[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 27, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2895-H2929]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 1833, PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT

  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 389 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     1833) to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-
     birth abortions, with Senate amendments thereto, and to 
     consider in the House a single motion to concur in each of 
     the Senate amendments. The Senate amendments and the motion 
     shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable 
     for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 389 provides for consideration of the 
Senate amendments to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, H.R. 1833. The 
rule provides for 1 hour of debate on a single motion to concur in each 
and all of the Senate amendments. The rule further provides that the 
previous question is considered as ordered on the motion for final 
adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to consider amendments 
adopted by the Senate to the partial-birth abortion ban including an 
amendment offered by Senator Dole that ensures doctors will be able to 
use this procedure when the life of a woman is in danger.
  During consideration of this bill by the House last fall, serious 
concerns were raised about the affirmative defense provision included 
in the House bill that said that a doctor could not be convicted of 
using the partial-birth abortion procedure if the doctor can prove that 
the procedure was necessary to protect a woman's life. The affirmative 
defense, however, would not have protected a doctor from being arrested 
and prosecuted for using the procedure.
  The Dole amendment adopted by the Senate addresses and ameliorates 
this concern. It clearly states that, without fear of prosecution, a 
doctor may use this procedure, when no other procedure is adequate, in 
order to protect the life of a woman.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule is narrowly drawn so that we can adequately 
work with the Senate on changes that they have adopted to the bill and 
to expeditiously move the bill for final action. It is appropriate, Mr. 
Speaker, to limit debate on the measure to amendments that have been 
adopted in the Senate and not to use this bill as a vehicle for 
debating the enormous range of contentious issues relating to abortion.
  Abortion is clearly one of the most emotionally charged issues that 
our Nation faces. People with the best of intentions who have carefully 
considered this issue come to opposite conclusions, and it is difficult 
to find areas of common ground. I would hope that this particular bill 
is an area where we can find that elusive common ground and prohibit a 
procedure that partially delivers a live child before killing it and 
completing the procedure, a procedure that one practitioner admits he 
uses for purely elective abortions about 80 percent of the time he uses 
this procedure.
  Mr. Speaker, the procedure that we are talking about today is one 
that is gruesome and horrific. Without wishing to offend other Members 
or the people who may be watching these proceedings, I think it is 
critical, Mr. Speaker, that we describe exactly what it is we mean by a 
partial-birth abortion so that people will understand that we are not 
talking about a series of other issues that are related to the abortion 
debate, but we are talking in this bill about one very clearly 
described procedure that should be banned.
  In this procedure, which is used during the second and third 
trimesters of a pregnancy, the practitioner takes 3 days to accomplish 
the death of the child. For the first 2 days the woman's cervix is 
dilated so as to promote the ease with which the doctor will perform 
the abortion. On the third day the woman goes into the doctor's office 
and through the use of ultrasound the physician locates the legs of the 
child. Using a pair of forceps, the physician then seizes one of those 
legs and drags that leg through the birth canal. The doctor then 
delivers the rest of the child, legs, torso, arms, and stops when the 
head is still in the birth canal. One practitioner who uses this 
procedure says the child's head usually stops before being delivered 
because, of course, the cervix has not been dilated to the point that a 
regular vaginal delivery would occur because that is not the point of 
this exercise.
  So, once the child's head is stopped in the birth canal, the doctor 
reaches down to the base of the child's skull, inserts a pair of 
scissors, ending the child's life, yanks those scissors open to enlarge 
the hole and uses a vacuum catheter to suck out the contents of the 
child's cranium.
  That is the procedure that we are talking about in this bill, Mr. 
Speaker, the partial delivery of a living fetus whose life is ended 
with its head still in the birth canal by the deliberate insertion of a 
pair of surgical scissors so that an abortion may be accomplished.
  That is what we are talking about in this bill, Mr. Speaker. We are 
not talking about any other type of abortion. We are not dealing with 
Federal funding. We are not talking about any of the other issues with 
which we have to grapple in the abortion debate. But we are talking 
about a so-called procedure that measures life in inches, and we need 
to agree with the Senate amendments and move this legislation forward, 
hopefully for signature by the President.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule that this bill has attached to it allows for 
fair consideration of the amendments adopted in the Senate, and I urge 
my colleagues to support this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] for 
yielding to me the customary half hour of debate time.
  Mr. Speaker, we oppose the closed process that would make in order 
consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 1833, the so-called and 
misnamed partial-birth abortion ban. This is a bill that on the 
pretense of seeking to ban certain vaguely defined abortion procedures 
is, in reality, an assault on the constitutionally guaranteed right of 
women to reproductive freedom and on the freedom of physicians to 
practice medicine without Government intrusion.
  Those of us, Mr. Speaker, who fought for many, many years to secure, 
and then to preserve and protect, the right of every woman to choose a 
safe medical procedure to terminate a wanted pregnancy that has gone 
tragically wrong, and when her life or health are endangered, are 
deeply troubled by the legislation before us today and by the rule 
under which it is being considered.
  We say at the outset that the other body improved the bill by 
agreeing to the Smith-Dole amendment which does shield doctors from 
prosecution if they perform the procedure when the life of the mother 
was in danger, but only under certain circumstances. However, this is 
an extremely narrow so-called life exception that requires that the 
woman's life be endangered by, quote, a ``physical disorder, illness or 
injury,'' end of quote, and it requires, further, that no other medical 
procedure would suffice.
  It appears that if the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy 
itself, then the procedure would still be illegal. And it does not take 
into account the fact that doctors do not use other procedures because 
they pose greater risks than does this method of serious health 
consequences to the mother, including the loss of future fertility.

[[Page H2896]]

  And of course the Senate amendment does not provide an exception to 
preserve the mother's health no matter how seriously or permanently it 
might be damaged.
  For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, we feel strongly that a true life and 
health exception amendment should have been made in order.
  It is bad enough, we feel, that we are being asked to vote on this 
irresponsible piece of legislation. To make matters worse, we are being 
required to consider it under an unfair rule, and it is one that should 
be defeated. Once again the majority has brought this most 
controversial of bills to the floor under a totally closed rule. That 
we would again be forced to consider a bill of this importance and of 
this complexity under these restrictions is offensive, to begin with.
  Once again, Members are being denied a vote on an amendment that 
would allow an exception to protect a woman's life under all 
circumstances or to prevent serious adverse consequences to her health 
and future fertility.
  The Committee on Rules heard very compelling testimony from the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], and the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. 
Schroeder] on their request to offer a true life and adverse health 
exception amendment to the Senate language.
  We believe Members should have had the opportunity to vote on 
allowing those exceptions to the ban.
  This is obviously a basic and fundamental concern to women and to 
their families. Without that exception, the bill will force a woman and 
her physician to resort to procedures that may be more dangerous to the 
woman's health and to her very life and that may be more threatening to 
her ability to bear other children than the method that we seek to ban. 
Making this amendment in order would have meant that Members could cast 
a vote that shows respect for the importance of a woman's life, health, 
and future fertility.
  Mr. Speaker, the truth is we have absolutely no business considering 
this prohibition and criminalization of a constitutionally protected 
medical procedure. This is, we believe, a dangerous piece of 
legislation. We oppose it not only because it is the first time the 
Federal Government would ban a particular form of abortion, but also 
because it is part of an effort to make it virtually impossible for any 
abortion to be performed late in the pregnancy, no matter how 
endangered the mother's life or health might be.
  What is at stake here is whether or not it will be compassionate 
enough to recognize that none of us in this legislative body has all 
the answers to every tragic situation which confronts a woman and her 
family. We are debating not merely whether to outlaw a procedure but 
under what terms.
  If we must insist on passing legislation that is unprecedented and 
telling physicians which medical procedures they may use despite their 
own best judgment, then we must also, it seems to us, permit a life or 
adverse health exception. It is the only way we can ensure that the 
bill might possibly meet the requirements that have been handed down by 
the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very personal matter to the people involved. I 
would hope that everyone can, but obviously not everyone has had the 
chance to, read the very moving testimony of one of my own 
constituents, Mrs. Coreen Costello of Agoura, CA, in opposition to this 
bill. Mrs. Costello described herself as a conservative pro-life 
Republican who always believed abortion was wrong until she was faced 
with the choice that she was in this case faced with.
  She recounts in detail the events that have led to confronting the 
painful reality that her only real option was to terminate her 
pregnancy. The bill before us would ban the surgical procedure Mrs. 
Costello had about which she wrote, and I quote her:
  ``I had one of the safest, gentlest, most compassionate ways of 
ending a pregnancy that had no hope. Other women, other families, will 
receive devastating news and have to make decisions like mine. Congress 
has no place in our tragedies.''
  Mr. Speaker, if I may add a personal note, in 1967, then-Governor 
Ronald Reagan signed California's Therapeutic Abortion Act, which I 
authored and which was one of the first laws in the Nation to protect 
the lives and the health of our women.

                              {time}  1715

  When the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently ruled in Roe versus Wade 
that the government cannot restrict abortion in cases where it is 
necessary to preserve a woman's life or health, I thought that we have 
come to at least accept the precept that every woman should have the 
right to choose with her family and her physician, but without 
government interference, and when her life and health are endangered, 
how to deal with this most personal and difficult decision.
  I see now that obviously I was wrong, and that this Congress is 
willing even to criminalize for the first time a safe medical procedure 
that is used only rarely, and almost always to end the most tragic of 
pregnancies.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, we believe this legislation is unwise, it is 
unconstitutional, and it is bad public policy to return to the 
dangerous situation that existed about 30 years ago and more. This 
legislation is not a moderate measure, as its proponents argue. It is, 
instead, likely the first step in an ambitious strategy to overturn Roe 
versus Wade, and we believe it would be a tragedy for all women and 
their families.
  Mr. Speaker, it should be emphasized that what we are talking about 
making a crime is a medical procedure that is used only in very rare 
cases, fewer than 500 per year. It is a procedure that is needed only 
as a last resort, in cases where pregnancies that were planned and are 
wanted have gone tragically wrong. Adoption of the bill would have 
these results.
  In cases where it is determined that an abortion is necessary to save 
the life of the women, the Senate amendment would force her to choose a 
method that may leave her unable to bear children in the future. The 
language of the Senate amendment will not protect women whose lives are 
threatened by their pregnancies, and doctors will be forced to choose 
other procedures, even if they are more dangerous.
  Mr. Speaker, choosing to have an abortion is always a terribly 
difficult and awful decision for a family to make, but we are dealing 
here with particularly wrenching decisions in particularly tragic 
circumstances. It seems to us that it would be fitting if we showed 
some restraint and compassion for women who are facing those 
devastating decisions.
  Let me end, Mr. Speaker, by quoting again, if I may, from Mrs. 
Costello's testimony before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, just 
a very brief amount:

       Due to the safety of this procedure, I am again pregnant 
     now. Fortunately, most of you will never have to walk through 
     the valley we have walked. It deeply saddens me that you are 
     making a decision having never walked in our shoes. When 
     families like ours are given this kind of tragic news, the 
     last people we want to seek advice from are politicians. We 
     talk to our doctors, lost of doctors. We talk to our families 
     and other loved ones, and we ponder long and hard into the 
     night with God.
       What happened to our family is heartbreaking and it is 
     private, but we have chosen to share our story with you 
     because we hope it will help you act with wisdom and 
     compassion. I hope you can put aside your political 
     differences, your positions on abortion, and your party 
     affiliations and just try to remember us. We are the ones who 
     know. We are the families that ache to hold our babies, to 
     love them, to nurture them. We are the families who will 
     forever have a hole in our hearts. We are the families that 
     had to choose how our babies would die. Each one of you 
     should be grateful that you and your families have not had to 
     face such a choice. I pray that no one you love ever does. 
     Please put a stop to this terrible bill. Families like mine 
     are counting on you.

  Mr. Speaker, we do, as I have said before, strongly oppose the rule 
before us and the bill that it makes in order. We urge defeat of the 
rule so we can sent it back to the Committee on Rules and at least ask 
for a rule that would allow us to vote on an amendment to preserve the 
life, under all circumstances, and the health of the mother.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I think it is 
important that we recognize that the procedure

[[Page H2897]]

that we are talking about today is not a legitimate medical procedure 
recognized by experts of the American Medical Association. With all 
respect to my colleague on the Committee on Rules, for whom I have 
great respect and affection, there is no question but that the 
experience that his constituent had is one that none of us hope we have 
to share. But, Mr. Speaker, the American Medical Association's Council 
on Legislation, made up of 12 physicians, voted unanimously to 
recommend that the American Medical Association board of trustees 
endorse this partial birth abortion ban.
  A member of the council, after they had discussed this procedure, 
said that they felt that this was not a recognized medical technique, 
and that the council members had agreed that the procedure was 
basically repulsive. We are not criminalizing an accepted medical 
technique, Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate that we are having to debate 
what has become medicalized infanticide.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding time to me, and I commend her and the Committee on Rules for 
bringing forth this rule, and the members of the Committee on the 
Judiciary for originally introducing this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in my office at the time, still practicing 
medicine in 1993, when I got my copy of the American Medical News in 
which this procedure was first described where a baby is identified 
under ultrasound, the abortionist, using a forcep, reaches up into the 
birth canal and grabs the baby by the feet, dragging the baby out of 
the birth canal up to the level of its head, and then there, dangling 
outside the mother, typically with its arms and legs moving, a forcep 
is inserted into the back of the skull, an opening is created, the 
brains are sucked out, and the dead baby is then delivered.
  I was amazed to read in this article that somebody could actually 
concoct a procedure this gruesome, and I was further shocked to read 
that the physicians who developed the procedure then went on to report 
that in 85 percent of the cases within which they do this procedure, 
there are no significant birth defects, and some of the defects that 
they cited, where they justified doing this procedure, included cleft 
lip and cleft palate.
  Mr. Speaker, I was shocked, and frankly I was amazed that I could 
live in a country where a procedure as gruesome and awful as this could 
be legalized. Some would call this a safe medical procedure. I would 
contend that there was a party involved in this procedure where it was 
anything but safe. Indeed, it was lethal, and it was lethal in a most 
horrific way.
  We in the United States, contrary to the contention of many people, 
have the most liberal left-wing abortion laws. In Europe, most of 
Europe that legalized abortion far before we did in this country, this 
type of procedure is not legal. They have restrictions on how you can 
do these procedures and when you can do them. Specifically, they are 
not legalized in late trimester, in late second trimester, and in the 
third trimester.
  My colleague on the other side of the aisle I thought encapsulated 
the whole issue very well. There are some people who would like the 
mother to be able to choose how her baby will die. The majority of this 
body voted once before, and will vote again, that there is a place 
where the Government of the United States has to draw the line and say, 
``This is beyond the pale.'' This is a total repudiation of the 
principles upon which our Nation was founded. I support the rule. I 
encourage all my colleagues to vote for the rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], a fellow member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendments to this 
legislation and was proud to be an original cosponsor of the House-
passed bill.
  While abortions, except to save the mother's life, are wrong for 
those of us who believe in life, this particular procedure is doubly 
wrong. It requires a partial delivery and involves pain to the baby.
   Mr. Speaker, you will hear the medical details of these abortions 
from other witnesses, but I simply lend my support to the bill as one 
who tries to ascribe to a moral code and commonsense. A compassionate 
society should not promote a procedure that is gruesome and inflicts 
pain on the victim. We have humane methods of capital punishment. We 
have humane treatment of prisoners. We even have laws to protect 
animals. It seems to me we should have some standards for abortion as 
well.
  Many years ago surgery was performed on newborns with the thought 
that they did not feel pain. Now we know they do feel pain. According 
to Dr. Paul Ranalli, a neurologist at the University of Toronto, at 20 
weeks a human fetus is covered by pain receptors and has 1 billion 
nerve cells--more than us, since ours start dying off with adolescence. 
Regardless of the arguments surrounding the ethics of the procedure, it 
does seem that pain is inflicted.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to discuss a bill relating to 
abortion without saying that we have a deep moral obligation to 
improving the quality of life for children after they are born. I am a 
Member of Congress who is opposed to abortion. But, I could not sit 
here and honestly debate this subject with a clear conscience if I did 
not spend a good portion of my time on hunger and trying to help 
children and their families achieve a just life once they are born.
  We need to promote social policies that ensure the mother and child 
will receive adequate health care, training and other assistance that 
will, in turn, enable them to become productive members of society. We 
have not done a good job so far, and I am afraid to say, this House has 
been unraveling social programs all too easily. Until our Nation makes 
a commitment to offering pregnant women and their children a promising 
future, I am afraid the demand for abortion will not subside.
  Enough is enough. If there's one thing this Congress ought to do this 
year is stop this very reprehensible and gruesome technique of 
abortion. We treat dogs better than this. Vote yes on this bill.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Chabot].
  (Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, today we will again vote on whether or not 
it should be lawful for an abortionist to kill a baby that already has 
been partially delivered in circumstances where the mother's life is 
not at risk. Remember, the doctor must grasp two kicking, healthy legs 
to secure the baby so that he can insert into the child's skull a 
scissor-like device that causes the brain to collapse, and it kills the 
child. Even those who advocate this type of abortion shudder to 
describe it. Only the most extreme ideologue could favor such a 
gruesome procedure where the mother's life is not in jeopardy.
  This whole debate is over whether thinking, feeling, healthy little 
babies who are within weeks or sometimes even days of natural delivery 
should be robbed of the opportunity to breathe the same air you and I 
share. These babies, only inches away from being fully born, are no 
different from mildly premature babies. They deserve to live.
  I celebrate the fact that today we will take a step in representing 
those who cannot represent themselves by passing the partial birth 
abortion bill, and I strongly, strongly urge Members to vote for its 
passage.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, this is not a bill about life, 
this is a bill about politics. Think about it. The House passed this 
bill in its original version to ban partial birth abortions. The Senate 
changed it. The Senate said, ``You can make an exception to the ban in 
the case of the life of the mother.'' What is going on here? Congress 
is trying to be your doctor.
  I though this was the era of getting Government off our backs, not 
the era of getting Government more into your personal issues.

                              {time}  1730

  Now it seems that we are imposing more Government regulations on a 
woman's personal life.

[[Page H2898]]

  It is ironic that this Congress honors this month of March as Women's 
History Month. We celebrate women overcoming obstacles in their lives, 
women having liberties, and women having freedom of choice. Now here 
tonight, in a male-dominated Congress, they want to take away a woman's 
right to decide what is right for her and for her baby.
  I have talked to constituents who have been forced to have this 
procedure to protect future fertility. I think we are foolish to think 
that we can handle this issue with our lawmaking process better than 
women can handle it in the medical arena.
  Everyone knows that we cannot save life or make life by ordering it. 
Do not pass laws that may prevent healthy women from ever, ever 
becoming loving mothers. Support women. Support womanhood. Reject this 
rule. Reject this bill. Honor women. Honor medicine. Honor choice. Do 
not make bad law.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Bryant].
  (Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule 
which I think is a very good one. It allows the Senate amendments that 
were made to this bill to be accepted by this House, and I believe that 
the Senate amendments are reasonable and, as I said before, acceptable.
  This rule continues to focus on the matter at hand, only the Senate 
amendments, and for that reason I do not think we need any extraneous 
amendments to this bill.
  When this House considered the bill in the past, the recent past, it 
passed it by 288 people voting for it, which showed wide bipartisan 
support for this bill. Now, under the guise of protecting the mother's 
health, efforts are being made to change this rule or ask for 
amendments to allow this exception.
  The Supreme Court has considered in the case of Roe versus Bolton 
that to protect the mother's health, that definition of health can 
encompass all factors, physical, emotional, psychological, familial, 
and the woman's age, all relevant to the patient's well-being. This 
type of exception, as we found in California, would open the door wide 
open to the humane device of this partial-birth abortion, and certainly 
would be unacceptable.
  Even many of the people that voted in the House earlier for this bill 
which outlawed this particularly terrible procedure would call 
themselves pro-choice.
  I find it somewhat ironic, too, as we are taking up the Endangered 
Species Act on this Hill and we are talking about preservation of 
animals in particular, that we actually protect the American eagle and 
its preborn, the egg of that eagle, more than we protect the preborn of 
a human being. It is actually a fine of $500 to $5,000, up to 1 year in 
prison, for destroying an eagle egg, a preborn eagle.
  But this issue here is not about the big issue of abortion, but 
simply outlawing a particularly egregious and terrible procedure that 
is used. As I argued on the floor before, were we to transfer this type 
of procedure over to a way of executing people who have committed 
murder, on death row, there would be many in this body that would be 
the first to stand up or encourage people to go to court to stop this 
type of procedure as in violation of the eighth amendment to our 
Constitution which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Were we to 
take someone, instead of electrocuting them or using the gas chamber 
or, as in Utah, using the firing squad, and take a screwdriver and 
crack their skull and suck out their brain, which is this procedure 
that is used in this particular type of abortion, again we would be in 
court very quickly to defend that particularly terrible procedure, and 
I would agree on that.

  The example that we used in our earlier debate occurred in Washington 
State, where a man on death row actually went to court and was able to 
set aside temporarily his death row conviction or the execution of the 
death penalty because he was so heavy, over 400 pounds, that he would 
be decapitated were he hung as was the procedure in Washington.
  We have precedent for this, and I would simply say that the American 
Medical Association Council on Legislation has voted unanimously to 
recommend that the AMA endorse this bill. I think their opinion would 
carry an awful lot of weight.
  Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased when this body passed H.R. 1833, the 
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, by an overwhelming 288-to-139 margin. 
Today we consider the Senate's amendments to the bill and the rule.
  The Senate passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act with similar 
bipartisan support. And that body's amendments are reasonable and 
acceptable. Furthermore, the rule simply addresses the matter at hand--
the Senate amendments. There is no reason to consider extraneous 
amendments.
  Unfortunately, the President and proabortion extremists continue to 
oppose this modest, widely supported bill. The President has threatened 
to veto this bill because it doesn't have amendments that would allow 
this gruesome procedure for virtually any reason. Under the guise of 
protecting the mother's health, the radical abortionists want to add a 
health-of-the-mother exception. The bill already would allow the 
partial-birth abortion procedure if the abortion was necessary to save 
the woman's life, and this procedure was the only method of doing so.
  However, to add ``health'' would be tantamount to writing in a 
loophole through which a Mack truck could be driven. While protecting a 
mother's health may sound reasonable on its face, the Supreme Court has 
defined ``health'' as anything that relates to one's well-being. Does 
that mean that being depressed or having a cold or allergies or a 
headache could qualify as jeopardizing health under such an open-ended 
definition? Certainly. In fact, the Court held in Doe versus Bolton 
that ``health'' encompasses ``all factors--physical, emotional, 
psychological, familial, and the woman's age--relevant to the well-
being of the patient.'' Therefore, to add ``health'' to this 
legislation would gut the bill.
  The fact is, according to the doctors who perform most of this type 
of abortion, 80 percent of partial-birth abortions are elective. That 
means they are for almost any reason.
  Mr. Speaker, let's be completely clear about the procedure that this 
bill would ban. The opponents of this bill would direct the debate to 
side issues, and for good reason: If the American people know the 
facts, they'll want this horrible abortion procedure banned.
  While all methods of abortion are repulsive, barbaric, and 
nauseating, this abortion method reaches depths of inhumanity that only 
a calloused conscience could approve of.
  Remember that this abortion procedure takes place during the second 
trimester or later. That's after the baby's heart is beating, which 
occurs at about 3 weeks after conception. That's after the baby's brain 
waves can be measured, which happens at 6 weeks. That's after morning 
sickness has usually subsided, after 3 months.
  First, the abortionist uses ultrasound--an amazing, high-technology 
medical tool that gives doctors and parents-to-be a look at the baby 
inside the womb--the abortionist uses this tool of life as a tool of 
death. He uses ultrasound to guide his forceps to grab the unborn 
baby's leg.
  Second, the abortionist pulls the baby by his leg into the birth 
canal and proceeds to deliver the baby's entire body, except for the 
head.
  Next, the abortionist jams scissors into the base of the baby's 
skull. That's the usual point when the baby dies. Let me interject here 
that the only thing that separates this act from murder is the fact 
that the baby's head is still in the birth canal.
  Finally, the abortionist removes the scissors and inserts a suction 
catheter. The baby's brains are sucked out, collapsing the skull. The 
dead baby is then fully delivered. That's a partial-birth abortion.
  Some of the so-called antichoice extremists who support this bill 
include the American Medical Association's Council on Legislation, 
which voted unanimously to recommend that the AMA endorse H.R. 1833. 
The council made that recommendation because its members concluded that 
partial-birth abortion is not a legitimate medical procedure. This 
statement begs the question, if partial-birth abortion isn't an 
acceptable medical procedure according to a professional body in the 
field of medicine, then what is this procedure? It certainly doesn't 
reflect the Hippocratic oath, which says doctors should first do no 
harm.
  It is ironic that we wouldn't treat convicted capital offenders this 
way. The ACLU would be up in arms and in court and crying ``cruel and 
unusual punishment'' if a State tried to stab scissors in the base of 
the prisoner's skull and then suck out his brains with a vacuum 
cleaner.
  In fact, a court in Washington State ruled that hanging convicted 
murderer Mitchell Rupe, who weighted 400 pounds, would be cruel and 
unusual punishment. Rupe had appealed his death penalty by arguing that 
because of his excessive body weight, the noose would decapitate him, 
and that would be cruel

[[Page H2899]]

and unusual punishment. The appellate judge agreed with this man, who 
had been convicted on two counts of first-degree murder.
   Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1833 bans the performance of partial-birth 
abortions, the gruesome procedure that I have described.
  As medical technology continues to develop to the point where surgery 
can be performed on unborn babies, where more and more premature babies 
survive, where doctors can perform increasingly sophisticated 
techniques that just 10 or 20 years ago we would have thought of as 
medical miracles, it's time to take a hard look at biological and 
medical facts.
  H.R. 1833 bans a single abortion technique that even many people who 
call themselves pro-choice support the banning of. But what are the 
ethical and moral questions we as a society need to confront? Do the 
medical facts we have today support the ignorant bliss on which Roe 
versus Wade and Doe versus Bolton were decided? Is this country still a 
civilized society? What kind of a people would allow the partial 
birthing of a half-gestated baby, only to be stabbed with surgical 
scissors and his brains sucked out, knowing the biological facts we 
have in 1996?
  It is also ironic that this Nation protects unborn eagles more 
vigorously than it protects unborn human beings. We punish people under 
three different acts--the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703), 
the Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668), and the Endangered 
Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1538 and 1540)--for destroying an eagle egg. The 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act provides for penalties up to $500 in fines 
and 6 months in prison for destroying an eagle egg. The penalty under 
the Bald Eagle Protection Act is a fine up to $5,000 and a year in 
prison. The Endangered Species Act provides for civil and criminal 
penalties; the criminal penalties for knowingly destroying an eagle 
egg, depending on the location where the egg is found, range to $50,000 
in fines and 1 year in prison. Unborn eagles have that much protection 
under law. However, unborn human babies may be aborted at any time 
throughout the pregnancy. And in the case of partial-birth abortion, 
the baby can even be forcibly, partially delivered in order for the 
abortionist to destroy that baby's life.
   Mr. Speaker, I have faith that the American people will make the 
right decision. Give the American people the facts, as has been done 
regarding partial-birth abortion, and they will arrive at the 
civilized, decent conclusion that this procedure should be outlawed. I 
believe the American people will remain true to our Nation's core 
values, that we are all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable 
rights, foremost being the right to life.
  I conclude with these verses from Psalm 139: ``For you created my 
inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. *  *  * My 
frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When 
I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my 
unformed body.''
   Mr. Speaker, I urge that we accede to the Senate's amendments. I 
urge that we adopt this rule. And I urge the President to reconsider 
his veto threat.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], who serves on the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we will get to debate the 
substance of the bill, although very briefly. The gentlewoman from Utah 
[Mrs. Waldholtz] said that this rule provides adequate time to discuss 
the Senate amendments. This rule, in fact, provides quite deliberately 
the minimum time that it is legally possible to give a bill on the 
floor of the House.
  The rule gives 1 hour. That is the minimum that is allowed under the 
basic rules, so this is part of an effort to suppress debate and 
discussion on this bill. We will get to the substance, but I want to 
talk here about the outrageous procedure. It is one more example of 
this majority running absolutely roughshod over the notion of open 
debate and democracy and fairness. This is, once again, a rule as we 
say in previous weeks where to achieve their political purpose, to make 
sure that their political message is unadulterated, the majority 
sacrifices the right of the American people to have free debate.
  For example, the gentlewoman from Utah talked about the amendment 
that was adopted in the Senate. She said people felt that the life 
exception for the mother was not done right so the Senate straightened 
it out. Many of us raised that same point here in the House, and why 
did we not straighten it out here in the House? Because they had the 
same rules the last time. The rule did not allow that amendment. It is 
an amendment that we in the House were prevented from considering 
because of the close-fisted rule of the majority on this bill.
  The Senate did adopt the amendment, so they are giving in and they 
say, ``OK, we will do it''. They are almost taking credit for the 
improvement the Senate made when they refused to allow us to vote on 
such an amendment here. Now we have another amendment that we want to 
offer, and I understand here that we cannot even offer a motion to 
recommit this.
  It is a very cleverly crafted procedure they have. This is not a 
bill. It is a concurrence with the Senate amendment because, by making 
it that way, we cannot even recommit it and no amendments are in order. 
We can do nothing in the House to alter this. We can vote up or down. 
We have twice been asked by the majority, not asked, directed by the 
majority to vote on this very important issue with no amendment and 
with the minimum time for debate allowed under the rules of this House.
  They want to do it. They want to do it quickly and have as little 
conversation as possible because it will not stand up, apparently, they 
believe, to greater scrutiny. They are afraid to allow an amendment.

  We have an amendment that we offered, the gentlewoman from Colorado 
and I. It is an amendment that was offered in the Senate. The Senate 
adopted one amendment and then the Senate rejected another but it got 
47 votes. We are hardly talking about some fringe position; 47 votes, 
including Republican votes, in the Senate, and we are not being allowed 
to offer it here.
  We cannot do it on the motion to recommit because there is no 
committee to which it can be recommitted. This is simply a motion to 
concur in the Senate amendment, and what is the amendment that the 
majority is afraid to allow the House to vote on?
  They cannot plead time. We are less busy than the guys in ``Marty,'' 
standing around on the corner. ``What do you want to do tonight?'' ``I 
don't know. What do you want to do tonight?''
  Voting is not one of the things, because the majority cannot get 
itself organized. We have hardly overvoted ourselves this week, but the 
majority is afraid to allow the amendment.
  The amendment says the doctor will not be considered a criminal and 
sent to prison if he performs this procedure to prevent damage to the 
health of the mother. If a doctor were to decide that this procedure 
was necessary to avoid damage to the mother's ability to give birth in 
the future, he would be committing a crime if he did it because the 
majority will not even let us vote on an amendment that would say to 
avoid damage to her ability in the future to bear children. We are 
talking about serious adverse health effects.
  At the Committee on Rules, the majority allowed a debate in the 
Committee on Rules. They did not want to but they cannot shut us up. 
They are probably working on a way to do that in the Rules Committee.
  The gentlewoman from Colorado said this is so broad. What do we mean 
by health? My answer is simple. I think serious adverse health is good 
enough, and I am prepared to put the doctor's opinion up.
  But if you think that is too broad, then amend the amendment. My 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are afraid of open debate. If 
you think serious adverse health is too broad, why do you not put very, 
very, really serious adverse health? Or if you are afraid of 
psychological, put physical health. I do not agree with that. I would 
vote against that, but if you want to avoid serious physical damage to 
the mother but do not want to let in depression, then allow us to vote 
on it.
  But your preferred procedure which you are imposing successfully on 
this House, I am afraid, I reemphasize this, that procedure requires us 
to vote and will not allow an amendment that would say to a doctor if 
you perform this procedure, and by the way it is called a procedure by 
the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. I will put 
their letter in opposition to this in the Record. You are saying that 
we cannot even offer an amendment that would say to avoid serious 
damage to the mother's physical health. Our amendment does not say 
that, but you could amend the amendment and make that in order.

[[Page H2900]]

  I know that democracy seems complicated to people who have so little 
practice with it. You are instead going to demand that we vote to make 
it criminal even if a doctor wanted to prevent serious physical damange 
to the health of the mother.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following letter for the Record:

                                           The American College of


                              Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

                                 Washington, DC, November 1, 1995.


   statement on H.R. 1833: the partial-birth abortion ban act of 1995

       The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is 
     disappointed that the U.S. House of Representatives has 
     attempted to regulate medical decision-making today by 
     passing a bill on so-called ``partial-birth'' abortion.
       The College finds very disturbing any action by Congress 
     that would supersede the medical judgment of trained 
     physicians and that would criminalize medical procedures that 
     may be necessary to save the life of a woman. Moreover, in 
     defining what medical procedures doctors may or may not 
     perform, the bill employs terminology that is not even 
     recognized in the medical community--demonstrating why 
     congressional opinion should never be substituted for 
     professional medical judgment.
       The College does not support H.R. 1833, or the companion 
     Senate bill, S. 939.

  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to simply respond quickly. The gentleman 
from Massachusetts is an excellent student of the rules of the House, 
and as such an excellent student of the rules of the House the 
gentleman knows that the minority had an opportunity to offer a motion 
to recommit when the House originally considered this bill. At that 
time the gentleman could have offered his amendment. He chose not to. 
The minority chose to not offer a motion to recommit. This bill went 
over to the Senate. It is back now for our concurrence.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Barcia].
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 
1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of the rule and the final passage of this important 
legislation.
  As a pro-life advocate I am committed to protecting the rights of 
unborn children. My primary concern is that abortion should not be 
treated like a routine medical procedure. Although some consider 
partial-birth abortions routine medical procedures, this could not be 
further from the truth. Partial-birth abortions are neither routine, 
legitimate or necessary.
  Partial-birth abortions are most often performed in the second or 
third trimester. I am particularly troubled by the horrifying prospect 
of late term abortions. Even in Roe versus Wade, abortions are limited 
to the first trimester. Today we are considering continuing to allow 
abortions through the third trimester of fetal viability.
  House Resolution 1833 not only bans the performance of this type of 
inhuman abortion but it imposes fines and a maximum of 2 years of 
imprisonment for any person who administered a partial-birth abortion. 
This gruesome and brutal procedure should not be permitted.
  I strongly believe in the sanctity of life, and if 80 percent of the 
abortions are elective, we have to reconsider and reevaluate the value 
our society places on human life. This decision is not made in the case 
of rape or incest, not if the mother's life is in danger, and not if 
there are birth defects. In many cases this is a cold, calculated, and 
selfish decision.
  This is not a choice issue. This is a life or death issue for an 
innocent child. Please join me in making this heinous procedure 
illegal.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Ms. Slaughter].
  Mrs. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, in every way this debate today is a 
tragedy.
  First, I want to make it very clear, as clear as I can to people who 
are interested in knowing the truth, that the third trimester 
abortions, and the partial-birth abortions are very rare and they are 
not done as elective surgery at all. They are done in the case of a 
severely deformed fetus, a dead fetus, or a mother who will not survive 
until the birth is completed.
  It is not a case of grabbing hold of two kicking legs and delivering 
a child that will be able to grow and respond to life. It is not a case 
of that at all. Why do we add to the awful tragedy of the families that 
desperately want the children that they are carrying and lose? Why do 
we say that the Congress of the United States knows better than the 
parents do and better than their doctor does, and we are going to 
require that they continue this pregnancy.
  I am scared about the precedent that this legislation sets. To say 
that the procedure, practice and procedure, should be left to the 
Congress of the United States and not to medical people is a dangerous 
idea. A physician cannot choose this procedure even if other procedures 
would have serious health consequences, and we have talked about that, 
the possibility of loss of fertility.

                              {time}  1745

  But the underlying thing that last bothered me ever since I have been 
in the Congress of the United States is there is another underlying 
piece here, and that is that women do not have the right to choose, 
maybe they are not smart enough, we cannot let them decide what is the 
best thing in the world for them to do. Some men have to sit around and 
decide what is best, usually deciding that in legislatures all over the 
country and this Congress what it is that we can say is appropriate for 
them.
  It is not original with me, but if women were that dumb, how in the 
world does anybody here expect that they had had a mother who bore them 
and raised them to extraordinary lengths that they are today? Had a 
Member of the Congress of the United States. Just like any other 
patient, a woman deserves the best care based on the best circumstances 
and the knowledge that it fits her situation. It should not be tailored 
to fit the needs of Members of Congress or any ideas that they may 
have. Women should not be considered second-class citizens and that 
needs a big brother to tell her what is permissible and what is not.
  Unfortunately, I think this is only a beginning. The bill's sponsors 
have consistently stated this is a first step and, if they have the 
votes, they will prevent all abortion. I think many of them would also 
prohibit birth control. They want Government intrusion into every 
doctor's office and eventually into every bedroom. We should not start 
down this road. We should not prohibit medical procedures by Government 
fiat. We should not prohibit physicians and patients from making 
informed decisions based on the individual facts of the particular 
case.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask defeat of this rule, which prohibits this House 
from modifying the draconian antiwoman provisions of this bill. I then 
ask my colleagues to preserve the right of women to the most 
appropriate medical procedure based on the best medical advice by 
defeating this underlying bill.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I think it is important to point out the definition of elective and 
nonelective abortion regarding third-trimester abortions. In this 
particular situation, it depends on the definition of the person 
expressing it. One of the doctors who pioneered the partial-birth 
abortion procedure, as he called it, said the third trimester abortions 
he performed this way are nonelective, but he said that these abortions 
also are caused by factors such as maternal risk, rape, incest, 
psychiatric or pediatric indications. This doctor's definition of 
nonelective are extremely broad. He went on to tell the Subcommittee on 
the Constitution that he had performed more than 2,000 of these 
partial-birth abortions and that he attributed over 1,300 of them to 
what he called fetal indications or maternal indications.
  Of those indications, the most common maternal indication was 
depression. Other maternal indications included what he called 
pediatric pelvis, their youth, spousal drug exposure, and substance 
abuse. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, what is elective or nonelective varies 
widely depending on the purpose of the person offering the definition.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Souder].
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, first I want to agree with the earlier 
speaker

[[Page H2901]]

that this amendment is actually not needed. We in the House had already 
protected life of the mother, but in the new language, ``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,'' makes it clear this has nothing to do 
with life of the mother.
  I would also like to address the question of whether we men are 
trying to regulate women. I think one of the tragedies of this country 
are men who beat their spouses, mothers and fathers who treat their 
children as though they are objects to abuse. The question here is 
whether it is human life. If it is human life, it has nothing to do 
with whether it is the right of the woman or the right of the man to 
kill this child.
  If we disagree over life, that is one thing. But to act like we are 
trying to do anything other than protect an innocent life is unfair. In 
this case, the life is a life. If its head pops out a little bit 
further but if the legs are out and the heart is beating and the head 
is inside, then you jab it, it is not a human life. This is a debate 
over human life, not the rights of women and men.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, abortion is a tough debate under any 
circumstances, and an emotional one. But I think the reason I oppose 
this rule and oppose this measure is because in this one this debate is 
wrongly directed. This is not an issue about whether or not a woman 
should have a right to choose or what state a fetus is viable or when 
life begins. The tragic situation in this case is that overwhelmingly 
the women affected do not want an abortion. They wanted to have this 
child. But it is being performed in the last trimester because of 
medical necessities. There are less than 500 of these procedures 
performed a year. And, yes, what are some of the situations? This has 
been a pretty graphic debate. Some of the situations, such as brains 
that have developed outside the fetus's skull, a situation where the 
woman's health, the mother's health is significantly endangered, once 
again, this woman, this couple having their child, want to have this 
child in the overwhelming number of cases I have been able to find, yet 
they are not able to. They find this out in the last trimester. I have 
got problems with Congress, a lot of people have problems getting 
involved in different areas. A lot of people have problems with 
Congress making important medical decisions, particularly when a 
woman's life is possibly endangered.
  Under this amendment, it is improved a little bit from leaving the 
House. The prosecution has to show beyond a reasonable doubt the doctor 
performed this procedure improperly except the only way you get to that 
point is you charge the doctor and bring that physician to trial. For 
exercising medical judgment, a physician goes to trial. He or she 
cannot perform this procedure even to safeguard the severe adverse 
health effects to the mother, only for the life of the mother.
  I guess what concerns me the most is that in this legislation they 
would permit the doctor to be charged but the woman who requested that 
understood that something has to be done, requested something be done, 
she is not charged. This whole thing does not belong in the Congress, 
and Congress should not start down this road.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, for more than two decades the multimillion-dollar 
abortion industry has sanitized abortion methods by aggressively 
employing the most clever and most benign of euphemisms market research 
can buy. Until today they succeeded in a massive coverup about the 
sickening truth about abortion methods, including chemical poisoning of 
the child by highly concentrated salt water or some other potion, 
dismemberment of the baby's fragile body by a knife connected to a 
suction machine that is 20 to 30 times more powerful than the average 
vacuum cleaner, and now brain extraction, the method at issue today, as 
if the child's brain were a diseased tooth in need of extraction or a 
tumor to be excised. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, partial-
birth abortion is child abuse. And those who do it today have an 
unfettered right to kill. We can revoke that license to kill, Mr. 
Speaker, and we must. If the President vetoes this legislation, then he 
alone will have empowered the abortionist to kill babies in this way. 
If he vetoes this bill, he renews this license to kill. He bears the 
responsibility for the thousands of kids who will die from this hideous 
method of abortion. Veto this bill, and there is no doubt whatsoever in 
my mind that Bill Clinton will go down in history as the abortion 
President.
  Mr. Speaker, the abortion lobby lies to women and they lie to society 
at large, and they usually get away with it. But not this time. On this 
issue, they have said that partial-birth abortion is used primarily to 
save the life of the mother, an exception included in the bill, or for 
the deformity of the child. Leaving aside the inhumane notion that 
handicapped kids are throw-aways or are to be construed as so much 
garbage, I thought we took care of that with passage of the Americans 
with Disabilities Act, which said that handicapped people have rights 
and they have inherent value, and we need to respect that.
  Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is then, perhaps most of the 
partial-birth abortions procured in the United States are elective; in 
other words, they are abortions on demand. Dr. Martin Haskell, an 
abortionist who alone has performed over 1,000 partial-birth abortions, 
said in a tape recorded interview with the American Medical News that 
of the procedures he does, from 20 to 24 weeks, 80 percent are, 
``purely elective.''
  Mr. Speaker, the abortion lobby has also said that anesthesia kills 
the babies before they are removed from the womb. Even if that excuse 
were true, even if that rationalization were true, it would still mean 
that a baby dies. But again it is another lie. The American Society of 
Anesthesiologists, the ASA, has testified that such an assertion by the 
abortion lobby has, and I quote, ``absolutely no basis in scientific 
fact,'' and is, ``misleading and potentially dangerous to pregnant 
women.'' According to the ASA general anesthesia given to a pregnant 
woman does not kill nor does it injure an unborn baby or even provide 
the baby with protection from pain. And Dr. Haskell himself has said 
that local anesthesia he uses has no effect on the baby.
  Mr. Speaker, to my left is a chart, one of a series of charts, 
medically correct, a diagram of what the actual procedure is all about. 
In a paper given by Dr. Haskell to the National Abortion Federation in 
1992, entitled ``Second Trimester Abortion From Every Angle,'' in 
September Dr. Haskell describes the partial birth abortion this way. 
Remember, this man, one of the pioneers who is trying to promote the 
use of this despicable form of child abuse, and he says, and I quote,

       With the instrument, when the instrument appears on the 
     sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to open and close its 
     jaws and firmly and reliably grasp a lower extremity of the 
     child. The surgeon then applies firm traction to the 
     instrument, causing a version of the fetus and pulls the 
     extremity into the vagina.

  He then goes on to say that,

       With a lower extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his 
     fingers to deliver the lower extremity, then the torso, the 
     shoulders, and then the upper extremities, the skull lodges 
     in the internal cervical os. Usually there is not enough 
     dilation for it to pass through. At this point, the right-
     handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left hand along the 
     back of the fetus and hooks the shoulders of the fetus with 
     the index and ring fingers palm down, while maintaining 
     tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the 
     shoulders with the fingers of the left hand. The surgeon 
     takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right 
     hand. He carefully advances its tip curved down along the 
     spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact 
     the base of the skull.

  Mr. Speaker, according to Dr. Haskell, the surgeon then forces the 
scissors into the skull, right into the skull of that baby. And then he 
introduces a, suction catheter, holds it and excavates the skull 
contents.
  Mr. Speaker, one nurse, a registered nurse by the name of Brenda 
Pratt Schaefer, witnessed several of these partial-birth abortions 
while working for Dr. Haskell. She said, in describing the process 
that,

       The baby's body was moving, his little fingers were 
     clasping together, he was kicking

[[Page H2902]]

     his feet. All the while his little head was still stuck 
     inside. Dr. Haskell took a pair of scissors, inserted them 
     into the back of the baby's head. Then he opened the scissors 
     up. Then he stuck a high-powered suction tube into the hole 
     and sucked the baby's brains out.

  This is child abuse, Mr. Speaker, let us face reality. And we can 
stop it.
  Finally, just let me say, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida, Mr. Canady, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, for his courage in bringing this very important human 
rights legislation to the floor. The other side hates him for it. The 
abortion, lobby certainly does. They hate many others who fight for 
unborn kids.
  But just let me say, protecting children and protecting human rights 
is always difficult. I serve as the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
International Operations and Human Rights. For 16 years I have been 
promoting human rights abroad. This, I would say, and submit to my 
distinguished colleagues, is a human rights abuse. Children are being 
slaughtered, some say 500, as if 500 is a small number of executions. 
That is, I think, a very conservative estimate; it is very likely many, 
many more than that. And it is being promoted as a method of choice.

                              {time}  1800

  I would submit that we have the opportunity today to stop this kind 
of child abuse and to protect little children from this kind of 
killing. We ought to do it. Support the rule and support the bill.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. 
The bill in question presents a direct challenge to Roe versus Wade. As 
one member of the majority boasted, ``We intend to ban a woman's right 
to choose, procedure by procedure.'' I take him at his word, because 
this legislation will do just that.
  I would like to put a human face on this debate and talk about Coreen 
Costello, who is pictured here. Coreen Costello would have taken any 
child that God would have given her, regardless of any handicap. But 
this child, the child that she was expecting, was not a child that 
could live. The Dole amendment would not have allowed Coreen Costello 
to use the procedure that now allows her to have other children. She is 
currently expecting yet another child. The Committee on Rules denied an 
amendment that would keep Coreen Costello's doctor out of jail.
  I urge Members to have a heart. Vote humanitarian, vote for children, 
vote for women, vote for families, vote against this rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers). The gentlewoman from Colorado 
is recognized for 4 minutes.
  (Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I eagerly, eagerly ask Members to vote against this 
rule. This rule is one more gag rule put on doctors dealing with women 
and their families in the most difficult situations that any family 
would ever have to face. I think it is unbelievable that we are gagging 
Members of Congress from being able to deal with the severe and adverse 
health conditions a woman can have, and that is what is being done. We 
are not being allowed to present that amendment.
  The reason we are doing this today is really all political. Let us be 
honest. We have a letter from the President pointing out he will veto 
this bill in this form because it violates Roe versus Wade. We now have 
a new decision, a 100-page decision in Ohio, where the same kind of 
procedure was tested and the court said no, that is violative of Roe 
versus Wade.
  We have heard so many statements made here that were incorrect, that 
you do not even know what to say.
  People get up and they obsess on this, they obsess on this procedure 
and they obsess on all this stuff. The real issue is, show me an 
obstetrician and gynecologist that is going to do something terrible 
and evil and awful. We try to make this into a witch trial. Show me 
parents that would want this.

  These are crisis situations, where everything has gone wrong. We are 
only talking here about late, late abortions, where people were 
clinging to that child trying to go as far as possible. If we deny this 
kind of procedure, we are going to be denying to young parents their 
chance to have another shot at being a parent, which is probably one of 
the most driving desires anyone has.
  Why do I say that? Because there are other procedures available. 
Sure, you could have a hysterectomy. There are other procedures 
available. But, guess what? You lose your reproductive organs. This 
procedure has been put together so that the reproductive system can 
remain whole and they get another shot at parenthood.
  Should that not be okay? You hear people talk about how these are 
elective. Elective? These are not elective. Who in the world would sign 
up for a process like this, unless it was absolutely essential.
  This bill does not do anything about early abortions in the first 
trimester. Remember what Roe versus Wade said? In the first trimester, 
you could do whatever. That is the elective part. We are talking about 
the late part, where Roe versus Wade said States can regulate this 
except in the case of life and severe health consequences to the 
mother.
  Here is a mother that is happy we did not interfere in that, because 
she has gone on to be able to have another child, and she lived to see 
these two children grow to adulthood.
  Is it the position of this Congress that other women in the future 
cannot have that opportunity? Are we going to move in and tell the 
doctors that would look at her health rather than this law, guess what, 
they go to prison for 2 years? Are we going to start criminalizing 
these medical procedures?
  This is the first medical procedure we will ever have criminalized. 
Is that not interesting?
  Mr. Speaker, I will put in the Record a letter from the American 
Nurses Association speaking clearly that they are opposed to this bill, 
and the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians, who are 
the ones that are the specialists who deal with this. They are opposed 
to this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we ought to be listening to the specialists and to the 
people who are talking about this. If we really think our medical 
profession is so badly trained in America, so against life that they 
are out doing these grizzly, terrible things, then we better look at 
the whole medical profession. But I do not think so. I hear this 
obsessing that you are hearing, which is wrong.
  Vote ``no'' against this rule. Allow women to have their severe 
health consequences taken into consideration.

   The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Does Not 
                           Support H.R. 1833

       Dear Colleague: I thought you might be interested in the 
     following statement released by the American College of 
     Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Protect women's health by 
     voting ``No'' on H.R. 1833.
                                                              Pat.

                                           The American College of


                              Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

                                                 November 1, 1995.

   Statement of H.R. 1833--The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995

       The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is 
     disappointed that the U.S. House of Representatives has 
     attempted to regulate medical decision-making today by 
     passing a bill on so-called ``partial-birth'' abortion.
       The College finds very disturbing any action by Congress 
     that would supersede the medical judgment of trained 
     physicians and that would criminalize medical procedures that 
     may be necessary to save the life of a woman. Moreover, in 
     defining what medical procedures doctors may or may not 
     perform, the bill employs terminology that is not even 
     recognized in the medical community--demonstrating why 
     congressional opinion should never be substituted for 
     professional medical judgment.
       The College does not support H.R. 1833, or the companion 
     Senate bill, S. 939.
                                                                    ____



                                  American Nurses Association,

                                 Washington, DC, November 8, 1995.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: I am writing to express the opposition 
     of the American Nurses Association to H.R. 1833, the 
     ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995'', which is 
     scheduled to be considered by the Senate this

[[Page H2903]]

     week. This legislation would impose Federal criminal 
     penalties and provide for civil actions against health care 
     providers who perform certain late-term abortions.
       It is the view of the American Nurses Association that this 
     proposal would involve an inappropriate intrusion of the 
     federal government into a therapeutic decision that should be 
     left in the hands of a pregnant woman and her health care 
     provider. ANA has long supported freedom of choice and 
     equitable access of all women to basic health services, 
     including services related to reproductive health. This 
     legislation would impose a significant barrier to those 
     principles.
       Furthermore, very few of those late-term abortions are 
     performed each year they are usually necessary either to 
     protect the life of the mother or because of severe fetal 
     abnormalities. It is inappropriate for Congress to mandate a 
     course of action for a woman who is already faced with an 
     intensely personal and difficult decision. This procedure can 
     mean the difference between life and death for a woman.
       The American Nurses Association is the only full-service 
     professional organization representing the nation's 2.2 
     million Registered Nurses through its 53 constituent 
     associations. ANA advances the nursing profession by 
     fostering high standards of nursing practice, promoting the 
     economic and general welfare of nurses in the workplace, 
     projecting a positive and realistic view of nursing, and by 
     lobbying the Congress and regulatory agencies on health care 
     issues affecting nurses and the public.
       The American Nurses Association respectfully urges you to 
     vote against H.R. 1833 when it is brought before the Senate.
                                                     Geri Marullo,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
rule and legislation of H.R. 1833, for the dastardly impact on the life 
and health of the mother and the fetus and the physicians.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 1833. We must 
be allowed to offer amendments to H.R. 1833, specifically, those which 
would provide for a true exception to save a woman's life, or for 
serious, adverse health consequences to the woman, including her future 
fertility, or where there exists severe or potentially fatal fetal 
abnormalities.
  In 1973, and more recently in 1992, the Supreme Court held that a 
woman has a constitutional right to choose whether or not to have an 
abortion. H.R. 1833 is a direct attack on the principles established in 
both Roe versus Wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey.
  H.R. 1833 is a dangerous piece of legislation which would ban a range 
of late term abortion procedures that are used when a woman's health or 
life is threatened or when a fetus is diagnosed with severe 
abnormalities incompatible with life.
  Because H.R. 1833 does not use medical terminology, it fails to 
clearly identify which abortion procedures it seeks to prohibit, and as 
a result could prohibit physicians from using a range of abortion 
techniques, including those safest for the woman.
  H.R. 1833 is a direct challenge to Roe versus Wade--1973. This 
legislation would make it a crime to perform a particular abortion 
method utilized primarily after the 20th week of pregnancy. This 
legislation represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional attempt to 
ban abortion and interfere with physicians' ability to provide the best 
medical care for their patients.
  If enacted, such a law would have a devastating effect on women who 
learn late in their pregnancies that their lives or health are at risk 
or that the fetuses they are carrying have severe, often fatal, 
anomalies.
  Women like Coreen Costello, a loyal Republican and former abortion 
protester whose baby had a lethal neurological disease; Mary-Dorothy 
Lines, a conservative Republican who discovered her baby had severe 
hydrocephalus; Claudia Ades, who terminated her pregnancy in the sixth 
month because her baby was riddled with fetal anomalies due to a fatal 
chromosomal disorder, Vicki Wilson, who discovered at 36 weeks that her 
baby's brain was growing outside his head; Tammy Watts, whose baby had 
no eyes, and intestines developing outside the body; and Vikki Stella, 
who discovered at 34 weeks that her baby had nine severe anomalies that 
would lead to certain death. All these children were wanted but could 
not survive. These are the women who would be hurt by H.R. 1833--women 
and their families who face a terrible tragedy--the loss of a wanted 
pregnancy.

  In Roe, the Supreme Court established that after viability, abortion 
may be banned by States as long as an exception is provided in cases in 
which the woman's life or health is at risk. H.R. 1833 provides no true 
exceptions for cases in which a banned procedure would be necessary to 
preserve a women's life or health.
  The Dole amendment does not cover all cases where a woman's life is 
in danger. This narrow life exception applies only when a woman's life 
is threatened by a physical disorder, illness or injury and when no 
other medical procedure would suffice. By limiting the life exception 
in this way, the bill would omit the most direct threat to a woman's 
life in cases involving severe fetal anomalies--the pregnancy itself.
  In fact, none of the women who submitted testimony during the Senate 
and House hearings on this bill would have qualified for the procedure 
under the Dole life exception. Instead, this bill would require 
physicians to use an alternative life-saving procedure, even if the 
alternative renders the woman infertile, or increases her risk of 
infection, shock, or bleeding. Thus, the result of this provision is 
that women's lives would be jeopardized, not saved.
  This bill unravels the fundamental constitutional rights that 
American women have to receive medical treatment that they and their 
doctors have determined are safest and medically best for them. By 
seeking to ban a safe and accepted medical technique, Members of 
Congress are intruding directly into the practice of medicine and 
interfering with the ability of physicians and patients to determine 
the best course of treatment. The creation of felony penalties and 
Federal tort claims for the performance of a specific medical procedure 
would mark a dramatic and unprecedented expansion of congressional 
regulation of health care.
  This bill is bad medicine, bad law, and bad policy. Women facing late 
term abortions due to risks to their lives, health, or severe fetal 
abnormalities incompatible with life must be able to make this decision 
in consultation with their families, their physicians, and their god. 
Women do not need medical instruction from the government. To 
criminalize a physician for using a procedure which he or she deems to 
be safest for the mother is tantamount to legislating malpractice.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule so that we can offer 
amendments which would create true life and health exceptions to the 
bill. These amendments would allow doctors to continue to perform the 
procedure which they feel is safest for the mother without risk of 
prosecution.
  True life and health amendments would ensure that mothers, and 
families, facing tragic circumstances would continue to receive the 
best possible, and safest medical care available.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra]
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the 
bill. It is wrong-headed and should fail.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation, 
which would prevent doctors from performing a lifesaving medical 
procedure. This is a direct threat to the health and lives of American 
women.
  Mr. Speaker, we all hope that the number of abortions in this country 
can be decreased. But this debate is not about abortion. Restricting 
medical options that endangers the health of women is unconstitutional. 
The Supreme Court has stated that the Government may ban post-viability 
abortions, but it cannot restrict abortion when the procedure may be 
necessary to save the health and life of the mother.
  The life exception included in this legislation is far too narrow to 
protect women's lives effectively. The exception would allow this 
procedure only as a last resort when a women's life is threatened by 
physical disorder, illness, and injury--when who other medical 
procedure would suffice. It does not consider that this may be the 
safest procedure to protect the health and life of the mother. This so-
called life exception would have a women rendered sterile or face 
critical health risks rather than the use the safe and rare procedure 
that this legislation is attempting to outlaw.
  Families faced with this difficult decision often go on to have 
successful pregnancies. Yet this legislation does nothing to protect 
health or future fertility of the mother--in fact, it puts a mother's 
future fertility at risk.
  Mr. Speaker, the so-called partial-birth abortion ban is 
unconstitutional and inhumane. I urge my colleagues to vote against 
this legislation.

[[Page H2904]]

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  (Mr. FAZIO of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Utah is recognized for 
3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mrs. WALDHOTZ. Mr. Speaker, let me address first the question that 
has been raised regarding this rule and the procedure by which this 
bill is brought to the floor.
  We have heard complaints, Mr. Speaker, that there was not an 
opportunity to consider an amendment regarding the health consequences 
to the mother. But in fact, Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out earlier, the 
minority chose not to exercise its right to offer a motion to recommit 
when this bill first came to the floor. That was the opportunity, Mr. 
Speaker, that the minority had to offer whatever it felt was 
appropriate to change this bill. They decided not to do that. It is a 
bit disingenuous to complain about that now after the Senate has 
already taken up the bill, after the House had completed its debate.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, that particular amendment was offered in the 
Senate and it failed. We know what the definition of health of the 
mother is, because the Supreme Court provided us that definition in Doe 
versus Bolton, the companion case to Roe versus Wade, in which the 
Supreme Court defined health in the abortion context to include ``all 
factors, physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's 
age relevant to the well-being of the patient.''

  This is an extraordinary broadening of this bill. This bill was 
debated by the House, Mr. Speaker. It was debated by the Senate. We are 
back now to consider whether we should concur in the amendments that 
the other side has already stated improve the bill, a change that will 
allow doctors to exercise their best judgment in performing this 
procedure when it is necessary to save the life of the mother.
  The gentlewoman from Colorado said though, Mr. Speaker, that we ought 
to look to the specialists, to the physicians, in determining whether 
this is an appropriate piece of legislation. So I wish to close, Mr. 
Speaker, by referring to the specialists.
  First, Mr. Speaker, I would quote from Dr. Martin Haskell, a 
practitioner of the partial birth abortion method. When Dr. Haskell was 
asked about the advantages of this particular procedure he did not talk 
about the life of the mother. He did not talk about the sensation of 
the fetus. He did not talk about the health risk to the mother. He said 
this: ``Among its advantages are that it is a quick, surgical, 
outpatient method that can be performed on a scheduled basis under 
local anesthesia.'' Those are not emergency measures, Mr. Speaker.
  When Dr. Haskell was asked in an interview with Cincinnati Medicine 
in the fall of 1993, Dr. Haskell said when asked about the impact to 
the fetus of this procedure, the question, ``Does the fetus feel 
pain?'' This is what Dr. Haskell said: ``I am not an expert, but my 
understanding is that fetal development is insufficient for 
consciousness.'' He continued, ``It is a lot like pets. We like to 
think they think like we do. We ascribe humanlike feelings to them, but 
they are not capable of the same level of awareness we are. It is the 
same with fetuses.''
   Mr. Speaker, that is what one specialist, a practitioner of partial 
birth abortion, says about this procedure. But let us turn to another 
specialist, Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education at the 
Department of ob-gyn at Mount Sinai Hospital in Chicago. Dr. Smith 
said, ``There is absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in 
this country that would require this procedure.''
   Mr. Speaker, I ask for support on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that 
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 269, 
nays 148, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 93]

                               YEAS--269

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--148

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)

[[Page H2905]]


     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Studds
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bryant (TX)
     Collins (IL)
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Filner
     Ford
     Fowler
     Gibbons
     Harman
     Smith (WA)
     Stokes
     Thomas
     Torricelli
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1832

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Thomas for, with Ms. Harman against.
       Mrs. Fowler for, with Mr. Stokes against.

  Ms. FURSE and Mr. GILMAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. KELLY changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 389, 
I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1833), to amend 
title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions with the 
Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the Senate amendments is as follows:

       Page 2, line 9, strike out [Whoever] and insert: Any 
     physician who
       Page 2, line 12, after ``both.'' insert: This paragraph 
     shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary 
     to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a 
     physical disorder, illness, or injury: Provided, That no 
     other medical procedure would suffice for that purpose. This 
     paragraph shall become effective one day after enactment.
       Page 2, line 13, strike out [As] and insert: (1) As
       Page 2, after line 16, insert:
       ``(2) As used in this section, the term `physician' means a 
     doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to 
     practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the 
     doctor performs such activity, or any other individual 
     legally authorized by the State to perform abortions: 
     Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician 
     or not otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform 
     abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a partial-
     birth abortion, shall be subject to the provision of this 
     section.
       Page 2, line 17, strike out [(c)(1) The father,] and 
     insert: (c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the 
     time she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure,
       Page 3, strike out lines 12 through 20.

                      motion offered by mr. canady

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers). The Clerk will designate the 
motion.
  The Clerk read the motion.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida moves to concur in each of the six Senate 
amendments to H.R. 1833.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Canady] and the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] 
each will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].


                             general leave

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on 
H.R. 1833.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
   Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for the motion to concur 
in the Senate amendments to H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban 
Act. H.R. 1833 bans a particularly heinous late-term abortion procedure 
unless that procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother.
  This is partial-birth abortion:
  Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the live baby's leg with 
forceps.
   Mr. Speaker, then the baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal 
by the abortionist.
  The abortionist delivers the living baby's entire body, except for 
the head, which is deliberately kept lodged just within the uterus.
  Then the abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull.
  The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hold in the baby's skull.
  The scissors are than removed, and a suction catheter is inserted.
  The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse so 
that the delivery of the child can be completed.
  Clearly, the only difference between partial-birth abortion, the 
procedure which my colleagues have just seen described, and homicide is 
a mere 3 inches.
  The supporters of partial-birth abortion seek to defend the 
indefensible, but today the hard truth cries out against them. Despite 
their relentless effort to misrepresent and confuse the issue, the 
opponents of this bill can no longer conceal the uncomfortable facts 
about this horrible procedure.
  The ugly reality of partial birth abortion is revealed here in these 
drawings for all to see.
  The Senate amendment to H.R. 1833 makes three acceptable changes to 
the House passed version of the bill:
  First, the Senate amendment clarifies that H.R. 1833 allows a 
partial-birth abortion to be performed if it is necessary to save the 
life of the mother. Instead of a life exception in the form of an 
affirmative defense as passed by the House, the amendment inserts the 
life exception in the first paragraph of the bill. The effect of the 
amendment is to force the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable 
doubt that the partial-birth abortion was performed to save the life of 
the mother or that another procedure would have saved her life.

  Second, the Senate amendment restricts civil liability under the bill 
to physicians who perform partial-birth abortions or anyone who 
directly performs a partial-birth abortion. In other words, the 
amendment does not allow anyone who assists in a partial-birth abortion 
to be liable under H.R. 1833.
  Third, the Senate amendment allows fathers to sue for damages only if 
the father was married to the mother at the time the partial-birth 
abortion was performed.
  I believe that if H.R. 1833 is enacted into law with the Senate 
amendments, it will deter abortionists from partially delivering, and 
then killing, unborn children.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, President Clinton has threatened to veto 
H.R. 1833 unless we make gutting changes to the bill. The President 
does not want to openly defend a procedure that 71 percent of the 
public says should be banned. Therefore, he is trying to deceive the 
American people by claiming he supports banning this, as he calls it, 
disturbing procedure while he has at the same time proposed an 
amendment that would gut H.R. 1833, making it totally meaningless.
  Mr. Speaker, the President wants a bill that allows an abortionist to 
perform a partial-birth abortion whenever the abortionist says it is to 
prevent a serious adverse health consequence. The President wants to 
explicitly leave the definition of serious adverse health up to the 
abortionist. In Doe versus Bolton, the companion cause to Roe versus 
Wade, the Supreme Court defined health in the abortion context to 
include, and I quote, ``all factors: physical, emotional, 
psychological, familial, and the woman's age, relevant to the well-
being of the patient.'' Partial-birth abortions are currently being 
performed for such health reasons as the mother's depression or young 
age.
  While Dr. Martin Haskell, a prominent practitioner of partial-birth 
abortion, stated that 80 percent of the partial-birth abortions that he 
performed from 20 to 24 weeks are purely elective, Dr. James McMahon 
called the partial-birth abortions he performed in the third trimester 
non-elective or health related. In documents submitted to the House 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Dr. McMahon asserted: after 26 weeks, 
that is, 6 months, those pregnancies that are not flawed are still non-
elective. They are interrupted because of maternal risk, rape, incest, 
psychiatric or pediatric indications. Dr. McMahon's definition of non-
elective is extremely broad.
  Accordingly, if President Clinton had his way, even third trimester 
partial-

[[Page H2906]]

birth abortions performed because of a mother's youth or depression 
would be justified to preserve the mother's health. This is simply 
unacceptable.
  Furthermore, Dr. McMahon told the subcommittee that he had performed 
more than 2000 of what he called intact dilation and evacuation 
abortions. He attributed more than 1300 of these late-term abortions to 
fetal indications or maternal indications. The most common maternal 
indication was depression. Other maternal indications included 
pediatric pelvis, that is, youth, spousal drug exposure, and substance 
abuse.

                              {time}  1845

  It is never necessary to partially vaginally deliver a living infant 
at 20 weeks, that is, 4\1/2\ months or later, before killing the infant 
and completing the delivery in order to protect a mother's life or even 
her health.
  During two extensive hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary on 
H.R. 1833, not one of the medical experts invited to testify by the 
bill's opponents could point to a single circumstance that would 
require the use an abortion technique in which the infant was partially 
delivered alive and then killed. On the contrary, several physicians, 
including one well-known abortionist, have stated that partial birth 
abortion poses risks to the health of the mother.
  Dr. Pamela Smith, the director of medical education for the 
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Mr. 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.

  Dr. Martin Haskell, himself, said of a partial birth abortion, 
``Among its advantages are that it is a quick surgical outpatient 
method that can be performed on a scheduled basis under local 
anesthesia.''
  The President and other proponents of partial birth abortion know 
that adding an exception for health of the mother to H.R. 1833 is 
unnecessary and would gut the bill, allowing partial birth abortion on 
demand.
  This is the question I would raise to the President and my colleagues 
who support abortion on demand: Is there ever an instance when abortion 
or a particular type of abortion is inappropriate? The vehement 
opposition of abortion rights supporters to H.R. 1833 makes their 
answer to my question clear. For them there is never an instance when 
abortion is inappropriate. For them the right to abortion is absolute, 
and the termination of an unborn child's life is acceptable at whatever 
time, for whatever reason, and in whatever way a woman or an 
abortionist so chooses.
  To all my colleagues, I say this, Mr. Speaker: Look at this drawing. 
Open your eyes wide and see what is being done to innocent, defenseless 
babies. What we see here in this drawing is an offense to the 
conscience of humankind. Put an end to this detestable practice. Vote 
in favor of the motion to concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 1833.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the esteemed ranking member of the committee.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make observations about two 
members of the Committee on the Judiciary, and I respect all of the 
members on the committee. First, I have asked the gentlewoman from 
Colorado, Patricia Schroeder, to manage this bill, because she will 
long be remembered for her sensitivity and dedication on a subject that 
is so difficult for all of us to deal with.
  The other Member whose attention I would draw the membership to is 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], the author of this measure. 
Mr. Canady is not a doctor, has never been to medical school, and has 
created a misnomer in the title of this bill. There is no medical term 
called ``partial birth abortion.'' It is not in the medical dictionary, 
the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists do not use the 
term and in fact, has come out very strongly against the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, assuming that we are not doctors, let us just talk about 
the law that we have a responsibility to deal with. Since the measure 
of the Gentleman from Florida was introduced, a Federal court in Ohio 
has spoken on a very similar measure and the Ohio Federal court has 
said very, very clearly that this procedure, the dilation and 
extraction, or D and X procedure, which was banned by an Ohio statute, 
is unconstitutional. Similarly, this bill is unconstitutional.
  I urge my colleagues to consider that Roe versus Wade, through the 
constitutional process, has protected a woman's right to choose, for 
over 20 years. This attempt to ban a class of medically appropriate 
abortions is not only very discouraging, it is unconstitutional.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
  (Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we talk about 
what this bill is and what it is not. The term abortion is used rather 
loosely around this body. Abortion, by definition, occurs before 20 
weeks. This procedure is not used before 20 weeks. This procedure is 
used on viable infants, infants who are viable outside of the womb. So 
as we hear all the confusing dialogue tonight, it is important that 
everybody realize that infants, 22 weeks gestation, from the time of 
conception 22 weeks forward, which is actually less than 21 weeks, by 
normal count, those are viable infants by definition. Today if a baby 
is born at 22 weeks we do everything we can to save that baby.
  So this bill is not about abortion, this bill is about eliminating 
the murdering of infants who are otherwise viable outside of the womb.
  What is this bill? This bill eliminates a procedure that has been 
designed to be of benefit only to the abortionist. Every complicated 
pregnancy that might have an adverse outcome in terms of an indication 
under the present utilization of this procedure can in fact be 
delivered in a much more humane, much less traumatic, and much more 
beneficial way to both the infant and the mother. What this bill 
provides is the respect that a viable fetus deserves, an infant of 22 
weeks.

  Let us make no mistake about this, this procedure is utilized to 
terminate otherwise normal infants the vast majority of the time. We 
are going to hear otherwise on that, but if you think an infant with a 
cleft palate is someone who needs to be terminated, if you think 
adolescent females, because they are pregnant. should qualify under 
this bill, as the President would have us say, because of their 
adolescence or because of their age, should otherwise be an exception 
under this bill, then you do not in fact understand what this procedure 
is all about.
  I would urge my colleagues to think about what this bill really is. 
This is not an abortion. This procedure is a convenient method for some 
practitioners to terminate the lives of otherwise viable infants.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  (Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me answer the 
gentleman who was just in the well. I think it is terribly important to 
say we were trying to offer the amendment that is the law of the land, 
which is severe adverse health consequences to the mother. I resent 
very much hearing that this is about cleft palates and these are 
designer things and so forth, because this is not, and there is no one 
in this body trying to make it that way.
  Now let me tell you why I hate this debate. I hate this debate 
because this debate reminds me of my 30th birthday, and let me bring 
you to my 30th birthday. My 30th birthday was spent in intensive care, 
an intensive care in which I had been given last rites. I had a 15-day-
old baby girl I had not seen and a 4-year-old boy that I was terrified 
I would not see again. I want to tell the Members, that is scrambling, 
man. We had doctors, we had everybody running around figuring out what 
in the world can happen.
  I just want to say to people in this Chamber, if you really think 
families in that situation want you, the U.S. Congress, to come in and 
tell them

[[Page H2907]]

which procedures their doctors may use and which ones they may not use, 
I think you are wrong. I think doctors think this is a zone of privacy 
and families think this is a zone of privacy, and that we should trust 
our doctors, although I understand there are some Members here who 
trust Hamas more than they trust the Government. But I happen to trust 
my doctor in that instance a whole lot more than I trust you Members of 
Congress. I want you to know it.
  I want you to know I also looked at your drawings. You know what it 
said on the bottom? It said, ``Drawing commissioned by the National 
Conference of Catholic Bishops.'' Maybe they deliver babies, and maybe 
they practice medicine, but I go with the American College of 
Gynecologists and Obstetricians, because those are the ones I know that 
deliver babies. I am tired of the playing politics on this. I think 
America's families are tired of playing politics on this, and I really 
think that that is all this is about.
  I wish there were some way to bring some sanity to this. My time has 
expired. I have thousands more I could say, but I only want to tell 
you, my 30th birthday was hell, and because of people like you, I could 
be dead, and I resent that very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose the motion that 
would send to the President an abortion ban that does not have an 
exception for the life or health of the woman.
  When the House first voted on this bill, we fought hard, but 
unsuccessfully, for an opportunity to debate and vote on an amendment 
that would provide an exception to the ban in cases where the woman's 
life or health is at risk. Since the original House vote on this bill, 
two noteworthy events have occurred.
  First, an Ohio court has issued a 100-page opinion setting forth, 
with great detail and care, the unconstitutionality of a similar 
provision passed by the Ohio legislature. Central to the court's 
analysis is the fact that under Roe versus Wade and later cases, the 
government cannot ban abortions that are necessary to preserve the life 
or health of the woman.
  Second, on February 28, President Clinton sent a letter to the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee clearly stating that he will veto 
the legislation unless it contains a true exception for the life and 
health of the woman, as required by Roe versus Wade.
  Because H.R. 1833, both in its original form and as amended by the 
Senate, fail to include any exception for the health of the woman, and 
because the life exception is too narrowly framed to constitute a true 
life exception, the bill before us today is unconstitutional. It 
clearly violates Roe versus Wade, and most importantly, it sends an 
unacceptable message to American women that their lives and health are 
not worthy of full protection.
  In the course of our committee's hearings on this bill, we heard 
heart-rending stories from four women whose families benefited from the 
procedure this bill would ban, all in cases where terrible tragedies 
occurred late in the woman's pregnancy. As I listened to these women's 
stories, it became obvious to me that, in many respects, this bill is 
not about abortion at all. These pregnancies were wanted pregnancies, 
and the women told us that their families loved and cherished the 
babies that God was giving to them, no matter what disabilities those 
babies might have.
  Unfortunately, these families had to confront the terrible tragedy 
that life was not to be for these babies, and they had to make 
decisions about how to manage the medical crises that confronted them 
in the way that best safeguarded the woman's life, health, and her 
ability to have another chance at motherhood. They chose this procedure 
based on advice from multiple medical specialists, knowing that it 
posed the least risk to them and their future fertility. Some of these 
women told us that they were pro-life before they had this procedure, 
and they remain pro-life today. But they oppose this bill because it 
bans a medical procedure that preserved their health and their future 
fertility. Several of these women are pregnant again today, thanks to 
this procedure that safeguarded their reproductive capacity.
  So, in truth, the bill before us today is as much about safe 
motherhood as it is about abortion. In 1920, 800 women died for every 
100,000 live births. In 1990, 10 women died for every 100,000 births. 
While the maternal mortality ratio in the United States has decreased 
dramatically, pregnancy-related complications and deaths remain an 
important public health concern.
  We cannot get complacent about safe motherhood. And an adjunct of 
safe motherhood is that when something goes terribly wrong with a 
pregnancy, the woman, her family, and her doctor have every right to do 
everything possible to preserve her future reproductive capacity, so 
that she can have another chance at motherhood.
  So many times when we say the words ``life and health of the woman'' 
people react as if it's some kind of tricky legal technicality. That 
women don't die anymore because of pregnancy or childbirth. As a woman 
who almost died after childbirth, let me assure you, it can happen. And 
the CDC statistics I am citing are a reminder that the life and the 
health of the woman can indeed be placed in jeopardy during pregnancies 
today. The leading causes of pregnancy-related death are hemorrhage, 
embolism, and hypertensive disorders. Combined, they account for over 
70 percent of pregnancy-related deaths. That's why options that reduce 
the risk of excess bleeding, such as the procedure we are considering 
today, can in many cases save the life or health of the woman.
  You would think that Congress would have the sense to leave the 
practice of medicine to doctors. You would think that Congress would 
respect the privacy of the families who confront these terrible 
tragedies, and their intelligence in deciding how best to manage the 
life and health risks these tragedies bring with them. Instead, this 
bill tells these families that Congress would put the doctors who 
preserved the woman's life, her health, and her future fertility in 
prison for 2 years.
  Look Coreen Costello in the eye, and tell her that the second chance 
at safe motherhood that this procedure afforded her is something that 
Congress is taking away. Sit down with her children and explain to them 
that Congress would subordinate their mother's health to a political 
agenda, so that supporters of this bill can run sensational 30-second 
ads to advance their political ambitions.
  If this committee were serious about passing a bill that would pass 
constitutional muster, we would be voting on amendments to cure the 
constitutional problems that are so carefully detailed in the Ohio 
court decision and the President's letter. The President's letter makes 
it clear that he would quickly sign a bill that contained an exception 
for procedures necessary for the life of the woman or to avert serious 
adverse health consequences to the woman.
  Without altering the bill to cure the vagueness problem, the undue 
burden on previability abortions, and to add a true life or health 
exception, everyone in this Chamber knows that this bill would be 
enjoined immediately by the courts. That being the case, what can the 
purpose be in forcing this bill to the President's desk without a life 
or health exception? I am afraid I cannot see one other than political 
gamesmanship, and it is distressing in the extreme to see that game 
being played at the expense of the lives and health of very real women 
in this country, women like Coreen Costello and Mary-Dorothy Line.
  Don't play a political game with the lives and health of the women of 
this country. Don't vote to send this bill to the President without a 
health exception and without a true life exception.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following:

                       The Issue Is Not Abortion

                         (By Mary-Dorothy Line)

       My husband and I are extremely offended by the ad sponsored 
     by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops that appeared 
     in the March 26, 1996 edition of the Washington Post. A bill 
     pending before the House (H.R. 1833) would ban intact 
     dilation and evacuation (intact D&E) procedures used in some 
     late-term abortions; late term abortions which are provided 
     to protect the mother's life or health when there is no hope 
     for the baby. This legislation is wrong, and it would hurt a 
     lot of American families. We know. We are one of those 
     families.
       I am a registered Republican and we are practicing 
     Catholics. Last April, we found out I was pregnant with our 
     first child and were extremely happy. 19 weeks into my 
     pregnancy, an ultrasound indicated that there was something 
     wrong with our baby. The doctor noticed that his head was too 
     large and contained excessive fluid. This problem is called 
     hydrocephalus. Every person's head contains fluid to protect 
     and cushion the brain, but if there is too much fluid, the 
     brain cannot develop.
       As practicing Catholics, when we have problems and worries, 
     we turn to prayer. So, our whole family prayed. We were 
     scared, but we are strong people and believe that God would 
     not give us a problem if we couldn't handle it. This was our 
     baby; everything would be fine. We never thought about 
     abortion.
       A few weeks later we had two more ultrasounds. We consulted 
     with five specialists, who all told us the same thing. Our 
     little baby had an advanced, textbook case of hydrocephaly. 
     We asked what we could do. They all told us there was no hope 
     and recommended that we terminate the pregnancy. We asked 
     about in utero operations and shunts to remove the fluid, but 
     were again told there was nothing we could do. We were 
     devastated. I can't express the pain we still feel--this was 
     our precious little baby, and he was being taken from us 
     before we even had him.
       My doctors, some of the best in the country, recommended 
     the intact D&E procedure.

[[Page H2908]]

     No scissors were used and no one sucked out our baby's brain 
     as is depicted in the inflammatory ads supporting H.R. 1833. 
     A simple needle was used to remove the fluid--the same fluid 
     that killed our son--to allow his head to pass through the 
     birth canal undamaged. This was not our choice--this was 
     God's will.
       My doctor knew that we would want to have children in the 
     future, even though it was the furthest thing from my mind at 
     the time. They recommended the best procedure for me and our 
     baby. Because the trauma to my body was minimized by this 
     procedure, I was able to become pregnant again. We are 
     expecting another baby in September.
       I pray every day that this will never happen to anyone 
     again, but it will, and those of us unfortunate enough to 
     have to live this nightmare need a procedure which will give 
     us hope for the future.
       Congress needs to hear the truth. The truth does make a 
     difference--when people listen. Last week, I testified at a 
     hearing held in the Maryland legislature. A committee there 
     was considering a bill similar to the one Congress in 
     prepared to pass this week. In Maryland, they listened. And 
     in Maryland, several conservative legislators joined in the 
     15-6 committee vote to reject this bill.
       After seeing the callous way our tragedies are regarded by 
     the proponents of H.R. 1833, I know the only hope to protect 
     families lies with the President of the United States. I am 
     told he is a good man. I am told he listens to people. I hope 
     he listens to us, to the truth, and not to the political 
     propaganda. I pray he shows love and compassion for women 
     like me and families like mine. I pray he vetoes this bill.
       Many people do not understand the real issue--it is women's 
     health; not abortion and certainly not choice. We must leave 
     decisions about the type of medical procedure to employ with 
     the experts in the medical community and with the families 
     they affect. It is not the place for government.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand].
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in support of the amended version of 
H.R. 1833. The practice of partial-birth abortions should spark outrage 
in all of us. We, of this Congress, have a duty, a duty to protect 
children who might otherwise fall victim to this procedure. I believe 
we also have a duty to protect women from the scandalous falsehoods 
perpetrated by the opponents of this bill.
  Those desperate to obscure the true nature of partial-birth abortions 
claim that the anesthesia given to the mother prior to the procedure 
results in the death of the child in utero. Based upon this myth they 
argue that it is misleading to call the procedure a partial-birth 
abortion, and any concerns that the child experiences pain are 
misplaced. Extreme abortion advocates have trumpeted this mistaken 
notion with the complicity of the unquestioning media.
  Mr. Speaker, I rely upon the authority of Dr. Norig Ellison, 
president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, who says this 
claim has ``absolutely no basis in scientific fact.''
  Dr. David Birnbach, the president-elect of the Society for Obstetric 
Anesthesia and Perinatology, says it is crazy. The American Medical 
News reported in a January 1 article that ``Medical experts contend the 
claim is scientifically unsound and irresponsible, unnecessarily 
worrying pregnant women who need anesthesia.''
  During the House and Senate debates over this measure, we heard 
several of the opponents piously express concern for the health of 
women. Yet, they willingly propagate the mistaken rhetoric of the 
extreme pro-abortionists, and undoubtedly frighten pregnant women in 
need of anesthesia for other medical reasons.
  In Dr. Ellison's words:

       I am deeply concerned that the widespread publicity may 
     cause pregnant women to delay necessary and perhaps life-
     saving medical procedures totally unrelated to the birthing 
     process, due to misinformation regarding the effects of 
     anesthetics on the fetus.

  Mr. Speaker, the Senate amendments to the bill clearly make an 
exception should the life of the mother depend on the employment of 
this procedure. I am satisfied that no woman will be harmed as a result 
of this legislation, and many children will be spared a particularly 
gruesome fate. To oppose this bill is to display the extremism in the 
defense of abortion rights that is beyond reason and without 
compassion.
  In the immortal words of Abraham Lincoln:

       Fellow Citizens, we cannot escape history . . . The fiery 
     trial through which we will pass will light us down, in honor 
     or dishonor, to the latest generation.

  Let it be recorded by history that this Congress took a stand, not 
only against cruel medical practice, but for the life and death of 
women.

                              {time}  1900

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Mrs. Lowey], the distinguished cochair of the Caucus on 
Women's Issues.
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1833.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today debating this extreme bill because the 
Republican leadership is absolutely committed to eliminating the right 
to choose. The pro-life majority in this House has restricted abortion 
rights throughout the last year--and this bill is yet another step on 
the road to the back alley. This legislation will criminalize abortion, 
harass doctors, and prevent women from getting the medical care they 
need.
  Families facing a late-term abortion are families that want to have a 
child. These couples have chosen to become parents, and only face 
terminating the pregnancy due to tragic circumstances. Terminating a 
wanted pregnancy at this stage is agonizing and deeply personal.
  This procedure is not about choice, It is about necessity.
  Let me tell you about Claudia Ades, who lives in Sanata Monica, CA. 
She heard about this bill, and called to ask me if there was anything 
she could do to defeat it. As Claudia said so passionately, ``This 
procedure saved my life and my family.''
  Three years ago, Claudia was pregnant and happier than she had ever 
been. However, 6 months into her pregnancy she discovered that the 
child she was carrying had severe fetal anomalies that made its 
survival impossible, and placed Claudia's own life at risk.
  After speaking to a number of doctors, Claudia and her husband 
finally concluded that there was no way to save the pregnancy. ``This 
was a desperately wanted pregnancy,'' Claudia said, ``But my child was 
not meant to be in this world.''
  Those of us with healthy children can only imagine the horror that 
Claudia felt when she received the news about her condition. It is the 
news that all mothers pray every day they will never hear.
  But, in those tragic cases where families do hear this horrible news, 
who should decide? The one thing that I know for sure is that the 
decision should not be made by Congress. At that horrible, tragic 
moment, the Government has no place.
  Now, the Republican leadership could have made this a better bill by 
including real life and health exceptions. Not the sham life exception 
that's included in this bill--written by the Republican presidential 
candidate from Kansas who never met an abortion restriction that he 
didn't support. President Clinton even indicated that he would sign the 
bill if it contained real exceptions. But the Republican leadership 
doesn't want the President to sign this bill--they want him to veto it. 
This entire debate is a pay-off to the Christian Coalition and an 
exercise in election year political theatre.
  Mr. Speaker, President Clinton's veto pen is the only thing 
protecting American women from the back alley. H.R. 1833 is an extreme 
bill that will put the lives of American women at risk. I urge its 
defeat.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], a member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his fine work.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of an eminently reasonable bill 
to ban a heinous procedure to partially deliver fully formed babies, 
and then kill them. Again, I repeat, this is a very reasonable bill 
which the majority of Americans wholeheartedly support. Those who 
oppose this bill are the excessive ones.
  Already, 288 of the Members of this House have voted to ban partial 
birth abortions. The bill before us today is identical except for three 
minor changes--all of which I support:

[[Page H2909]]

  It still allows an exception to the ban in order to save the life of 
the mother, and now provides in those cases that the prosecution must 
prove that there was no other alternative available to save the 
mother's life, rather than placing the burden on the physician.
  It clarifies that only the physician who performs the abortion may 
incur civil liability under the bill.
  It allows fathers to sue a physician for damages only if the father 
and mother of the child were married when the abortion was performed.
  We must put an end to this barbaric procedure where the difference 
between abortion and murder is literally a few inches. This is 
effective legislation to ban an unbelievably gruesome act. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the ranking member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I salute the courage of the 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] and her willingness to take 
this issue on.
  Mr. Speaker, we are clearly here dealing with a political issue. We 
heard one of the previous speakers say the purpose of it is to give the 
President something to veto. The President has said, amend this bill 
and he will sign it. Amend it to say that if the particular procedure 
is deemed necessary by a doctor to avoid serious adverse health 
consequences, he can do it.
  Understand that this bill would say to a doctor, if in his judgment 
performing the abortion in this way is necessary to prevent severe 
physical damage to the mother, as long it is not life-threatening, he 
cannot do it. He can do it if it will save her life, but if it will 
destroy forever her chances of having a child, if it will cause her 
serious, long-lasting physical pain and disability, this bill says it 
is a crime to do it.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman is absolutely 
correct. They are saying that there is a life exception, but it is very 
cosmetic because the way I read the bill, it is that the doctor would 
have to prove there was no other medical procedure that would suffice, 
and maybe there is another medical procedure but it would not be as 
good for her outcome.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, and of 
course that is only life. It does not deal with health. The majority 
refused to allow an amendment. Be very clear about it. We have twice 
asked them let us vote, as the Senate did, and the amendment in the 
Senate got 46 votes and lost narrowly.
  Members have said, ``Your health exception is too broad.'' My 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle can narrow it if they want 
to. But they cannot, however, object that we have one that is too broad 
when they have none at all; when they are asking the House to vote for 
a bill that will make it a crime for a doctor to perform this procedure 
even if he believes that performing it is necessary to prevent serious 
physical, long-lasting, permanent damage to the mother. That is not a 
reason for going forward under this outrageous bill.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I salute the gentlewoman from Colorado for 
her leadership, and I want to reiterate some of the points that have 
been made before.
  Mr. Speaker, it all boils down to this: A doctor is in an operating 
room, an obstetrician-gynecologist. There is a serious problem that 
evolves and the doctor has to make a judgment. Does it make any sense 
for this body, or for any body, to impose the threat of a crime, a 
criminal penalty and a jail sentence, on that doctor while he or she is 
making the decision about what is best for health or for life?
  Then let us say that we even go with the narrow amendment of life. 
What is the doctor going to do? Is a doctor not supposed to worry that 
maybe his or her judgment is different than what a jury might determine 
2 years later, not under the glare of the operating room lights?
  This amendment is regrettable. It is unfortunate. I have some 
sympathy with those that disagree with my view on the issue of choice, 
about the idea that it should not be easy and it should not be a quick 
decision, and abortion should not be a method of birth control. We are 
not talking about that here because in these cases the mother, the 
parents, wanted to have the baby but something happened and an 
emergency may occur. We, again without a bit of knowledge of what is 
actually the best medical procedure, are imposing something here, and 
that is simply wrong.
  I would say to my colleagues, resist this amendment. It is not going 
to be an issue in political campaigns, believe me. It is too arcane and 
too gruesome. Do the right thing. Rise to the occasion and vote down 
this awful amendment.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, we hear now today from some of our 
colleagues that this is an issue of privacy and the U.S. Congress 
should not vote on it. We vote on issues of speech, and that is very 
private. We vote on issues of prayer, and that is very private. We vote 
on issues of guns, and that is everywhere private. Certainly we should 
vote to ban this kind of procedure that takes the life of a partially 
delivered baby.
  I hear some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle even say that 
this is a regrettable procedure, an unfortunate procedure. This is a 
gruesome and brutal procedure, and as we spend billions of dollars 
every single year on medicine and technology, certainly there is no 
room in our society for this kind of procedure to continue to take 
place in 1996, no matter what your view is as a pro-life or a pro-
choice Member of Congress.
  What are we voting on? A partial birth abortion is defined as a 
procedure in which a doctor partially delivers a living fetus before 
killing the fetus and completing the delivery. That is what we are 
voting on.
  What have we added to this in chapter 74, section 1531? ``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.''
  Finally, let me conclude by saying this issue should not divide pro-
choice and pro-life. It should not divide women and men. It should not 
divide Democrats and Republicans. It is a brutal and inhumane procedure 
that should be banned, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Mrs. Lofgren], a distinguished Member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, politicians in Congress have issues. We 
have wedge issues, we have issues we put in direct mail and we have 
rhetoric. I have heard a lot of partial discussions, selected comments 
that are meant to inflame, meant to persuade, and I think in some cases 
meant to mislead. But the people who will be hurt by this bill do not 
have issues. They have tragedies, and they do not need this bill to 
pass.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about people I really know, my friend 
Suzie Wilson's son and daughter-in-law, Bill and Vicki Wilson, and 
their wonderful children, Jon and Kaitlyn, because 2 years ago this 
April 8th they lost Abigail.
  They were very much looking forward to Abigail. They had had two baby 
showers. The nursery was full of pink ribbons waiting for Abigail, and 
in the eighth month they found out that all of Abigail's brains had 
formed outside of her cranium and that there was no way that this child 
could survive. It was a tragedy.
  They took their case to the doctor, who was able to save Vicki's life 
and to save her fertility. The question that faced them was not whether 
Abigail could live, but how would Abigail die and whether Vicki's 
uterus would burst while Abigail was dying.
  I am glad that Vicki and Bill had the chance they did to keep their 
family intact. I know because we had a lot of tears, we friends of the 
family. They did not need the Congress of the United States to help 
them at that moment. They needed a doctor. They needed the

[[Page H2910]]

love of their friends and their family. They needed the guidance of 
God.
  Mr. Speaker, I have talked to Members in this body who have told me 
privately that if it were their wife, they would want this procedure, 
and then gone ahead and voted for this bill. I would ask all of you, do 
your politics with some other issues. Hurt someone else. Search your 
conscience and look at my friends, the Wilson family. Think of them and 
put politics aside.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, on Friday this House voted to repeal the 
assault weapons ban as a payoff to the NRA. Today we are voting to ban 
a rare but sometimes medically necessary procedure as a payoff to 
certain right-wing elements within the Republican party.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to be honest with each other. Anti-choice forces 
see this ban as the first step toward ending a woman's right to choose 
in America. As far as the anti-choice forces are concerned, there is no 
difference between the procedure we are debating today and abortions in 
the cases of rape and incest.

                              {time}  1915

  Yet these same radicals believe that properly manipulated, this late-
term procedure can be the wedge issue to divide the overwhelmingly pro-
choice American public. Today, it is this procedure. Tomorrow, it is 
family planning.
  Mr. Speaker, no one in this body likes this procedure. And, yes, it 
is unpleasant. But this rarely used medical procedure remains necessary 
to ensure that women who must have an abortion are still able to bear 
children afterwards.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in absolute support of H.R. 
1833.
  As I walked to the floor this evening, it struck me how ridiculous 
and sad it is that in this great Chamber in this great Nation, we 
should even be debating this issue.
  What we are talking about today is not the issue of abortion per se.
  That is a discussion for another time, and that time will come.
  What we are talking about is a procedure that is positively medieval.
  The issue of abortion is very emotional and I try to avoid using 
inflammatory rhetoric on the issue, because I have felt it didn't 
further the debate.
  But in this case murder is not too strong a term.
  Partial birth abortion is murder, cold, grisly, and premeditated.
  Partial birth is used on babies who are up to 9 months in the womb.
  The ninth and final month.
  At 9 months, what is the difference between a baby in the womb or a 
baby in the crib? One is just as helpless as the other.
  And yet this procedure exists and is used at will.
  We have seen statements from abortionists that not only have they 
frequently performed this procedure, but they have often performed it 
in purely elective circumstances.
  Can anyone argue that this chilling act is medically necessary?
  The American Medical Association's Council on Legislation voted 
unanimously to recommend that the AMA board of trustees endorse H.R. 
1833.
  Many council members agreed that, ``the procedure is basically 
repulsive.''
  To condone the practice of partial birth abortion is to discard and 
disgrace every shred of morality that we as human beings should 
embrace.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to take a stand against 
this evil procedure known as partial birth abortion and vote for H.R. 
1833.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, we know that after the 24th week, 
only .01 percent of all abortions are performed, .01 percent. There are 
two or three procedures that are used, meaning that this particular 
procedure is used in only a portion of that .01 percent. Of these 
procedures, all are more terrifying and unpleasant than this one. But 
if a woman is carrying a fetus which has a severe abnormality or if the 
woman has a severe health condition which threatens her health if she 
continues to carry the fetus, one of these procedures must be used. The 
bill itself states that there are circumstances in which no other 
procedure will suffice.
  The Senate amendments improved the bill only marginally, and I must 
still vote ``no'' because, one, I believe strongly that we should not 
remove a medical option that might preserve the health of a woman or 
preserve the ability of a woman to have future children. Second, I 
believe strongly that we should not decide medical procedures on the 
floor of this House and am deeply concerned about where this might 
lead. And, third, I believe strongly that we should not criminalize a 
medical procedure. For these three reasons, I must vote ``no.''
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1833 and 
criminalizing late-term abortions.
  First of all, this conference report is a cruel, a very cruel attempt 
to make a political point. Make no mistake about it, ladies and 
gentleman, this conference report, with all of the emotional rhetoric 
and the exaggerated testimony, is a frontal attack on Roe versus Wade 
by the Gingrich majority, plain and simple. With the Gingrich majority, 
what they want is to do away with Roe. The radical rights wants to do 
away with Roe, and H.R. 183 is a good first step as far as they are 
concerned. So let us be honest about what this debate is really about.
  This legislation seeks to prohibit the wide array of medical 
techniques which are rarely used but are sometimes required in the late 
stages of pregnancy, like with the Wilson family, in extreme and tragic 
cases when the life of the mother is in danger, or the fetus is so 
malformed that it has absolutely no chance of survival; for example, 
when the fetus has no brain, or the fetus is missing organs or the 
fetus's spine has grown outside of its body, when the fetus has zero 
chance of life, when women are forced to carry these malformed fetuses 
to term, they are in danger of chronic hemorrhaging, permanent 
infertility, or death.
  Woman and their doctors need to make these decisions, not the 
Congress. Like the Wilsons, the family needs to make this decision with 
their doctors, not the Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the conference report on H.R. 1833.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, children, however dependent, 
are not property and no child is ever a throw-away. A pregnancy is not 
a disease. Yet partial-birth abortions treat a partially delivered 
child as a tumor, as a wart, as a disease to be destroyed.
  Even if you have a doubt, I say to my colleagues concerning the 
humanity of an unborn child, can you not resolve that doubt in the 
baby's favor when the infant is half delivered?
  Mr. Speaker, for the first time ever, Democrats and Republicans will 
send to the President a bill that says ``no'' to the horrific procedure 
that literally sucks the brains out of a baby's head. This poster to my 
left is not some kind of fiction. It is the reality of this horrendous 
child abuse.
  A registered nurse, Brenda Pratt Shafer, said after seeing some of 
these partial-birth abortions, and I quote, ``The baby's body was 
moving, his little fingers were clasping together, he was kicking his 
feet. All the while, his little head was stuck inside.'' Dr. Haskell 
took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's 
head. Then he opened up the scissors. Then he stuck a high-powered 
suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out.
  Mr. Speaker, for the first time ever, despite the extraordinary 
ability of the pro-abortion lobby to obfuscate and confuse, the reality 
of abortion is finally getting the scrutiny it deserves. By addressing 
this particular kind of abortion, this legislation compels us to face 
the dark secret, the cold fact that an unborn baby dies in every 
abortion.
  I am astonished that Members can support this kind of abortion. Two 
decades of cover up are over. I would say to colleagues that the brutal 
methods,

[[Page H2911]]

whether it be chemical poisoning or suction, dismemberment of a baby, 
in this case a partially delivered baby killed with brain suction, this 
must be brought to the forefront so the people know exactly what is 
going on.
  I hope the President says to the bill that he will sign it. I hope he 
signs it. It is not likely. He will have earned the legacy of being the 
abortion President. What a tragic, what a pathetic legacy to be the 
abortion President, especially a man who once in his past used to be 
pro-life.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the gentleman would not yield. I wanted to 
point out it does say it was the Conference of Catholic Bishops that 
created that poster.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. 
Mink].
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, it is really tragic, tragic that 
the personal problems and the anxieties of women who face these very, 
very difficult decisions that must be made with respect to their health 
and their safety and the integrity of their family and to have those 
tragic circumstances of a person's life be used under these 
circumstances to advance this political goal of trying to do away with 
abortion.
  But I think that the debate clearly points out that what is being 
attempted here is a denunciation of the rights of women that have been 
created by the U.S. Supreme Court. That is what is at stake here.
  It is not this procedure that is used so few times out of necessity, 
but it is the principle of interfering with the doctor and the women 
that require this procedure, taking away that right of a woman to make 
this difficult decision, taking away the right of a woman to consult 
with her physician about what needs to be done, allowing the Congress 
of the United States to make these decisions. I think that is the most 
reprehensible thing we could even think of.
  We talk about getting big government off of the backs of people. 
Well, let us concentrate about what we are trying to do today. We are 
trying to take away the rights of reproductive freedom that the Supreme 
Court has established, which the courts have said we must not 
interfere, and this is what is before us today, and that is why this 
Congress must oppose it. That is why this bill must never become law. 
It is trying to dictate to the doctors how to practice and criminalize 
their profession. I think it is outrageous.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], a distinguished member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding this time to me.
  I am not a criminal, Mr. Speaker. And I am ashamed that what we are 
doing today may, in fact, makes innocent women, women who love 
children, criminals. Coreen Costello, Mary-Dorothy Lines, Claudia Ades, 
Viki Wilson, Tammy Watts, and Vikki Stella, all women who offered their 
most personal stories about wanting to conceive and to have a loving 
child and yet coming upon a physical and debilitating need to have a 
medical procedure.
  Today we have legislation that will not cover all cases where a 
woman's life is in danger. The bill will not provide a health 
exception. H.R. 1833 creates obstacles to medical research, and 
tragically the life exception will not protect women. Criminals, we are 
making. Women, their families, their physicians. This is not the way to 
go.
  In order to suggest that those of us who rise to support the rights 
of women do not have a love of a higher authority, how shameful. This 
is a bad bill. It does not help this country. It does not help women, 
and it certainly does not help the love we have for our children.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to a point that was made a few moments 
ago about this bill criminalizing the activities of women and making 
criminals of women. That is simply not true.
  I would suggest that before Members come to the floor to speak about 
the bill, they might want to read the bill. The bill says clearly a 
woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be 
prosecuted under this section.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1930

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1833. In yet 
another attempt to roll back a woman's right to choose, to roll back 
Roe versus Wade, and make all abortions illegal, choice opponents are 
putting forward legislation which could endanger a woman's life and her 
ability to have children in the future.
  How odd that the majority party would describe itself as family 
friendly. Plain and simple, the supporters of this bill feel it is more 
important to save a doomed fetus than the life of a mother and her 
ability to have children in the future.
  Coreen Costello is the mother of two. The Dole amendment would not 
have allowed her to use this procedure. Coreen Costello said in front 
of the Senate in her testimony that she would have taken any child that 
God gave her, regardless of any handicap. But her child was a child 
that could not live. Fortunately for Coreen and her family, her doctor 
was able to save her life and her fertility. She is now expecting her 
next child.
  But what about the women who come after Coreen? What will happen to 
them, their health, their lives, their families, if this life-saving 
procedure is outlawed? Congress has no place in their decisions and no 
place in their tragedies.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman 
from Colorado for yielding me time.
  If your daughter and son-in-law were faced with the extraordinary 
tragedy of discovering extreme fetal deformity late in pregnancy or a 
life threatening development with abortion being the only alternative, 
would you, would you, each individual Member of this body, want her to 
have available to her the procedure that was the least threatening to 
her life and the most protective of her future reproductive capability 
and the most respectful of the need for the parents to be and their 
living children to mourn their tragic loss?
  Consider the experience of Coreen Costello. Mrs. Costello and her 
husband hold strong pro-life views, but were suddenly faced with the 
terrible and painful truth of the problems with her pregnancy. 
Specialists had determined that the baby had a lethal neurological 
disorder. Doctors at Cedars-Sinai told the Costellos that their 
daughter would not live, and due to the amniotic fluid pooling in Mrs. 
Costello's uterus, as well as the baby's position, there was a serious 
risk of a ruptured uterus. Natural birth or an induced labor were 
impossible. Coreen Costello then considered a caesarean section, but 
the doctors at her hospital were adamant that the risk to her health 
and life were simply too great.
  She and her husband chose not to risk leaving their other children 
motherless by opting for a D&E procedure. Because of the safety of the 
procedure, Coreen is now pregnant again.
  What right have we here in Congress on this floor to say to this 
family that you should have risked mom's life and ignored your doctor's 
advice? By what authority do we tell these women that we know more in 
each of their cases than their own physicians?
  It is ironic that some of you here are advocating legislation that 
would assure that managed care plans guaranteed physicians the right to 
tell women all the medical possibilities for treatment, and yet you 
will legislate here tonight the denial to women of America who face 
terribly tragic, painful, personal circumstances of the right to have 
the medical procedure that in truth is safest for them and most 
protective of their reproductive capability, assures them to the 
maximum extent possible that they will have more children in their 
future.
  Men of the House of Representatives, women who are Members of 
Congress,

[[Page H2912]]

if it were your daughter, would you not want her life and reproductive 
hopes and dreams protected? Of course you would. Do not do this 
shortsighted, mean-spirited, terrible thing to women in our Nation.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick].
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe that a lot of the 
problems we have today in society stem from the fact that we have no 
regard for human life. You can call me old-fashioned, but I believe 
every individual born into this world is special, needed and important.
  You know, our forefathers shared this philosophy when they wrote in 
our Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with 
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness.
  I ask that we consider the difference. A doctor performs a painful, 
cruel, partial abortion one day, and it is accepted. And then the next 
day, if that same mother gave birth to the same age child and then she 
killed her child, she would be charged with murder. Only a few hours 
separates these two acts, but one is considered justified and accepted, 
even promoted, and the other is considered unjust. There is something 
wrong with our society today if we continue to justify such an unjust 
procedure.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I know that there are some Members of 
Congress who believe they know everything about everything, but maybe 
once in awhile Members of this body might want to show a little 
humility. We are discussing a procedure which, as I understand it, is 
used in .01 of 1 percent of abortions, a situation which occurs only 
under the most tragic circumstances.
  Day after day we hear from our conservative friends about how the 
big, bad Government should leave people alone and get off of the backs 
of people. I would urge our conservative friends to heed that advice on 
this occasion.
  This is a tragic circumstance. Let the woman, let her family, let the 
physician make that decision, not the politicians in Congress.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1833, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Today's battle for the rights 
of the unborn differ from previous prolife and proabortion debates. 
Yes, this debate today will not stop all abortions. It will only stop 
one procedure, the partial birth abortion. It brings to light the fact 
that when a woman and her unborn child have this type of procedure, 
that only the woman leaves the operating room.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we are all forgetting one thing: A third 
trimester baby has a very good chance of living, if it was allowed to 
be born without interference. I urge my colleagues who might otherwise 
not support a prolife piece of legislation to support this legislation, 
which simply and narrowly protects against partial birth abortions.
  This debate is not about a woman's right to choose, because there are 
other options. This debate today is about putting an end to a procedure 
that kills a child just a few inches from full birth.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra] a distinguished member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary and also the spouse of a distinguished physician.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am confused. The debate I am hearing from that side 
has nothing to do with the medical procedure that it seems we are 
trying to ban. I continue to hear people talk about how we are 
conducting abortions on babies that otherwise would be able to survive; 
if the pregnancy were to go to term, we would have a living baby. When 
in fact, as my wife who happens to be a high-risk obstetrician-
gynecologist who deals specifically with women who have difficult 
pregnancies, has said, this is not a procedure where you are talking 
about a fetus that will go to term and where you will have a healthy 
baby born. This is a procedure that is used when it is fairly clear 
that the baby has no chance to live, and to allow the pregnancy to go 
to term would jeopardize the health and perhaps the life of the woman. 
So it seems like the debate is not really on point.
  Now, let me read something that came from the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, those doctors that are asked to 
perform these types of procedures and to protect the women involved.
  They state:

       The college finds very disturbing any action by Congress 
     that would supersede the medical judgment of trained 
     physicians and that would criminalize medical procedures that 
     may be necessary to save the life of a woman. Moreover, in 
     defining what medical procedures doctors may or may not 
     perform, the bill employs terminology that is not even 
     recognized in the medical community, demonstrating why 
     congressional opinion should never be substituted for 
     professional medical judgment.

  Mr. Speaker, I think that states it best. We have people here who are 
trying to impose their opinion on a medical profession where technical, 
highly sophisticated, highly trained individuals are being asked to 
perform lifesaving procedures.
  It does not make sense. We should stay out of this. We should let a 
woman make that very difficult choice of what type of procedure she 
would need to preserve her health and her life, and perhaps have a 
chance to have a pregnancy that will be able to go to term.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge Members to seriously consider voting 
strongly against this particular bill, because it does not do what the 
proponents say.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers). The gentlewoman from Colorado 
is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, as a woman, when I am with my doctor, I 
want that doctor focused on my health, and not on their criminal 
liability. What this bill does is it will focus any doctor on steering 
away from what they think might be best for the patient, because they 
could serve 2 years in prison or they could have a criminal record, or 
on and on and on.
  Mr. Speaker, I think every citizen thinks that that is a zone of 
privacy. This Congress has never interfered in that zone of privacy 
between a family and their physician. Today, for the first time, if 
this bill becomes law, we will be moving to make an act criminal by a 
doctor. I much more trust my doctor than I do Members of this body, I 
am sorry to say, so I get very angry when I hear some of the things 
that have been said here.
  I have heard people talk about ``inhumane, brutal, gruesome, 
terrible.'' We have seen the drawings. The drawings were not done by 
the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians. They do not 
support this bill. They were done, as they say rightfully, by the 
Catholic Conference of Bishops. Now, they have the right to make their 
case here, but, please, again, I think most Americans trust their 
doctors to make those difficult decisions.
  We have heard about pain, we have heard about everything. I sat 
through those hearings. The anesthesiologists who testified said that 
there is pain in everything. There is pain in birth. So if we are just 
going to outlaw anything that is painful, we are going to be a very 
busy Congress. What they were saying is what happened, some of the 
advocates were misstating anesthesiology procedures. That is possible, 
because people here are not doctors.

                              {time}  1945

  But they were not supporting the bill. They were just trying to set 
the record straight. Bottom line, as the gentlewoman from Kansas said, 
these are in very tragic circumstances. Only .01 percent of all 
abortions would be affected by this. These are basically a handful of 
doctors, and thank goodness a handful of families. But I must say as 
one who has been there, one who almost lost her life, I would be 
terribly resentful of this happening, and I never thought it could 
happen to me, so I say to people, please, please, I know this is a 
difficult issue.
  Anything you cannot explain, anything that is difficult to explain, 
people hesitate to vote against. But please

[[Page H2913]]

be willing to make this explanation. It is much too important for 
America's families.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
  (Mrs. VUCANOVICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to 
support H.R. 1833 with the Senate amendments which would ban this 
brutal procedure know as partial-birth abortion.
  Mr. Speaker, as many of you know, I have 15 grandchildren. Two of my 
grandchildren, the miracle twins as I call them, were born prematurely 
at 7 months. They were so tiny that they could fit in your hands but 
they were perfectly formed little human beings and they are now 14 
years old.
  It makes me shudder to think that somewhere, perhaps even today, in 
this country that there are other little preborn human beings 7 months 
old in their mothers womb that are going to be subject to this brutal, 
horrible procedure known as a partial birth abortion.
  I am not the only one who finds this procedure horrifying. The 
American Medical Association's Legislative Council unanimously decided 
that this procedure was not ``a recognized medical technique'' and that 
``this procedure is basically repulsive.'' This is especially true when 
you realize that 80 percent of these types of abortion are done as a 
purely elective procedure. It is important to note that this bill does 
make exception for this type of abortion if it is necessary to save the 
life of the mother, however, this is an exception that will have to be 
used rarely.
  I think we can all agree that it is inhuman to begin the birthing 
process and nearly complete the delivery of the baby, only to suck the 
life out of the child.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1833, with the Senate 
amendments, which would ban this brutal procedure known as partial 
birth abortion.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers). The gentleman from Illinois is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great intensity to the debate 
this evening. It is an important debate. I heard the gentleman from 
Vermont talk about humility, and he is absolutely right. You do not 
deal with people's lives in a sense of arrogance at all. But at the 
same time, if you believe you are right, if you are convinced that you 
possess the truth and you remain silent, you become the accomplice of 
liars and forgers. I just ascribe the failure to consider the unborn, 
and I listened to all of the impassioned remarks of my friends on the 
other side, they never talk about the unborn. It is the woman, it is 
her family, it is her doctor, but the little tiny infant in the 
shadows, the absent person, the invisible person is the unborn, and 
that is a failure of imagination. That is a compassion deficit.
  Mr. Speaker, I guess you have to be healthy to be born. I guess our 
Declaration of Independence, when it talked about the right to life 
being inalienable should have said if you are healthy, if you are 
healthy. God help you if you are handicapped before you are born. But 
if you make it through the birth canal, we will give you a preferred 
parking place. That is the way we deal with those situations. No, the 
partial birth abortion, which is just what it is. It is not an exercise 
of reproductive rights, and it is not a fetus. It is an abortion. It is 
not a termination of a pregnancy. It is an extermination of a 
defenseless little life whose little arms and little legs are wiggling 
until that scissors gets shoved in his neck and then they stiffen. We 
heard that testimony. Some of you heard that testimony. There is a 
coursening of our national conscience when you tolerate this form of 
torture.

  Catholic bishops. Thank God somebody cares about this grotesquery. 
Thank God, I do not think that invalidates those charts. A political 
goal? If defending human dignity is political, then I plead guilty. But 
somebody has to speak up for that little defenseless child almost born, 
three-quarters born, just the little head left, and they brutally kill 
that little child, and you do it in the name of compassion. I am sorry, 
I think that is a coursening, a desensitizing of our conscience.
  This bill outlaws a uniquely barbaric method of abortion. Even to 
describe it is painful, but it is not as painful as the pain that 
little unborn child feels. If steel traps are too brutal for wild 
animals, what is too brutal for a tiny member of the human family, an 
almost-born infant? Have you heard of PETA, People for the Ethical 
Treatment of Animals? We need a PETA for humans, people for the ethical 
treatment of tiny, defenseless, cannot rise up in the streets, cannot 
vote, cannot escape members of the human family. You would not treat a 
coyote like you treat this little almost-born baby.
  Members keep insisting the Government should not intervene. Well, I 
know some Members are for Government intervention in everything but 
abortion. I understand that. But who will speak for the baby if the 
Government does not? What is the purpose of law to protect the weak 
from the strong? What is weaker than a little child almost born and you 
destroy that child in a barbaric way? No, I am glad the Government is 
there. I am not that libertarian that I do not think that Government 
should not protect the weak from the strong.
  The only thing Members consider is the autonomy of the woman, the 
woman. Well, God bless the woman, and she needs help and care and love 
and nurturing. But what about the little baby? Why do you leave that 
out of your equation, our of your calculus?
  We had four anesthesiologists tell us those little babies feel pain. 
That is why they get anesthesia. One of the head of the anesthesiology 
department at Emory University says the pre-term baby feels pain more 
that when it is born. That validates the title ``silent scream.'' What 
about the pain felt by the little baby? Not a word, not a word.
  Is there anything, is there anything we say no to? Is everything 
permitted? God help us if that is true. Let us draw the line here. This 
should not be tolerated.
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following material for 
enclosure in the Record:

 Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion--Presented 
at the National Abortion Federation Risk Management Seminar, September 
                                13, 1992

                       (By Martin Haskell, M.D.)


                              introduction

       The surgical method described in this paper differs from 
     classic D&E in that it does not rely upon dismemberment to 
     remove the fetus. Nor are inductions or infusions used to 
     expel the intact fetus.
       Rather, the surgeon grasps and removes a nearly intact 
     fetus through an adequately dilated cervix. The author has 
     coined the term Dilation and Extraction or D&X to distinguish 
     it from dismemberment-type D&E's.
       This procedure can be performed in a properly equipped 
     physician's office under local anesthesia. It can be used 
     successfully in patients 20-26 weeks in pregnancy.
       The author has performed over 700 of these procedures with 
     a low rate of complications.


                               background

       D&E evolved as an alternative to induction or instillation 
     methods for second trimester abortion in the mid 1970's. This 
     happened in part because of lack of hospital facilities 
     allowing second trimester abortions in some geographic areas, 
     in part because surgeons needed a ``right now'' solution to 
     complete suction abortions inadvertently started in the 
     second trimester and in part to provide a means of early 
     second trimester abortion to avoid necessary delays for 
     instillation methods.\1\ The North Carolina Conference in 
     1978 established D&E as the preferred method for early second 
     trimester abortions in the U.S.\2\, \3\, \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Classic D&E is accomplished by dismembering the fetus 
     inside the uterus with instruments and removing the pieces 
     through an adequately dilated cervix.\5\
       However, most surgeons find dismemberment at twenty weeks 
     and beyond to be difficult due to the toughness of fetal 
     tissues at this stage of development. Consequently, most late 
     second trimester abortions are performed by an induction 
     method.\6\, \7\, \8\
       Two techniques of late second trimester D&E's have been 
     described at previous NAF meetings. The first relies on 
     sterile urea intra-amniotic infusion to cause fetal demise 
     and lysis (or softening) of fetal tissues prior to 
     surgery.\9\
       The second technique is to rupture the membranes 24 hours 
     prior to surgery and cut the umbilical cord. Fetal death and 
     ensuing autolysis soften the tissues. There are attendant 
     risks of infection with this method.
       In summary, approaches to late second trimester D&E's rely 
     upon some means to induce early fetal demise to soften the 
     fetal tissues making dismemberment easier.


                           patient selection

       The author routinely performs this procedure on all 
     patients 20 through 24 weeks LMP

[[Page H2914]]

     with certain exceptions. The author performs the procedure on 
     selected patients 25 through 26 weeks LMP.
       The author refers for induction patients falling into the 
     following categories: previous C-section over 22 weeks; obese 
     patients (more than 20 pounds over large frame ideal weight); 
     twin pregnancy over 21 weeks; patients 26 weeks and over.


             DESCRIPTION OF DILATION AND EXTRACTION METHOD

       Dilation and extraction takes over three days. In a 
     nutshell, D&X can be described as follows: dilation; more 
     dilation; real-time ultrasound visualization; version (as 
     needed); intact extraction; fetal skull decompression; 
     removal; clean-up; recovery.

                            Day 1--Dilation

       The patient is evaluated with an ultrasound, hemoglobin and 
     Rh. Hadlock scales are used to interpret all ultrasound 
     measurements.
       In the operating room, the cervix is prepped, anesthetized 
     and dilated to 9-11 mm. Five, six or seven large Dilapan 
     hydroscopic dilators are placed in the cervix. The patient 
     goes home or to a motel overnight.

                            Day 2--Dilation

       The patient returns to the operating room where the 
     previous day's Dilapan are removed. The cervix is scrubbed 
     and anesthetized. Between 15 and 25 Dilapan are placed in the 
     cervical canal. The patient returns home or to a motel 
     overnight.

                          Day 3--The Operation

       The patient returns to the operating room where the 
     previous day's Dilapan are removed. The surgical assistant 
     administers 10 IU Pitocin intramuscularly. The cervix is 
     scrubbed, anesthetized and grasped with a tenaculum. The 
     membranes are ruptured, if they are not already.
       The surgical assistant places an ultrasound probe on the 
     patient's abdomen and scans the fetus, locating the lower 
     extremities. This scan provides the surgeon information about 
     the orientation of the fetus and approximate location of the 
     lower extremities. The transducer is then held in position 
     over the lower extremities.
       The surgeon introduces a large grasping forcep, such as a 
     Bierer or Hern, through the vaginal and cervical canals into 
     the corpus of the uterus. Based upon his knowledge of fetal 
     orientation, he moves the tip of the instrument carefully 
     towards the fetal lower extremities. When the instrument 
     appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to open 
     and close its jaws to firmly and reliably grasp a lower 
     extremity. The surgeon then applies firm traction to the 
     instrument causing a version of the fetus (if necessary) and 
     pulls the extremity into the vagina.
       By observing the movement of the lower extremity and 
     version of the fetus on the ultrasound screen, the surgeon is 
     assured that his instrument has not inappropriately grasped a 
     maternal structure.
       With a lower extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his 
     fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the 
     torso, the shoulders and the upper extremities.
       The skull lodges at the internal cervical os. Usually there 
     is not enough dilation for it to pass through. The fetus is 
     oriented dorsum or spine up.
       At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers 
     of the left had along the back of the fetus and ``hooks'' the 
     shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm 
     down). Next he slides the tip of the middle finger along the 
     spine towards the skull while applying traction to the 
     shoulders and lower extremities. The middle finger lifts and 
     pushes the anterior cervical lip out of the way.
       While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and 
     applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the 
     left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved 
     Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances 
     the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle 
     finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under 
     the tip of his middle finger.
       Reassessing proper placement of the closed scissors tip and 
     safe elevation of the cervix, the surgeon then forces the 
     scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen 
     magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the 
     scissors to enlarge the opening.
       The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction 
     catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. 
     With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the 
     fetus, removing it completely from the patient.
       The surgeon finally removes the placenta with forceps and 
     scrapes the uterine walls with a large Evans and a 14 mm 
     suction curette. The procedure ends.

                                Recovery

       Patients are observed a minimum of 2 hours following 
     surgery. A pad check and vital signs are performed every 30 
     minutes. Patients with minimal bleeding after 30 minutes are 
     encouraged to walk about the building or outside between 
     checks.
       Intravenous fluids, pitocin and antibiotics are available 
     for the exceptional times they are needed.


                               ANESTHESIA

       Lidocaine 1% with epinephrine administered intra-cervically 
     is the standard anesthesia. Nitrous-oxide/oxygen analgesic is 
     administered nasally as an adjunct. For the Dilapan insert 
     and Dilapan change, 12cc's is used in 3 equidistant locations 
     around the cervix. For the surgery, 24cc's is used at 6 
     equidistant spots.
       Carbocaine 1% is substituted for lidocaine for patients who 
     expressed lidocaine sensitivity.


                              medications

       All patients not allergic to tetracycline analogues receive 
     doxycycline 200 mgm by mouth daily for 3 days beginning Day 
     1.
       Patients with any history of gonorrhea, chlamydia or pelvic 
     inflammatory disease receive additional doxycycline, 100 mgm 
     by mouth twice daily for six additional days.
       Patients allergic to tetracyclines are not given 
     prophylactic antibiotics.
       Ergotrate 0.2 mgm by mouth four times daily for three days 
     is dispensed to each patient.
       Pitocin 10 IU intramuscularly is administered upon removal 
     of the Dilapan on Day 3.
       Rhogam intramuscularly is provided to all Rh negative 
     patients on Day 3.
       Ibuprofen orally is provided liberally at a rate of 100 mgm 
     per hour from Day 1 onward.
       Patients with severe cramps with Dilapan dilation are 
     provided Phenergan 25 mgm suppositories rectally every 4 
     hours as needed.
       Rare patients require Synalogos DC in order to sleep during 
     Dilapan dilation.
       Patients with a hemoglobin less than 10 g/dl prior to 
     surgery receive packed red blood cell transfusions.


                               follow-up

       All patients are given a 24 hour physician's number to call 
     in case of a problem or concern.
       At least three attempts to contact each patient by phone 
     one week after surgery are made by the office staff.
       All patients are asked to return for check-up three weeks 
     following their surgery.


                            third trimester

       The author is aware of one other surgeon who uses a 
     conceptually similar technique. He adds additional changes of 
     Dilapan and/or lamineria in the 48 hour dilation period. 
     Coupled with other refinements and a slower operating time, 
     he performs these procedures up to 32 weeks or more.\10\


                                summary

       In conclusion, Dilation and Extraction is an alternative 
     method for achieving late second trimester abortions to 26 
     weeks. It can be used in the third trimester.
       Among its advantages are that it is a quick, surgical 
     outpatient method that can be performed on a scheduled basis 
     under local anesthesia
       Among its disadvantages are that it requires a high degree 
     of surgical skill, and may not be appropriate for a few 
     patients.


                               footnotes

     \1\ Cates, W. Jr., Schulz, K.F., Grimes D.A., et al: The 
     Effects of Delay and Method of Choice on the Risk of Abortion 
     Morbidity, Family Planning Perspectives, 9:266, 1977.
     \2\ Borell, U., Emberey, M.P., Bygdeman, M., et al: 
     Midtrimester Abortion by Dilation and Evacuation (Letter), 
     American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 131:232, 1978.
     \3\ Centers for Disease Control: Abortion Surveillance 1978, 
     p. 30, November, 1980.
     \4\ Grimes, D.A., Cates, W. Jr. (Berger, G.S., et al, ed): 
     Dilation and Evacuation, Second Trimester Abortion--
     Perspectives After a Decade of Experience, Boston, John 
     Wright--PSG, 1981, p. 132.
     \5\ Ibid, p. 121-128.
     \6\ Ibid, p. 121.
     \7\ Kerenyi, T.D. (Bergen, G.S., et al, ed): Hypertonic 
     Saline Instillation, Second Trimester Abortion--Perspectives 
     After a Decade of Experience, Boston, John Wright--PSG, 1981, 
     p. 79.
     \8\ Hanson, M.S. (Zatuchni, G. I., et al, ed): Midtrimester 
     Abortion: Dilation and Extraction Preceded by Laminaria, 
     Pregnancy Termination Procedures, Safety and New 
     Developments, Hagerstown, Harper and Row, 1979, p. 192.
     \9\ Hern, W.M., Abortion Practice, Philadelphia, J.B. 
     Lippincott, 1990, p. 127, 144-6.

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleagues will be interested 
in Dr. Birnbach's testimony related to partial birth abortions.
  Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is David Birnbach, 
M.D., and I am presently the director of obstetric anesthesiology at 
St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, a teaching hospital of Columbia 
University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City. I am 
also president-elect of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and 
Perinatology, the society which represents my subspecialty.
  I am here today to take issue with the previous testimony before 
committees of the Congress that suggests that anesthesia causes fetal 
demise. I believe that I am qualified to address this issue because I 
am a practicing obstetric anesthesiologist. Since completing my 
anesthesiology and obstetric anesthesiology training at Harvard 
University, I have administered analgesia to more than 5,000 women in 
labor and anesthesia to over 1,000 women undergoing caesarean section. 
Although the majority of these cases were at full term gestation, I 
have provided anesthesia to approximately 200 patients who were 
carrying fetuses of less than 30 weeks gestation and who needed 
emergency nonobstetric surgery during pregnancy. These operations have 
included appendectomies, gall bladder surgeries, numerous orthopedic 
procedures such as fractured ankles, uterine and ovarian procedures, 
including malignant tumor removal, breast surgery, neurosurgery, and 
cardiac surgery.
  The anesthetics which I have administered have included general, 
epidural, spinal, and local. The patients have included healthy as well 
as very sick pregnant patients. Although

[[Page H2915]]

I often use spinal and epidural anesthesia in pregnant patients, I also 
administer general anesthesia to these patients and, on occasion, have 
needed to administer huge doses of general anesthesia in order to allow 
surgeons to perform cardiac surgery or neurosurgery.
  In addition, I believe that I am also especially qualified to discuss 
the effect of maternally administered anesthesia on the fetus, because 
I am one of only a handful of anesthesiologists who has administered 
anesthesia to a pregnant patient undergoing in-utero fetal surgery, 
thus allowing me to watch the fetus as I administered general 
anesthesia to the mother. A review of the experiences that my 
associates and I had while administering general anesthesia to a mother 
while a surgeon operated on her unborn fetus was published in the 
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia vol. 1, 1989, pp. 363-367. In this 
paper, we suggested that general anesthesia provides several advantages 
to the fetus who will undergo surgery and then be replaced in the womb 
to continue to grow until mature enough to be delivered. Safe doses of 
anesthesia to the mother most certainly did not cause fetal demise when 
used for these operations.
  Despite my extensive experience with providing anesthesia to the 
pregnant patient, I have never witnessed a case of fetal demise that 
could be attributed to an anesthetic. Although some drugs which we 
administer to the mother may cross the placenta and affect the fetus, 
in my medical judgment fetal demise is definitely not a consequence of 
a properly administered anesthetic. In order to cause fetal demise it 
would be necessary to give the mother dangerous and life-threatening 
doses of anesthetics. This is not the way we practice anesthesiology in 
the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned that the previous congressional 
testimony and the widespread publicity that has been given this issue 
will cause unnecessary fear and anxiety in pregnant patients and may 
cause some to unnecessarily delay emergency surgery. As an example, 
several newspapers across the United States have stated that anesthesia 
causes fetal demise. Because this issue has been allowed to become a 
``controversy'' several of my patients have recently expressed concerns 
about anesthesia, having seen newspaper or heard radio or television 
coverage of this issue. Evidence that patients are still receiving 
misinformation regarding the fetal effects of maternally administered 
anesthesia can be seen by review of an article that a pregnant patient 
recently brought with her to the labor and delivery floor. In last 
month's edition of Marie Claire, a magazine which many of my pregnant 
patients read, an article about partial birth abortion states: ``The 
mother is put under general anesthetic, which reaches the fetus through 
her bloodstream. By the time the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the 
fetus has overdosed on the anesthetic and is brain-dead.'' These 
incorrect statements continue to find their way into newspapers and 
magazines around the country. Despite the previous testimony of Dr. 
Ellison, I have yet to see an article that states, in no uncertain 
terms, that anesthesia when used property does not harm the fetus. This 
supposed controversy regarding the effects of anesthesia on the fetus 
must be finally and definitively put to rest.

  In order to address this complex issue, I believe that it is 
necessary to comment on three of the statements which have recently 
been made to the Congress.
  First, Dr. James McMahon, now deceased, testified that anesthesia 
causes neurologic fetal demise.
  Second, Dr. Lewis Koplick supported Dr. McMahon and stated: ``I am 
certain that anyone who would call Dr. McMahon a liar is speaking from 
ignorance of abortions in later pregnancy and of Dr. McMahon's 
technique and integrity.''
  Third, Dr. Mary Campbell of Planned Parenthood has addressed this 
issue by writing the following: ``Though these does are high, the 
incremental administration of the drugs minimizes the probability of 
negative outcomes for the mother. In the fetus these dosage levels may 
lead to fetal demise--death--in a fetus weakened by its own 
developmental anomalies.''
  My responses to these statements are as follows:
  One, there is absolutely no scientific or clinical evidence that a 
properly administered maternal anesthetic causes fetal demise. To the 
contrary, there are hundreds of scientific articles which demonstrate 
the fetal safety of currently used anesthetics.
  Two, Dr. Koplick has stated that the ``massive'' doses used by Dr. 
McMahon are responsible for fetal demise. This again, is incorrect and 
there is not scientific or clinical data to support this allegation. I 
have personally administered ``massive'' doses of narcotics to 
intubated critically ill pregnant patients who are being treated in an 
intensive care unit. I am pleased to say that the fetuses were born 
alive and did well.
  Three, Dr. Campbell has described the narcotic protocol which Dr. 
McMahon had used during his D&X procedures: it includes the 
administration of Midazolam (10-40 mg) and Fetanyl (900-2,500 
g). Although there is no evidence that this dose will cause 
fetal demise, there is clear evidence that this excessive dose could 
cause maternal death. These doses are far in excess of any anesthetic 
that would be used by an anesthesiologist and even if they are 
incrementally given over a 2 to 3 hour period these doses would in all 
probability cause enough respiratory depression of the mother, to 
necessitate intubation and/or assisted respiration. Since Dr. McMahon 
cannot be questioned regarding his ``heavy handed'' anesthetic 
practice. I am unable to explain why we would willingly administer such 
huge amounts of drugs if he did indeed administer 2,500 g of 
fentanyl and 40 mg of midazolam to a patient in a clinic, without an 
anesthesiologist present, he has definitely placing the mother's life 
at great risk.
  In conclusion, I would like to say that I believe that I have a 
responsibility as a practicing obstetric anesthesiologist to refute any 
and all testimony that suggests that maternally administered anesthesia 
causes fetal demise. It is my opinion that in order to achieve that 
goal one would need to administer such huge doses of anesthetic to the 
mother as to place her life at jeopardy. Pregnant women must get the 
message that should they need anesthesia for surgery or analgesia for 
labor, they may do so without worrying about the effects on their 
unborn child.
  Thank you for your attention. I am happy to respond to your 
questions.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following material for 
inclusion in the Record:

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

   Outlawing Abortion Method: Veto-Proof Majority in House Votes To 
                      Prohibit Late-Term Procedure

                         (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 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 AM/News 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 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 
     activists to use it again.
       They drafted a bill that would ban the procedure, after 
     considering a number of other options. An Ohio law passed 
     earlier this year, for instance, bans ``brain suction'' 
     abortions, except when all other methods would pose a 
     greater risk to the pregnant woman. It has been enjoined 
     pending a challenge.


                       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 textbook 
     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

[[Page H2916]]

     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 this country which require a partially 
     delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life of 
     the mother.'' Dr. Smith wrote in letter to Canady.
       The procedure also has its defenders. The procedure is a 
     ``well-recognize 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 
     perforation 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 percent 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-fetus specialist at the 
     University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said in a letter 
     to Canady 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 
     anesthesized 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.''
       ``This bill's about politics,'' he said, ``it's not about 
     medicine.''
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following material for 
inclusion in the Record:

                 [From Cincinnati Medicine, Fall 1993]

                         2nd Trimester Abortion

               (An interview with W. Martin Haskell, MD)

       Last summer, American Medical News ran a story on abortion 
     specialists. Included was W. Martin Haskell, MD, a Cincinnati 
     physician who introduced the D&X procedure for second 
     trimester abortions. The Academy received several calls 
     requesting information about D&X. The following interview 
     provides an overview.
       Q: What motivated you to become an abortion specialist?
       A: I stumbled into it by accident. I did an internship in 
     anesthesia. I worked for a year in general practice in 
     Alabama. I did two years in general surgery, then switched 
     into family practice to get board certified. My intentions at 
     that time were to go into emergency medicine. I enjoyed 
     surgery, but I realized there was an abundance of really good 
     surgeons here in Cincinnati. I didn't feel I'd

[[Page H2917]]

     make much of a contribution. I'd be just another good 
     surgeon. While I was in family practice, I got a part-time 
     job in the Women's Center. Over the course of several months, 
     I recognized things there could be run a lot better, with a 
     much more professional level of service--not necessarily in 
     terms of medical care--in terms of counseling, the physical 
     facility, patient flow, and in the quality of people who 
     provided support services. The typical abortion patient 
     spends less than ten minutes with the physician who performs 
     the surgery. Yet, that patient might be in the facility for 
     three hours. When I talked to other physicians whose patients 
     were referred here, I saw problems that could be easily 
     corrected. I realized there was an opportunity to improve 
     overall quality of care, and make a contribution. I own the 
     center now.
       Q: Back in 1979 when you were making these decisions, did 
     you consider yourself prochoice?
       A: I've never been an activist. I've always felt that no 
     matter what the issue, you prove your convictions by your 
     hard work--not by yelling and screaming.
       Q: Have there been threats against you?
       A: Not directly. Pro-life activist Randall Terry recently 
     said to me that he was going to do everything within his 
     power to have me tried like a Nazi war criminal.
       Q: A recent American Medical News article stated that the 
     medical community hadn't really established a point of fetal 
     viability. Why not?
       A: Probably because it can't be established with uniform 
     certainty. Biological systems are highly variable. The 
     generally accepted point of fetal viability is around 24-26 
     weeks. But you can't take a given point in fetal development 
     and apply that 100 percent of the time. It just doesn't 
     happen that way. If you look at premature deliveries and 
     survival percentages at different weeks of gestation, you'll 
     get 24-week fetuses with some survival rate. The fact that 
     you get some survivors demonstrates the difficulty in 
     defining a point.
       Q: Most women who get abortions end pregnancies during the 
     first trimester. Who is the typical second-trimester patient?
       A: I don't know that there is a typical second-trimester 
     abortion. But if you look at the spectrum of abortions (most 
     women are between the ages of 19 and 29) they tend to be 
     younger. Some are older. The typical thing that happens with 
     older women is that they never realized they were pregnant 
     because they were continuing to bleed during the pregnancy. 
     The other thing we see with older women is fetal 
     malformations or Down's Syndrome. These are being diagnosed 
     much earlier now than they used to be. We're seeing a lot of 
     genetic diagnoses with ultrasound and amniocentesis at 17-18 
     weeks instead of 22-24 weeks. With the teenagers, anybody who 
     has ever worked with or had teenagers can appreciate how 
     unpredictable they can be at times. They have adult bodies, 
     but a lot of time they don't have adult minds. So their 
     reaction to problems tends to be much more emotional than an 
     adult's might be. It's a question of maturity. So even though 
     they may have been educated about all kinds of issues in 
     reproductive health, when a teenager becomes pregnant, 
     depending upon her relationship with her family, the amount 
     of peer support she has--every one is a highly-individual 
     case--sometimes they delay until they can no longer contain 
     their problem and it finally comes out. Sometimes it's money: 
     It takes them a while to get the money. Sometimes it's just 
     denial.
       Q: Do you think more information on abstinence and 
     contraceptives would decrease the number of teenage 
     pregnancies?
       A: I grew up in the sixties and nobody talked about 
     contraception with teenagers in the sixties. But today, 
     though it may be controversial in some areas, there's a lot 
     being taught about reproductive health in the high school 
     curricula. I think a lot more is being done, but the bottom 
     line is we're all still just human--with human emotions, and 
     particularly with teenagers, a sense of invulnerability; it 
     can't happen to me. So education helps a lot, but it's not 
     going to eliminate the problem. You can teach a person the 
     skills, but you can't make them use them.
       Q: Does it bother you that a second trimester fetus so 
     closely resembles a baby?
       A: I really don't think about it. I don't have a problem 
     with believing the fetus is a fertilized egg. Sure it becomes 
     more physically developed but it lacks emotional development. 
     It doesn't have the mental capacity for self-awareness. It's 
     never been an ethical dilemma for me. For people for whom 
     that is an ethical dilemma, this certainly wouldn't be a 
     field they'd want to go into. Many of our patients have 
     ethical dilemmas about abortion. I don't feel it's my role as 
     a physician to tell her she should not have an abortion 
     because of her ethical feelings. As individuals grow and 
     mature, learn more, feel more, experience more, their 
     perspective about themselves and life, morality and ethics 
     change. Facing the situation of abortion is a part of that 
     passage through life for some women--how they resolve that is 
     their decision. I can be their advisor much as a lawyer can 
     be; he can tell you your options, but he can't make you file 
     a suit or tell you not to file a suit. My role is to provide 
     a service and, to a limited degree, help women understand 
     themselves when they make their decision. I'm not to tell 
     them what's right or wrong.
       Q: Do your patients ever reconsider?
       A: Between our two centers, that happens maybe once a week. 
     There's a patient who changes her mind or becomes truly 
     ambivalent and goes home to reconsider, then might come back 
     a week or two later. I feel that's one of the strengths of 
     how we approach things here. We try not to create pressure to 
     have an abortion. Our view has always been that there are 
     enough women who want abortions that we don't have to coerce 
     anyone to have one. We've always been strongly against 
     pressure on our patients to go ahead with an abortion.
       Q: How expensive is a second trimester abortion?
       A: Fees range from $1,200-1,600 depending on length of 
     pregnancy. More insurance companies cover abortion than don't 
     cover it. About 15 percent of our patients won't use 
     insurance because they want to maintain privacy. About 10-20 
     percent use insurance. The rest pay out of pocket.
       Q: What led you to develop D&X?
       A: D & E's, the procedure typically used for later 
     abortions, have always been somewhat problematic because of 
     the toughness and development of the fetal tissues. Most 
     physicians do terminations after 20 weeks by saline infusion 
     or prosteglandin induction, which terminates the fetus and 
     allows tissue to soften. Here in Cincinnati, I never really 
     explored it, but I didn't think I had that option. There 
     certainly weren't hospitals willing to allow inductions past 
     18 weeks--even Jewish, when they did abortions, their limit 
     was 18 weeks. I don't know about University. What I saw here 
     in my practice, because we did D & Es, was that we had 
     patients who needed terminations at a later date. So we 
     learned the skills. The later we did them, the more we saw 
     patients who needed them still later. But I just kept doing D 
     & Es because that was what I was comfortable with, up until 
     24 weeks. But they were very tough. Sometimes it was a 45-
     minute operation. I noticed that some of the later D & Es 
     were very, very easy. So I asked myself why can't they all 
     happen this way. You see the easy ones would have a foot 
     length presentation, you'd reach in and grab the foot of the 
     fetus, pull the fetus down and the head would hang up and 
     then you would collapse the head and take it out. It was 
     easy. At first, I would reach around trying to identify a 
     lower extremity blindly with the tip of my instrument. I'd 
     get it right about 30-50 percent of the time. Then I said, 
     ``Well gee, if I just put the ultrasound up there I could see 
     it all and I wouldn't have to feel around for it. I did that 
     and sure enough, I found it 99 percent of the time. Kind of 
     serendipity.
       Q: Does the fetus feel pain?
       A: Neurological pain and perception of pain are not the 
     same. Abortion stimulates fibers, but the perception of pain, 
     the memory of pain that we fear and dread are not there. I'm 
     not an expert, but my understanding is that fetal development 
     is insufficient for consciousness. It's a lot like pets. We 
     like to think they think like we do. We ascribe human-like 
     feelings to them, but they are not capable of the same self-
     awareness we are. It's the same with fetuses. It's natural to 
     project what we feel for babies to a 24-week old fetus.
                                                                    ____


             [From the American Medical News, Jan. 1, 1996]

          Anesthesiologists Question Claims in Abortion Debate

                         (By Diane M. Gianelli)

       Washington.--When he saw an article in the St. Louis Post-
     Dispatch that claimed anesthesia caused fetal death in some 
     late-term abortion procedures. David Birnbach, MD, was 
     ``shocked.''
       ``I thought, `This is crazy,' '' said Dr. Birnbach, who is 
     director of obstetric anesthesiology at New York's St. 
     Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, and vice president of the 
     Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology.
       ``Everyday we have pregnant patients who get anesthesia--
     women who break their ankles, need knee surgery, have 
     appendectomies, gallbladder removals, breast biopsies, and so 
     on. Anesthetics done safely by an anesthesiologist do not do 
     harm to either the mother or the baby,'' he said.
       The anesthesia-causes-fetal-death claim was made by one of 
     the two U.S. physicians who specialized in a particular type 
     of late-term abortion that opponents call ``partial birth'' 
     abortions. The contention has been repeated by other 
     proponents of the procedure, who refer to it as ``intact 
     D&E'' (for dilation and evacuation) or ``D&X'' (dilation and 
     extraction).
       Medical experts contend the claim is scientifically unsound 
     and irresponsible, unnecessarily worrying pregnant women who 
     need anesthesia. But while some are now qualifying their 
     assertion that anesthesia induces fetal death, they are not 
     backing away from it.
       When Rep. Charles T. Canady (R, Fla.) introduced a bill to 
     ban the procedure, James T. McMahon, MD, a Los Angeles area 
     family physician who specialized in this procedure before his 
     recent death, responded. Dr. McMahon wrote that the 
     anesthesia given to the mother before the abortion causes 
     ``neurological fetal demise.''
       The bill to ban the procedure, passed late last year by 
     both the House and the Senate, defines it as one in which the 
     provider ``partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before 
     killing the fetus and completing the delivery.''
       The procedure was recently banned in Ohio, where its other 
     main practitioner, Martin Haskell, MD, lives. But a federal

[[Page H2918]]

     judge declared the law there unconstitutional in a 
     preliminary injunction last month.
       On the federal level, the bill faces a presidential veto 
     threat, and while the measure passed the House by a 2-to-1 
     ratio, proponents do not have enough Senate votes to override 
     a veto.
       The claim about anesthesia causing fetal death has been 
     repeated by many of the bill's opponents, including the 
     National Abortion Federation, the National Abortion and 
     Reproductive Rights Action League, and members of Congress. A 
     recent Planned Parenthood ``fact sheet'' on these late-term 
     abortions claims that ``the fetus dies from an overdose of 
     anesthesia given to the mother intravenously.''
       The distinction of when fetal death occurs is critical, 
     because the bill would ban only procedures in which the fetus 
     was killed after being partially delivered alive through the 
     birth canal. If it could be proved that the fetuses died 
     inside the womb--from anesthesia or any other cause--the 
     abortion would not fall under the proposed law.
       After reading the anesthesia-kills-fetuses claim in the St. 
     Louis paper, the American Society of Anesthesiologists issued 
     a press release denouncing it. And in testimony before the 
     Senate, Norig Ellison, MD, president of the society--which 
     did not take a position on the bill--called Dr. McMahon's 
     statements ``entirely inaccurate.''
       He added that he was ``deeply concerned'' that the 
     widespread publicity given to Dr. McMahon's claims ``may 
     cause pregnant women to delay necessary and perhaps even 
     life-saving medical procedures, totally unrelated to the 
     birthing process, due to misinformation regarding the effect 
     of anesthetics on the fetus.''
       In fact, cases of maternal concern have already surfaced. 
     Dr. Birnbach said he has already had patents raise questions. 
     And Rep. Tom Coburn, MD, an Oklahoma Republican who still 
     delivers babies when he goes home on weekends, said he just 
     had a patient refuse epidural anesthesia during childbirth 
     after hearing those claims. Dr. Coburn is a co-sponsor of the 
     bill.
       Dr. Ellison, vice chair of the Dept. of Anesthesiology at 
     the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in 
     Philadelphia, testified that very little of the anesthetic 
     given the mother ever reaches, the fetus. He added that ``in 
     my medical judgment, it would be necessary--in order to 
     achieve `neurological demise' of a fetus in a `partial birth' 
     abortion--to anesthetize the mother to such a degree as to 
     place her own health in serious jeopardy.''
       Planned Parenthood's Mary Campbell, MD, who wrote the fact 
     sheet claiming anesthesia cases fetal death, was grilled 
     during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Nov. 17, 1995, 
     by Sen. Spence Abraham (R, Mich.).
       When prodded, she conceded ``I do not know what causes the 
     fetus to die.'' When asked why her fact sheet attributes the 
     cause to anesthesia, she replied, ``I simplified that for 
     Congress.''
       Afer the hearing, Dr. Campbell wrote to Sen. Barbara Boxer, 
     (D, Calif.), who led the movement against the bill in the 
     Senate. In her letter, Dr. Campbell repeated that 
     anesthesia caused fetal death, but added some caveats. She 
     said it ``may lead to fetal demise (death) in a fetus 
     weakened by its own developmental anomalies.''
       ``In other cases,'' she wrote, ``these drugs prevent the 
     perception of pain by the fetus; they cause depression of 
     fetal respiration before the extraction procedure and 
     preclude fetal respiration afterward.''
       Dr. Birnbach disputes her contention. Even in the very 
     high-end doses she mentioned, he said--10 mg to 40 mg of 
     Versed, given in 1 mg to 2 mg increments, and 900 ug to 2,500 
     ug of fentanyl, given in 100 ug to 150 ug increments--
     ``anesthesia does not kill an infant if you don't kill the 
     mother.''
       He added that when patients receive the high-end dosage 
     range specified by Dr. Campbell, the mother was in fact at 
     risk for depressed breathing. ``You can't give those high 
     doses without harming the mother unless the mother is 
     assisted in her breathing,'' he said.
       Dr. Birnbach said that, on occasion, he has given even 
     larger doses than the high-end ones cited by Dr. Campbell and 
     has never caused any harm to either the mother or the fetus.
       He also said that Dr. Campbell's claims that the 
     medications depress fetal respiration before the abortion 
     takes place were ``immaterial'' because fetuses don't breathe 
     in the womb.
       Dr. Birnbach added, however, that an infant born alive with 
     depressed respiration can still survive normally. ``The 
     narcotics are not a problem. We can reverse the narcotics and 
     we can breathe for the baby.''
       Another recurring theme at both the hearings and during the 
     ensuing debate about the procedure centers around fetal pain. 
     Specialists in this procedure claim the fetus feels no pain 
     for a variety of reasons, but usually because they say 
     fetuses lack the neural development necessary to perceive 
     pain, or if they are capable of feeling pain, anesthesia 
     given to the mother prevents the preception of pain in the 
     fetus.
       Robert J. White, MD, PhD, professor of neurosurgery at Case 
     Western University in Cleveland, testified on the topic 
     before Congress last summer. ``There are published scientific 
     studies that demonstrate that by the 20th week, many of the 
     neuronal pathways that sense pain have already started to 
     develop,'' he said. ``By the 24th week, the connections of 
     the cortex and the thalamus are well under way. . . . There 
     is no way to argue with impunity that pain reception is not 
     possible.''
       Michael J. Murray, MD, an anesthesiologist at the Mayo 
     Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and president of the Minnesota 
     Medical Assn., agrees.
       In fact, he said, physicians doing fetal surgery inject 
     narcotic fentanyl and muscle relaxants into the umbilical 
     cord to provide pain relief, even though the mother is 
     already anesthetized, ``because what they get from the mom is 
     not enough.'' He added that studies on neonates getting 
     surgery right after birth indicate that those who were given 
     opioids had much better outcomes than those who were just 
     given muscle relaxants.
       The bottom line for many anesthesiologists, regardless of 
     their position on abortion: Women should not be concerned 
     about questionable claims thrown out in the heat of the 
     debate.
       ``Women who need anesthesia for emergency surgery during 
     pregnancy or who request analgesia for labor should take 
     heart that both they and their babies will do just fine,'' 
     Dr. Birnbach said.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following material 
for inclusion in the Record.
                                                   March 27, 1996.

    The Smith-Dole Senate Amendment Protects the Life of the Mother

       Dear Colleague: This is in response to a March 26 ``Dear 
     Colleague'' from Reps. Nita Lowey and Nancy Johnson, which 
     ran under the very misleading headline, ``The Dole Amendment 
     Endangers Women's Lives.''
       As initially passed by the House on Nov. 1, 1995--with 288 
     votes--HR 1833 contained an ``affirmative defense'' provision 
     that protected a doctor if he showed that he ``reasonable 
     believed'' that a partial-birth abortion procedure was 
     necessary to save a mother's life. These sorts of 
     ``affirmative defense'' exceptions are found in literally 
     dozens of federal criminal statutes. However, opponents of HR 
     1833 distorted the legal effect of the ``affirmative 
     defense'' mechanism. Therefore, the prime sponsor of the 
     Senate bill, Sen. Bob Smith (who for some curious reason is 
     not mentioned in the Lowey-Johnson letter) and Sen. Dole 
     offered an amendment that says the ban ``shall not apply to a 
     partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of 
     a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, 
     illness, or injury: Provided, That no other medical procedure 
     would suffice for that purpose.''
       Senator Barbara Boxer--the leading Senate opponent of HR 
     1833--immediately endorsed the Smith-Dole Amendment, which 
     was adopted 98-0. Here is what Senator Boxer said on the 
     floor of the Senate: ``And now here we have it. Here we have 
     it, an exception now for life of the mother. I think that is 
     progress. I think that is progress, because when we started, 
     there was no exception. It was an affirmative defense.'' 
     [Congressional Record, Dec. 5, 1995, p. S 18005]
       Moreover, in a Jan. 31 letter to Cardinal Anthony 
     Bevilacqua of Philadelphia, President Clinton himself 
     recognized that the Senate had added a life-of-mother 
     exception (but the President continues to demand the addition 
     of the gutting ``health exception'' endorsed by the National 
     Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.)
       Reps. Lowey and Johnson write, ``It is unclear whether 
     pregnancy would legally constitute a physical disorder.'' A 
     normal pregnancy does not constitute a life-threatening 
     condition--but in those rare cases in which a ``physical 
     disorder, illness, or injury'' causes the pregnancy to 
     threaten a mother's life, the Senate exception obviously 
     applies. With respect, our colleagues' reading of the Senate 
     language is absurdly convoluted, and violates standard 
     principles of statutory construction.
       As to our colleagues' other objections: let's keep in mind 
     that a partial-birth abortion involves the almost complete 
     delivery of a living baby, who is then killed. Now, if the 
     entire baby has been delivered alive, except for the head, 
     supposedly without jeopardy to the mother, why can't the 
     doctor simply deliver the head as well, without killing the 
     baby?
       When the American Medical News put essentially that very 
     question to Dr. Martin Haskell (who has done over 1,000 
     partial-birth abortions) in a tape-recorded interview, Dr. 
     Haskell's answer was both candid and chilling: ``The point 
     here is you're attempting to do an abortion . . . not to see 
     how do I manipulate the situation so that I get a live birth 
     instead,'' he said.
       (There are rare cases in which a baby suffers from such 
     severe hydrocephaly--head enlargement caused by excess fluid 
     in the skull--so that without intervention, both vaginal 
     delivery and a Caesarian could pose risks to the mother. In 
     those cases, according to Prof. Watson Bowes, a nationally 
     eminent authority on fetal and maternal medicine who is co-
     editor of the Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey, the 
     standard treatment is cephalocentesis--removal of excess 
     fluid through a needle. ``Fluid is then withdrawn which 
     results in reduction of the size in the head so that delivery 
     can occur,'' wrote Prof. Bowes. ``This procedure is not 
     intended to kill the fetus, and, in fact, is usually 
     associated with the birth of a live infant.'')
       Attempts by HR 1833 opponents to ``revive'' the life-of-
     mother issue are merely another reflection of their refusal 
     to come to grips

[[Page H2919]]

     with the uncomfortable fact--which is amply documented in the 
     writings and validated statements of partial-birth abortion 
     practitioners--that the overwhelming majority of partial-
     birth abortions have nothing whatever to do with life-
     threatening complications of pregnancy, but are (in the words 
     of Dr. Martin Haskell) ``purely elective.''
           Sincerely,
                                                    Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____


   ``Fetal Death'' or Dangerous Deception? The Effects of Anesthesia 
                    During a Partial-Birth Abortion

       The claim that anesthesia given to a pregnant woman kills 
     her fetus/baby before a partial-birth abortion is performed 
     has ``absolutely no basis in scientific fact,'' according to 
     Dr. Norig Ellison, the president of the American Society of 
     Anesthesiologists. It is ``crazy,'' says Dr. David Birnbach, 
     the president-elect of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia 
     and Perinatology.
       Despite such authoritative statements, this medical 
     misinformation is still being disseminated. Here are a few 
     examples:

                           Abortion Advocates


  kate michelman of the national abortion rights action league (naral)

       One of the leading proponents of the ``anesthesia myth'' is 
     Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion Rights 
     Action League (NARAL). For example, in an interview on 
     ``Newsmakers,'' KMOX-AM in St. Louis on Nov. 2, 1995, Ms. 
     Michelman said: The other side grossly distorted the 
     procedure. There is no such thing as a ``partial-birth.'' 
     That's, that's a term made up by people like these anti-
     choice folks that you had on the radio. The fetus--I mean, it 
     is a termination of the fetal life, there's no question about 
     that. And the fetus, is, before the procedure begins, the 
     anesthesia that they give the woman already causes the demise 
     of the fetus. That is, it is not true that they're born 
     partially. That is a gross distortion, and it's really a 
     disservice to the public to say this.


                dr. mary campbell of planned parenthood

       Prior to the November 1, 1995, House vote on the bill, 
     Planned Parenthood circulated to lawmakers a ``fact sheet'' 
     titled, ``H.R. 1833, Medical Questions and Answers,'' which 
     includes this statement:
       ``Q: When does the fetus die?
       ``A: The fetus dies of an overdose of anesthesia given to 
     the mother intravenously. A dose is calculated for the 
     mother's weight which is 50 to 100 times the weight of the 
     fetus. The mother gets the anesthesia for each insertion of 
     the dilators, twice a day. This induces brain death in a 
     fetus in a matter of minutes. Fetal demise therefore occurs 
     at the beginning of the procedure while the fetus is still in 
     the womb.''


                        the new york daily news

       The fetus is partially removed from the womb, its head 
     collapsed and brain suctioned out so it will fit through the 
     birth canal. The anesthesia given to the woman kills the 
     fetus before the full procedure takes place. But you won't 
     hear that from the anti-abortion extreme. It would have 
     everybody believe the fetus is dragged alive from the womb of 
     a woman just weeks away from birth. Not true. (Editorial, 
     Dec. 15, 1995)


                               usa today

       ``The fetus dies from an overdose of anesthesia given to 
     its mother.'' (Editorial, Nov. 3, 1995)


                      the st. louis post-dispatch

       ``The fetus usually dies from the anesthesia administered 
     to the mother before the procedure begins.'' (News story, 
     Nov. 3, 1995)


                   syndicated columnist ellen goodman

       Syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman wrote in mid-November 
     that, if one relied on statements by supporters of the bill, 
     ``You wouldn't even know that anesthesia ends the life of 
     such a fetus before it comes down the birth canal.''

                               The Truth

       ``Medical experts contend the claim is scientifically 
     unsound and irresponsible, unnecessarily worrying pregnant 
     women who need anesthesia.'' (American Medical News, January 
     1, 1996)
       ``[A]nesthesia does not kill an infant if you don't kill 
     the mother.'' (Dr. David Birnbach quoted in American Medical 
     News, January 1, 1996)
       ``I am deeply concerned, moreover, that widespread 
     publicity . . . may cause pregnant women to delay necessary 
     and perhaps life-saving medical procedures, totally unrelated 
     to the birthing process, due to misinformation regarding the 
     effect of anesthetics on the fetus.'' (Dr. Norig Ellison, 
     Nov. 17, 1995, testimony before Senate Judiciary Committee)
       ``Drugs administered to the mother, either local anesthesia 
     administered in the paracervical area or sedatives/analgesics 
     administered intramuscularly or intravenously, will provide 
     no-to-little analgesia [relief from pain] to the fetus.'' 
     (Dr. Norig Ellison, November 22, 1995, letter to Senate 
     Judiciary Committee)
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following material for 
inclusion in the Record:

                                            American Medical News,


                                         Published by the AMA,

                                       Chicago, IL, July 11, 1995.
     Hon. Charles T. Canady,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the 
         Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House 
         Office Bldg., Washington, DC
       Dear Representative Canady: We have received your July 7 
     letter outlining allegations of inaccuracies in a July 5, 
     1993, story in American Medical News, ``Shock-tactic ads 
     target late-term abortion procedure.''
       You noted that in public testimony before your committee, 
     AMNews is alleged to have quoted physicians out of context. 
     You also noted that one such physician submitted testimony 
     contending that AMNews misrepresented his statements. We 
     appreciate your offer of the opportunity to respond to these 
     accusations, which now are part of the permanent subcommittee 
     record.
       AMNews stands behind the accuracy of the report cited in 
     the testimony. The report was complete, fair, and balanced. 
     The comments and positions expressed by those interviewed and 
     quoted were reported accurately and in context. The report 
     was based on extensive research and interviews with experts 
     on both sides of the abortion debate, including interviews 
     with two physicians who perform the procedure in questions.
       We have full documentation of these interviews, including 
     tape recordings and transcripts. Enclosed is a transcript of 
     the contested quotes that relate to the allegations of 
     inaccuracies made against AMNews.
       Let me also note that in the two years since publication of 
     our story, neither the organization nor the physician who 
     complained about the report in testimony to your committee 
     has contacted the reporter or any editor at AMNews to 
     complain about it. AMNews has a longstanding reputation for 
     balance, fairness and accuracy in reporting, including 
     reporting on abortion, an issue that is as divisive within 
     medicine as it is within society in general. We believe that 
     the story in question comports entirely with that reputation.
       Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to clarify 
     this matter.
           Respectfully yours,
                                                   Barbara Bolsen,
                                                           Editor.
       Attachment.
                                  ____


                    American Medical News Transcript

       Relevant portions of recorded interview with Martin 
     Haskell, M.D.
       AMN. Let's talk first about whether or not the fetus is 
     dead beforehand . . .
       Haskell. No it's not. No, it's really not. A percentage are 
     for various numbers of reasons. Some just because of the 
     stress--intrauterine stress during, you know, the two days 
     that the cervix is being dilated. Sometimes the membranes 
     rupture and it takes a very small superficial infection to 
     kill a fetus in utero when the membranes are broken. And so 
     in my case, I would think probably about a third of those are 
     definitely are (sic) dead before I actually start to remove 
     the fetus. And probably the other two-thirds are not.
       AMN. Is the skull procedure also done to make sure that the 
     fetus is dead so you're not going to have the problem of a 
     live birth?
       Haskell. It's immaterial. If you can't get it out, you 
     can't get it out.
       AMN. I mean, you couldn't dilate further? Or is that 
     riskier?
       Haskell. Well, you could dilate further over a period of 
     days.
       AMN. would that just make it . . . would it go from a 3-day 
     procedure to a 4- or a 5-?
       Haskell. Exactly. The point here is to effect a safe legal 
     abortion. I mean, you could say the same thing about the D&E 
     procedure. You know, why do you do the D&E procedure? Why do 
     you crush the fetus up inside the womb? To kill it before you 
     take it out?
       Well, that happens, yes. But that's not why you do it. YOu 
     do it to get it out. I could do the same thing with a D&E 
     procedure. I could put dilapan in for four or five days and 
     say I'm doing a D&E procedure and the fetus could just fall 
     out. But that's not really the point. The point here is 
     you're attempting to do an abortion. And that's the goal of 
     your work, is to complete an abortion. Not to see how do I 
     manipulate the situation so that I get a live birth instead.
       AMN, wrapping up the interview. I wanted to make sure I 
     have both you and (Dr.) McMahon saying `No' then. That this 
     is misinformation, these letters to the editor saying it's 
     only done when the baby's already dead, in case of fetal 
     demise and you have to do an autopsy. But some of them are 
     saying they're getting that information from NAF. Have you 
     talked to Barbara Radford or anyone over there? I called 
     Barbara and she called back, but I haven't gotten back to 
     her.
       Haskell. Well, I had heard that they were giving that 
     information, somebody over there might be giving information 
     like that out. The people that staff the NAF office are not 
     medical people. And many of them when I gave my paper, many 
     of them came in, I learned later, to watch my paper because 
     many of them have never seen an abortion performed of any 
     kind.
       AMN. Did you also show a video when you did that?
       Haskell. Yeah. I taped a procedure a couple of years ago, a 
     very brief video, that simply showed the technique. The old 
     story about a picture's worth a thousand words.
       AMN. As National Right to Life will tell you.
       Haskell. Afterwards they were just amazed. They just had no 
     idea. And here they're rabid supporters of abortion. They 
     work in the office there. And . . . some of them have never 
     seen one performed . . .
       Comments on elective vs. non-elective abortions:
       Haskell. And I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are 
     elective in that 20-24 week range . . . In my particular 
     case, probably

[[Page H2920]]

     20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely 
     elective.
                                                                    ____


             [From the American Medical News, July 5, 1993]

          Shock-Tactic Ads Target Late-Term Abortion Procedure


    foes hope campaign will sink federal abortion rights legislation

                         (By Diana M. Gianelli)

       Washington.--In an attempt to derail an abortion-rights 
     bill maneuvering toward a congressional showdown, opponents 
     have launched a full-scale campaign against late-term 
     abortions.
       The centerpieces of the effort are newspaper advertisements 
     and brochures that graphically illustrate a technique used in 
     some second- and third-trimester abortions. A handful of 
     newspapers have run the ads so far, and the National Right to 
     Life Committee has distributed 4 million of the brochures, 
     which were inserted into about a dozen other papers.
       By depicting a procedure expected to make most readers 
     squeamish, campaign sponsors hope to convince voters and 
     elected officials that a proposed federal abortion-rights 
     bill is so extreme that states would have no authority to 
     limit abortions--even on potentially viable fetuses.
       According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research 
     group affiliated with Planned Parenthood, about 10% of the 
     estimated 1.6 million abortions done each year are in the 
     second and third trimesters.
       Barbara Radford of the National Abortion Federation 
     denounced the ad campaign as disingenuous, saying its ``real 
     agenda is to outlaw virtually all abortions, not just late-
     term ones.'' But she acknowledged it is having an impact, 
     reporting scores of calls from congressional staffers and 
     others who have seen the ads and brochures and are asking 
     pointed questions about the procedure depicted.
       The Minneapolis Star-Tribune ran the ad May 12, on its op-
     ed page. The anti-abortion group Minnesota Citizens Concerned 
     for Life paid for it.
       In a series of drawings, the ad illustrates a procedure 
     called ``dilation and extraction,'' or D&X, in which forceps 
     are used to remove second- and third-trimester fetuses from 
     the uterus intact, with only the head remaining inside the 
     uterus.
       The surgeon is then shown jamming scissors into the skull. 
     The ad says this is done to create an opening large enough to 
     insert a catheter that suctions the brain, while at the same 
     time making the skull small enough to pull through the 
     cervix.
       ``Do these drawings shock you?'' the ad reads. ``We're 
     sorry, but we think you should know the truth.''
       The ad quotes Martin Haskell, MD, who described the 
     procedure at a September 1992 abortion-federation meeting, as 
     saying he personally has performed 700 of them. It then 
     states that the proposed ``Freedom of Choice Act'' now moving 
     through Congress would ``protect the practice of abortion at 
     all stages and would lead to an increase in the use of this 
     grisly procedure.''


                          accuracy questioned

       Some abortion-rights advocates have questioned the ad's 
     accuracy.
       A letter to the Star-Tribune said the procedure shown ``is 
     only performed after fetal death when an autopsy is necessary 
     or to save the life of the mother.'' And the Morrisville, 
     Vt., Transcript, which said in an editorial that it allowed 
     the brochure to be inserted in its paper only because it 
     feared legal action if it refused, quoted the abortion 
     federation as providing similar information. ``The fetus is 
     dead 24 hours before the pictured procedure is undertaken,'' 
     the editorial stated.
       But Dr. Haskell and another doctor who routinely use the 
     procedure for late-term abortions told AMNews that the 
     majority of fetuses aborted this way are alive until the end 
     of the procedure.
       Dr. Haskell said the drawing were accurate ``from a 
     technical point of view.'' But he took issue with the 
     implication that the fetuses were ``aware and resisting.''
       Radford also acknowledged that the information her group 
     was quoted as providing was inaccurate. She has since sent a 
     letter to federation members, outlining guidelines for 
     discussing the matter. Among the points:
       Don't apologize; this is a legal procedure.
       No abortion method is acceptable to abortion opponents.
       The language and graphics in the ads are disturbing to some 
     readers. ``Much of the negative reaction, however, is the 
     same reaction that might be invoked if one were to listen to 
     a surgeon describing step-by-step almost any other surgical 
     procedure involving blood, human tissue, etc.''


                       Late-abortion specialists

       Only Dr. Haskell, James T. McMahon, MD, of Los Angeles, and 
     a handful of other doctors perform the D&X procedure, which 
     Dr. McMahon refers to as ``intact D&E.'' The more common 
     late-term abortion methods are the classic D&E and induction, 
     which usually involves injecting digoxin or another substance 
     into the fetal heart to kill it, then dilating the cervix and 
     inducing labor.
       Dr. Haskell, who owns abortion clinics in Cincinnati and 
     Dayton, said he started performing D&Es for late abortions 
     out of necessity. Local hospitals did not allow inductions 
     past 18 weeks, and he had no place to keep patients overnight 
     while doing the procedure.
       But the classic D&E, in which the fetus is broken apart 
     inside the womb, carries the risk of perforation, tearing and 
     hemorrhaging, he said. So he turned to the D&X, which he says 
     is far less risky to the mother.
       Dr. McMahon acknowledged that the procedure he, Dr. Haskell 
     and a handful of other doctors use makes some people queasy. 
     But he defends it. ``Once you decide the uterus must be 
     emptied, you then have to have 100% allegiance to maternal 
     risk. There's no justification to doing a more dangerous 
     procedure because somehow this doesn't offend your 
     sensibilities as much.''


                        brochure cites n.y. case

       The four-page anti-abortion brochures also include a 
     graphic depiction of the D&X procedure. But the cover 
     features a photograph of 16-month-old Ana Rosa Rodriquez, 
     whose right arm was severed during an abortion attempt when 
     her mother was 7 months pregnant.
       The child was born two days later, at 32 to 34 weeks' 
     gestation. Abu Hayat, MD, of New York, was convicted of 
     assault and performing an illegal abortion. He was sentenced 
     to up to 29 years in prison for this and another related 
     offense.
       New York law bans abortions after 24 weeks, except to save 
     the mother's life. The brochure states that Dr. Hayat never 
     would have been prosecuted if the federal ``Freedom of Choice 
     Act'' were in effect, because the act would invalidate the 
     New York statute.
       The proposed law would allow abortion for any reason until 
     viability. But it would leave it up to individual 
     practitioners--not the state--to define that point. 
     Postviability abortions, however, could not be restricted if 
     done to save a woman's life or health, including emotional 
     health.
       The abortion federation's Radford called the Hayat case 
     ``an aberration'' and stressed that the vast majority of 
     abortions occur within the first trimester. She also said 
     that later abortions usually are done for reasons of fetal 
     abnormality or maternal health.
       But Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee 
     called that suggestion ``blatantly false.''
       ``The abortion practitioners themselves will admit the 
     majority of their late-term abortions are elective,'' he 
     said. ``People like Dr. Haskell are just trying to teach 
     others how to do it more efficiently.''


                              numbers game

       Accurate figures on second- and third-trimester abortions 
     are elusive because a number of states don't require doctors 
     to report abortion statistics. For example, one-third of all 
     abortions are said to occur in California, but the state has 
     no reporting requirements. The Guttmacher Institute estimates 
     there were nearly 168,000 second- and third-trimester 
     abortions in 1988, the last year for which figures are 
     available.
       About 60,000 of those occurred in the 16- to 20-week 
     period, with 10,660 at week 21 and beyond, the institute 
     says. Estimates were based on actual gestational age, as 
     opposed to last menstrual period.
       There is particular debate over the number of third-
     trimester abortions. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, 
     MD, estimated in 1984 that 4,000 are performed annually. The 
     abortion federation puts the number at 300 to 500. Dr. 
     Haskell says that ``probably Koop's numbers are more 
     correct.''
       Dr. Haskell said he performs abortions ``up until about 25 
     weeks' ``gestation, most of them elective. Dr. McMahon does 
     abortions through all 40 weeks of pregnancy, but said he 
     won't do an elective procedure after 26 weeks. About 80% of 
     those he does after 21 weeks are nonelective, he said.


                             mixed feelings

       Dr. McMahon admits having mixed feelings about the 
     procedure in which he has chosen to specialize.
       ``I have two positions that may be internally inconsistent, 
     and that's probably why I fight with this all the time,'' he 
     said.
       ``I do have moral compunctions. And if I see a case that's 
     later, like after 20 weeks where it frankly is a child to me, 
     I really agonize over it because the potential is so 
     imminently there. I think, `Gee, it's too bad that this child 
     couldn't be adopted.'
       ``On the other hand, I have another position, which I think 
     is superior in the hierarchy of questions, and that is: `Who 
     owns the child?' It's got to be the mother.''
       Dr. McMahon says he doesn't want to ``hold patients hostage 
     to my technical skill. I can say, `No, I won't do that,' and 
     then they're stuck with either some criminal solution or some 
     other desperate maneuver.''
       Dr. Haskell, however, says whatever qualms he has about 
     third-trimester abortions are ``only for technical reasons, 
     not for emotional reasons of fetal development.''
       ``I think it's important to distinguish the two,'' he says, 
     adding that his cutoff point is within the viability 
     threshold noted in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision 
     that legalized abortion. The decision said that point usually 
     occurred at 28 weeks ``but may occur earlier, even at 24 
     weeks.''
       Viability is generally accepted to be ``somewhere between 
     25 and 26 weeks,'' said Dr. Haskell. ``It just depends on who 
     you talk to.
       ``We don't have a viability law in Ohio. In New York they 
     have a 24-week limitation. That's how Dr. Hayat got in 
     trouble. If somebody tells me I have to use 22 weeks, that's 
     fine . . . . I'm not a trailblazer or activist trying to 
     constantly press the limits.''


                       campaign's impact debated

       Whether the ad and brochures will have the full impact 
     abortion opponents intend is yet to be seen.

[[Page H2921]]

       Congress has yet to schedule a final showdown on the bill. 
     Although it has already passed through the necessary 
     committees, supporters are reluctant to move it for a full 
     House and Senate vote until they are sure they can win.
       In fact, House Speaker Tom Foley (D, Wash.) has said he 
     wants to bring the bill for a vote under a ``closed rule'' 
     procedure, which would prohibit consideration of amendments.
       But opponents are lobbying heavily against Foley's plan. 
     Among the amendments they wish to offer is one that would 
     allow, but not require, states to restrict abortion--except 
     to save the mother's life--after 24 weeks.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following material 
for inclusion in the Record:

           Partial-Birth Abortions: Behind the Misinformation

        (By Douglas Johnson, NRLC Federal Legislative Director)

       Note: The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833) has been 
     approved in slightly different versions by the U.S. House of 
     Representatives (Nov. 1, 1995, on a vote of 288-139) and by 
     the U.S. Senate (Dec. 7, 1995, on a vote of 54-44). It is 
     expected that the House will approve the Senate-passed bill 
     on March 27 and send it to President Clinton soon thereafter. 
     President Clinton will veto the bill because ``the President 
     shares the view of many that it would represent an erosion of 
     a woman's right to choose,'' White House Press Secretary Mike 
     McCurry said on December 20, 1995.
       Opponents of the bill have disseminated an extraordinary 
     amount of misinformation regarding the partial-birth abortion 
     procedure and the legislation--much of it starkly 
     contradicted by the past writings and recorded statements of 
     doctors who have performed thousands of partial-birth 
     abortions. Some of this misinformation has been adopted and 
     widely disseminated by some journalists, columnists, 
     editorialists, and lawmakers. This factsheet addresses some 
     of these issues.


         What is the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833)?

       The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833) would place a 
     national ban on use of the partial-birth abortion procedure, 
     except in cases (if there are any) in which the procedure is 
     necessary to save the life of a mother.
       The bill specifically defines a ``partial-birth abortion'' 
     as ``an abortion in which the person performing the abortion 
     partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing 
     the fetus and completing the delivery.'' [emphasis added] 
     Abortionists who violate the law would be subject to both 
     criminal and civil penalties, but no penalty could be applied 
     to the woman who obtained such an abortion.
       The bill is aimed at a procedure that has often been 
     utilized by Dr. Martin Haskell of Dayton, Ohio; by the late 
     Dr. James McMahon of Los Angeles; and by others. This 
     procedure is generally used beginning at 20 weeks (4\1/2\ 
     months) into the pregnancy, is ``routinely'' used to 5\1/2\ 
     months, and has often been used even during the final three 
     months of pregnancy.
       The Los Angeles Times accurately and succinctly described 
     this abortion method in a June 16, 1995 news story:
       The procedure requires a physician to extract a fetus, feet 
     first, from the womb and through the birth canal until all 
     but its head is exposed. Then the tips of surgical scissors 
     are thrust into the base of the fetus' skull, and a suction 
     catheter is inserted through the opening and the brain is 
     removed.
       In 1992, Dr. Haskell wrote a paper (``Dilation and 
     Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion'') that 
     described in detail, step-by-step, how to perform the 
     procedure. Anyone who is seriously seeking the truth behind 
     the conflicting claims regarding partial-birth abortions 
     would do well to start by reading Dr. Haskell's paper, and 
     the transcripts of the explanatory interviews that Dr. 
     Haskell gave in 1993 to the publications American Medical 
     News (the official AMA newspaper) and Cincinnati Medicine.
       Regarding the procedure, Dr. Haskell wrote, ``Among its 
     advantages are that it is a quick, surgical outpatient method 
     that can be performed on a scheduled basis under local 
     anesthesia.'' (p. 33). Dr. Haskell also wrote that he 
     ``routinely performs this procedure on all patients 20 
     through 24 weeks LMP [i.e., from last menstrual period] with 
     certain exceptions'' [i.e., from 4\1/2\ to 5\1/2\ months], 
     these ``exceptions'' involving complicating factors such as 
     being more than 20 pounds overweight.
       Dr. Haskell also wrote that he used the procedure through 
     26 weeks [six months] ``on selected patients.'' [p.28]
       Dr. James McMahon used essentially the same procedure to a 
     much later point--even into the ninth month. (Dr. McMahon 
     died of cancer on Oct. 28, 1995.)
       In a letter to Congressman Charles Canady dated March 19, 
     1996, Dr. William Rashbaum of New York City wrote that he has 
     performed the procedure ``routinely since 1979. This 
     procedure is performed only in cases of later gestational 
     age.''


    does the bill contain an exception for life-of-the-mother cases?

       As originally passed by the House on November 1, 1995, HR 
     1833 contained an ``affirmative defense'' provision, which 
     would have shielded an abortionist from civil and criminal 
     liability if he showed that he had ``reasonably believed'' 
     that utilization of the partial-birth abortion procedure was 
     necessary to save the life of a mother.
       Similar ``affirmative defense'' exceptions are found in 
     literally dozens of federal criminal laws. Nevertheless, 
     after bill opponents distorted this provision, NRLC endorsed 
     and the Senate unanimously adopted the Smith-Dole Amendment, 
     which provides that the ban ``shall not apply to a partial-
     birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother 
     whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or 
     injury.''
       Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.), the lead Senate opponent of 
     the HR 1833, immediately endorsed the Smith-Dole Amendment, 
     saying:
       And now here we have it. Here we have it, an exception now 
     for life of the mother. I think that is progress, because 
     when we started there was no exception. It was an affirmative 
     defense. [Congressional Record, Dec. 5, 1995, p. S 18005]
       Under the Smith-Dole Amendment, an abortionist could not be 
     convicted of a violation of the law unless the government 
     proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the abortion was not 
     covered by this exception. (In addition, of course, the 
     government would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, 
     all of the other elements of the offense--that the 
     abortionist ``knowingly'' partly removed a baby from the 
     womb, that the baby was still alive, and that the abortionist 
     then killed the baby.)
       In a Jan. 31 letter to Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua of 
     Philadelphia, President Clinton acknowledged that the Senate 
     had added a life-of-mother exception.


    what further changes does president clinton demand in the bill?

       In a February 28, 1996 letter to certain Members of 
     Congress, the President insisted that abortionists must be 
     permitted to use the procedure, not only to save a mother's 
     life, but also whenever they assert that the procedure is 
     necessary to prevent unspecified ``serious health 
     consequences.''
       The President's letter proposed precisely the language of 
     an amendment offered on the Senate floor by Sen. Barbara 
     Boxer (D-Ca.), which was endorsed by the National Abortion 
     and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) as a ``pro-
     choice vote.''
       NARAL and other pro-abortion advocacy groups clearly 
     recognized that the Boxer Amendment amounted to a re-
     statement of the status quo. After the Boxer Amendment was 
     defeated by only a two-vote margin (51 to 47), a spokeswoman 
     for the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute said, ``We 
     were almost able to kill the bill.'' (Congressional Quarterly 
     Weekly Report, Dec. 9, 1995, page 3738)
       President Clinton--a Yale Law School graduate who once 
     taught constitutional law--understands very well that with 
     respect to abortion, ``health'' is a legal term of art. In 
     Doe v. Bolton (the companion case to Roe v. Wade), the 
     Supreme Court defined ``health'' (in the abortion context) to 
     include ``all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, 
     familial, and the woman's age--relevant to the well-being of 
     the patient.''
       Thus, the Boxer Amendment (demanded by President Clinton) 
     would allow abortionists to continue to perform partial-birth 
     abortions, even during the seventh, eighth, and ninth months, 
     for reasons such as ``depression.'' This is not a far-fetched 
     hypothetical, as discussed below under ``For What Reasons Are 
     Partial-Birth Abortions Usually Performed?''
       Senator Boxer has added the word ``serious'' before 
     ``health,'' for optical effect, but adding the word does not 
     legally narrow the scope of ``health,'' since the amendment 
     confers on the abortionist himself the unlimited power to 
     define whether the ``depression'' or other ``health'' concern 
     is ``serious.'' No partial-birth abortion would ever be 
     blocked by the law, because the Boxer Amendment confers on 
     the abortionist absolute authority to decide what the law 
     means (``in the medical judgment of the attending 
     physician'').
       Thus, a ``life'' exception and a ``health'' exception are 
     two vastly different things. For example: Prior to enactment 
     of the Hyde Amendment in 1976, the federal Medicaid program 
     paid for 300,000 ``health'' or ``medically necessary'' 
     abortions a year; the term was construed to cover any 
     physician-performed abortion. The Hyde Amendment limited 
     reimbursement to ``life'' cases, which have been on the order 
     of 100 to 200 annually. In other words, the ratio of 
     ``health'' cases to ``life'' cases, under Medicaid, was more 
     than 1,000 to 1.


            how many partial-birth abortions are performed?

       Nobody knows. Pro-abortion groups have claimed that 
     ``only'' 450 such procedures are performed every year. But 
     the combined practices of Dr. Martin Haskell and the late Dr. 
     James McMahon alone would have approximated that figure.
       In a letter to Congressman Canady dated March 19, 1996, New 
     York doctor William K. Rashbaum wrote that he has performed 
     the procedure that would be banned by HR 1833 ``routinely 
     since 1979. This procedure is performed only in cases of 
     later gestational age.'' Moreover, The New York Times 
     reported in a Nov. 6, 1995 news story about the bill:
       ``Of course I use it, and I've taught it for the last 10 
     years,'' said a gynecologist at a New York teaching hospital, 
     who spoke on the condition of anonymity. ``So do doctors in 
     other cities.''

[[Page H2922]]

       It is impossible to know how many other abortionists have 
     adopted the procedure, without choosing to write articles or 
     grant interviews on the subject. Both Haskell and McMahon 
     spent years trying to convince other abortionists of the 
     merits of the procedure. That is why Haskell wrote his 1992 
     instructional paper. For years, Mr. McMahon was director of 
     abortion instruction at the Cedar Sinai Medical Center in Los 
     Angeles.
       There are at least 164,000 abortions a year after the first 
     three months of pregnancy, and 13,000 abortions annually 
     after 4\1/2\ months, according to the Alan Guttmacher 
     Institute (New York Times, July 5 and November 6, 1995), 
     which is an arm of Planned Parenthood. These numbers should 
     be regarded as minimums, since they are based on voluntary 
     reporting to the AGI.


   For what reasons are partial-birth abortions typically performed?

       Some opponents of HR 1833, such as NARAL and the Planned 
     Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), have persistently 
     disseminated claimed that the procedure is employed only in 
     cases involving extraordinary threats to the mother of grave 
     fetal disorders. Regrettably, more than a few reporters, 
     commentators, and members of Congress have uncritically 
     embraced such claims and disseminated them as ``facts.''
       For example, PPFA said in a press release that the 
     procedure is ``done only in cases when the woman's life is in 
     danger or in cases of extreme fetal abnormality.'' (Nov. 1, 
     1995) But (as PPFA well knows), this claim is inconsistent 
     with the writings and recorded statements of doctors who have 
     performed thousands of these procedures, or with documents 
     gathered by the House and Senate judiciary committees.
       Dayton abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell, who wrote a paper 
     describing step-by-step how to perform the procedure (he's 
     done over 1,000), described it as ``a quick, surgical 
     outpatient method that can be performed on a scheduled basis 
     under local anesthesia.''
       Dr. Haskell wrote that he ``routinely performs this 
     procedure on all patients 20 through 24 weeks'' (4\1/2\ to 
     5\1/2\ months) pregnant [emphasis added], except on women who 
     are more than 20 pounds overweight, have twins, or have 
     certain other complicating factors.
       In 1993, after NRLC's publicizing of Dr. Haskell's paper 
     engendered considerable controversy, the American Medical 
     News--the official newspaper of the AMA--conducted a tape-
     recorded interview with Dr. Haskell concerning this specific 
     abortion method, in which he said:
       And I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective 
     in that 20-24 week range * * * In my particular case, 
     probably 20% [of this procedure] are for genetic reasons. And 
     the other 80% are purely elective.
       In testimony in a lawsuit in 1995, Dr. Haskell testified 
     that women come to him for partial-birth abortions with ``a 
     variety of conditions. Some medical, some not so medical'' 
     Among the ``medical'' examples he cited was ``agoraphobia'' 
     (fear of open places).
       Moreover, in testimony presented to the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee on November 17, 1995, ob/gyn Dr. Nancy Romer of 
     Dayton (the city in which Dr. Haskell operates one of his 
     abortion clinics) testified that three of her own patients 
     had gone to Haskell's clinic for abortions ``well beyond'' 
     4\1/2\ months into pregnancy, and that ``none of these women 
     had any medical illness, and all three had normal fetuses.''
       Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse who observed Dr. 
     Haskell use the procedure to abort three babies in 1993, 
     testified that one little boy had Down Syndrome, while the 
     other two babies were completely normal and their mothers 
     were healthy. [Nurse Shafer's testimony before the House 
     Judiciary subcommittee, with associated documentation, is 
     available on request to NRLC.]
       Dr. James McMahon voluntarily submitted to the House 
     Judiciary Constitution subcommittee a breakdown of a self-
     selected sample of 175 partial-birth abortions that he 
     performed for what he called ``maternal indications.'' Of 
     these,the largest single category of ``maternal 
     indication''--39 cases, or 22% of the total sample--were for 
     ``depression.'' (Other ``maternal indications'' included 
     ``spousal drug exposure'' and ``substance abuse.'') Dr. 
     McMahon's self-selected sample of ``fetal indications'' cases 
     showed he had performed nine of these procedures for ``cleft 
     plate.'' Even though this data is cited in the official 
     report of the committee, when NARAL President Kate Michelman 
     was asked at a November 7, 1995 press conference about 
     ``arguments . . . that these procedures . . . are given 
     for depression or cleft palate,'' Ms. Michelman responded, 
     ``That is . . . not only a myth, it's a lie.''
       Dr. McMahon also wrote: After 26 weeks [six months], those 
     pregnancies that are not flawed are still nonelective. They 
     are interrupted because of maternal risk, rape, incest, 
     psychiatric or pediatric indications. [Emphasis added.] 
     [``Pediatric indications'' was Dr. McMahon's terminology for 
     young teenagers.]
       Dr. Pamela E. Smith, director of Medical Education, 
     Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, 
     Chicago, gave the Senate Judiciary Committee her analysis of 
     Dr. McMahon's sample of 175 cases in which he said he had 
     used the procedure because of maternal health indications. Of 
     this sample, 39 cases (22%) were for maternal ``depression,'' 
     while another 16% were ``for conditions consistent with the 
     birth of a normal child (e.g., sickle cell trait, prolapsed 
     uterus, small pelvis),'' Dr. Smith noted. She added that in 
     one-third of the cases, the conditions listed as ``maternal 
     indications'' by Dr. McMahon really indicated that the 
     procedure itself would be seriously risky.
       Reporter Karen Tumulty wrote an article about late-term 
     abortions, based in large part on extensive interviews with 
     Dr. McMahon and on direct observation of his practice, which 
     appeared in the Los Angeles Times Magazine (January 7, 1990). 
     She concluded: If there is any other single factor that 
     inflates the number of late abortions, it is youth. Often, 
     teen-agers do not recognize the first signs of pregnancy. 
     Just as frequently, they put off telling anyone as long as 
     they can.
       Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas, specializes in late-
     term abortions, including third-trimester abortions. Dr. 
     Tiller's spokeswoman, Peggy Jarman, told the Kansas City 
     Star: About three-fourths of Tiller's late-term patients, 
     Jarman said, are teenagers who have denied to themselves or 
     their families they were pregnant until it was too late to 
     hide it.
       In 1993, the then-executive director of the National 
     Abortion Federation (NAF) distributed an internal memorandum 
     to the members of that organization which acknowledged that 
     such abortions are performed for ``many reasons'': There are 
     many reasons why women have late abortions: life 
     endangerment, fetal indications, lack of money or health 
     insurance, social-psychological crises, lack of knowledge 
     about human reproduction, etc.''
       Likewise, a June 12, 1995, letter from NAF to members of 
     the House of Representatives noted that late abortions are 
     sought by, among others, ``very young teenagers . . . who 
     have not recognized the signs of their pregnancies until too 
     late,'' and by ``women in poverty, who have tried desperately 
     to act responsibly and to end an unplanned pregnancy in the 
     early stages, only to face insurmountable financial 
     barriers.''
       It is true, of course, that some partial-birth abortions 
     involve babies who have grave disorders that will result in 
     death soon after birth. But these unfortunate members of the 
     human family deserve compassion and the best comfort-care 
     that medical science can offer--not a scissors in the back of 
     the head. In some such situations there are good medical 
     reasons to deliver such a child early, after which natural 
     death will follow quickly.


 is a partial-birth abortion ever the only way to preserve a mother's 
                            physical health?

       Dr. Pamela E. Smith, Director of Medical Education, 
     Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, 
     Chicago, testified, ``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.''
       Dr. Harlan R. Giles, a professor of ``high-risk'' 
     obstetrics and perinatology at the Medical College of 
     Pennsylvania, performs abortions by a variety of procedures 
     up until ``viability.'' In sworn testimony in the U.S. 
     Federal District Court for the Southern District of Ohio 
     (Nov. 13, 1995), Prof. Giles said:
       After 23 weeks I do not think there are any maternal 
     conditions that I'm aware of that mandate ending the 
     pregnancy that also require that the fetus be dead or that 
     the fetal life be terminated. In my experience for 20 years, 
     one can deliver these fetuses either vaginally, or by 
     Caesarean section for that matter, depending on the choice of 
     the parents with informed consent . . . But there's no reason 
     these fetuses cannot be delivered intact vaginally after a 
     miniature labor, if you will, and be at least assessed at 
     birth and given the benefit of the doubt. [transcript, page 
     240]
       Opponents of H.R. 1833 have publicized the cases of several 
     women whose babies suffered from severe hydrocephalus 
     (enlargement of the head). But an eminent authority on such 
     matters, Dr. Watson A. Bowes, Jr., professor of ob/gyn 
     (maternal and fetal medicine) at the University of North 
     Carolina, who is co-editor of the Obstetrical and 
     Gynecological Survey, wrote to Congressman Canady:
       Critics of your bill who say that this legislation will 
     prevent doctors from performing certain procedures which are 
     standard of care, such as cephalocentesis (removal of fluid 
     from the enlarged head of a fetus with the most severe form 
     of hydrocephalus) are mistaken. In such a procedure a needle 
     is inserted with ultrasound guidance through the mother's 
     abdomen into the uterus and then into the enlarged ventricle 
     of the brain (the space containing cerebrospinal fluid). 
     Fluid is then withdrawn which results in reduction of the 
     size in the head so that delivery can occur. This procedure 
     is not intended to kill the fetus, and, in fact, is usually 
     associated with the birth of a live infant.


     is the baby alive when she is pulled feet-first from the womb?

       Yes, in most cases the baby is alive until the end of the 
     procedure. American Medical News reported in 1993, after 
     conducting interviews with Drs. Haskell and McMahon, that the 
     doctors ``told AM News that the majority of fetuses aborted 
     this way are alive until the end of the procedure.'' On July 
     11, 1995, American Medical News submitted the transcript of 
     the tape-recorded interview with Haskell to the House 
     Judiciary Committee. The transcript contains the following 
     exchange:
       American Medical News: Let's talk first about whether or 
     not the fetus is dead beforehand.

[[Page H2923]]

       Dr. Haskell: No it's not. No, it's really not. A percentage 
     are for various numbers of reasons. Some just because of the 
     stress--intrauterine stress during, you know, the two days 
     that the cervix is being dilated [to permit extraction of the 
     fetus]. Sometimes the membranes rupture and it takes a very 
     small superficial infection to kill a fetus in utero when the 
     membranes are broken. And so in my case, I would think 
     probably about a third of those are definitely are [sic] dead 
     before I actually start to remove the fetus. And probably the 
     other two-thirds are not.
       In an interview quoted in the Dec. 10, 1989 Dayton News, 
     Dr. Haskell again conveyed that the scissors thrust is 
     usually the lethal act: ``When I do the instrumentation on 
     the skull . . . it destroys the brain tissue sufficiently so 
     that even if it (the Fetus) falls out at that point, it's 
     definitely not alive,'' Dr. Haskell said.


 Does anesthesia given to the mother kill the baby? Does the baby feel 
                       pain during the procedure?

       In Dr. Haskell's 1992 instructional paper, he lists among 
     the ``advantages'' of the procedure that ``it is a quick, 
     surgical outpatient method that can be performed on a 
     scheduled basis under local anesthesia.'' [emphasis added] 
     According to Prof. David H. Chestnut, editor of Obstetric 
     Anesthesia: Principles and Practice, ``Rational use of local 
     anesthetic drugs does not affect the fetus.'' (Testimony to 
     House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee, March 21, 1996).
       Dr. James McMahon utilized general anesthesia, at least in 
     some cases, but anesthesiologists say that these drugs do not 
     harm the fetus/baby unless given in amounts that would kill 
     the mother or place her in grave danger. (See below.)
       Nevertheless, many critics of the bill have insisted that 
     the unborn babies are killed by anesthesia given to the 
     mother, prior to being ``extracted'' from the womb. For 
     example, syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman wrote in November 
     that, based on her review of statements by supporters of the 
     bill, ``You wouldn't even know that anesthesia ends the life 
     of such a fetus before it comes down the birth canal.''
       The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) has 
     been among the most persistent purveyors of this mythology. 
     Another leading proponent of the ``anesthesia myth'' has been 
     Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and 
     Reproductive Rights Act League (NARAL). For example, in an 
     interview on ``Newsmakers,'' KMOX-AM in St. Louis on Nov. 2, 
     1995, Ms. Michelman explained that she thinks it is wrong to 
     call the procedure a ``partial birth'' because (she claimed) 
     the baby is already dead. Kate Michelman's verbatim statement 
     follows:
       The other side grossly distorted the procedure. There is no 
     such thing as a `partial birth'. That's, that's a term made 
     up by people like these anti-choice folks that you had on the 
     radio. The fetus-- I mean, it is a termination of the fetal 
     life, there's no question about that. And the fetus, is, 
     before, the procedure begins, the anesthesia that they give 
     the woman already causes the demise of the fetus. That is, it 
     is not true that they're born partially. That is a gross 
     distortion, and it's really a disservice to the public to say 
     this.
       However, the claim that anesthesia can kill an unborn fetus 
     has been emphatically refuted in congressional testimony by 
     the heads of the leading professional societies of 
     anesthesiologists. These exports have criticized both pro-
     abortion leaders and certain journalists and commentators, 
     for disseminating these bogus claims, while failing to 
     publicize the authoritative statements of experts that these 
     claims are entirely bogus.
       In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on 
     November 17, 1995, Dr. Norig Ellison, president of the 
     34,000-member American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), 
     said that such claims have ``absolutely no basis in 
     scientific fact.'' On behalf of the ASA, Dr. Ellison 
     testified that regional anesthesia (used in many partial-
     birth abortions and most normal deliveries) has virtually no 
     effect on the fetus. General anesthesia has some sedating 
     effect on the fetus, but much less than on the mother; even 
     pain relief for the fetus is doubtful, and certainly 
     anesthesia would not kill the baby, Dr. Ellison testified. 
     (In March 1996, Dr. Ellison said that his testimony had been 
     reported in the medical press and that not one 
     anesthesiologist had contacted ASA to express any 
     disagreement.)
       In testimony before the House Judiciary Constitution 
     Subcommittee on March 21, 1996, Dr. David J. Birnbach, 
     president-elect of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and 
     Perinatology, testified, ``I have never witnessed a case of 
     fetal demise that could be attributed to an anesthetic. . . . 
     In order to cause fetal demise, it would be necessary to give 
     the mother dangerous and life-threatening doses of 
     anesthesia.''
       Recently, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America 
     (PPFA) and NARAL have tried to ``explain'' that they were 
     really just referring to the practice of the late Dr. James 
     McMahon--who, they claimed, used massive doses of narcotic 
     anesthesia. But Dr. Birnbach said, ``Although there is no 
     evidence that this massive dose will cause fetal demise, 
     there is clear evidence that this excessive dose could cause 
     maternal death.''
       Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse from Dayton, Ohio, 
     stood at Haskell's side while he performed three partial-
     birth abortions in 1993. In testimony before the Senate 
     Judiciary Committee (Nov. 17), Shafer described in detail the 
     first of the three procedures--which involved, she said, a 
     baby boy at 26\1/2\ weeks (over 6 months). According to Mrs. 
     Shafer, the abortionist delivered the baby's body and the 
     arms--everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby's 
     head just inside the uterus. The baby's little fingers were 
     clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the 
     doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and 
     the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, 
     like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. The 
     doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction 
     tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now 
     the baby was completely limp.
       Since the baby is usually not dead before being removed 
     from the womb, does the baby experience pain? Yes, according 
     to experts such as Professor Robert White, Director of the 
     Division of Neurosurgery and Brain Research Laboratory at 
     Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, who testified before 
     the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee: ``The fetus 
     within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is 
     fully capable of experiencing pain.'' After analyzing the 
     partial-birth procedure step-by-step for the subcommittee, 
     Prof. White concluded: ``Without question, all of this is a 
     dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to 
     such a surgical procedure.''
       Similar testimony was presented to the subcommittee on 
     March 21, 1996, by Dr. Jean A. Wright, associate professor of 
     pediatrics and anesthesia at the Emory University School of 
     Medicine in Atlanta. Recent research shows that by the stage 
     of development that a fetus could be a ``candidate'' for a 
     partial-birth abortion (20 weeks), the fetus ``is more 
     sensitive to pain than a full-term infant would be if 
     subjected to the same procedures,'' Prof. Wright testified. 
     These fetuses have ``the anatomical and functional processes 
     responsible for the perception of pain,'' and have ``a much 
     higher density of Opioid (pain) receptors'' than older 
     humans, she said.


  is there a more ``objective'' term for the procedure than ``partial-
                           birth abortion''?

       Congressman Charles Canady (R-FL), the author of H.R. 1833 
     and the chairman of the subcommittee that conducted hearings 
     on the bill, said on March 23, ``It it time for some in the 
     media to stop editing or denigrating the legal terminology 
     that has been adopted by the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate, 
     which is partial-birth abortion.''
       (When Congress defined certain firefarms as ``assault 
     weapons,'' that terminology was readily accepted by most 
     journalists and editors--even though manufacturers of such 
     devices utilize other terms.)
       Some opponents of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 
     1833) insist that anyone writing about the bill should say 
     that it bans a procedure ``known medically as intact dilation 
     and evacuation.'' But when journalists comply with this 
     demand, they do so at the expense of accuracy. The bill 
     itself makes no reference whatever to ``intact dilation and 
     evacuation'' abortions. More importantly, the term ``intact 
     dilation and evacuation'' is not equivalent to the class of 
     procedures banned by the bill.
       The bill would make it a criminal offense (except to save a 
     woman's life) to perform a ``partial-birth abortion,'' which 
     the bill would define--as a matter of law--as ``an abortion 
     in which the person performing the abortion partially 
     vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus 
     and completing the delivery.'' [emphasis added]
       In contrast, the term ``intact dilation and evacuation'' 
     was invented by the late Dr. James McMahon, and until 
     recently, was idiosyncratic to him. It appears in no standard 
     medical textbook or database, nor does it appear anywhere in 
     the standard textbook on abortion methods, Abortion Practice 
     by Dr. Warren Hern.
       Because ``intact dilation and evacuation'' is not a 
     standard, clearly defined medical term, the House Judiciary 
     Constitution Subcommittee staff (which drafted the bill under 
     Congressman Canady's supervision) rejected it as useless for 
     purposes of defining a criminal offense. Indeed, it is worse 
     than useless--a criminal statute that relied on such a term 
     would be stricken by the federal courts as ``void for 
     vagueness.''
       Although there is no clear definition of the term, we know 
     enough to say that it is inaccurate to equate ``intact 
     dilation and evacuation'' abortions with the procedures 
     banned by HR 1833, since in his writings Dr. McMahon clearly 
     used the term so broadly as to cover certain procedures which 
     would not be affected at all by HR 1833 (e.g., removal of 
     babies who are killed entirely in utero, and removal of 
     babies who have died entirely natural deaths in utero). 
     Indeed, some of the specific women highlighted by opponents 
     of HR 1833 had various types of ``intact D&E'' abortion 
     procedures that were not covered by HR 1833's definition of 
     ``partial-birth abortion.''
       The term chosen by Congress is in no sense misleading. In 
     sworn testimony in an Ohio lawsuit on Nov. 8, 1995, Dr. 
     Martin Haskell--who has done over 1,000 partial-birth 
     abortions, and who authored the instructional paper that 
     touched off the controversy over the procedure--explained 
     that he first learned of the method when a colleague 
     described very briefly over the phone to me a technique that 
     I later learned came from Dr. McMahon where they internally 
     grab the fetus and rotate it and accomplish--be somewhat 
     equivalent to a breach type of delivery.

[[Page H2924]]

       In short, it is a misguided notion of objectivity for the 
     any journalist to denigrate the term for a criminal offense 
     that has been adopted and explicitly defined by the U.S. 
     House and the U.S. Senate, in favor of a undefined term 
     recently manufactured by the very special-interest that would 
     be ``regulated'' by the legislation.
       [In his 1992 instructional paper, Dr. Haskell referred to 
     the method as ``dilation and extraction'' or ``D&X''--noting 
     that he ``coined the term.'' The term ``dilation and 
     extraction'' does not appear in medical dictionaries or 
     databases.]


    are the five line drawings of the procedure circulated by NRLC 
                   accurate, or are they misleading?

       American Medical News (July 5, 1993) interviewed Dr. Martin 
     Haskell and reported: Dr. Haskell said the drawings were 
     accurate ``from a technical point of view.'' But he took 
     issue with the implication that the fetuses were ``aware and 
     resisting.''
       Moreover, at a June 15, 1995, public hearing before the 
     House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Dr. J. 
     Courtland Robinson, a self-described ``abortionist'' who 
     testified on behalf of the National Abortion Federation, was 
     questioned about the drawings by Congressman Charles Canady 
     (R-Fl.). Mr. Canady directed Dr. Robinson's attention to the 
     drawings, which were displayed in poster size next to the 
     witness table, and asked Dr. Robinson if they were 
     ``technically correct.'' Dr. Robinson responded:
       That is exactly probably what is occurring in the hands of 
     the two physicians involved. [Hearing record, page 89.]
       Professor Watson Bowes of the University of North Carolina 
     at Chapel Hill, co-editor of the Obstetrical and 
     Gynecological Survey, wrote in a letter to Congressman 
     Canady:
       Having read Dr. Haskell's paper, I can assure you that 
     these drawings accurately represent the procedure described 
     therein. . . . Firsthand renditions by a professional medical 
     illustrator, or photographs or a video recording of the 
     procedure would no doubt be more vivid but not necessarily 
     more instructive for a non-medical person who is trying to 
     understand how the procedure is performed.
       On Nov. 1, 1995, Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder and her 
     allies actually tried to prevent Congressman Canady from 
     displaying the line drawings during the debate on HR 1833 on 
     the floor of the House of Representatives. But the House 
     voted by nearly a 4-to-1 margin (332 to 86) to permit the 
     drawings to be used.


         does the bill contradict u.s. supreme court decisions?

       The Supreme Court has never said that there is a 
     constitutional right to kill human beings who are mostly 
     born.
       In its official report on HR 1833, the House Judiciary 
     Committee makes the very plausible argument that HR 1833 
     could be upheld by the Supreme Court without disturbing Roe. 
     In Roe, the Supreme Court said that ``the word `person,' as 
     used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the 
     unborn.'' Thus, under the Supreme Court's doctrine, a 
     human being becomes a legal ``person'' upon emerging from 
     the uterus.
       But a partial-birth abortion does not involve an ``unborn 
     fetus.'' A partial-birth abortion, by the very definition in 
     the bill, kills a human being who is partly born. Indeed, a 
     partial-birth abortion kills a human being who is four-fifths 
     across the `line-of-personhood' established by the Supreme 
     Court.
       Moreover, in Roe v. Wade itself, the Supreme Court took 
     note of a Texas law that made it a felony to kill a baby ``in 
     a state of being born and before actual birth,'' and the 
     Court did not disturb that law.
       Thus, the Supreme Court could very well decide that the 
     killing of a mostly born baby, even if done by a physician, 
     is not protected by Roe v. Wade.


       should congress ever ban specific ``surgical procedures''?

       Some prominent congressional opponents of the bill to ban 
     partial-birth abortions, including Rep. Schroeder (D-Co.), 
     argue that Congress should not attempt to ban a specific 
     surgical procedure. But Rep. Schroeder is the prime sponsor 
     of HR 941, the ``Federal Prohibition of Female Genital 
     Mutilation Act.'' (The Senate companion bill is S. 1030.) 
     This bill generally would ban anyone (including a licensed 
     physician) from performing the procedure known medically as 
     ``infibulation,'' or ``female circumcision.'' (Some 
     physicians perform the procedure in response to requests from 
     immigrants from certain countries, based on the rationale 
     that those involved otherwise will probably obtain the 
     procedure from persons without medical training.) The bill 
     provides a penalty of up to five years in federal prison. 
     Supporters of this bill argue, persuasively, that subjecting 
     a little girl to infibulation is a form of child abuse. But 
     then, so too is subjecting a baby to the partial-birth 
     abortion procedure.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following material 
for inclusion in the Record:
                                              Mount Sinai Hospital

                                                Medical Center

                                    Chicago, IL, October 28, 1995.
     Hon. Charles Canady,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, House Committee 
         on the Judiciary, Longworth House Office Building, 
         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 procedures 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, MD,
       Director of Medical Education, Department of Obstetrics and 
     Gynecology.
                                                                    ____

                                                    The University


                                               North Carolina,

                                       Chapel Hill, July 11, 1995.
     Hon. Charles Canady,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution,
     House Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Canady: I have reviewed the Partial-Birth 
     Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833, S. 939) and the related materials 
     that you submitted to me.
       Your bill would ban the use of the ``partial-birth 
     abortion'' method, which you define as ``an abortion in which 
     the person performing the abortion partially vaginally 
     delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and 
     completing the delivery.''
       As regards the use of the term ``partial-birth abortion'' 
     to describe the procedure: The term ``partial-birth 
     abortion'' is accurate as applied to the procedure described 
     by Dr. Martin Haskell in his 1992 paper entitled ``Dilation 
     and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion,'' 
     distributed by the National Abortion Federation.\1\ Dr. 
     Haskell himself refers to that procedure as dilation and 
     extraction,'' but that is only a term, as he wrote, he 
     ``coined.'' Another practitioner, Dr. James McMahon, who uses 
     a similar technique, uses the term ``intact dilation and 
     evacuation.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes follow at end of Article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       There is no standard medical term for this period. The 
     method, as described by Dr. Haskell in his paper, involves 
     dilatation of the uterine cervix followed by breech delivery 
     of the fetus up to the point at which only the head of the 
     fetus remains undelivered. At this point surgical scissors 
     are inserted into the brain through the base of the skull, 
     after which a suction catheter is inserted to remove the 
     brain of the fetus. This results in collapse of the fetal 
     skull to facilitate delivery of the fetus. From 
     this description there is nothing misleading about 
     describing this procedure as a ``partial-birth abortion,'' 
     because in most of the cases the fetus is partially born 
     while alive and then dies as a direct result of the 
     procedure (brain aspiration) which allows completion of 
     the birth.
       As regards when fetal death occurs during this procedure: 
     Although I have never witnessed this procedure, it seems 
     likely from the description of the procedure by Dr. Haskell 
     that many if not all of the fetuses involved in this 
     procedure are alive until the scissors and the suction 
     catheter are used to remove brain tissue.\1\ Dr. Haskell, 
     explicitly contrasts his procedure with two other late 
     abortion methods that do induce fetal death prior to removal 
     of the fetus (these alternative methods being intra-amniotic 
     infusion of urea, and rupture of the membranes and severing 
     of the umbilical cord).\1\ Also, Doctor Haskell, in an 
     interview with Diane Gianelli of American Medical News that 
     the majority of the fetuses aborted this way are alive until 
     the end of the procedure.'' \2\ This is consistent with the 
     observations of Brenda Shafer, R.N. who, in a letter to 
     Congressman Tony Hall, described partial-birth abortions 
     performed by Dr. Haskell which she observed.\3\

[[Page H2925]]

       Moreover, in a document entitled ``Testimony Before the 
     House Subcommittee on the Constitution'', June 23, 1995, Dr. 
     James McMahon states that narcotic analgesic medications 
     given to the mother induce ``a medical coma'' in the fetus, 
     and he implies that this causes ``a neurological fetal 
     demise.'' \4\ This statement suggests a lack of understanding 
     of maternal/fetal pharmacology. It is a fact that the 
     distribution of analgesic medications given to a pregnant 
     woman result in blood levels of the drugs which are less than 
     those in the mother. Having cared for pregnant women who for 
     one reason or another required surgical procedures in the 
     second trimester, I know that they were often heavily sedated 
     or anesthetized for the procedures, and the fetuses did not 
     die.
       Dr. Dru Carlson, a maternal/fetal medicine specialist from 
     Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, writes that she 
     has personally observed Dr. McMahon perform this procedure. 
     In a letter to Congressman Henry Hyde she described the 
     procedure and wrote that after the fetal body is delivered, 
     it is removal of cerebrospinal fluid from the brain that 
     causes instant brain herniation and death.\5\ This statement 
     clearly suggests that the fetus is alive until the suction 
     device is inserted into the brain.
       As regards whether the fetus experiences pain during this 
     procedure: Dr. McMahon states that the fetus feels no pain 
     through the entire series of procedures.\4\ Although it is 
     true that analgesic medications given to the mother will 
     reach in the fetus and presumably provide some degree of pain 
     relief, the extent to which this renders this procedure pain 
     free would be very difficult to document. I have performed 
     in-utero procedures on fetuses in the second trimester, and 
     in these situations the response of the fetuses to painful 
     stimuli, such as needle sticks, suggest that they are capable 
     of experiencing pain. Further evidence that the fetus is 
     capable of feeling fetal pain is the response of extremely 
     preterm infants to painful stimuli.
       As regards the accuracy of the illustrations of this 
     procedure which have been distributed by the National Right 
     to Life Committee: I have read the letters dated June 12, 
     1995 and June 27, 1995 sent to members of Congress by the 
     National Abortion Federation, which state that the drawings 
     of the partial-birth abortion procedure that have been 
     distributed by you and by the National Right to Life 
     Committee are ``highly imaginative . . . with little 
     relationship to the truth'' and ``misleading.'' \7\
       Having read Dr. Haskell's paper \1\, I can assure you that 
     these drawings accurately represent the procedure described 
     therein. Furthermore, Dr. Haskell is reported as saying that 
     the illustrations were accurate ``from a technical point of 
     view.'' \2\ First hand renditions by a professional medical 
     illustrator, or photographs or a video recording of the 
     procedure would no doubt be more vivid, but not necessarily 
     more instructive for a non-medical person who is trying to 
     understand how the procedure is performed.
       As regards the impact of the banning of the procedure on 
     other indicated standard medical procedures: Critics of your 
     bill who say that this legislation will prevent doctors from 
     performing certain procedures which are standard of care, 
     such as cephalocentesis (removal of fluid from the enlarged 
     head of a fetus with the most severe form of hydrocephalus) 
     are mistaken. In such a procedure a needle is inserted with 
     ultrasound guidance through the mother's abdomen into the 
     uterus and then into the enlarged ventricle of the brain (the 
     space containing cerebrospinal fluid).
       Fluid is then withdrawn which results in reduction in the 
     size of the head so that delivery can occur. This procedure 
     is not intended to kill the fetus, and, in fact, is usually 
     associated with the birth of a live infant. This is an 
     important distinction between a needle cephalocentesis which 
     is intended to facilitate the birth of a living fetus as 
     contrasted with the procedure described by Doctors Haskell 
     and McMahon, which is intended to kill a living fetus which 
     has been partially delivered.
       The technique of the partial-birth abortion could be used 
     to remove the fetus that had died in utero of natural causes 
     or accident. Such a procedure would not be covered by the 
     definition in your bill, because it would not involve 
     partially delivering a live fetus and then killing it.
       As regards viability of preterm infants in the second 
     trimester of pregnancy: I have reviewed a ``fact sheet'' 
     distributed by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights 
     Action League (NARAL) in opposition to your legislation.\8\ 
     This document states, ``Very few premature infants born at 24 
     weeks' gestation actually survive. The chance for survival at 
     25 weeks' gestation is 10-15%; one week later--at 26 weeks--
     the chances of survival double to 24-45%. A survival rate of 
     50% is achieved only in live births at 27 or more weeks 
     gestation.'' These figures are outdated and misleading. In a 
     recent study from the National Institute of Child Health and 
     Human Development Neonatal Network, survival was documented 
     in a large number of premature infants born at the seven 
     participating institutions.\9\ At 23 weeks gestation the 
     neonatal survival was 23 percent and at 24 weeks' gestation 
     survival was 34 percent. As you can see in Figure 3 in the 
     enclosed article by Maureen Hack et al., there are wide 
     inter-institutional variations in neonatal survival at east 
     gestational age. For example, at 24 weeks' gestation neonatal 
     survival varied from a low of 10 percent to a high of 57 
     percent. This data applies to infants born without major 
     congenital defects.
       I trust this information will be helpful.
           Respectfully,
                                        Watson A. Bowes, Jr., M.D.
                                                        Professor.

footnotes
     \1\ Haskell M. Dilation and extraction for late second 
     trimester abortion. Presented at the National Abortion 
     Federation Risk Management Seminar, Dallas, Texas, September 
     13, 1992.
     \2\ Gianelli D.M. Shock-tactic ads target late-term abortion 
     procedures. American Medical News, July 5, 1993, p 3 ff.
     \3\ Shafer B. Letter written to Congressman Tony Hall, July 
     9, 1995.
     \4\ McMahon JT. Written submission to the House Subcommittee 
     on the Constitution, Washington, D.C., June 23, 1995.
     \5\ Carlson DE. Letter to the Honorable Henry Hyde, Chairman, 
     House Judiciary Committee, June 27, 1995.
     \6\ Saporta V, Prohaska G. Letter to Members of Congress, 
     U.S. House of Representatives, June 12, 1995.
     \7\ Saporta V. Letter to Members of Congress, U.S. House of 
     Representatives, June 27, 1995.
     \8\ National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. 
     Third-Trimester Abortion: The Myth of ``Abortion on Demand''. 
     (Date not listed)
     \9\ Hack M, Hobar JD, Malloy MH, et al. Very low birth weight 
     outcomes of the National Institute of Child Health and Human 
     Development Neonatal Network. Pediatrics. 1991; 87:587-597.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to discuss H.R. 1833, the 
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. During the course of the debate, gory 
and graphic descriptions are going to be used to exaggerate and 
manipulate emotions to obscure the real issues. In fact, the title 
itself is misleading. This is not about abortion on demand, the issue 
is about women and their families facing a tragic situation. Women who 
chose to have a dilation and extraction or a dilatation and evacuation 
preformed late in their pregnancy, do so only as a last resort. These 
surgical procedures are rarely ever utilized. Fewer than 500 a year are 
performed. These procedures are used in the case of desired pregnancies 
gone tragically wrong due to severe fetal anomaly or severe risk to the 
health or life of the mother.
  I have read the personal testimony of Coreen Costello and Mary-
Dorothy Line.These women and others like them wanted their child and 
were willing to have a child with disabilities. However, once they 
realized that the baby could not survive outside of the womb, they had 
to make a soul searching decision. This was a very difficult decision 
made by the women and their husbands, but because they chose to have a 
late term abortion procedure they saved their lives and preserved their 
ability to have more children. Without the surgical procedures H.R. 
1833 outlaws, neither of these women would be pregnant today or even 
healthy.
  Under H.R. 1833, Congress would intrude into the lives of Coreen 
Costello, Mary-Dorothy Line and other women by denying them surgical 
procedures which ensure their ability to conceive more children. H.R. 
1833 says to American women: your health and fertility mean nothing to 
us.This bill flagrantly violates women's rights and demotes them to 
second class citizenry.
  The Supreme Court ruled in the cases of Roe v. Wade, and Planned 
Parenthood v. Casey that if a woman's life or health is endangered, 
late term abortions can not be banned. Yet even as amended by the 
Senate, H.R. 1833 does not have a genuine life exception. Pregnancy 
does not qualify as a physical disorder, illness or injury. In 
addition, H.R. 1833 also does not provide an exception for when the 
mother's health is at serious risk. The language in H.R. 1833, under 
legal scrutiny, clearly violates the Supreme Court's rulings since it 
does not provide life or health exemptions. This bill prevents women 
from receiving the safest possible medical care in the rare instances 
when such care is called for in the most trying of personal 
circumstances and anguish.
  The bill is an example of the impossibility of writing a law of 
general application for situations which clearly demand individualized 
professional judgement in consultation with the parties personnely 
effected. To interfere in such conditions is an affront to moral 
sensibility and it disregards the profound consequences both physicians 
and their patients must resolve.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the ban 
on partial birth abortions, and urge my colleagues to follow suit in 
passing this important legislation.
  I sincerely believe this late-term abortion procedure goes beyond the 
usual scope of debate we in the House have heard on the issue of 
abortion. This ban is not only about respecting life, it's about using 
humane and ethical medical practices. In fact, a number of historically 
pro-choice Members of this body joined in supporting this ban when it 
first was conducted by the House because of the nature of the 
procedure.
  As amended by the Senate, this bill continues to allow for such a 
procedure should the life of the mother be endangered by a physical 
disorder, illness, or injury. So let us not argue today about the 
health and well-being of our prospective mothers, because this bill 
protects

[[Page H2926]]

those very rights. To include an exception for the health of a mother 
versus her life, does nothing more than allow this procedure to 
continue to be used as an elective form of abortion.
  For this reason, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act deserves the 
support of every Member of Congress, regardless of your stance on the 
issue of abortion.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
1833. In 1973, and more recently in 1992, the Supreme Court held that a 
woman has a constitutional right to choose whether or not to have an 
abortion. H.R. 1833 is a direct attack on the principles established in 
both Roe versus Wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey.
  H.R. 1833 is a dangerous piece of legislation which would ban a range 
of late-term abortion procedures that are used when a woman's health or 
life is threatened or when a fetus is diagnosed with severe 
abnormalities incompatible with life. Because H.R. 1833 does not use 
medical terminology, it fails to clearly identify which abortion 
procedures it seeks to prohibit, and as a result could prohibit 
physicians from using a range of abortion techniques, including those 
safest for the woman.
  H.R. 1833 is a direct challenge to Roe versus Wade (1973). This 
legislation would make it a crime to perform a particular abortion 
method utilized primarily after the 20 week of pregnancy. This 
legislation represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional attempt to 
ban abortion and interfere with physicians' ability to provide the best 
medical care for their patients.
  If enacted, such a law would have a devastating effect on women who 
learn late in their pregnancies that they are carrying have severe, 
often fatal, anomalies.
  Woman like Coreen Castello, a loyal Republican and former abortion 
protester whose baby had a lethal neurological disease; Mary-Dorothy 
Lines, a conservative Republican who discovered her baby had severe 
hydrocephalus; Claudia Ades, who had to terminate her pregnancy in the 
sixth month because her baby was riddled with fetal anomalies due to a 
fatal chromosomal disorder; Vicki Wison, who discovered at 36 weeks 
that her baby's brain was growing outside his head; Tammy Watts, whose 
baby had no eyes, and intestines developing outside the body; and Vikki 
Stella, who discovered at 34 weeks that her baby had nine severe 
anomalies that would lead to certain death. These are not elective 
procedures. These are the women who would be hurt by H.R. 1833--women 
and their families who face a terrible tragedy--the loss of a wanted 
pregnancy.
  In Roe, the Supreme Court established that after viability, abortion 
may be banned by States as long as an exception is provided in cases in 
which the woman's life or health is at risk. H.R. 1833 provides no true 
exceptions for cases in which a banned procedure would be necessary to 
preserve a women's life or health.
  The Dole amendment does not cover all cases where a woman's life is 
in danger. This narrow life exception applies only when a woman's life 
is threatened by a physical disorder, illness or injury and when no 
other medical procedure would suffice. By limiting the life exception 
in this way, the bill would omit the most direct threat to a woman's 
life in cases involving severe fetal anomalies--the pregnancy itself.
  In fact, none of the women who submitted testimony during the Senate 
and House hearings on this bill would have qualified for the procedure 
under the Dole life exception. Instead, this bill would require 
physicians to use an alternative life-saving procedure, even if the 
alternative renders the woman infertile, or increases her risk of 
infection, shock or bleeding. Thus, the result of this provision is 
that women's lives would be jeopardized not saved.
  This bill would create an unwarranted intrusion into the physician-
patient relationship by preventing physicians from providing necessary 
medical care to their patients. Furthermore, it would impose a 
horrendous burden on families who are already facing a crushing 
personal situation.
  Furthermore, the term ``Partial birth abortion'' is not found in any 
medical dictionaries, textbooks or coding manuals. It is a term made up 
by the author of H.R. 1833 to suggest that a living baby is partially 
delivered and then killed. The definition in H.R. 1833 is so vague as 
to be uninterpretable, yet chilling. Many OB/GYNs fear that this 
language could be interpreted to ban all abortions where the fetus 
remains intact. The supporters of this bill want to intimidate doctors 
into refusing to do abortions. Given the bill's vagueness, few doctors 
will risk going to jail in order to perform this procedure. As a 
result, women and their families will find it even more difficult, if 
not impossible, to find a doctor who will perform a late-term abortion, 
and women's lives will be put in even more jeopardy.
  Late term abortions are not common; 95.5 percent of abortions take 
place before 15 weeks. Only a little more than one-half of 1 percent 
take place at or after 20 weeks. Fewer than 600 abortions per year are 
done in the third trimester and all are done for reasons of life or 
health of the mother, severe heart disease, kidney failure, or rapidly 
advancing cancer, and in the case of severe fetal abnormalities 
incompatible with the life--no eyes,no kidneys, a heart with one 
chamber instead of four or large amounts of brain tissue missing or 
positioned outside of the skull, which itself may be missing.
  An abortion performed in the late second trimester or in the third 
trimester of pregnancy is extremely difficult for everyone involved. 
However, when serious fetal anomalies are discovered late in a 
pregnancy, or the mother develops a life-threatening medical condition 
that is inconsistent with the continuation of the pregnancy, abortion--
however heart-wrenching--may be medically necessary.
  In such cases, the intact dilation and extraction procedure [IDE]--
which would be outlawed by this bill--may provide substantial medical 
benefits. It is safer in several respects than the alternatives, 
maintaining uterine integrity, and reducing blood loss and other 
potential complications. In addition, the procedure permits the 
performance of a careful autopsy and therefore a more accurate 
diagnosis of the fetal anomaly. Intact delivery allows geneticists, 
pathologists, and perinatalogists to determine what exactly the fetus's 
problems were. As a result, these families, who are extremely desirous 
of having more children, can receive appropriate genetic counseling and 
more focused prenatal care and testing in future pregnancies. Often, in 
these cases, the knowledge that a woman can have another child in the 
future is the only thing that keeps families going in their time of 
tragedy.

  Political concerns and religious beliefs should not be permitted to 
take precedence over the health and safety of patients. The 
determination of the medical need for, and effectiveness of, particular 
medical procedures must be left to the medical profession, to be 
reflected in the standard of care.
  In passing H.R. 1833, this Congress would set an undesirable 
precedent which goes way beyond the scope of the abortion debate. Will 
we someday be standing here debating the validity of a triple bypass or 
hip replacement procedure? Aren't these dangerous and unpleasant 
procedures?
  The legislative process is ill-suited to evaluate complex medical 
procedures whose importance may vary with a particular patient's case 
and with the state of scientific knowledge. The mothers and families 
who seek late term abortions are already severely distressed. They do 
not want an abortion--they want a child. Tammy Watts told us that she 
would have done anything to save her child. She said, ``If I could have 
given my life for my child's I would have done it in a second.''
  Unfortunately, however, there was nothing she could do. For Tammy, 
and women like her, a late term abortion is not a choice it is a 
necessity. We must not compound the physical and emotional trauma 
facing these women by denying them the safest medical procedure 
available.
  This bill unravels the fundamental constitutional rights that 
American women have to receive medical treatment that they and their 
doctors have determined are safest and medically best for them. By 
seeking to ban a safe and accepted medical technique, members of 
Congress are intruding directly into the practice of medicine and 
interfering with the ability of physicians and patients to determine 
the best course of treatment. The creation of felony penalties and 
Federal tort claims for the performance of a specific medical procedure 
would mark a dramatic and unprecedented expansion of congressional 
regulation of health care.
  H.R. 1833 contains no exception for adverse health consequences and 
no true life exception. The Dole amendment is dangerously narrow and it 
would force doctors to forgo the safest choice for a woman whose life 
is at risk.
  This bill is bad medicine, bad law, and bad policy. Women facing late 
term abortions due to risks to their lives, health or severe fetal 
abnormalities incompatible with life must be able to make this decision 
in consultation with their families, their physicians, and their God. 
Women do not need medical instruction from the Government. To 
criminalize a physician for using a procedure which he or she deems to 
be safest for the mother is tantamount to legislating malpractice. I 
urge my colleagues to defeat this dangerous legislation.
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this evening the House will be 
voting on the partial birth abortion ban legislation. As a nation, we 
have created a veil of silence when it comes to the reality of abortion 
procedures. It is easy to be pro-choice when one can claim ignorance 
about the ways and means of abortion: whether it is a saline abortion, 
dilation and extraction, or suction, just to name a few.
  Tonight, we are talking about a particular procedure commonly 
referred to as the ``partial

[[Page H2927]]

birth abortion.'' The very use of the word ``birth'' should be a clue 
as to how this procedure is performed. By inducing a ``breech'' birth, 
and I would like to note that I was a ``breech'' baby, a doctor is able 
to deliver a baby feet first and while the child's head is still in the 
birth canal, insert surgical scissors into the base of the baby's skull 
and remove the brain tissue, thus collapsing the skull and then 
finishing the delivery of a now dead baby. We are tantalizing a young 
life as it enters the world, only to collapse its skull and end its 
life.
  I used to be pro-choice, but I am confident that I would have changed 
my views years earlier had I been aware of the truly horrid nature of 
abortion. Had I known that this procedure was being performed, my 
decision to choose life would have been that much simpler. As a mother 
and grandmother, it is mind boggling to imagine having labor induced, 
to be giving birth, only to have the opportunity to be a mother stopped 
in midstream. One mother, Brenda Pratt Shafer, is a nurse who witnessed 
this procedure. In her own words, she has stated that she ``had often 
expressed strong pro-choice views to my two teenage daughters.'' 
However, upon witnessing the partial delivery and death of a baby, she 
realized that it is easy to be pro-choice when one does not now what 
abortion is all about.
  Some will say that this procedure is only used on children who would 
otherwise have serious birth defects or other abnormalities. The 
testimony of the doctors who have performed this procedure say 
otherwise. One such doctor, Martin Haskell of Ohio, has stated that 80 
percent of abortions he has performed using this procedure were 
elective. Furthermore, as Americans, what is our life ethic if we 
continue down this slippery slope of wanting only the ``perfect'' 
child? I am fearful that as we increasingly hear terms like ``gender 
selection'' and the like, we will be banishing more innocent lives to a 
grisly death. As a mother, I know that there are no ``perfect 
children.'' Health alone does not make the perfect child. If nothing 
else, the parents of a child whose life may only last a few hours or 
days or weeks have the opportunity to bond with their child and then 
say ``goodbye.''
  Banning this procedure does not mean that other forms of abortion are 
acceptable. However, I challenge my colleagues in the House and 
Americans everywhere to justify the partial birth abortion. I ask my 
colleagues tonight to face the facts and accept this procedure for what 
it is. Many of us would like to turn the other way and have found 
ourselves angry that we are being ``forced'' to look at first hand the 
graphic nature of this act. I can only respond by saying that man's 
inhumanity to man is never pleasant. It is necessary to understand what 
we are up against.
  I ask my colleagues in the House to accept the reality of the 
partially birth abortion and join with me in banning this procedure. It 
is just plan sick and does not reflect the values upon which this 
Nation was founded and still embraces to be true today.
  Thank you and please join with me in supporting H.R. 1833, the 
Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition 
to this misguided and deceptive legislation before us known as H.R. 
1833, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. I believe this bill is both 
bad politics and bad policy.
  Mr. Speaker, it is critical to protect women's health and preserve 
the ability of these women to have future healthy pregnancies. H.R. 
1833 prevents women from receiving the safest medical care in the rare 
cases when a wanted pregnancy has gone tragically wrong. Women need 
access to the safest medical procedure. Under Roe versus Wade and later 
reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood versus Casey the Supreme Court 
explicitly declared that States can ban late term abortions, unless the 
woman's life or health is endangered, and in fact 41 States have 
already done so. As passed by the Senate, and earlier by the House, 
H.R. 1833 is a direct constitutional challenge to both Roe and Casey 
because it fails to provide a health exception.
  Mr. Speaker, we must not be misled by the Senate's addition of 
language purporting to be a ``life exception.'' As drafted, the ``life 
exception'' language is so narrowly crafted that a doctor would still 
risk criminal prosecution to perform this procedure. It is important to 
note that the Senate, by a narrow margin, rejected a true ``life and 
adverse health'' amendment that would have protected women who face 
life and health threatening pregnancies.
  Mr. Speaker, since the House has considered this bill, public debate 
on the issue has shifted. The House acted to ban a specific abortion 
procedure and jail doctors after only brief debate and a prohibition on 
all amendments. When the far-reaching effects of this legislation were 
more fully debated both in the Senate and in the news media the bill 
passed the Senate by only a thin margin. The statements of the bill's 
proponents both in Congress and in anti-choice movements make it clear 
that H.R. 1833, far from being a moderate measure, is in fact the first 
step in an ambitious strategy to use the new congressional anti-choice 
majority to overturn Roe. I ask my colleagues to stop that from 
happening.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, as many of you know, I have 15 
grandchildren. Two of my grandchildren, the miracle twins as I call 
them, were born prematurely at 7 months. They were so tiny that they 
could fit in your hands but they were perfectly formed little human 
beings and they are now 14 years old.
  It makes me shudder to think that somewhere, perhaps even today, in 
this country that there are other little pre-born human beings 7 months 
old in their mothers womb that are going to be subject to this brutal, 
horrible procedure known as a partial birth abortion.
  I am not the only one who finds this procedure horrifying. The 
American Medical Association's Legislative Council unanimously decided 
that this procedure was not ``a recognized medical technique'' and that 
``this procedure is basically repulsive''. This is especially true when 
you realize that 80 percent of these types of abortion are done as a 
purely elective procedure. It is important to note that this bill does 
make exception for this type of abortion if it is necessary to save the 
life of the mother however, this is an exception that will have to be 
used rarely.
  I think we can all agree that it is inhuman to begin the birthing 
process and nearly complete the delivery of the baby, only to suck the 
life out of the child.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1833, with the Senate 
amendments, which would ban this brutal procedure known as partial 
birth abortion.
  Mr. ZELIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report to H.R. 1833, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which will 
prohibit the use of a single medical procedure in the performance of 
abortions. I do believe that this particular procedure is unnecessary 
and a particularly cruel method of ending a late-term abortion. I 
believe that saying no to one procedure (with exemptions for life-
threatening situations) in this case is appropriate, and does not 
affect the reproductive rights of women with regard to the Roe v. Wade 
decision, which I support. Enactment of this legislation will not in 
itself have significant impact on those Constitutionally-guaranteed 
rights.
  But let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, that I will not support a strategy 
in this body to slowly dismantle reproductive rights under Roe v. Wade 
piece by piece, and I will oppose further measures that are part of 
such a strategy. Having an abortion is a right as guaranteed under the 
Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court. To embark on a 
congressional strategy aimed at slowly striking down that right is not 
only wrong-headed, it is backhanded. The American people support the 
right to choose and that fact would make any effort in this House to 
further restrict the right to choose an effort without the support of 
the American public.
  In sum, Mr. Speaker, while I support this legislation today I will 
not continue to support an effort by anti-choice forces to slowly 
dismantle the constitutional rights of women in the country.
  Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I raise in support of the motion and ask 
you insert this information into the Record.

   ``Fetal Death'' or Dangerous Deception? The Effects of Anesthesia 
                    During a Partial-Birth Abortion

       The claim that anesthesia given to a pregnant woman kills 
     her fetus/baby before a partial-birth abortion is performed 
     has ``absolutely no basis in scientific fact,'' according to 
     Dr. Norig Ellison, the president of the American Society of 
     Anesthesiologists. It is ``crazy,'' says Dr. David Birnbach, 
     the president-elect of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia 
     and Perinatology.
       Despite such authoritative statements, this medical 
     misinformation is still being disseminated. Here are a few 
     examples:

                           Abortion Advocates


  Kate Michelman of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL)

       One of the leading proponents of the ``anesthesia myth' is 
     Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion Rights 
     Action League (NARAL). For example, in an interview on 
     ``Newsmakers,'' KMOX-AM in St. Louis on Nov. 2, 1995, Ms. 
     Michelman said:

       The other side grossly distorted the procedure. There is no 
     such thing as a `partial-birth'. That's that's a term made up 
     by people like these anti-choice folks that you had on the 
     radio. The fetus--I mean, it is a termination of the fetal 
     life, there's no question about that. And the fetus, is, 
     before the procedure begins, the anesthesia that they give 
     the women already causes the demise of the fetus. That is, it 
     is not true that they're born partially. That is a gross 
     distortion, and it's really a disservice to the public to say 
     this.


                Dr. Mary Campbell of Planned Parenthood

       Prior to the November 1, 1995, House vote on the bill, 
     Planned Parenthood circulated to lawmakers a ``fact sheet'' 
     titled, ``H.R. 1833, Medical Questions and Answers,'' which 
     includes this statement:
       ``Q: When does the fetus die?

[[Page H2928]]

       ``A: The fetus dies of an overdose of anesthesia given to 
     the mother intravenously. A dose is calculated for the 
     mother's weight which is 50 to 100 times the weight of the 
     fetus. The mother gets the anesthesia for each insertion of 
     the dilators, twice a day. This induces brain death in a 
     fetus in a matter of minutes. Fetal demise therefore occurs 
     at the beginning of the procedure while the fetus is still in 
     the womb.''

                               The Press


                        the new york daily news

       The fetus is partially removed from the womb, its head 
     collapsed and brain suctioned out so it will fit through the 
     birth canal. The anesthesia given to the woman kills the 
     fetus before the full procedure takes place. But you won't 
     hear that from the anti-abortion extreme. It would have 
     everybody believe the fetus is dragged alive from the womb of 
     a woman just weeks away from birth. Not true. (Editorial, 
     Dec. 15, 1995)


                               usa today

       ``The fetus dies from an overdose of anesthesia given to 
     its mother.''


                      the st. louis post-dispatch

       ``The fetus usually dies from the anesthesia administered 
     to the mother before the procedure begins.'' (News story, 
     Nov. 3, 1995)


                   syndicated columnist ellen goodman

       Syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman wrote in mid-November 
     that, if one relied on statements by supporters of the bill, 
     ``You wouldn't even know that anesthesia ends the life of 
     such a fetus before it comes down the birth canal.''

                               The Truth

       ``Medical experts contend the claim is scientifically 
     unsound and irresponsible, unnecessarily worrying pregnant 
     women who need anesthesia.'' (American Medical News, January 
     1, 1996)
       ``[A]nesthesia does not kill an infant if you don't kill 
     the mother.'' (Dr. David Birnbach quoted in American Medical 
     News, January 1, 1996)
       ``I am deeply concerned, moreover, that widespread 
     publicity . . . may cause pregnant women to delay necessary 
     and perhaps life-saving medical procedures, totally unrelated 
     to the birthing process, due to misinformation regarding the 
     effect of anesthetics on the fetus.'' (Dr. Norig Elisson, 
     Nov. 17, 1995, testimony before Senate Judiciary Committee)
       ``Drugs administered to the mother, either local anesthesia 
     administered in the paracervical area or sedatives/analgesics 
     administered intramuscularly or intravenously, will provide 
     no-to-little analgesia [relief from pain] to the fetus.'' 
     (Dr. Norig Ellison, November 22, 1995, letter to Senate 
     Judiciary Committee)

   Statement of Norig Ellison, M.D., President, American Society of 
                           Anesthesiologists

       Chairman Canady, members of the Subcommittee. My name is 
     Norig Ellison, M.D., I am the President of the American 
     Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA], a national professional 
     society consisting of over 34,000 anesthesiologists and other 
     scientists engaged or specially interested in the medical 
     practice of anesthesiology. I am also Professor and Vice-
     Chair of the Department of Anesthesiology at the University 
     of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in Philadelphia and a 
     staff anesthesiologists at the Hospital of the University of 
     Pennsylvania.
       I appear here today for one purpose, and one purpose only; 
     to take issue with the testimony of James T. McMahon, M.D., 
     before this Subcommittee last June. According to his written 
     testimony, of which I have a copy, Dr. McMahon stated that 
     anesthesia given to the mother as part of dilation and 
     extraction abortion procedure eliminates any pain to the 
     fetus and that a medical coma is induced in the fetus, 
     causing a ``neurological fetal demise'', or--in lay terms--
     ``brain death''.
       I believe this statement to be entirely inaccurate. I am 
     deeply concerned, moreover, that the widespread publicity 
     given to Dr. McMahon's testimony may cause pregnant women to 
     delay necessary, even lifesaving, medical procedures, totally 
     unrelated to the birthing process, due to misinformation 
     regarding the effect of anesthetics on the fetus. Annually 
     over 50,000 pregnant women are anesthetized for such 
     necessary procedures.
       Although it is certainly true that some general analgesic 
     medications given to the mother will reach the fetus and 
     perhaps provide some pain relief, it is equally true that 
     pregnant women are routinely heavily sedated during the 
     second or third trimester for the performance of a variety of 
     necessary surgical procedures with absolutely no adverse 
     effect on the fetus, let alone death or ``brain death''. In 
     my medical judgment, it would be necssary--in order to 
     achieve ``neurological demise'' of the fetus in a ``partial 
     birth'' abortion--to anesthetize the mother to such a degree 
     as to place her own health in serious jeopardy.
       As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, I gave the same testimony 
     to a Senate committee 4 months ago. That testimony received 
     wide circulation in anesthesiology circles and to a lesser 
     extent in the lay press. You may be interested in the fact 
     that since my appearance, not one single anesthesiologist or 
     other physician has contacted me to dispute my stated 
     conclusions. Indeed, two eminent obstetric anesthesiologists 
     appear with me today, testifying on their own behalf and not 
     as ASA representatives. I am pleased to note that their 
     testimony reaches the same conclusions that I have expressed.
       Thank you for your attention. I am happy to respond to your 
     questions.

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to express my opposition to 
H.R. 1833, the so-called ``Partial-Birth'' Abortion bill. I voted 
against this measure last year when it was first considered by the 
House and I will do so again today because I do not believe that 
Congress is the proper authority to decide the appropriateness of a 
particular medical procedure. This decision should be made by a woman, 
her family and her physician.
  Further, in addition to being the first step in an all-out assault on 
a woman's right to choose, this bill is also unconstitutional since it 
fails to make an exception for the life and health of the mother as 
required by Roe v. Wade. For that reason, President Clinton has 
indicated that he will veto this measure.
  Proponents of H.R. 1833 would like the public to believe that the 
women who have third trimester abortions do so because after 6 months 
of pregnancy, they suddenly decide that they do not want a baby. This 
could not be further from the truth. The women I have heard speak about 
their experiences--Mary-Dorothy Line, Tammy Watts, Coreen Costello--all 
desperately wanted their babies, but severe fetal abnormalities left no 
chance of the child surviving outside of the womb. Nevertheless, they 
have all insisted that while their decision to have this procedure was 
a painful one, it was their decision, not one forced upon them by the 
Federal Government.
  With this in mind, it is ironic that while the Republican majority in 
Congress has spent much of the past year denouncing Government 
intervention in an individual's private life, they are intent on 
passing this bill which is the ultimate imposition of Government on a 
woman's health care choices.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question 
is ordered.
  The question in on the motion offered by the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Canady].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appear to have it.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 286, 
nays 129, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 15, as follows:

                              [Roll No 94]

                               YEAS--286

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf

[[Page H2929]]


     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--129

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Morella
     Nadler
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Studds
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Richardson
       

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bryant (TX)
     Collins (IL)
     Dornan
     Filner
     Ford
     Fowler
     Gibbons
     Harman
     Roukema
     Smith (WA)
     Stokes
     Thomas
     Torricelli
     Ward
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  2008

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this note:

       Mr. Thomas of California for, with Ms. Harman against.
       Mr. Fowler of Florida for, with Mr. Stokes against.

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________