[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 83 (Friday, June 7, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1034]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         POSTURING ON ABORTION

                                 ______


                         HON. MARTIN T. MEEHAN

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, June 6, 1996

  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask for unanimous consent to 
insert Father Robert F. Drinan's opinion editorial ``Posturing on 
Abortion,'' the New York Times, June 4, 1996 into the Record. Father 
Drinan, a Jesuit priest, is also a professor at the Georgetown 
University Law Center and a former Representative from Massachusetts.
  I applaud Father Drinan for standing up in support of a goal that 
both Democrats and Republicans should agree to--limiting the number of 
abortions in the United States. Father Drinan rightly argues that 
Congress and the President should move away from partisan grandstanding 
on abortion issues and work together to protect women's reproductive 
health.
  As a Catholic, I would like to thank Father Drinan for publicly 
opposing the so-called partial birth abortion ban. It was incredibly 
difficult for me to vote against this bill. Yet as Father Drinan noted, 
Congress should be focusing on reducing the number of abortions, not 
posturing on issues that do not allow doctors to safeguard women's 
health or protect those unfortunate victims of incest and rape.

                         Posturing on Abortion

                         (By Robert F. Drinan)

       Washington.--The indignant voices of the pro-life movement 
     and the Republication Party will likely reach new decibels in 
     the campaign to urge Congress to override President Clinton's 
     veto of the bill banning so-called partial-birth abortions. 
     But Congress should sustain the veto. The bill does not 
     provide an exception for women whose health is at risk, and 
     it would be virtually unenforceable.
       I write this as a Jesuit priest who agrees with Vatican II, 
     which said abortion is virtually infanticide, and as a lawyer 
     who wants the Clinton Administration to do more to carry out 
     its pledge to make abortions rare in this country.
       The bill the President vetoed would not reduce the number 
     of abortions, but would allow Federal power to intrude into 
     the practice of medicine in an unprecedented way. It would 
     also detract from the urgent need to decrease abortions, 
     especially among unwed teen-agers.
       The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act passed the House by 286 
     to 129, and 290 votes are required to override the veto. It 
     cleared the Senate by 54 to 44; though it seems unlikely that 
     13 of the 44 votes would change, all bets are off in an 
     election year.
       More than 95 percent of all abortions take place before 15 
     weeks. Only about one-half of 1 percent take place at or 
     after 20 weeks. If a woman has carried a child for five 
     months, it is extremely unlikely that she will want an 
     abortion.
       The three procedures available for later abortions are 
     complicated and can be dangerous. The vetoed bill would have 
     criminalized only one--a technique called dilation and 
     extraction--that medical experts say is the safest of the 
     three. The bill calls this procedure a ``partial birth,'' a 
     term that experts reject as a misnomer. Indeed, the 
     American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 
     supported the veto.
       President Clinton said he would sign a bill regulating 
     late-term abortions if it provided an exception for women 
     whose health might be at risk if they did not have the 
     procedure. As the bill stands, the abortion would be allowed 
     only if a woman might die without it. Mr. Clinton is serious. 
     as Governor of Arkansas, he signed a bill prohibiting late 
     abortions except for minors impregnated by rape or incest or 
     when the woman's life or health is endangered.
       In any case, a conviction would be difficult to obtain if 
     the bill became law. Legal experts say that doctors could 
     argue that the language was too vague for a measure that 
     imposed criminal sanctions. And juries might be reluctant to 
     convict a doctor who aborted a fetus that was likely to be 
     stillborn or in cases where the woman's health or ability to 
     have children was in jeopardy.
       The bill would also sanction intrusive enforcement by 
     requiring Federal officials to keep informed about doctors 
     who performed late-term abortions. The F.B.I. would be 
     authorized to tell nurses and health aides that they had a 
     duty to tell officials about illegal late abortions.
       If Congress were serious about getting a law on the books 
     limiting late abortions, it would include the woman's health 
     as justification for the late-term procedure. But it seems 
     more intent on using Mr. Clinton's veto as a political 
     weapon. This will poison the campaign and inhibit a larger 
     discussion about real strategies to reduce abortions.

                          ____________________