[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.

                          ____________________