[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 27, 1996)]
[House]
[Page H2880]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SUPPORT H.R. 1833, PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 1995
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CANADY. Madam Speaker, today we will consider a bill that deals
with a hard truth. H.R. 1833 addresses the ugly reality of partial-
birth abortion. While every abortion sadly takes a human life, the
partial-birth abortion method takes that life as the baby emerges from
the mother's womb.
Partial-birth abortion goes a step beyond abortion on demand. The
baby involved is not unborn. His or her life is taken during a breach
delivery. A procedure which obstetricians use in some circumstances to
bring a healthy child into the world is perverted to result in a dead
child. The physician, traditionally trained to do everything in his
power to assist and protect both mother and child during the birth
process, deliberately kills the child in the birth canal.
This is a partial-birth abortion: First, guided by ultrasound, the
abortionist grabs the live baby's leg with forceps; second, the baby's
leg is pulled out into the birth canal; third, the abortionist delivers
the baby's entire body, except for the head; fourth, then, the
abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then
opened to enlarge the hole; sixth, the scissors are then removed and a
suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out causing
the skull to collapse so the delivery of the child can be completed.
As you can see, the difference between the partial-birth abortion
procedure and homicide is a mere 3-inches.
Abortion advocates claim that H.R. 1833 would ``jail doctors who
perform life-saving abortions.'' This statement makes me wonder whether
the opponents of the bill have even bothered to read the bill. H.R.
1833 makes specific allowances for a practitioner who performs a
partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother.
Of course, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that a
partial-birth abortion is ever necessary to save a mother's life or for
maternal health reasons.
Indeed, the procedure poses significant risks to maternal health. Dr.
Pamela Smith, director of medical education, Department of Obstetrics
and Gynecology at Mount Sinai Hospital in Chicago has written:
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 . . . only be enhanced by the banning of this
procedure.
Further, neither Dr. Haskell nor Dr. McMahon--the two abortionists
who have publicly discussed their use of the procedure--claims that
this technique is used only in limited circumstances. Dr. Haskell
advocates the method from 20 to 26 weeks into the pregnancy and told
the American Medical News that most of the partial-birth abortions he
performs are elective. In fact, he told the reporter:
I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in
that 20- 24-week range . . . probably 20 percent are for
genetic reasons. And the other 80 percent are purely
elective.
He advocates the method because, quote:
Among its advantages are that it is a quick, surgical out-
patient method that can be performed on a scheduled basis
under local anesthesia.
Dr. McMahon uses the partial-birth abortion method through the entire
40 weeks of pregnancy. He claims that most of the abortions he performs
are nonelective, but his definition of nonelective is extremely broad.
He describes abortions performed because of a mother's youth or
depression as ``nonelective.'' I do not believe the American people
support aborting babies in the second and third trimesters because the
mother is young or suffers from depression.
Dr. McMahon sent the subcommittee a graph which shows the percentage
of, quote, ``flawed fetuses,'' that he aborted using the partial-birth
abortion method. The graph shows that even at 26 weeks of gestation
half the babies Dr. McMahon aborted were perfectly healthy and many of
the babies he described as ``flawed'' had conditions that were
compatible with long life, either with or without a disability. For
example, Dr. McMahon listed 9 partial-birth abortions performed because
the baby had a cleft lip.
The National Abortion Federation, a group representing abortionists,
has also recognized that partial-birth abortions are performed for many
reasons other than fetal abnormalities. In 1993, NAF counseled its
members, ``Don't apologize: this is a legal abortion procedure,'' and
stated:
There are many reasons why women have late abortions: Life
endangerment, fetal indications, lack of money or health
insurance, social-psychological crises, lack of knowledge
about human reproduction, etc.
The supporters of partial-birth abortion seek to defend the
indefensible. But today the hard truth cries out against them. The ugly
reality of partial-birth abortion is revealed here in these drawings
for all to see.
To all my colleagues I say: Look at this drawing. Open your eyes wide
and see what is being done to innocent, defenseless babies. What you
see is an offense to the conscience of humankind. Today, we will
attempt to put an end to this detestable practice. After today, it will
be up to the President. He has the power to stop partial-birth abortion
or continue to allow the killing of a living child pulled partially
from his mother's womb.
____________________