was at that hearing a few weeks ago but 
did not have a chance to tell her story. I think it is important that 
her story be told, because I think she is a very brave person to come 
in this present environment and tell the story of what was a 
horrendous, heart-wrenching episode in her life.
  Viki and her husband were expecting their third child. At 20 weeks 
she went for a sonogram and was told by her doctor that she and her 
baby were completely healthy. She named the baby boy Anthony. At 32 
weeks, Viki took her two daughters with her to watch their brother on 
the sonogram. The technician did not say a word during the sonogram and 
asked Viki to come upstairs and talk with the doctor. She thought maybe 
it was because the baby was breech or there was another complication. 
She is a diabetic and any complication could be serious.
  This is a picture of Viki and her family. It is a shame she did not 
get a chance to testify 2 weeks ago. The doctor at the time was too 
busy to see her, but called at 7 o'clock in the morning to say that the 
femurs, the leg bones, seemed a little short, but assured her there was 
a 99-percent chance that nothing was seriously wrong, but asked her to 
come in for a level 2 ultrasound.
  Viki and her husband found out after the second ultrasound was 
performed that their child had no brain--no brain. There were eight 
abnormalities in all. Viki had to make the hardest decision of her 
life. This is how she explained it: ``I had to remove my son from life 
support--that was me.'' For Viki, the hardest thing for her as a 
parent, for any parent, to do is to watch a child be hurt. It is hard 
enough watching a child get teased at the bus station, much less make a 
decision such as she and her husband had to make.
  The procedure that she underwent took four visits to the doctor. She 
received anesthesia on the first visit. Her son stopped moving on the 
first night. She knew at that point that he was gone. This was before 
the procedure to remove the actual fetus took place.
  Having a D&E procedure was particularly important because Viki wanted 
to know if this was something she would pass to her two daughters. With 
a D&E an autopsy can be performed. It was an isolated situation, 
although tragic, and her girls will be able to have children of their 
own and not have the abnormalities that Viki faced with her son. Her 
D&E was the closest thing for her body to natural birth. She was able 
to preserve her fertility, and happily she is now, again, 30 weeks 
pregnant and 

[[Page S 18081]]
the baby that she is carrying looks fine.
  This procedure, Madam President, that this Congress is talking about 
micromanaging to make illegal, saved this woman's ability to have other 
children, saved this family from having a child with no brain, born 
only to die moments after he came into this world.
  Madam President, this is a true story about a real woman and a family 
handling an awful, horrible situation in the best way that it can. I 
know we have heard other stories. I think it is important that we put a 
real face on these stories because this is not some matter of abstract 
language. We have to talk about it in constitutional terms, and we have 
to talk about it in legal terms. We have to talk about it in medical 
terms. But the reality is this Congress is moving into the territory 
that we have no business in. I think it is important that we put a 
human face on it beyond the personal and constitutional implications.
  I ask the Senator from California how much longer may I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 34 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Under H.R. 1833 women will lose a constitutionally 
based right. Under Roe versus Wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey, 
the Supreme Court standard is that a State may not prohibit post-
viability abortions necessary to preserve the life or health of a 
woman. Under H.R. 1833/S. 939, the only recourse is an affirmative 
defense and even then, this is only for life.
  In other words, if you wind up unable to have other children, if you 
wind up ruined for life, that is OK under this bill.
  While H.R. 1833/S. 939 is focused on late-term abortions, doctors who 
perform early-term abortions by the loosely defined means covered by 
the bill are subject to the same liability. Choosing to have an 
abortion when the fetus is not yet viable is clearly a constitutionally 
protected right under Roe versus Wade. This bill changes that.
  This assault on a woman's constitutional rights and this Congress' 
relentless attack on a woman's right to choose remind me of a famous 
poem by Martin Niemoller, a Protestant minister held in a German 
concentration camp for 7 years. I would like to again give you my own, 
more contemporary version of his parable. I call it ``The Assault on 
Reproductive Rights.''

     First they came for poor women and I did not speak out--
           because I was not a poor woman
     Then they came for the teenagers and I did not speak out--
           because I was no longer a teenager.
     Then they came or women in the military and I did not speak 
           out--because I was not in the military.
     Then they came for women in the Federal Government and I did 
           not speak out--because I did not work for the 
           Government.
     Then they came for the doctors and I did not speak out--
           because I was not a doctor.
     Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak out 
           for me.
  Madam President, the fight on this issue is a quintessential fight 
for freedom. The issue here is whether or not women who are living, 
breathing citizens of this United States will enjoy the constitutional 
protection to make the most personal of all decisions--the decision 
whether or not to reproduce, and whether or not to sacrifice their 
lives in cases such as that Viki and her family had to go through. That 
is what is at issue here.
  I am not prepared--and I do not believe that it is appropriate--for 
us to substitute the judgment of the Government, the judgment of the 
Members of this body, for the judgment of these women, of their 
families, of their doctors, of their priests, of their pastors. I do 
not think that it is our business to get that involved in an intimate 
decision such as this--to tell a woman, no, you may not save your life, 
or protect your future fertility because some Congressman had an idea 
that he wanted to pass a law that restrains you in decisions about your 
own body and your own health. When Viki made the decision to remove her 
child from life support--her body, and that is what it was--she made a 
decision with the help of her husband and her doctor that only she 
could make. The Government has no right to intervene in this 
relationship between a woman and her body, her doctor, and her God.
  It is for that reason that I oppose this legislation, and I support 
the Boxer amendment.
  I would like to also clarify for the Record, to make clear that there 
is right now in this bill no exception, no exception for life of the 
mother, and that is why the Boxer amendment is so important.
  Again, we have no right, I believe, to intervene in the relationship 
between a woman and her own body, a citizen, in behalf of the fetus 
that is not yet a citizen. Obviously, we would all want to see life. We 
all support the idea of a right to life. Of course someone has a right 
to life. But do not living have rights also? And is not this 
Constitution written for them? And if it is written for them, is it not 
inappropriate for this Congress to intervene in areas in which we are 
not expert and we do not have the capability? I mean, we have no right 
at all to legislate.
  And with that, Madam President, I yield the floor to the Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Before my colleague from Illinois leaves the floor, I 
thank her especially for the updated version of that very famous poem 
that came out of the Nazi era. Of course, the point is that we need to 
speak up when people are losing their rights, and sometimes it is a 
lonely battle and sometimes we may lose it. But I believe deeply that 
America has a heart and soul and that men and women of goodwill, if 
they truly listen to this debate, recognize what it is about, and that 
is what we do trust each other to make tragic, personal, private 
decisions? Or do we want to hand it over to Senators and 
Congresspeople?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. That is right.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is what the Senator pointed out. And I come down, 
and the Senator from Illinois comes down, and I know my colleague 
presiding tonight comes down on the side of allowing families, families 
like this, families like Vikki Stella's from Illinois to make those 
awfully difficult decisions.
  I also wish to thank my colleague for really reviewing for us all of 
the things that have happened to women in this Congress. Many people do 
not realize that. When she gave us that updated version of the poem, 
she pointed out the poor women on Medicaid who do not have really have 
the right to choose anymore because they cannot afford it. This 
Congress will not allow them to use their Medicaid insurance to cover 
their right to choose; women in the District of Columbia who happen to 
have the misfortune of having Senators and Congressmen tell them what 
to do; Federal employees, women who pay for their own health insurance, 
a great part of it, no longer can use that insurance; and now any woman 
in America, any woman in America of any income level in any 
circumstance is being hit in her heart by the Smith-Dole bill, and it 
is very hurtful.
  I am glad to yield to my colleague.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator yield?
  I never cease to find it a little amusing--I know this gets on some 
difficult ground in these debates, but most of this debate takes place 
with people who themselves have never been pregnant.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is correct.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Quite frankly, having been there--and as the 
Senator knows, everyone in this Chamber knows, there is nothing more 
important in my entire life than my son Matthew, but I can tell you I 
gained 40 pounds, my teeth started to rot, I wound up hospitalized 
three times. I mean, who has not been through this, who has not been 
through this who has actually been through a pregnancy? So who can 
relate to the tragedy and to the emotion and to the physical demand of 
being in Viki's shoes, being here, pregnant out to here. Remember what 
it was like when you were pregnant out to here? I was like that in 
June. It was miserable. Pregnant out to here, only to discover the 
child that you are carrying, that you have an identification with has 
no brain, and this legislation would force that child to be born?
  I thank the Senator from California for yielding, but I say to you 
that I think it is also very important that 

[[Page S 18082]]
those who cannot be pregnant really should think twice before they talk 
about this issue.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, she makes a very good point, because 
we hear men in this Chamber talk about the joys of birth and the travel 
through the birth canal, and, yes, we hope every pregnancy is a joyous, 
wonderful, problem-free moment for every single woman in this country, 
regardless of her status in the country.
  Unfortunately, we know also that is not the case and sometimes the 
baby is not safe in the womb and sometimes the mother could contract a 
terrible disease such as cancer and is faced with a choice where, if 
she carries through with the pregnancy, she could lose her life. And to 
have people in this Chamber stand up and say they want to be in that 
living room, in that hospital room, in that family conversation, 
frankly, makes me feel sick because we were not elected to be part of 
this family or any other family. We have our own families. Let us take 
care of our own families. And let us take care of the larger American 
family. But do not get into the private lives of these people. You have 
no right to do that. Nobody voted for you to do that. And that is what 
this is about.
  Coreen Costello, the woman I have talked about over these last couple 
of days, said it best. When she found out this tragic news, she fell to 
her knees and prayed. She is very religious, very religious. She is a 
conservative Republican. She does not believe in abortion. And she said 
the last thing I wanted at that moment was a politician telling me what 
to do. And yet this bill would deny the Coreen Costellos and the Viki 
Wilsons an option to save their life, to protect their fertility, and 
their health because a majority of men in this Senate decided they know 
better than Viki and Viki's husband and Viki's doctors. What arrogance 
of power. That is what this debate is all about.
  Madam President, I would like to be told when I have 10 minutes 
remaining on my side.
  I am proud to add as original cosponsors to the Boxer amendment 
Senator Brown, Senator Specter, Senator Murray, Senator Lautenberg, and 
Senator Snowe. I ask unanimous consent that that be made part of the 
Record. And of course, Senator Moseley-Braun, whom we have already 
added.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will open up this debate by saying I do not appreciate 
when my comments are taken out of context. When I heard about the so-
called life-of-the-mother exception, which is absolutely not a life-of-
the-mother exception, I was elated that the Senator from New Hampshire 
was admitting that those of us who said there was no life exception in 
his bill were right, he finally agreed with us.
  When I looked at the amendment, it was entitled ``Life-of-the-Mother 
Exception.'' I thought it was going to read like all of the life-of-
the-mother exceptions which are very straightforward and simply say 
notwithstanding anything in this bill, there is an exception for the 
life of the mother. But, no, when I finally read it, I realized, if you 
will, it is a partial life exception. And this is what I said on the 
same night.

       I have now had an opportunity to read it.

  Meaning the amendment.

       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 a partial-birth abortion that is necessary 
     to save the life of the mother whose life is endangered by a 
     physical disorder, illness, or injury.
       I say to my friend, this is not a life-of-the-mother 
     exception. That is a pre-existing situation. So, yes, if a 
     woman had diabetes or some other disease, there would be an 
     exception, but if, in fact, the birth itself endangered her 
     life there would be no exception.

  That is what I said after I saw the amendment. So let us get that 
clear, folks. Let us argue about what the differences are here and not 
try to trap each other into putting a spin on what we are doing.
  Now, of course, I say to my colleagues, vote for the Smith-Dole 
amendment because at least it will help save the life of three or four 
women out of the couple of hundred a year that find themselves in this 
circumstance. No problem--vote for it. But then vote for the Boxer-
Brown-Specter-Murray-Lautenberg-Snowe-Moseley-Braun amendment because 
that addresses a true exception for the life of the mother and an 
exception when serious adverse health risks to the mother exist.
  Madam President, as I have said since this debate started, ``partial-
birth abortion'' is not a medical term. There is no such thing as a 
``partial-birth abortion.'' No medical text defines ``partial-birth 
abortion.'' None of the doctors who gave testimony at the Judiciary 
Committee could define it. It is a made-up term. It is made up by the 
antichoice forces so that people will get their emotions going.
  What is the picture that emerges when you say partial-birth abortion? 
It sounds like a baby is being born and all of a sudden the mother 
says, I change my mind. How ridiculous that is. The fact of the matter 
is, there is no such thing. It is a late-term abortion that is done in 
an emergency procedure in a tragic situation. And that is what they are 
going about banning here, a procedure that is used, that is the safest, 
doctors say, many doctors say, to save the life of the mother or 
protect her health, her future futility.
  Now, another thing that has happened over the past few nights--I say 
to my friend from New Hampshire, he and I have done this now running, I 
think it is 3 nights running, plus we did it before when this first 
came up, plus we have been on national television debating each other 
on this--he uses the term ``abortionist.'' He uses the term 
``abortionist.''
  I again want to say as we debate this emotional issue, a doctor who 
performs an abortion is a doctor. A doctor who performs a legal medical 
procedure is a doctor, not an abortionist. That doctor also delivers 
many, many babies. That doctor is an ob-gyn and deserves respect. If 
you want to make abortion illegal, that is your right. That is your 
right. I applaud that right. But do not do it through the backdoor like 
this, and do not call a doctor who performs a legal procedure an 
abortionist.
  Then there is mention this one doctor did not come to the hearing. He 
was invited. That is right. I put in the Record a letter from his 
lawyer. This doctor, his life has been threatened. He has been 
harassed. And we stand up on this floor and call a doctor an 
abortionist when we are having such an emotional debate.
  I applaud Chairman Hatch of the Judiciary Committee who came down and 
made a speech on this and said, ``I endorse this bill. I support it. 
But I abhor violence.'' We have to resolve this as human beings with 
disagreements.
  It does not help to raise emotion and attack a physician or a group 
of people who have chosen to be ob-gyn's who, by the way, vehemently 
oppose this bill, their organization, the American College of 
Obstetricians & Gynecologists. And, yes, we heard from one nurse who 
served 3 days in a clinic who was disputed by her supervisor, but who 
said this was a terrible procedure. And that is her right to believe 
that and to say that. But the American Nurses Association--and how many 
are in that association? Many thousands, and we will have that number 
tomorrow; many thousands--they absolutely oppose this legislation. 
These are nurses who want to help people live. They want to help people 
live.
  Why on Earth would we ban a procedure that doctors have testified is 
necessary to save the life of the mother? Why would we do it? And who 
are we to do this? This is not a medical school. This is not an ethics 
panel of a medical school. This is not a board of doctors who sit 
around and discuss these issues and understand them. I repeat Senator 
Kennedy's comment that he made in the Judiciary Committee: ``Some 
Senators are practicing medicine without a license.''
  We are over our heads if we think we can sit here and because 
somebody got a drawing explaining the consequences of a procedure, a 
medical procedure. That is not our job. I do not know anyone who ran 
for the U.S. Senate who said, ``I'm an expert in medical procedures. 
Vote for me.''
  We have heard the women's stories. We know how important this 
procedure was to real women and to their families. We then hear time 
and time again that many of these abortions were elective--elective. 
That is a medical term. That is a medical term. It refers to anything 
other than a life-saving abortion. So we bandy about words like 

[[Page S 18083]]
``elective'' without knowing what they mean. We talk about medical 
procedures as if we are physicians.
  I have just learned that the American Nurses Association, they do not 
represent thousands of members; they represent 2.2 million nurses. So, 
yes, we had one nurse who served 3 days who came out against this 
procedure; and the American Nurses Association, who represents 2.2 
million nurses, says, ``Please vote down this ill-conceived bill.''
  This is not about sex selection or eye-color preferences. I resent 
the fact that the Senator from New Hampshire would attempt to make a 
statement that Senators who believe there ought to be a life and health 
exception for the mother support those kinds of abortions. I guess he 
does not understand the law of the land, Roe versus Wade, which says 
that subsequent to viability the State has an interest in protecting 
fetal life, and as long as it takes into consideration the life and 
health of the mother, the State can pass laws that certainly prohibit 
abortions for eye color or sex selection.
  This debate is not about unwanted pregnancy. This is about wanted and 
loved babies, children planned and desired by their families, but 
something horrible happened in the end of the pregnancy, either to the 
woman in her health or to the fetus, anomalies incompatible with life.
  I knew one woman who was diagnosed with cancer in the beginning of 
the last trimester of her pregnancy and was told if she carried the 
baby to term, she would die. She had to face that with her husband. 
They had other children. But she desperately wanted this child. In the 
end, they decided to save her life.
  Who is this Senate to tell her she did the wrong thing? Who is this 
Senate to tell her doctor he cannot use a procedure that might save her 
life?
  Viki Wilson has two other children. This is Viki Wilson. She is 39. 
Her husband is Bill. Do you know what he does? He is an emergency room 
physician. Do you know what she does? She is a registered nurse. These 
are their two children. John is 10 and Katie is 8. They happen to live 
in Fresno, CA. He saves lives in the emergency room. He exposes himself 
to great danger working there. She is a nurse. She saves lives. And 
Senators on this floor think they have a right to interfere with their 
personal decisions? What an outrage.
  Their third child, Abigail--they gave her a name--was their baby. Her 
brain had formed two-thirds outside the head. I want to talk about her 
story.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). The Chair advises the Senator 
she has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is a story that will move you. It is a 
story that was told to the Judiciary Committee, and while you are going 
to see posters of part of a woman's body drawn like a cartoon, as if a 
woman is simply a vessel, we are putting a face on this. We are putting 
a face on this.
  We know that Viki's testimony moved the people who heard it.
  Tammy Watt's daughter, McKenzie, had no eyes, six fingers, six toes 
and large kidneys which were failing. The baby had a mass growing 
outside of her stomach involving her bowel and bladder and affecting 
her heart and other major organs, and the doctor said they had to use 
the procedure that this bill will outlaw.
  Because we are looking for Viki's story, we may tell it tomorrow. I 
am going to keep her face up here, and I am going to go on.
  This bill criminalizes the late-term abortion procedure by placing 
the burden on the physician to persuade the judge or jury that ``no 
other medical procedure would suffice to save the life of the woman.''
  That means a doctor using this procedure can be hauled into court, 
and I will tell you, the chamber of horrors begins.
  Mr. President, I am going to close debate tonight, after my friend 
from New Hampshire has concluded his presentation, by reading Viki 
Wilson's story. But at this time, I yield the floor and reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I yield myself 11 minutes.
  This is really an interesting debate, and I said last night, Viki 
Wilson's story is truly a tragedy and my heart goes out to Viki Wilson. 
I understand the difficulty and horrible situation that she went 
through.
  But let me read a paragraph from Viki Wilson's testimony. Viki 
Wilson, before the Senate Judiciary Committee just recently:

       My daughter died with dignity inside my womb. She was not 
     stabbed in the back of the head with scissors. No one dragged 
     her out half alive and killed her. We would never have 
     allowed that.

  My bill, the bill that is on the floor before us, or the amendments, 
would not have precluded Viki Wilson from that procedure. Viki Wilson 
herself just admitted she would not have done that procedure.
  I also want to respond to Senator Boxer on a couple of other points. 
She made much of the term ``elective procedure,'' as if somebody made 
it up on the floor when talking about abortion.
  This is Dr. Harlan Giles' testimony in court where he says as 
follows:

       An elective abortion is a procedure carried out for a 
     patient for whom there is no identifiable maternal or fetal 
     indication; that is to say, the patient feels it would be in 
     her best interest to terminate the pregnancy either on 
     social, emotional, financial grounds, et cetera. If there are 
     no medical indications from either a fetal or maternal 
     standpoint, we refer to the termination as elective.

  So I think that is pretty clear that I did not make it up and that it 
is accepted.

  I am also looking at the Standard College Dictionary, published by 
Harcourt Brace. I do not know whether that is acceptable to the Senator 
from California or not. But the definition of an abortionist is one who 
causes abortion. That is pretty clear. I do not know why anybody would 
object to the term ``abortionist'' when someone being called an 
abortionist causes an abortion. It seems to be awfully defensive to me.
  I want to respond to the Senator from Illinois, and I am sorry she is 
not here on the floor, in regard to her remarks. The Senator from 
Illinois, Senator Moseley-Braun, a few minutes ago said that this bill 
is unconstitutional. Even in Roe versus Wade --I want to point out, she 
said it was unconstitutional, but even in Roe versus Wade, the decision 
that is thrown around here all the time by the pro-choice people, 
obviously, the Supreme Court said that the born child, that is the 
exact terminology, ``the born child'' is a ``person'' entitled to ``the 
equal protection of the law.''
  Let me repeat that, because the Senator from Illinois said this bill 
is unconstitutional. Even in Roe versus. Wade, the Supreme Court said 
that the born child is a person entitled to the equal protection of the 
law.
  Now, I ask any reasonable person, if there is anybody left on the 
face of the Earth who is undecided--hopefully somebody may be in the 
Senate because we are the ones who have to vote; hopefully, I pray, 
there might be somebody out there listening and trying to make up their 
mind--how can anyone reasonably say that a child, feet, legs, toes, 
little soft rear end, torso, shoulders, arms, hands, part of the neck 
out of the birth canal, born is not a child or a person because the 
head still remains inside the birth canal? How can anyone say that? 
What is not child or not person about what the doctor is holding in his 
hands?
  Suppose it was reversed, Mr. President, and the child's head came 
first and he began to breathe, is he then born? You bet he is. You bet 
he is, because that abortionist cannot do a thing to that child when 
the head comes out first and that child is breathing. He cannot do 
anything to it, and my colleagues know that.
  So what do we do? We reverse the position in the womb, so that the 
feet come first, with forceps. We reverse the position in the womb. It 
is a deliberate act, the most horrible act against an innocent child. 
That is what we are talking about here. That is what we are talking 
about here.

  That is not a ``partial birth.'' What is that? That is a child. How 
can anyone say that does not deserve protection under the Constitution 
of the United States? With the greatest respect for the Senator from 
Illinois, I sure do not read that in the Constitution. I sure do not 
read that in Roe versus Wade. A born child. Now, if the Senator from 
Illinois, or any other Senator, wants to take the floor and say here 
and now that that is not a child, 90 percent of 

[[Page S 18084]]
which is in the hands of that person--call him a doctor, an 
abortionist, call him what you want--and is wiggling, moving, and you 
can feel the heartbeat, of course, and you can feel the movement of the 
child--it is wiggling. That is not a child? What is it? My God, what is 
it? Let us be serious. Of course it is a child. And you deliberately 
reverse the position in the uterus to make that child come out feet 
first.
  A ``chamber of horrors,'' my colleague said. You bet it is. It is a 
chamber of horrors in the United States of America. And I have to stand 
here with some of my colleagues and try to stop something that should 
not be happening. I heard a lot about doctors and OB-GYN's. No one 
testified in that hearing who performed one of these, and no one--no 
one--including Viki Wilson and others, and including the young woman 
that Senator Moseley-Braun spoke about, had a partial-birth abortion, 
because a partial-birth abortion involves killing a child by inserting 
a catheter and scissors in the back of the head, in the canal. That is 
a partial-birth abortion. That is what I am stopping. We are not 
stopping anything else.
  I do not know if the Senator from California knows Mary Davenport, 
OB-GYN, Oakland, CA. She wrote to me on December 1, 1995:

       Dear Senator Smith: I am writing to you in support of the 
     partial-birth abortion bill. There is no medical indication 
     for this procedure, and the performance of this operation is 
     totally in opposition to 2,000 years of Hippocratic medical 
     ethics. Please do your best to eliminate this procedure. It 
     is not done in any other nation of the world.

  If you think I solicited that letter, I have 250 more of them from 
OB-GYN's all over America who are outraged and disgusted and horrified 
that we would do this to our children. What kind of a country are we?
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  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, how much time do I have remaining on my 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes 11 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to retain 2 minutes of my 
time, if the Chair will let me know when I have used 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so advise the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, we have just heard a very loud and angry voice. I do 
not know who that anger is aimed at. I do not know if it is aimed at 
the Senators who disagree. I do not know who it is aimed at.
  We live in a world where we do not know what lies ahead and down the 
road. We pray to God that every birth experience that we will have in 
our own personal families and everyone's will be a good one, and that 
the babies will be healthy.
  I want to say that the anger that you just saw here displayed on this 
floor, in reality, is aimed at families like this in the picture. That 
is who it is aimed at. These are the families that are the losers. 
These are the families who will lose a mom if this bill goes forward. 
Why do I say that? Because doctors have testified that it is the safest 
procedure to use in the late term.
  I am going to read you Viki Wilson's statement, and then I am going 
to ask you whether you believe Viki Wilson deserves that kind of anger 
that we just heard on this floor.
  This is Viki here in the photo. She is a nurse. This is her husband, 
who is a doctor in an emergency room.

       At 36 weeks of pregnancy, all of our dreams and happy 
     expectations came crashing down around us. My doctor ordered 
     an ultrasound at that time and detected what all my previous 
     prenatal testing failed to detect, an encephalocele. That is 
     a brain growing outside the head. Approximately two-thirds of 
     my baby's brain had formed on the outside of her skull and, 
     literally, I fell to my knees from shock because, being in 
     pediatrics, I realized that she would not survive outside my 
     womb.
       My doctor desperately tried to figure out a way to save 
     this pregnancy. All my medical rationality went out the 
     window. I thought there's got to be a way. Let's do a brain 
     transplant. That is how irrational I was. I wanted this baby. 
     My husband and I were praying that there would be a new 
     surgical way, but all the experts concurred that Abigail 
     could not survive outside my womb, could not survive the 
     birthing process because of size of her anomaly. Basically, 
     her head would have been crushed and she would have 
     suffocated, and that would have been her demise, coming 
     through my birth canal. Because of her anomaly, it was also 
     feared that had she come through the birth canal, my cervix 
     would have ruptured.
       The doctor explained to me that even if I had gone into 
     spontaneous labor--

  Which, by the way, my colleagues say is an alternative.

     More than likely my uterus would have ruptured, rendering me 
     sterile, and that was not an acceptable option. It was also 
     discovered during one of my exams. I kept crying on the 
     examining table, saying, ``How could this be? You know, there 
     are such strong baby movements.'' And they said, ``I am 
     sorry, Viki, those are seizures.'' My immediate response was, 
     ``Do a C-section and get her out.'' ``Viki, we do C-sections 
     to save babies. We can't save her, and a C-section in your 
     condition is too dangerous, and I can't justify those 
     risks.''
       The biggest question then became for my husband and I. A 
     high power had already decided that my baby was going to die. 
     The question was, how is she going to die?
       We wanted to help her leave this world as painlessly and 
     peacefully as possible and in a way that protected my life 
     and my health, to allow us to have more children. We agonized 
     and we prayed for a miracle.
       During our drive to Los Angeles to see the specialist we 
     chose our daughter's name. We named her Abigail, the name 
     that my grandmother has always wanted for a grandchild. We 
     decided if she were to be named Abigail, her great 
     grandmother would be able to recognize her in Heaven. You 
     think of those things when you are going through a crises 
     like this.
       Losing Abigail was the hardest thing that ever happened to 
     us in our lives. After we went home, I went into the nursery, 
     held her clothes, crying and thinking I will never be able to 
     tell her that I love her. I have often wondered why this 
     happened to us. What did we do to deserve this pain?
       I am a practicing Catholic and I could not help but believe 
     God had some reason for giving me such a burden. Then I found 
     out about this legislation and I knew then and there that 
     Abigail's life had special meaning.
       I think God knew I would be strong enough to come here and 
     tell you my story, to stop this legislation from passing and 
     causing incredible devastation for other families like ours 
     because there will be other families in our situation, 
     because prenatal testing is not infallible, and I urge you, 
     please, do not take away the safest method known.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you.

       I told my Monsignor at my parish that I was coming here to 
     Washington, and he supported me and he said, ``Viki, what 
     happened to you was not about choice. You did not have a 
     choice. What you did was about preserving your life.'' I was 
     grateful for his words and I agree, this is not about choice. 
     This is a medical necessity. It is about life and health.
       My kids attend a Catholic school where a playground was 
     named in Abigail's honor. I believe that God gave me the 
     intelligence to make my own decisions, knowing that I am the 
     one who has to live with the consequences.
       My husband said to me, as I was getting on the plane coming 
     here to Washington, ``Viki, please make sure this Congress 
     realizes this would truly, truly be the Cruelty to Families 
     Act.''
       So, again, for us, for future families, and for more and 
     more families. We are all sitting at home thinking, this is 
     1995, no way in a rational situation are they going to see 
     the necessity of this legislation. They are going to realize 
     that when they hear our stories.

  Mr. President, why are we getting angry at women like this? Why are 
we getting angry at husbands like this? Why are we getting angry at 
families like this? What right do we have to get angry at decent, 
religious, family-loving people like this? To stand on this floor and 
wave our arms at people like this, because that is what this is about.
  The Smith-Dole exception for life of the woman is not an exception. 
It only deals with women who come in with a preexisting condition or 
injury. I pray--I pray--that the Senate will be courageous--because it 
is very difficult to explain this in 5 minutes to my colleagues--that 
they will support the Boxer - Brown - Specter - Lautenberg - Moseley - 
Braun - Murray - Snowe amendment. It is bipartisan, it is the right 
thing to do.
  We have come together as family, loving Members of this U.S. Senate. 
We 

[[Page S 18085]]
have reached across the aisle that divides us, Mr. President. We are 
standing for these families.
  I hope we will lower our voices, because there should not be room for 
that kind of anger, in my humble opinion. We are trying to reach a 
rational decision on a heart-wrenching issue here. We should not be 
angry at each other. We should not be angry at families like this or to 
the doctors these families turn to in the most difficult circumstances.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 5 minutes 
18 seconds.
  Mr. SMITH. I yield myself 18 seconds and the remainder of the time to 
the Senator from Ohio.
  I say in response to the Senator from California, if the 800 children 
who were perfectly normal electively aborted could speak here on the 
floor today, they would be angry, too.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I think all the arguments have been made. 
That usually does not stop us. We continue to make them and will 
probably make some more tomorrow.
  Let me try to be very, very brief in closing. I think it is 
important, as I said 2 days ago on this floor, we keep our eye on the 
ball, we keep our eye on what this debate is about, what is relevant 
and what is not relevant.
  The horrible tragedy that the Senator from Illinois described a few 
minutes ago, the horrible tragedies that my friend from California 
continues to describe are horrible. They are tragic. Everyone was moved 
in the committee. I had tears in my eyes before I left the room 
listening to those horrible tragedies. Our heart goes out to these 
families. But the fact is these horrible cases are not relevant to what 
we are talking about. Viki Wilson did not have this procedure.
  Let me repeat for my friends on the floor and my friends who may be 
watching this on TV that Viki Wilson did not have this procedure. I do 
not know how many times we have to say it. That is what the facts are. 
None of the three women did. It is simply not true.
  Let me read from the proposed statute. ``As used in this section, the 
term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which the person 
performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus 
before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.'' That is not 
what happened in these particular cases, however sad they say they are.
  Let us keep our eye on the ball. Let us keep our eye on the ball and 
have relevant debate in regard to saving the life of the mother.
  The bill, as Senator Smith introduced it, had an affirmative defense. 
The amendment that Senator Dole has proposed should take any doubt away 
that it is covered because it puts it right in the statute itself--puts 
that exception, the life-of-the-mother exception. But even, in a sense, 
of more significance is we will not get to this situation because there 
has been no credible evidence at all in the hearings--none--that this 
procedure would ever be used to save the life of the mother. That 
evidence was just to the contrary. The evidence was that there were 
other procedures that would be used. This would not be used. You would 
not use the procedure. The evidence was it would take 3 days, which 
this procedure does.
  Dr. Smith of Chicago, IL, and Mt. Sinai Hospital, a very credible 
witness, testified this is simply not the standard of care. Let me 
quote a portion of the testimony from the hearing. If anyone has the 
doubt about the relevancy, look at this on page 78 of the hearing by 
the Committee on the Judiciary.

       Now, this insinuates that this is a standard of care to 
     take care of a trapped fetal head on a breech deliver. This 
     is totally untrue, and I have provided for you from Williams 
     Obstetrics the techniques that are used by obstetricians to 
     deal with this problem. Those techniques include relaxing the 
     womb with halifane or with anesthesia, cutting the cervix, in 
     limited circumstances if you are going to do a Cesarean 
     section to save a term baby, you can do that. And if the baby 
     has what we call hydrocephalus, or water on the brain, you 
     insert a needle and drain that fluid.

  The testimony is very, very clear. Of the other procedures that you 
use, this is simply not one of them at all.
  Again, Mr. President, let us keep our eye on the ball. Let us talk 
about this in a rationale way. Let us talk about what is relevant and 
what is not relevant.
  Time and time again on this floor the argument has been made that if 
you support this bill, it is an attack on Roe versus Wade. I would 
submit that flies in the face of any rational discussion about what Roe 
versus Wade really means and a correct interpretation of it.
  Pro-choice individuals in the House of Representatives, such as 
Representatives Kennedy, Molinari, Gephardt, Traficant, each one voted 
in favor of this. I do not want to put words in their mouths, but I 
will simply say that a person who is pro-choice could very well support 
this.
  Mr. President, I ask for 3 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, a person who is pro-choice could very 
consistently support this bill as these pro-choice Representatives in 
the House of Representatives clearly did. A pro-choice person can 
support this simply by believing, by saying, by arguing that there is 
some limit to what we will permit; there is some limit to what a 
civilized people tolerate.
  Again, I do not want to put words in their mouths. But I think that 
clearly is a consistent position with being pro-choice.
  So this is not an attack on Roe versus Wade. You simplistically could 
argue that. But I think it is very, very incorrect.
  My friend from California talked about the fact that ``America does 
have a heart and soul.'' Yes, we have a heart and soul. That is why we 
are on the floor. That is why Senator Smith introduced this bill. This 
is why people across this country--once they learned about the facts of 
this procedure--are simply saying, ``No, it is wrong. We cannot 
tolerate it. We cannot permit it.''
  My friend talked about the arrogance of power, that we are somehow 
arrogant to be making this argument. It is not arrogance. I think it 
would be, quite frankly, not arrogance but indifference for us to turn 
our back on this horrible, horrible procedure.
  Finally, Mr. President, my friend from California talked about the 
anger. Who is this directed at, this anger? This anger is not directed 
at anybody, not a person. It is directed at a procedure that a 
civilized society simply should not permit.
  Mr. President, we will surely continue this debate tomorrow.
  At this point, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  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, thank you very much.
  Mr. President, this has been a very tough debate, and I have 4 
minutes left. I am not going to use it. I know the majority leader is 
ready to say good-night to all of us for the evening. So maybe we can 
have some semblance of some sort of dinner.
  Mr. President, this has been probably the harshest debate we have had 
to date on this topic. I think it is so important that when we debate 
each other, we do it right on the mark, that we get to our differences. 
I have told some heart-wrenching stories, and these stories were told 
before the Judiciary Committee by people like Viki Wilson, a nurse, a 
practicing Catholic. Her husband is an emergency room doctor.
  We have here Coreen Costello, whose story I have told a number of 
times, a conservative Republican, who had been completely against 
abortion until she faced this tragedy. And she came and told her story.
  Then my friends on the other side said: Wait a minute. They made a 
mistake, these women. They did not have the kind of procedure that we 
are trying to outlaw.
  My friends, that is an interesting debating topic, but do not tell 
these people what procedure they went through. They read the definition 
in your bill. Viki Wilson is a nurse. Her husband is 

[[Page S 18086]]
a doctor. They read the bill--the doctor that performed this, a doctor 
that you have attacked over and over again, Dr. James McMahon, who was 
summoned by Representative Canady to testify because he performed the 
very procedure you wish to outlaw.
  So if you want to speak out against the Boxer-Brown-Specter-Moseley-
Braun-Snowe amendment, et al., you should. You should speak out against 
our amendment. You should say there should be no exception for the life 
and serious health consequences to a woman. But do not say that these 
women do not know what they are talking about and their families do not 
know what they are talking about, when, in fact, your side has named 
the very doctor that they used for this late-term abortion, your side 
has named him and paraded his name around because he used that very 
procedure you wish to outlaw.
  So, Mr. President, this has been a tough night. We have heard raised 
voices. It has not been pleasant. As a matter of fact, this has been 
the most unpleasant week that I can remember here in a long time for me 
personally, because, yes, I think it is arrogant to insert a politician 
into this woman's life, into this man's life, and into these children's 
lives. I do not think that we have the wisdom to know better how they 
should handle a tragedy such as the tragedy they had to handle.
  And I hope and I pray that the bipartisan amendment that I have 
offered, and which we have reached across the aisle to work together to 
protect families like this, passes.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________