[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 130 (Thursday, September 19, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H10621-H10642]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H10621]]
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 1995--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 104-198)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. LaHood). The unfinished business is the
further consideration of the veto message of the President of the
United States on the bill (H.R. 1833) to amend title 18, United States
Code, to ban partial-birth abortions.
The question is, Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill,
the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?
The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes
to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
general leave
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on the legislation under consideration.
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 3 minutes and 30 seconds
to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I have thought a lot about how to best
convey what my thoughts are on this subject. I stand here today, not as
a member of one party or another, not as somebody who readily admits
that they are pro-life. I am. But I stand here today as a doctor.
Mr. Speaker, I have spent the last 18 years of my life, including a
great deal of the time of the last 2 years while I have been in this
Congress, caring for women who deliver babies. I have personally been
involved in over 3,000 births that I have attended. I have seen every
complication and every anomaly that has been mentioned in this debate
on partial-birth abortion.
I am not standing here as somebody who is pro-life, I am not standing
here as somebody that is a freshman Republican. I stand here today to
make known to Members that they can vote against an override for only
two reasons on this bill. One is that they are totally misinformed of
the true medical facts, or that they are pro-abortion at any stage, for
any reason. The facts will bear that out.
That is not meant to offend anybody. If somebody feels that way, they
should stand up and speak that truth. But this procedure, this
procedure is designed to aid and abet the abortionist. There is no
truth to the fact that this procedure protects the lives of women.
There is no truth to the fact that this procedure preserves fertility.
There is no truth to the fact that this procedure in fact is used on
complicated, anomalous conceptions. This procedure is used to terminate
mid and late second trimester pregnancies at the elective request of
women who so desire it.
This has nothing to do with women's emotional health. This has to do
with termination of oftentimes viable children by a gruesome and
heinous procedure.
What we should hear from those who are going to vote against
overriding this is that they agree, that they agree that this procedure
is an adequate and expected procedure that should be used, and that it
is all right to terminate the life of a 26-week fetus that otherwise
the physicians would be held liable under the courts in every State to
not save its life, should it be born spontaneously.
So this debate is not about health of women. This debate is about
whether or not true facts are going to be discussed in this Chamber on
the basis of knowledge and sound science, rather than a political
endpoint that sacrifices children in this country.
{time} 1245
Mr. Speaker, this vote is about untruth tied to emotion. We should be
willing in our country if we are going to heal our country, if we are
going to repair our country, to stand and speak honestly about what
this procedure is. I have the experience. There is no one else in this
body that has handled all these complications. This procedure never
needs to be done again in this United States.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBURN. If I have time, I would be happy to yield.
Mr. CONYERS. Have you performed this procedure?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The time of the gentleman from
Oklahoma has expired.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill and in
support of the President's veto.
Mr. Speaker, I do not speak as a doctor. I speak as a woman with
three beautiful grown children. And, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues,
let us be very clear that this debate is all about.
President Clinton stated very clearly that he would sign this bill if
it contained a narrow exception to protect the lives and health of
American women. The President does not believe that this procedure
should be commonly available, he does not believe it should be
available on demand, but that it must remain an option for women facing
serious risk to life and death and health. In cases where a woman faces
a serious health risk like kidney failure, cancer, or diabetes, the
decision of how to proceed must be left to the women and the doctor,
not this Congress.
So I say to my friends on the other side, let us sit down together,
as we offered several times, and write a bill that we could all accept
and that the President could sign. In fact, we went to the Republican
leadership 3 times, asked to craft a narrow health exception to this
bill. Three times we were refused. Why? Because this Republican
Congress does not want to ban, it wants an issue, and that is so
unfortunate. This is not about abortion. It is about politics,
election-year politics, plain and simple.
Mr. Speaker, today's debate is a fitting way to end the most anti-
choice Congress in history. This vote is the 52d taken in just the past
2 years to restrict the right to choose, a new record. Bob Dole and
Newt Gingrich have spent the last 2 years trying to eliminate abortion
rights completely, and American women know it.
Thankfully, President Clinton has used his veto pen to protect
American women from the back alley. He has stood with American women by
protecting the right to choose. He has stood with women like Claudia
Ades and Coreen Costello who have had this procedure to save their
lives and protect their health when they wanted pregnancy, they wanted
a child, but this pregnancy went wrong. President Clinton recognizes
that Congress has no place in the operating room during a crisis
pregnancy.
The President, Mr. Speaker, will sign a bill if it contains a narrow
exception to protect the lives and health of women like Claudia Ades
and Coreen Costello. This is not too much to ask. I urge my colleagues
to support the President's veto.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia].
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
share an eloquent and touching letter that I received from a
constituent who lives in my hometown of Bay City, MI. It reads:
Daniel John was diagnosed very early as being far less than
perfect, according to acclaimed scientific researchers. We
were counseled to abort him as our life would be much easier;
he would be a difficult child to raise. However, rather than
terminating Daniel's life, we ``chose'' to let God do the
choosing.
After a very difficult pregnancy, Daniel was brought forth
into this world alive. He was grossly disfigured, but he was
beautiful. The pregnancy wasn't convenient, but he was worth
the wait. According to some, he was expendable; to me, he was
a priceless jewel.
Daniel lived for about four hours before leaving us. What I
have today is the precious memory of holding my living,
breathing son for a few short moments until he died in my
arms. He wasn't a burden, he wasn't a tragedy. He was a
blessing, and I loved him.
Mr. Speaker, a baby does not have a voice. I ask my colleagues who
voted against H.R. 1833 to carefully and closely reconsider their
position. A baby, sick or healthy, should not be thought of as an
inconvenience, but as a miracle. Please vote ``yes'' to override the
veto of H.R. 1833.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
[[Page H10622]]
Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the distinguished ranking member of our
committee.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I say to Mr. Barcia, my dear colleague from
Michigan, nobody, no doctor would have forced you to have the procedure
that is being debated today. Nobody would have recommended it to you
without allowing you and your wife to make the choice. So why not let
everybody else have that same privilege--that same choice--that you
had?
Why is it that we as Members of Congress, have now become doctors,
Mr. Canady? Who gave us the right, for the first time in American
history, to determine what procedures doctors will employ? Where do you
think that inures to you as a humble Member of Congress? What medical
background do you bring to this debate that is greater than the
knowledge of the members of the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists? By what right do you tell people they cannot have this
often medically necessary procedure? If Mr. and Mrs. Barcia do not want
to undergo the procedure, they don't have to do it. They can choose not
to.
Now, let me turn to Dr. Coburn from Oklahoma. Dr. Coburn from
Oklahoma, I am not totally misinformed. I am seeking information. I do
not have a violent position on this. The fact that I am not supporting
you, but instead am supporting most of the doctors in your profession,
does not make me totally misinformed. Nor does it make me totally pro-
abortion. Let us be fair, doctor.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith].
Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the House will
be debating a procedure called partial-birth abortion. I think we need
to look at the words that are in this. Notice it said birth. This is
the clue.
As a woman, I want you to understand that I would be put into labor,
I would go through hours of labor, when the baby dropped and the little
body started coming out, they would turn it first, take it out feet-
first, which is absolutely damaging to a woman, and then right before
the little head came through, they would puncture the head.
There are late-term abortions. I was actually pro-abortion for many
years. I was never late-term abortion supporting. But even we that
might have supported abortion and you that might support late-term
abortion need to think about this. This is not for the woman. This is
for the abortionist. There are other humane ways, if you believe in
late-term abortion, for both the mother and the baby. But this tells us
something clear, folks. We have gone a long way from abortion as a rare
circumstances to abortion on demand. A long way.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion
to override the veto of the late-term medical abortion ban, and I urge
my colleagues to vote to sustain this veto.
Today's vote is not about abortion. It is about voting to ban a
medical procedure that can save the life of a mother. It is about
voting to ban a medical procedure that would allow a mother to have
children.
It is about voting against the medical procedure that Vikki Stella
had to have to save her life, to see her children grow up and go to
school and then to give birth to her son Nicholas.
Vikki wrote to me about the pain that she went through when she and
her family discovered that her son was diagnosed with nine major
anomalies, including a fluid-filled cranium with no brain tissue at
all, compacted, flattened vertebrae, and skeletal dysplasia in the
third trimester of her pregnancy. Her doctors told here that the baby
would never live outside of her womb.
She wrote:
My options were extremely limited because I am diabetic and
don't heal as well as other people. Waiting for normal labor
to occur, inducing labor early, or having a C-section would
have put my life at risk. The only option that would ensure
that my daughters would not grow up without their mother was
a highly specialized, surgical abortion procedure developed
for women with similar difficult conditions. Though we were
distraught over losing our son, we knew the procedure was the
right option . . . and, as promised, the surgery preserved my
fertility. Our darling Nicholas was born in December of 1995.
This procedure that we seek to ban today is the procedure that saved
Vikki's life and preserved here family. Vikki's situation was heart
wrenching. But mothers and fathers need to be able to make medical
decisions like that with their doctors, not with religious
organizations and not with political organizations, and certainly, and
most of all, not with the Congress.
The situation that these families are in is already difficult enough.
Overriding this veto will only make it worse. I call on my colleagues,
I plead with my colleagues, to vote no on the motion to override the
veto.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, we have twice voted--by an overwhelming
majority--to outlaw the partial birth abortion procedure. However, this
procedure is still done on a daily basis in this country because the
President ill-advisedly chose to veto this bill.
It makes me shudder to think that right now somewhere in this country
there are little pre-born human beings in their mother's womb who are
going to be subject to this brutal procedure.
I am only one of many who find 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.
I have also received a multitude of postcards from my constituents in
Nevada. They overwhelmingly object to this repugnant procedure,
especially in light of the fact that 80 percent of these types of
abortion are purely elective.
Regardless of whether you are prolife or pro-choice, it is obvious
given the horrible nature of this type of abortion that it must be
banned.
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.
What does it say about us as a nation when we allow our unborn
children to be legally killed in this manner? It is imperative that
this stop now.
I strongly urge my colleagues to override the veto of H.R. 1833,
which would ban partial birth abortions.
{time} 1300
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Becerra], a distinguished member of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
I want to ask each and every Member who is somewhat in doubt to
please vote to sustain the President's veto of H.R. 1833, and let me
relate it to something very personal.
My legislative director, Deirdre Martinez, right now is at the
hospital. She is at the hospital because she is being induced in her
delivery of her baby. She is in good hands, and I know she is in good
hands because my wife happens to be her ob-gyn.
My wife, as I have mentioned in the past, is an ob-gyn, and she is a
high-risk specialist. She deals with the type of issues we are
discussing on the floor right now.
Deirdre is fortunate. My wife says her baby seems to be perfectly
normal, good weight, and probably will be born very healthy. There are,
unfortunately, too many women sometimes in this country who do not have
the good fortune of Deirdre, and it is in time of need that some of
these women ask doctors to help them out.
There are late-term abortions that are performed that are not pretty
because--by the way, no abortion is pretty; and no woman, I suspect,
can stand up here and say they like to see what may happen to that
pregnancy. But there are cases where a late-term abortion must be
performed. We are not talking about a healthy 8- or 9-month-old baby
being extracted from the womb; we are talking about a child that will
never have a chance to see the light of day because, for whatever
reason, it will never become a child within the womb.
Sometimes there is a need, for the woman's health, for the woman's
safety and her life, to perform an abortion,
[[Page H10623]]
which we may not like. And as my wife has said, this is not a procedure
that is done electively. A woman does not go into a hospital in her
eighth month of pregnancy and ask that that fetus be extracted. No
doctor in good conscience would do that. What we are talking about is
preserving for this woman the opportunity to get past a very difficult
situation.
Why we would want to ban that for this woman, I do not understand.
How 435 Members who do not practice the profession nor live through
that experience, how they can say that this is the best thing to
legislate for the entire country, I do not understand, nor does my
wife, and I suspect, nor does Deirdre, who I hope will have a healthy
baby by today.
What I do understand is this: That we have politicized an issue
because we have waited 6 months to take up the issue. If there was so
much concern on the part of those who were for this bill to get this on
the move so we would protect the lives of all these so-called unborn
babies, why did we not try to overturn the President's veto right away?
It is unfortunate, because we know there is an election coming up and
there is a point to be made. It is unfortunate because there are a lot
of women who are suffering very traumatic times as a result of having
these late-term abortions performed. And the saddest part about it is
that we have decided to take this issue and politicize it, when it has
become a very, very emotional and private issue for that woman.
I hope all those who have been able to watch this debate will learn
something from this and take away that the experience is tough for
them, but they should not have to worry about the politics of this
particular procedure.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute 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, my remarks are directed to the
people who might be trying to decide right now whether to vote to
override this veto or not. I strongly support the override of the veto.
This is not an issue of choice, of privacy, of not even medical
necessity. This bill provides that we will abolish this very gruesome
procedure, we have all seen pictures of it today, but it still allows
the exception that if the mother's life is at issue and if there is no
other procedure available, it can be done under those circumstances.
So this is not even an issue of medical necessity. This is an issue
that says ``no'' to this type of terrible procedure.
We are a country, and we are debating this issue. I cannot believe we
are standing here. We are a country that spends years of due process on
convicted killers, murderers who commit the most heinous of crimes, and
we would not dare think about executing those types of people by this
gruesome procedure. Yet we are talking on this floor today about
maintaining the legality of this type of terrible procedure when there
are alternatives available.
I just cannot believe that. Is this an upside-down world or is it
not?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Waters], a distinguished member of the Committee
on the Judiciary.
(Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the President's
veto of a misguided bill, H.R. 1833.
This bill would instruct doctors on medical procedures that
politicians know little about. It would put women at risk who deserve
the safest, most effective treatment available under any circumstance.
Let me share with you the words of Erica Fox from Los Angeles, a
woman who was told that there was something ``seriously wrong'' with
her fetus during her sixth month of pregnancy. The outcome at best was
very, very poor.
When she got the news, she explains, ``I had my whole family with me,
and at least 5 of them are M.D.'s. They had discussed everything with
the doctors and they, too, felt there was no other option * * *.''
Her father, Dr. Walter E. Fox, shared these words.
As a doctor, I must say that it worries me greatly that
those that represent me in Washington would think to take
away my ability to care for my patients and their health to
the best of my ability. And, as I see it, H.R. 1833 does just
that.
He continues,
You are not doctors and most of you have not had a daughter
or a sister or a wife or a patient who has been in this
situation. But for those of us who find ourselves there, we
need to have every medical advancement working for us, and
the choice to use it.
``I feel that [my doctor] saved my life,'' said Erika Fox.
``And that my fetus was spared any pain * * *.
She continues,
My husband and I are now trying again. . . . There is hope
that we will have a healthy baby sometime in the not to
distant future. Hope is all you have left when your dreams
are dashed the way ours were last October.
Don't override Clinton's veto of 1833,
She says:
Don't let the government take away our hope. . . .
I think Mrs. and Dr. Fox's words best explain why Congress must not
outlaw a medical procedure. If this woman were your daughter, wife,
sister--you would want as many medical options as possible, you would
want the best doctor, and you would want her to be able to have
children in the future. This bill would take away these options.
Let us leave this issue to people who know the facts. Let us support
women, their safety, and their families. Doctors, women, and their
families--not politicians--must make these decisions.
Oppose the veto override of H.R. 1833.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
(Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
override of the Presidential veto on H.R. 1833.
Mr. Speaker, late last year, the House of Representatives took a very
moderate step toward eliminating one, specific and particularly
horrible method of abortion--the partial birth abortion.
No one can reasonably justify this kind of abortion. It is grotesque.
It is repulsive.
Unfortunately, the President of the United States has caved into the
pressure of pro-abortion extremists and vetoed this ban of one, single,
indefensible procedure. Hopefully, today, the House of Representatives,
guided by the voice of moderation and common decency will see fit to
override that veto.
There are those who try to argue that this procedure is necessary to
protect the life of some mothers. That is not true. Former Surgeon
General C. Everett Koop says that partial birth abortion is unnecessary
and in no way protects a woman's life.
There are those who say that this procedure is necessary to prevent
the birth of children plagued with defects and deformity. As a
grandfather of a disabled child, I am outraged that this argument is
used to defend such a heinous practice.
Only an extremist could justify or defend partial birth abortion. I
urge my colleagues to support moderation and decency, support the ban
on partial birth abortions and override the President's veto.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Hall].
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I, of course, rise to urge the
override of the very ill-advised veto of the ban on partial-birth
abortions.
Back, oh, earlier in the year, one of the most widely respected and
politically moderate physicians I suppose ever to hold the office of
Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop, criticized this practice. And as
recently as August of this year, Dr. Koop granted an interview to an
American Medical Association publication on this issue.
He states quite simply that he believes, ``that the President was
misled by his medical advisers on what is fact and what is fiction in
reference to late-term abortion,'' going on to say that ``In no way can
he twist his mind to see that this late-term abortion technique is a
necessity for the mother, and certainly can't be a necessity for the
baby.''
So I guess we are left to ask the question, why? Why would we even
consider condoning a procedure like this when no medical necessity for
it can actually be shown?
No acceptable answer can be given to this question because partial-
birth
[[Page H10624]]
abortion is completely unacceptable, unnecessary, and a cruel procedure
that should not be permitted in our policy. I urge the override.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, in this age of high technology and medical
wonders, there still are many things that are a mystery to the human
mind and an awesome reminder of the work of the Creator.
We see it when longtime rivals drop their weapons and come together
as friends. We see it when those struggling against oppression and
adversity succeed and claim the human dignity that is theirs as
children of God. And most often we see the fingerprint of the Almighty
and his glorious majesty when we look into the bright eyes of our
newborn son or daughter.
It defies logic and the experience of human history then to think
that that which grows inside of the womb is not a part of us, not
human, and not alive. Whether by technological means, pharmaceutical
means, or surgical means, it is outside of our moral and ethical
prerogative to snuff out that which was sown by the Creator.
The unborn child is precisely that, an unborn child, and deserves the
chance to grasps as much life as Divine Providence will allow. It is up
to us as legislators to uphold our sacred duty to protect the lives of
the innocent.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today marks the 52d antichoice vote taken
on the floor of Congress during the 104th Congress. As one of my
colleagues in the new majority has said, ``We intend to repeal choice
procedure by procedure.'' And they are doing it.
This is merely another effort to antagonize and terrorize young women
like Becky Bruce of Ohio. At 22 weeks, doctors determined a lethal
abnormality in her fetus. She and her husband decided to seek an
abortion. Much like the abortion protesters who screamed and pointed at
her, frightening her at the clinic, this legislation instills the same
kind of fear.
This bill is an effort to chip away at the overall law of the land.
Abortion is legal and safe. We cannot begin to make exceptions now. The
antichoice supporters of this bill would love to start here, today,
moving from their positions as lawmakers to become personal physicians.
When women seek medical care, Congress has no place in their choices
and no place in their tragedies. Apparently the supporters of this bill
believe that it is more important to save a doomed fetus than to save
the life and the health of its mother.
Had my colleagues in the majority allowed an amendment with an
appropriate exception for the life or physical health of the mother, I
would have supported this bill.
There have been many distortions put before Congress today. One is
that this procedure is performed all the time. This procedure is
performed rarely and only to save the life, health, and the ability to
have children, of women. I urge a ``no'' vote.
{time} 1315
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very hesitant to speak on this issue.
For one thing, I have been associated with the pro-choice side
throughout my legislative career, and I do believe that when the issue
of abortion is concerned, it really ought not be a legislative issue;
it ought to be a personal decision determined by a woman with the
advice of her physician, within the context of her religion and family.
I do not believe that this issue falls within that rubric, within that
context of decisionmaking.
I do agree with the Roe versus Wade decision which attempted to apply
our human values, human judgment, to an issue on which none of us can
ever be sure: at which point human life begins. And so we decided in
Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decided that in the first 3 months, the
woman should be fully free to exercise her judgment; and in the second
trimester, the democratic process through State legislatures should
apply restrictions; and in the third trimester, we should try to make
it as difficult as possible.
What we are talking about now, though, goes beyond that third
trimester. We are talking about the delivery of a fetus clearly in the
shape and with the functions of a human being. And when that human
being is delivered in the birth canal, it cannot be masked as anything
but a human being.
We should not act in any legislative way that sanctions the
termination of that life. And that is why I urge my colleagues to vote
to override the President's veto of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I wish that the pro-choice groups, when they saw this
issue, would have simply agreed, said, ``You are right. We are not
going to get involved in this because there are extremes on every one
of these issues.'' This is an extreme that we ought not support.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, could the chair please tell us what the
time difference is?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Canady] has 17 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Colorado
[Mrs. Schroeder] has 14 minutes remaining.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Florida prefer
to use more of his time so it is more even?
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would inform the gentlewoman
that I only have about two or three remaining speakers, so I would
reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], a member of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
Colorado for yielding time. I rise in support of sustaining the veto of
the President on this bill.
Mr. Speaker there is a tendency on the part of some of my colleagues
to try to divide folks into groups, based on their vote on this issue,
of whether they support life or do not support life. I respectfully
submit that no Member of this body supports death over life; that there
are always difficult choices on a number of these votes.
But we heard evidence submitted at hearings in the Committee on the
Judiciary that indicated and confirmed that serious medical jeopardy
can result to women, and that in some cases this procedure is the only
procedure that is available in late-term abortion to save the life of
the mother, to preserve the ability of the mother to have children in
the future, to protect the health of a prospective mother in those
situations.
And when that occurs, to put the doctor and that mother in the
position of saying, ``You will be a criminal if you exercise your right
to protect yourself from serious health conditions, or to protect your
reproductive capacity in the future, or protect even your life,'' I
think is irresponsible.
This is not, as some folks would suggest, an easy decision. It is
always a difficult decision. And the very people who are always talking
about keeping the Government out of our personal lives it seems to me
are the ones that are on the opposite side of this issue, because I do
want the Government to leave some personal decisions to the individual
American women and citizens of this country. And one of those decisions
is when it is proper to save one's own life to, save the ability to
have children in the future. That ought to be a personal decision made
by the woman and her physician.
I want to make one final point that suggests, in the closing days of
this Congress, that this is really not about this bill at all; it is
really about politics.
The President vetoed this bill quite some time ago. It has been
sitting over there in the Committee on the Judiciary, waiting. Well,
what has it been waiting for? It could have come out in 2 days to have
this vote. It could have come out in 2 weeks to have this vote. But it
just sat there.
Mr. Speaker, when does it come out? Right before the election, so
that somebody can inject the politics of the moment into a serious
public policy discussion. This is about politics, my colleagues. It is
about choice of a woman to protect her own health and
[[Page H10625]]
safety and her own life. It is about keeping the Government out of our
own personal lives, and I think we ought to sustain the President's
veto on this bill.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Chabot].
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, we cast hundreds of votes in this body every
year. Very rarely do we vote on an issue as important as this one.
I hope that my colleagues will do the right thing today and
overwhelmingly vote to override the President's veto of the Partial-
Birth Abortion Ban Act. We have debated this issue for quite some time
now. We have listened to the experts, and Americans from all across
this Nation, both prolife and prochoice, have spoken out against this
particularly gruesome procedure. I have had people who are prochoice
call my office and agree that there is no place for a procedure that is
as barbaric, as gruesome as this in a civilized society.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot urge my colleagues in strong enough terms to do
the right thing: Vote to override the President's veto.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Colorado [Mr. McInnis].
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this is the most barbaric procedure I have
ever come across. There is never, ever, ever a reason that makes this
necessary.
The previous speaker says we are attempting to divide. We are
attempting to protect.
This body today, Republicans and Democrats, will vote overwhelmingly
to ban this procedure. Let me quote from the Wall Street Journal, Nancy
Romer, today in an article, Partial-birth Abortion Is Bad Medicine:
Consider the dangers inherent in partial-birth abortion,
which usually occurs after the fifth month of pregnancy. A
woman's cervix is forcibly dilated over several days, which
risks creating an ``incompetent cervix,'' the leading cause
of premature deliveries. It is also an invitation to
infection, a major cause of infertility. The abortionist then
reaches into the womb to pull the child feet first out of the
mother, but leaves the head inside. Under normal
circumstances, physicians avoid breech births whenever
possible; in this case the doctor intentionally causes one--
and risks tearing the uterus in the process.
He then forces scissors through the base of the baby's
scull, which remains lodged just within the birth canal. This
is a partially ``blind'' procedure, done by feel, risking
direct scissor injury to the uterus and laceration of the
cervix or lower uterine segment, resulting in immediate and
massive bleeding and the threat of shock or even death to the
mother. None of this risk is ever necessary for any reason.
This is never, ever necessary, and I urge a ``yes'' vote to override
the President's veto.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. The Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this veto override is a cruel attempt to
make a political point. Make no mistake about it, this debate, with all
the emotional rhetoric and exaggerated testimony on the other side of
the aisle, is a frontal attack on Roe versus Wade, plain and simple.
The Gingrich majority wants to do away with Roe, the radical right
wants to do away with Roe, and H.R. 1833 is the first step. So let us
be honest about what this veto override is really about.
This bill, which the President courageously vetoed, will outlaw a
medical procedure which is rarely used but sometimes required in
extreme and tragic cases when the life or the future fertility of the
mother is in danger or when a fetus is so malformed that it has no
chance of survival.
Like when the fetus has no brain or the fetus is missing organs. Or
the spine has grown outside of the body. When the fetus has zero chance
of life.
When women are forced to carry a malformed fetus to term, there is
danger of chronic hemorrhaging, danger of permanent infertility or
death.
Let me read a brief list of organizations that oppose H.R. 1833: The
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; the American
Public Health Association; the American Nurses Association; the
American Medical Women's Association. The list goes on and on.
These medical professionals oppose this bill because they know that
H.R. 1833 will cost women their lives or their reproductive health.
Mr. Speaker, the Gingrich majority has proven time and again its
resolve to make Roe versus Wade ring hollow for most American women. Do
not let this happen. Protect women's lives and women's health. Protect
a woman's right to decide with her doctor what is the best medical
procedure during very tragic times. Vote ``no'' on the veto override.
But if you cannot vote ``no,'' just vote ``present.''
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, we only have one remaining speaker, and
I want to be sure the gentleman from Florida only has one remaining
speaker, because they have double the time. Does the gentleman from
Florida only have one remaining speaker?
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have one remaining speaker, as
I indicated earlier. I reserve the balance of my time for closing.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
{time} 1330
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman from Colorado
[Mrs. Schroeder] is recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I must say in the time crunch, I felt
terrible in having to cut off the distinguished gentlewoman from
California who is a member of the committee. I really want her to stand
up and finish what she was talking about. The gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Lofgren] was talking about her mother's best friend and
her mother's best friend who was Catholic, going to church and being
asked to organize on this issue.
I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren] because I
had to cut her off.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I did talk to the gentlewoman about my
friends, the Wilsons, and the real truth, not the rhetoric, not the
misinformation, and the comment is that good Catholics and good
Christians do not want to hurt good mothers. If we could keep that in
our minds, put aside the politics, I think we would do a far more
decent job here today.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I wanted this body to hear what the
gentlewoman said because that has been our position all along. We do
not wish to hurt good mothers. That was the President's position. That
is still our position.
I was the one who went to the Committee on Rules and went everywhere
trying to get an amendment to deal with the serious health issues of a
mother. Nobody wants this for vanity purposes. My skin crawls as I hear
Members on this floor talking about thousands of women get these late
term abortions for vanity purposes, like all women have such dark
hearts they would wait to postviability and then suddenly decide, I
changed my mind.
There may be some of those cases, I do not know. But I must tell you,
all of us are willing to ban those cases. We are talking about the
cases where women desperately want to have a family and something goes
terribly wrong.
Many of my colleagues have heard about our friend here, have seen
this picture before, but the real good news was after she had that
procedure, look what she got. She got little Tucker. We really ought to
say, this is what this is about, because this women was able to have
this procedure late in her term in a very, very sad pregnancy that went
very, very wrong. She was able to preserve her reproductive ability and
go on to add to this happy American family.
Do we want the Congress of the United States saying no to that? I
certainly do not. I certainly do not. I do not think we want the
Congress of the United States standing in the same room with this woman
and her husband and her doctor and probably her whole family in tears
but the Congress says, but if your doctor tries to help you on this,
after we pass this, he goes to jail. I do not think that is the
American way.
If you really believe that women are running out and having these and
this is a vanity issue and is about fitting into a prom dress or
something, we are willing to do that. But you would not let us have the
amendment. You would not let us have a serious health amendment. And
every time we say health,
[[Page H10626]]
you say, you mean headaches. We were talking about serious health. You
know how to write it; we know how to write it. Let us not kid
ourselves. That is what the President said. The President said, serious
health amendment.
I find this a very sad day because I really find this is not about
whether or not there are thousands of these going on and how awful this
is. I think this is all about politics. The President vetoed this bill
in April. Let me tell you, in early April he vetoed this bill. It has
being sitting in the committee and it could have come to the floor any
day thereafter. So if you really thought that this was going on, this
is an epidemic, women are losing their minds and running in in late
term, if you thought that, you should have stopped it right away. If
you thought this was so grisly and horrible, that is when you should
have done it. But no, we decided to let it wait until election eve,
where we could let it bubble and burn and all of this stuff. So that we
could build a huge issue and this is our 52d vote on choice. This is
really an attempt to undo choice, this extreme, extreme Congress that
we have.
You see the charts that are drawn over there. They are drawn and they
eat at your heart and they eat at my heart because they show a perfect,
beautiful child, a perfect, beautiful child like Tucker. But let me
tell you, the child that came before Tucker that would have prevented
Tucker from being born, had there not been this procedure, did not look
like Tucker and did not look like those pretty little drawings.
These are seriously deformed children that we are talking about, very
seriously deformed, or the mother has a very serious condition.
Do you know what is wrong in this debate? We have been so caught up
in this choice/anti-choice debate that we have made pregnancy sound
like it is a 9-month cruise and that absolutely nothing can go wrong
during that 9-month cruise and the only thing that would ever happen is
if they do that, the mother must be some selfish, terrible person with
a dark heart. But let me tell you, my colleagues, many things can go
wrong.
Do you know by statistics today 25 percent of the vaginal and
caesarean births in this country have serious maternal complications,
25 percent? Do you know if a woman has a baby over the age of 40, she
is nine times more apt to die in this country. There are serious safe
motherhood issues. We have had Members so engaged with their pictures
and charts and screaming and playing politics with women's uteruses
that we have not really dealt with the safe motherhood issue.
So I find this a very sad vote to end my career on. I thank the
President of the United States, who listened to those families. Those
families have been in this Congress pushing their strollers around with
their babies and their husbands, trying to get Members of Congress to
listen. Many of them are right-to-life families who never in the world
thought they would ever need this procedure. Yet their world collapsed
on them, and they did not want this to be like Russian roulette. This
would be like pregnancy Russian roulette. You get one shot at it and,
if it does not work, you have blown your chance forever to have a baby.
Is that what this Congress is trying to say?
Let me read the words of Coreen Costello. She goes on to say:
I still do not believe in abortion. I have anguished over
supporting an abortion procedure. However, I have chosen to
come forward, despite my beliefs, because I believe that this
bill does not protect women and families.
Coreen was the mother of Tucker. This is Coreen. She never thought
she would be there.
Please do not make this happen to everybody before you realize it. Do
not take this right away from America's families. And please, please,
please, preserve serious health conditions of mothers.
In today's debate, the picture of the American woman that will emerge
from the other side is that she is a frivolous and shallow person who
would lightly terminate a late-term pregnancy. The supporters of this
bill would have you believe that Congress must deprive women of the
right to make their own reproductive decisions, because American women
and their families cannot be trusted to be responsible decisionmakers.
I have this picture of Coreen Costello and her family beside me as I
speak, because I don't want any one to forget that this debate is not
about political sound bites or the politics of pitting Americans
against each other. This debate is about real American families and the
agonizing decisions they have to make when wanted pregnancies go
terribly wrong, when serious fetal anomalies or serious threats to the
woman's health arise during the pregnancy.
I came to Congress 24 years ago determined to make sure that the
Federal Government treats women as responsible adults who are the best
decisionmakers with respect to their reproductive health. The bill
before us today says that your Member of Congress is somehow better
able to make decisions about your reproductive health than you are. For
Congress to usurp the power of the American family in this way is not
only unconstitutional, it is also an affront to our fundamental
commitment to the integrity of the family, and the right that Americans
have to be able to make significant medical decisions for themselves.
You may hear, during the course of this debate, allegations that some
women have obtained late-term abortions for reasons other than their
life or health. Remember this: the individual States as well as the
Federal Government, have the power, under the Constitution and Roe
versus Wade, to ban all post-viability, late-term abortions except
those that are necessary to preserve the woman's life or to avoid
serious health consequences to her. The President has made it clear
that he would sign such a bill. But every attempt we made to amend this
bill to provide an exception for life or serious health consequences
was flatly rejected by the other side. Not once did the majority permit
this body to vote on an exception to preserve women's health or their
future fertility. Not once.
The majority has chosen to have a political campaign issue instead of
having a bill that would pass constitutional muster and ban late-term
abortions except when the women's life or health is at stake.
I want to show you another picture of Coreen Costello and her family.
Look closely, and note that since the time that we first debated this
bill, the Costellos have had joyous occasion to sit for a new family
picture, because their family has changed. Baby Tucker is the newest
member of this family, and his birth was made possible because Coreen
Costello and her family were able to use the procedure this bill bans.
Let me close with Coreen Costello's own words. She wrote me yesterday
and said this about her tragic pregnancy:
My daughter's stiff and rigid body as well as her unusual
contorted position in my womb gave my team of doctors deep
concern for my health and well-being * * *. With their
knowledge and expertise and data from extensive diagnostic
testing, my medical experts believed the safest option was an
intact D&E, performed by specialist Dr. James McMahon.
Reluctantly, my husband and I agreed.
She goes on to say:
I still do not believe in abortion, and I have anguished
over supporting an abortion procedure. However, I have chosen
to come forward, despite my beliefs, as H.R. 1833 does not
protect women and families like mine. President Clinton and
Members of Congress asked for an amendment to allow
exceptions for serious health consequences. Proponents of
this extreme bill refused to allow such a vote. They do not
want to believe stories like mine. My baby girl is gone. Not
because of an abortion procedure, but because of a terrible
disease. Please do not confuse this. It was hard enough for
my husband and children to lose Katherine. I thank God they
did not lose me, too.
Not a day goes by that my heart doesn't ache for my
daughter. Fortunately, my pain has been eased with the joyous
birth of our healthy baby boy, Tucker. This would not have
been possible without this procedure. It is time for my
family to put the pieces of our lives back together. Please,
please, give other women and their families this chance. Let
us deal with our personal tragedies without any unnecessary
interference from our government. Leave us with our God, our
families, and our trusted medical experts. Sincerely, Coreen
Costello.
Vote with these families. Vote against extremism that would make
Congress the decisionmaker for your most intimate and difficult medical
decisions. Vote no.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the issue presented by H.R. 1833, the
partial birth abortion bill, is one that requires careful thought and
consideration. The medical procedure that is addressed by this
legislation is, in my judgment and in the judgment of hundreds of my
constituents, gruesome. My vote today to sustain the President's veto
in no way indicates my support for that procedure.
[[Page H10627]]
The fact is, however, that it is a medical procedure. With no medical
training, I am not qualified, and I do not think this Congress is
qualified, to rule on the necessity of specific medical decisions. This
is a medical question, not a political one. If this bill were to become
law, it would establish the precedent of Congress placing in our
criminal statutes specific medical procedures. That would be a mistake.
It would a different matter to have a straight-forward debate about
the circumstances under which late-term abortions are medically
justified. However, that is not what we're doing today. Instead, we are
debating whether to outlaw a specific medical procedure.
I am dismayed that the American Medical Association, or other
appropriate governing bodies of medical professionals, has not stepped
forward on this issue. They have the expertise and the responsibility
to rule on the necessity of this procedure, and I have urged them, in
writing, to do so. I hope they will yet act to guide their members on
whether this hideous procedure is, in fact, in some cases the only
medically safe option to preserve the life and future health of the
woman.
I have always defended the right of each woman to make her own
decisions about her reproductive rights. The bill before us raises the
question whether a particular medical procedure is ever appropriate for
any woman. According to many doctors, there are horrific instances
where this procedure is the best option for protecting the woman's life
and/or health and her ability to have children in the future. I will
vote against this bill because, for all the emotion of this issue, I do
not believe Congress knows enough to tell doctors how to act in certain
circumstances.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
the motion to override.
On March 27, this House passed the conference report on H.R. 1833,
the ban on partial birth abortions and sent it to our President for his
signature. Sticking to his proabortion agenda, the President chose to
distance himself from the American people and veto the ban on the most
brutal form of infanticide. Following the President's decision, we set
out to override his veto and to protect the life of the unborn childn.
We have come far and are in sight of our destination.
Today, with the bipartisan support of 285 Members of Congress, this
House was able to successfully override the veto. Today, with the
support of 285 Members of Congress, this House was able to respond to
the millions of Americans who are outraged by this brutal form of
abortion. Today, with the support of 285 Members of Congress, this
House was able to send the message of the American people to a
President who doesn't really seem to care what they think.
Those of us who believe in the life of the unborn, those of us who
fight against the crime of partial birth abortion cheer today for our
success, but regret the lives and futures that have been lost since the
27th of March, since the hour that we first passed the ban. Let us
delay no more, let us be resolute, and let us complete our task in
overriding President Clinton's unjust and unjustified veto, that no
other child may perish.
We have advanced confidently in the direction of our hopes, and we
await the Senate to join us in the completion of our task.
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. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] is
recognized for 15 minutes.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I beg the indulgence of my colleagues not to
ask me to yield because I cannot and will not and I would appreciate
their courtesy. I also want to say briefly that those who have charge
us with politics, invidious politics, for delaying this debate ought to
understand that Americans cannot believe this practice exists and it
has taken months to educate the American people and it will take many
more months to educate them as to the nature and extent of this
horrible practice. That is one reason it has taken so long.
The law exists to protect the weak from the strong. That is why we
are here.
Mr. Speaker, in his classic novel ``Crime and Punishment,''
Dostoyevsky has his murderous protagonist Raskolnikov complain that
``Man can get used to anything, the beast!''
That we are even debating this issue, that we have to argue about the
legality of an abortionist plunging a pair of scissors into the back of
the tiny neck of a little child whose trunk, arms and legs have already
been delivered, and then suctioning out his brains only confirms
Dostoyevsky's harsh truth.
We were told in committee by an attending nurse that the little arms
and legs stop flailing and suddenly stiffen as the scissors is plunged
in. People who say ``I feel your pain'' are not referring to that
little infant.
What kind of people have we become that this procedure is even a
matter for debate? Can we not draw the line at torture, and baby
torture at that? If we cannot, what has become of us? We are all
incensed about ethnic cleansing. What about infant cleansing? There is
no argument here about when human life begins. The child who is
destroyed is unmistakably alive, unmistakably human and unmistakably
brutally destroyed.
The justification for abortion has always been the claim that a women
can do with her own body what she will. If you still believe that this
four-fifths delivered little baby is a part of the woman's body, then I
am afraid your ignorance is invincible.
I finally figured out why supporters of abortion on demand fight this
infacticide ban tooth and claw, because for the first time since Roe v.
Wade the focus is on the baby, not the mother, not the woman but the
baby, and the harm that abortion inflicts on an unborn child, or in
this instance a four-fifths born child. That child whom the advocates
of abortion on demand have done everything in their power to make us
ignore, to dehumznize, is as much a bearer of human rights as any
Member of this House. To deny those rights is more than the betrayal of
a powerless individual. It betrays the central promise of America, that
there is, in this land, justice for all.
The supporters of abortion on demand have exercised an amazing
capacity for self-deception by detaching themselves from any sympathy
whatsoever for the unborn child, and in doing so they separate
themselves from the instinct for justice that gave birth to this
country.
The President, reacting angrily to this challenge to his veto, claims
not to understand why the morality of those who support a ban on
partial birth abortions is superior to the morality of ``compassion''
that he insists informed his decision to reject Congress' ban on what
Senator Moynihan has said is ``too close to infanticide.''
Let me explain, Mr. President. There is no moral nor, for that
matter, medical justification for this barbaric assault on a partially
born infant. Dr. Pamela Smith, director of medical education in the
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Chicago's Mount Sinai
Hospital, testified to that, as have many other doctors.
Dr. C. Everett Koop, the last credible Surgeon General we had, was
interviewed by the American Medical Association on August 19, and he
was asked:
Question: ``President Clinton just vetoed a bill on partial birth
abortions. In so doing, he cited several cases in which women were told
these procedures were necessary to preserve their health and their
ability to have future pregnancies. How would you characterize the
claims being made in favor of the medical need for this procedure?''
Answer: Quoting Dr. Koop, ``I believe that Mr. Clinton was misled by
his medical advisors on what is fact and what is fiction in reference
to late term abortions.''
Question: ``In your practice as a pediatric surgeon, have you ever
treated children with any of the disabilities cited in this debate?
Have you operated on children born with organs outside of their
bodies?''
Answer: ``Oh, yes, indeed. I've done that many times. The prognosis
usually is good. There are two common ways that children are born with
organs outside of their body. One is an omphalocele, where the organs
are out but still contained in the sac composed of the tissues of the
umbilical cord. I have been repairing those since 1946. The other is
when the sac has ruptured. That makes it a little more difficult. I
don't know what the national mortality would be, but certainly more
than half of those babies survive after surgery.
[[Page H10628]]
``Now every once in a while, you have other peculiar things, such as
the chest being wide open and the heart being outside the body. And I
have even replaced hearts back in the body and had children grow to
adulthood.''
{time} 1345
Question: And live normal lives?
Answer: Living normal lives. In fact, the first child I ever did with
a huge omphalocele much bigger than her head went on to develop well
and become the head nurse in my intensive care unit many years later.''
The abortionist who is a principal perpetrator of these atrocities,
Dr. Martin Haskell, has conceded that at least 80 percent of the
partial-birth abortions he performs are entirely elective; 80 percent
are elective. And he admits to over a thousands of these abortions, and
that is some years ago.
We are told about some extreme cases of malformed babies as though
life is only for the privileged, the planned and the perfect. Dr. James
McMahon, the late Dr. James McMahon, listed nine such abortions he
performed because the baby had a cleft lip.
Many other physicians who care both about the mother and the unborn
child have made it clear this is never a medical necessity, but it is a
convenience for the abortionist. It is a convenience for those who
choose to abort late in pregnancy when it becomes difficult to
dismember the unborn child in the womb.
Well, the President claims he wants to solve a problem by adding a
health exception to the partial-birth abortion ban. That is spurious,
as anyone who has spent 10 minutes studying the Federal law,
understands. Health exceptions are so broadly construed by the court,
as to make any ban utterly meaningless.
If there is no consistent commitment that has survived the twists and
the turns in policy during this administration, it is an unshakable
commitment to a legal regime of abortion on demand. Nothing is or will
be done to make abortion rare. No legislative or regulatory act will be
allowed to impede the most permissive abortion license in the
democratic world.
The President would do us all a favor and make a modest contribution
to the health of our democratic process if he would simply concede this
obvious fact.
In his memoirs Dwight Eisenhower wrote about the loss of 1.2 million
lives in World War II, and he said:
``The loss of lives that might have otherwise been creatively lived
scars the mind of the civilized world.''
Mr. Speaker, our souls have been scarred by one and a half million
abortions every year in this country. Our souls have so much scar
tissue there is not room for any more.
And say, what do we mean by human dignity if we subject innocent
children to brutal execution when they are almost born? We all hope and
pray for death with dignity. Tell me what is dignified about a death
caused by having a scissors stabbed into your neck so your brains can
be sucked out.
We have had long and bitter debates in this House about assault
weapons. Those scissors and that suction machine are assault weapons
worse than any AK-47. One might miss with an AK-47; the doctor never
misses with his assault weapon, I can assure my colleagues.
It is not just the babies that are dying for the lethal sin of being
unwanted or being handicapped or malformed. We are dying, and not from
the darkness, but from the cold, the coldness of self-brutalization
that chills our sensibilities, deadens our conscience and allows us to
think of this unspeakable act as an act of compassion.
If my colleagues vote to uphold this veto, if they vote to maintain
the legality of a procedure that is revolting even to the most hardened
heart, then please do not ever use the word compassion again.
A word about anesthesia. Advocates of partial-birth abortions tried
to tell us the baby does not feel pain; the mother's anesthesia is
transmitted to the baby. We took testimony from five of the country's
top anesthesiologists, and they said it is impossible, that result will
take so much anesthesia it would kill the mother.
By upholding this tragic veto, those colleagues join the network of
complicity in supporting what is essentially a crime against humanity,
for that little, almost born infant struggling to live is a member of
the human family, and partial-birth abortion is a lethal assault
against the very idea of human rights and destroys, along with a
defenseless little baby, the moral foundation of our democracy because
democracy is not, after all, a mere process. It assigns fundamental
rights and values to each human being, the first of which is the
inalienable right to life.
One of the great errors of modern politics is our foolish attempt to
separate our private consciences from our public acts, and it cannot be
done. At the end of the 20th century, is the crowning achievement of
our democracy to treat the weak, the powerless, the unwanted as things?
To be disposed of? If so, we have not elevated justice; we have
disgraced it.
This is not a debate about sectarian religious doctrine nor about
policy options. This is a debate about our understanding of human
dignity, what does it mean to be human? Our moment in history is marked
by a mortal conflict between culture of death and a culture of life,
and today, here and now, we must choose sides.
I am not the least embarrassed to say that I believe one day each of
us will be called upon to render an account for what we have done, and
maybe more importantly, what we fail to do in our lifetime, and while I
believe in a merciful God, I believe in a just God, and I would be
terrified at the thought of having to explain at the final judgment why
I stood unmoved while Herod's slaughter of the innocents was being
reenacted here in my own country.
This debate has been about an unspeakable horror. While the details
are graphic and grisly, it has been helpful for all of us to recognize
the full brutality of what goes on in America's abortuaries day in and
day out, week after week, year after year. We are not talking about
abstractions here. We are talking about life and death at their most
elemental, and we ought to face the truth of what we oppose or support
stripped of all euphemisms, and the queen of all euphemisms is
``choice'' as though one is choosing vanilla and chocolate instead of a
dead baby or a live baby.
Now, we have talked so much about the grotesque; permit me a word
about beauty. We all have our own images of the beautiful; the face of
a loved one, a dawn, a sunset, the evening star. I believe nothing in
this world of wonders is more beautiful than the innocence of a child.
Do my colleagues know what a child is? She is an opportunity for
love, and a handicapped child is an even greater opportunity for love.
Mr. Speaker, we risk our souls, we risk our humanity when we trifle
with that innocence or demean it or brutalize it. We need more caring
and less killing.
Let the innocence of the unborn have the last word in this debate.
Let their innocence appeal to what President Lincoln called the better
angels of our nature. Let our votes prove Raskolnikov is wrong. There
is something we will never get use to. Make it clear once again there
is justice for all, even for the tiniest, most defenseless in this, our
land.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to sustain President Bill
Clinton's veto of H.R. 1833, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of
1995. The bill makes it a crime to perform a so-called partial-birth
abortion unless the abortion is necessary to save the life of the
mother. Under the legislation, physicians who perform these abortions
are subject to a maximum of 2 years imprisonment, fines, or both. The
bill also establishes a civil cause of action for damages against the
doctor who performs the procedure.
I am against abortion as a method of birth control and certainly
against elective late-term abortions except where necessary to protect
the life or health of the mother. Today, I vote to sustain the
President's veto because H.R. 1833 would seriously infringe upon a
family's right to choose what is best for them. In addition, it would
seriously interfere with a physician's attempt to protect a woman's
health or future reproductive capacity.
This rare procedure is primarily used in cases of desired pregnancies
gone tragically wrong; when a family learns late in pregnancy of severe
fetal anomalies or of a medical condition that threatens the woman's
life or health. The American Public Health Association, the American
Medical Women's Association, and the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists, all organizations
[[Page H10629]]
dedicated to improving women's health care, oppose the measure.
According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,
this type of procedure is ``done primarily when the abnormalities of
the fetus are so extreme that the independent life is not possible or
when the fetus has died in utero.'' They further explain that the
medical problems which a woman could develop that might require
interruption of pregnancy during the third trimester include rare
maternal problems that could threaten the life and/or health of the
pregnant woman if the pregnancy continued such as severe heart disease,
malignancies, kidney failure, or severe toxemia.
I simply cannot tell a mother that she must risk her life carrying a
fetus that the medical community has determined would not live. That
should be a family decision best left to the family and their God. In
these situations, in which a family must make such a difficult
decision, the ability to choose this procedure must be protected.
This measure outlaws a valid medical procedure. Other methods of
late-term abortion may be more dangerous to the health or life of the
woman. Moreover, it compromises the patient-physician relationship.
Because it bans one of the safest, least invasive methods available
later in pregnancy, physicians would be compelled to balance the health
of their patients against the possibility of facing Federal criminal
charges.
In short, I cannot vote to override the President's veto because it
fails to protect women and families in such dire circumstances and
because it treats doctors who perform the procedures as criminals. The
life exception in the bill only covers cases in which the doctor
believes that the woman will die. It fails to cover cases where, absent
the procedure, serious physical harm is very likely to occur. I would
support H.R. 1833 if it were amended to add an exception for serious
health consequences.
I urge my colleagues to vote to sustain the President's veto.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the veto
override of H.R. 1833.
I am opposed to late-term abortions except in instances where they
are necessary to save the life of the mother or for serious, very
limited health reasons. Unfortunately, this well-intentioned
legislation fails to make these exceptions. Tragedies involving
severely deformed or dying fetuses sometimes occur in the late stages
of pregnancy. In these crisis situations, women should have access to
the safest medical procedure available, and on some occasions the
safest such procedure is the intact dilation and evacuation procedure.
If we ban this procedure, Mr. Speaker, as this legislation seeks to
do, doctors will resort to other procedures, such as a caesarean
section or a dismemberment dilation and evacuation, which can and often
do pose greater health risks to women, such as severe hemorrhaging,
lacerations of the uterus, or other complications that can threaten a
woman's life or her ability to have children again in the future.
Mr. Speaker, passage of H.R. 1833 will not end late-term abortions;
the bill only bans one such procedure that, in the judgment of a
doctor, might offer the surest way of protecting the mother. The New
York chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
opposes H.R. 1833, expressing concern that ``* * * Congress would take
any action that would supersede the medical judgment of trained
physicians and would criminalize medical procedures that may be
necessary to save the life of a woman * * *''.
If H.R. 1833 were amended to include exceptions for situations where
a woman's life or health is threatened, ensuring that decisions
regarding the well-being of the mother are made by doctors, not
politicians, I would gladly support the bill. Without this protection,
however, I cannot in good conscience support this legislation today.
Good people will always disagree over the abortion issue, and I
respect the passion and depth of feeling that so many of my
constituents on both sides of this issue have expressed to me.
Maintaining policies which promote healthy mothers and healthy babies
should remain above the political fray, and it is for this reason that
I oppose the veto override today.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the challenge to the
President's veto of H.R. 1833. Whatever one's belief on abortion, the
late-term procedure most be viewed separately, for this is a procedure
to be used only as a last resort to save a woman's life or to avoid a
devastating deterioration of her health. Late-term abortion is not
about choice. It is about saving women from grave damage to their
health, to their ability to bear children in the future, and from
death. The President, and the medical community, have assured us that
abuses of this procedure can be avoided. Regrettably, those voting to
override this veto would apparently prefer to score political points
than to heed those assurances. This is being done with indifference to
women who face grave circumstances, and in disregard to the potential
of this institution to render a serious policy determination on a
matter of grave consequence.
Mr. FAZIO of California. I rise today to express my support for the
President's position on H.R. 1833 and to urge my colleagues to support
it.
This issue has been an incredibly difficult one for me as I'm sure it
has been for most of my colleagues. The medical procedures involved are
very disturbing, and moreover, intensely personal issues lie at the
heart of this debate.
However, I opposed H.R. 1833 for several reasons when we debated this
legislation earlier this year, and I remain opposed to this bill.
First, and most important, H.R. 1833 denies women the right to make
extremely important and personal medical decisions. If passed, this
bill would strip away many of the protections that exist for legal
abortion.
Only the mother, in consultation with her doctor, should make the
decision. We should not attempt to impose a ``Congress Knows Best''
medical solution on the women of America.
In additional, I opposed this bill because it doesn't contain an
exception which would allow for this extremely rare procedure to be
performed when circumstances are the most dire; that is, when the life
of the mother is endangered. We should not accept a ban on a procedure
which may represent the best hope for a woman to avoid serious risks to
her health.
Of course we should not make this procedure, or any type of abortion,
a purely elective procedure. But if we pass this bill, we are
criminalizing a medical procedure that may one day be necessary to save
the life of the mother and allow her to have a family.
I urge all of my colleagues to give careful thought to their vote
today and oppose the veto override attempt before us.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
motion to override the Presidential veto of H.R. 1833, the late-term
abortion ban. The fact that we are voting on this motion today is a
true testament to how extreme many of the Members of this House of
Representatives are. Despite their campaign pledges to ``get the U.S.
government out of your life,'' Gingrich-Dole Republican Members have
continued to advocate that the U.S. Congress take unprecedented steps
into the personal lives of American women and their families--as well
as into their doctor's offices--in order to influence public opinion
and undermine current laws in a fashion that they cannot do through the
highest court in our land. H.R. 1833 is an attempt by Gingrich
extremists to prescribe their own view of proper medical strategy
regarding partial birth abortion procedures.
In order to promote this bill, the Republicans have focused on
certain aspects of this medical procedure that are intended to elicit
emotional responses. What they refuse to focus on, however, is that the
only women who seek such rare, third-trimester abortions are
overwhelmingly in tragic, heart-rendering situations in which they must
make one of the most difficult decisions of their lives.
Often they are faced with personal health risks that threaten their
very lives and/or their ability to have children in the future. Others
discover very late in their pregnancy--in some cases even after they
already know the sex of the child, have picked out a name and gotten
the baby's crib--that their child has horrific fetal anomalies that are
incompatible with life and will cause the baby terrible pain and
tragedy before the end of its short life.
Clearly, each of these situations is serious, tragic, and terribly
difficult for the families involved. The decision to seek a late-term,
partial-birth abortion is one that is not made carelessly or lightly.
The U.S. Congress is the last entity that should be intruding into this
type of personal, family decision.
Further, we in Congress have absolutely no right to interfere with a
doctor's medical judgment when he or she is making critical decisions
affecting the life of a woman, her health and her ability to bear
children in the future. It is extremely important to note that this
bill makes no exception for the health of the mother. In fact, it makes
no mention of the health of the women whatsoever. Clearly, the mother's
health and her reproductive future mean nothing to those Members of
this body who are pushing this bill forward and who have failed to
include this vital exception.
H.R. 1833 takes advantage of tragic circumstances and sacrifices the
health and maybe lives of women in order to push an extremist agenda
forward during this election year. I urge my colleagues to stay fast in
their beliefs for individual rights and to continue to allow a woman's
right to her own reproductive choices and not to be dictated to by
partisan political action by mean spirited office seekers. I support
the President's veto of this bill and will vote to sustain it.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of overriding
President Clinton's unwise veto of H.R. 1833, the Partial Birth
Abortion Ban Act.
[[Page H10630]]
Last March, I joined 285 of my House colleagues in support of banning
the procedure known as partial-birth abortion. The measure was
supported by members like me who are pro-life, and even by many who
consider themselves pro-choice. We shared our justification: As New
York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan said, the partial birth abortion
procedure is just ``too close to infantacide.'' And I agree.
Yet, after H.R. 1833 was adopted by bipartisan majorities in the
House and Senate, President Clinton vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion
Ban Act on April 10. The President's veto represents a truly mean and
extreme position. His position is that the absolute, most extreme
abortion procedure, no matter how barbaric, should continue to be
permitted in America. This procedure is such that even a brief
description of it causes strong men and women to wince.
Since the President's veto, more than 7,500 of my constituents have
written or called me, urging me to support an override of the
President's veto. But he did veto it. And on July 15, I wrote House
Majority Leader Dick Armey, urging the House to fulfill its
responsibility to a vote to override President Clinton's veto.
Today we will have that vote. And today I will vote to override the
President's decision, which drawn the deep disappointment of pro-life
and pro-choice Americans alike. This is a sad day, because one would
hope that the President had not vetoed such common-sense, humane
legislation in the first place.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, when President Clinton vetoed H.R. 1833,
the Partial-Birth Abortion Act, he claimed he was trying to protect
women's health.
The President was distorting the truth.
Medical facts show the President's claim to be completely false.
Mr. Speaker, partial-birth abortion is not a legitimate medical
procedure and is not needed for any particular circumstance. Doctors at
the Metropolitan Medical Clinic in New Jersey say that only a
``minuscule amount'' of the 1,500 partial-birth abortions they perform
are for medical reasons. One doctor is quoted as saying, ``Most
[partial-birth abortion patients] are Medicaid patients * * * and most
are for elective, not medical, reasons; most who did not realize, or
didn't care, how far along they were.''
This procedure is used on babies who are four and a half months in
the womb or older. It can be employed up until the ninth and final
month of pregnancy. The ninth and final month, Mr. Speaker.
Opposition to this technique isn't merely the opinion of a handful of
doctors. The American Medical Association has made its position clear.
The AMA's Council on Legislation voted unanimously to recommend that
the AMA board of trustees endorse H.R. 1833. One member of AMA's
legislative council said that, ``partial birth abortion is not a
recognized medical technique,'' and many AMA members agreed that, ``the
procedure is basically repulsive.''
Mr. Speaker, my position on abortion has been clear and consistent. I
oppose it, except in certain very specific cases.
But I do not understand how people can support this procedure.
Abortion advocates will argue that a fetus in the early stages of
pregnancy is not human life. I disagree with that. But surely even
people who make that argument must understand in their hearts that a
pre-born baby in the third trimester of pregnancy is in fact human
life. And that human life deserves the protection of law.
The position of those who favor partial birth abortions rests on the
absurd notion that if one does not have to look at the baby then one
can somehow deny that the baby is alive.
Mr. Speaker, not only is the procedure itself medieval, but so is the
logic of those who advocate and apologize for it.
Permitting this ghastly procedure to continue debases the whole
medical profession, it debases our system of law, and indeed it debases
our very notion of the concept of life.
Our system of laws, our American heritage, is based on the idea that
people have certain God-given rights. Those rights are life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.
Those rights existed before laws were established. In fact, it is
because those rights existed that laws were established in order to
protect those rights.
First and foremost among those rights is the right to life.
As lawmakers we have a responsibility to protect the lives of our
citizens, in this case, the very youngest, most vulnerable of American
citizens.
I urge my colleagues to do the right thing.
I urge my colleagues to stand against this hideous, repugnant
practice.
Let us stand up for a good principle and let us override the
President's veto.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this attempt to
override President Clinton's veto of the partial birth abortion bill
and I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened with some care to the comments by my
distinguished colleague from Colorado, Mrs. Schroeder, who is leading
the effort to preserve this procedure. And I am reminded of some advice
that the gentlelady from Colorado gave this House just a day or two ago
when we were debating a bill to make Mother Teresa an honorary citizen
of the United States. The gentlelady from Colorado, at that time said
we could honor Mother Teresa best if, every day, as we considered how
to vote on legislation brought to this floor, we reflected upon Mother
Teresa's compassion, and her courageous stand for children and the
helpless.
As the gentlelady from Colorado knows, I do not always agree with her
advice. But on this occasion I think the gentlelady from Colorado's
advice the other day does apply to our deliberation today. I think we
should let the wisdom of Mother Teresa inform our hearts and our minds.
And I think it is quite clear what that gentle woman from Calcutta,
India, would say if she were here today--it is the same thing she has
said so often--that the taking of innocent human life is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to end partial birth
abortion in this country. Override the President's veto.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I do not favor late-term abortions and
believe they should only be allowed in cases where the life or health
of the mother is threatened.
I voted to sustain the President's veto because the bill does not
allow a physician to take into account even serious threats to a
woman's health, as the Supreme Court has required.
I would have voted for H.R. 1833 if there had been an exception to
allow their procedure where there is medical evidence that the health
of the mother is indeed threatened.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering an override of the
President's veto of H.R. 1833, the late-term abortion bill. I oppose
the override because this legislation is fundamentally flawed and would
put at risk the life, health, and fertility of women facing one of the
most difficult, anguished, and personal decisions imaginable.
First, let me say that I oppose late-term abortions except, as the
U.S. Supreme Court requires, when necessary to protect the life or
health of a woman. H.R. 1833 falls woefully short of meeting this
critical standard.
H.R. 1833 provides only a partial exception to protect the life of a
woman, and even this partial exception may be invoked only under a very
narrow set of circumstances. In other words, this legislation takes
away the authority of a physician to select the best medical procedure
for saving a woman's life.
Furthermore, this legislation includes no exception whatsoever when a
woman faces a severe threat to her health or her ability to have
children in the future.
I would support this legislation if its proponents would allow an
amendment to reflect not only the Supreme Court's rulings, but State
law in Texas. In Texas, late-term abortions are banned except when the
woman's life or health is threatened. That is the approach this
legislation should take as well.
While I am troubled by the procedure H.R. 1833 seeks to outlaw, I
believe it is dangerous and wrong to ban a medical procedure that in
some circumstances represents the best hope for a woman to avoid
serious risk to her health. The procedure that H.R. 1833 would ban is
utilized in the most emotionally wrenching circumstances imaginable--
involving cases in which the fetus has developed severe abnormalities
that will not allow it to sustain life outside the womb and in which a
woman's life, health, and future fertility are jeopardized.
There is no simple solution to reducing the incidence of abortion.
However, this Congress could have fashioned a commonsense bill limiting
the use of this procedure to cases in which a woman and her doctor
decide it is the best way to protect her life and health. Instead, the
proponents of H.R. 1833 have chosen to exploit the anguish of families
confronting this decision for political gain. How sad and how wrong.
Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the
following:
Statement of David J. Birnbach, M.D.
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 five thousand women
in labor and anesthesia to over a thousand women undergoing
[[Page H10631]]
cesarean 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 non-
obstetric 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 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 U.S. 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 anesthesia 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 properly 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.
(1) Dr. James McMahon, now deceased, testified that
anesthesia causes neurologic fetal demise.
(2) 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.''
(3) Dr. Mary Campbell of Planned Parenthood has addressed
this issue by writing the following: ``Though these doses 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:
1. 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.
2. Dr. Koplick has stated that the ``massive'' doses used
by Dr. McMahon are responsible for fetal demise. This again,
is incorrect and there is no scientific or clinical data to
support this allegation. I have personally administered
``massive'' doses of narcotics to intubated critically ill
pregnant patients who were being treated in an intensive care
unit. I am pleased to say that the fetuses were born alive
and did well.
3. 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 Fentanyl (900-
2500 g). 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. These
doses are far in excess of any anesthetic that would be used
by an anesthesiologist and even if they were incrementally
given over a two or three 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 can not be questioned
regarding his ``heavy handed'' anesthetic practice. I am
unable to explain why he would willingly administer such huge
amounts of drugs if he did indeed administer 2500 g
of fentanyl and 40mg of midazolam to a patient in a clinic,
without an anesthesiologist present, he was 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.
____
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 anesthesiologist at the Hospital of the University of
Pennsylvania.
I appear here today for one purpose, and one purpose only:
to take this 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 life-saving, medical procedures, total
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 necessary--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 four 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. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the following:
Second Trimester Abortion: From Every Angle--Fall Risk Management
Seminar
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
[[Page H10632]]
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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 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; and patients 26 weeks and over.
description of dilation and extraction method
Dilation and extraction takes place 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; and 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 of seven large Dilapan
hydroscopic dilators are placed in the cervix. The patient
goes home or to a motel overnight.
Day 2--More 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 tranducer is then held in position
over the lower extremities.
The surgeon introduces a large grasping forcep, such as
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 hand along the back of the fetus and ``hooks''
the shoulders of the fetus wit 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 analgesia 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
proplylactic 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.
followup
All patient 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.
references
\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 Installation, 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
[[Page H10633]]
Preceded by Laminaria, Pregnancy Termination Procedures,
Safety and New Developments, Hagerstown, Harper and Row,
1979, p. 192.
\9\ Hem, W.M., Abortion Practice, Philadelphia, J.B.
Lippincott, 1990, p. 127, 144-6.
\10\ McMahon, J., personal communications, 1992.
____
American Medical News,
Chicago, IL, July 11, 1995.
Hon. Charles T. Canady,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the
Judiciary, House of Representatives, 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 question.
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, MD)
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 rapid 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 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80%
are purely elective . . .
____
[From the American Medical News]
Shock-Tactic Ads Target Late-Term Abortion Procedure
foes hope campaign will sink federal abortion rights legislation
(By Diane 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 drawings 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
[[Page H10634]]
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
pass 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
practitoners--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 Johnston 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.
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. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, today I urge my colleagues to override
President Clinton's veto of the most barbaric of abortion procedures.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act will end this most cruel practice--a
practice that even the American Medical Association's legislative
council has publicly stated is, ``not a recognized medical technique.''
They also called this procedure, ``repulsive.'' I call it a cruel
inhumane act--unfitting of a civilized society.
Abortion advocates argue that partial birth abortions are only used
after 26 weeks of pregnancy in cases where the procedure is non-
elective. But the abortionist's interpretation of non-elective has an
enormous scope and includes: Severe fetal abnormality, Down's syndrome,
cleft palate, pediatric pelvis--that is if the mother is under age 18,
depression of the mother, and even ignorance of human reproduction.
Today, those who would support this horrible procedure tell us that
it is not a common practice. Can anyone really take comfort in debating
the number of babies subject to his death? And newly released
information indicates that in New Jersey alone, over 1,500 partial
birth abortions are performed annually--over three times the supposed
national total. Whether it is a few hundred or tens of thousands or
even one, wrong is wrong and no argument on how many will ever change
that. A single life being taken in this way is reprehensible.
We as a society would not allow or condone the execution of a
confessed, convicted mass murderer using this procedure. How could we
in good conscience even consider its use against an innocent, unborn
child.
The House has come so close to having the two-thirds majority
necessary for a veto override. I say to my colleagues who have opposed
this bill in the past--look again, deeply into your hearts, and I am
sure you will come to the same conclusion that I have and act to end
this terrible procedure.
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the vote
today to override the President's veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion
Ban Act, and urge my colleagues to follow suit in finally banning this
unethical abortion procedure.
Let me begin by saying, the question of whether partial-birth
abortions are right or wrong goes far beyond whether an individual
takes a pro-life or pro-choice stance. This debate is about using
humane and ethical medical practices. Former Surgeon General C. Everett
Koop said, ``Such a procedure cannot truthfully be called medically
necessary for either the mother or for the baby.'' As compassionate
human beings, we should not allow physicians to continue to perform
this procedure, one that was simply created to make it easier and
faster for them to perform late-term abortions.
During my time in Congress, I have always opposed abortion except to
save the life of a mother. Opponents of this legislation continue to
argue the procedure is necessary to saving the lives of many expectant
mothers. However, they fail to recognize that H.R. 1833 explicitly
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 if no other medical
procedure would suffice for that purpose.'' What the bill does is ban
this procedure from being used electively, which a majority of those
serving in Congress believes is the right and ethical thing to do.
[[Page H10635]]
The veto override of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act deserves the
support of every Member of Congress, regardless of your stance on the
issue of abortion. I urge all of my colleagues--Democrat, Republican,
pro-life, and pro-choice--to seriously consider the morality of this
procedure. In fact because of the sheer nature of the procedure, a
number of historically pro-choice members of this body supported the
ban on both occasions it was considered by the House of
Representatives. Let us again join together in a bipartisan manner and
override the veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion to override the
President's veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, H.R. 1833. I
voted against H.R. 1833 earlier this year. Sadly, there are rare and
tragic circumstances in which a woman may be advised by her doctor that
this procedure is medically necessary to save her life or avoid dire
consequences to her health.
H.R. 1833 does not contain an exception for saving the health of the
mother, and could actually increase risks to the mother's health. The
exception in H.R. 1833 also fails to cover cases where the mother could
lose her ability to have more children.
However rare, tragic circumstances surrounding a woman's pregnancy do
sometimes exist. A woman who faces this awful choice should make her
decision in consultation with her family and her physician, and I feel
strongly that Congress should not second-guess the medical advice of
licensed doctors or the moral decisions of families in such devastating
situations.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to override the
President's veto.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record:
Australian Planned Parenthood Director Lists Many Reasons for His
Partial-Birth Abortions
(By Douglas Johnson, NRLC Federal Legislative Director)
The medical director for Planned Parenthood of Australia
has revealed that he uses the partial-birth abortion
procedure as his ``method of choice'' for abortions done
after 20 weeks (4\1/2\ months), and that he performs such
abortions for a broad variety of social reasons.
These revelations by Dr. David Grundmann have provoked a
storm of controversy in the state of Queensland, the large
state that occupies northeastern Australia.
Dr. Grundmann performs abortions at a Planned Parenthood
clinic in Brisbane, the capital of Queensland. He described
his abortion practices in a paper that he presented on August
30, 1994, at a conference at Monash University.
In the paper, Dr. Grundmann wrote that ``abortion is an
integral part of family planning. Theoretically this means
abortion at any stage of gestation. Therefore I favor the
availability of abortion beyond 20 weeks.''
Dr. Grundmann wrote that ``dilatation and extraction'' is
his ``method of choice'' for performing abortions from 20
weeks on. ``Dilatation and extraction'' (or ``dilation and
extraction'') is a term ``coined'' by Dr. Martin Haskell of
Dayton, Ohio, for the partial-birth abortion procedure, in
which a living baby is partly delivered feet first, after
which the skull is punctured and the brain removed by
suction.
Dr. Grundmann himself described the procedure in a
television interview as ``essentially a breech delivery where
the fetus is delivered feet first and then when the head of
the fetus is brought down into the top of the cervical canal,
it is decompressed with a puncturing instrument so that it
fits through the cervical opening.''
In his 1994 paper, Dr. Grundmann listed several
``advantages'' of this method, such as that it ``can be
performed under local and/or twi-light anesthetic'' with ``no
need for narcotic analgesics,'' ``can be performed as an
ambulatory out-patient procedure,'' and there is ``no-chance
of delivering a live fetus.''
Among the ``disadvantages,'' Dr. Grundmann wrote, is ``the
aesthetics of the procedure are difficult for some people,
and therefore it may be difficult to get staff.''
Dr. Grundmann wrote that in Australia, late second-
trimester abortion is available ``in many major hospitals, in
most capital cities and large provincial centres'' in cases
of ``lethal fetal abnormalities'' or ``gross fetal
abnormalities,'' or ``risk to maternal life,'' including
``psychotic/suicidal behavior.''
However, Dr. Grundmann said, his Planned Parenthood clinic
also offers the procedure after 20 weeks for women who fall
into five additional ``categories'':
``Minor or doubtful fetal abnormalities.''
``Extreme material immaturity, i.e., girls in the 11 to 14
year age group.''
Women ``who do not know they are pregnant,'' for example,
because of amenorrhea [irregular menstruation] ``in women who
are very active such as athletes or those under extreme forms
of stress, i.e., exam stress, relationship breakup . . .''
``Intellectually impaired women, who are unaware of basic
biology . . .''
``Major life crises or major changes in socio-economic
circumstances. The most common example of this is a planned
or wanted pregnancy followed by the sudden death or desertion
of the partner who is in all probability the bread winner.''
``Abortion beyond 20 weeks is unavailable anywhere in
Australia, except at our [Planned Parenthood] clinics for the
last 5 categories,'' Dr. Grundmann wrote. Under the heading
``What can be done to improve or expand this service?'' Dr.
Grundmann wrote, ``Demystify abortion particularly late
abortion by appropriate education of the population.''
Election Issue: Dr. Grundmann's paper has been publicized
by the Queensland Right to Life Association, and it has
produced considerable controversy over the past two years,
Dr. David van Gend said in an interview with NRL News. Dr.
van Gend, a Brisbane general practitioner, is the secretary
of the Queensland chapter of the World Federation of Doctors
Who Respect Human Life (WFDWRHL).
Dr. van Gend took Dr. Grundmann's paper to Michael Horan, a
member of the Queensland Parliament, who was the ``shadow
health minister'' for the National-Liberal Coalition, which
at that time was the opposition to the ruling government,
which was headed by Premier Wayne Goss of the Labor Party.
Beginning in October 1994, Mr. Horan strongly attacked Dr.
Grundmann's abortion practices in speeches on the floor of
the Parliament. Mr. Horan demanded that the Goss Government
take strong action to stop Dr. Grundmann's late abortions,
which, he argued, violate Queensland law.
``What will it mean for the conscience of society and its
respect for the law, if people are vividly aware of such
brutality, such illegality, and then they see their leaders
do nothing about it?'' Mr. Horan said in one speech. ``More
importantly, what will it mean for all the defenseless babies
who, unlike their peers in the hospital nurseries, will never
see a human face, never feel a human touch, except that tight
grip on their legs and the stab to the head?''
However, for more than a year, the Goss Government refused
to take any meaningful action. Leaders of the Coalition
promised to take steps against Dr. Grundmann if they were
placed in power, and this became a major issue in the
February 1996 elections, in which the Goss Government lost
power.
``The late-term abortion issue was the clearest issue
distinguishing the parties in the February election,'' Dr.
van Gend told NRL News. ``The Labor Government had refused to
act against Dr. Grundmann, while the National-Liberal
Coalition leaders promised to immediately investigate the
matter.''
For example, Liberal Party leader Joan Sheldon said that
the partial-birth abortions ``are horrific and should be
stopped.''
When the Coalition took over the government, Michael Horan
became the Minister of Health. Recently, the government has
placed an investigation of Dr. Grundmann in the hands of the
state Medical Board, which has quasi-judicial investigative
punitive powers, Dr. van Gend said.
AMA Rebukes Grundmann: The Queensland Branch of the
Australian Medical Association (AMA) formed a ``working
party'' on late abortion, which interviewed Dr. Grundmann
regarding his abortion practices in September 1995.
As quoted by Mr. Horan in his speeches in Parliament,
during this interview Dr. Grundmann said he has performed the
partial-birth abortion procedure as late as 26\1/2\ weeks
(past 6 months).
``There is no stage of pregnancy at which I regard the
fetus as my patient,'' Dr. Grundmann told the panel.
Dr. Grundmann told the panel that just that month he had
aborted a baby at 23 weeks for severe cleft palate. When it
was pointed out that this condition can be corrected by
surgery, Dr. Grundmann replied that this depends on whether
the woman wants to put ``her fetus'' through all that
surgery.
In April 1996, the AMA Queensland Branch issued a formal
policy statement that said,``There is a duty of care to the
fetus in the late second trimester of pregnancy.'' Therefore,
the organization ``opposes late second trimester termination
of pregnancy except in the gravest of circumstances,'' these
being ``lethal'' or ``severe'' fetal malformation or
``unequivocal risk to the life of the mother where no other
medical procedure would suffice to save the mother.'' This
was viewed as a rebuke to Dr. Grundmann.
Dr. van Gend said that in an interview with Dr. Grundmann,
``I asked him if there was not something cold and
premeditated, even grotesque, about setting out to dilate the
birth canal to 75% of the fetal skull diameter, in order to
ensure the head will lodge in the cervix [the opening to the
womb], in order to have leisure to push a puncturing
instrument through that head, in order to ensure `no chance
of delivering a live fetus'--when by dilating the canal one
more centimetre he would enable the baby to slip out and be
given to the care of a pediatrician. His response was to the
effect that he was there to terminate that pregnancy, not to
put the woman's fetus in an incubator.''
Asked by a radio interviewer, ``At what point do you
believe the fetus becomes a sentient being?,'' Dr. Grundmann
responded, ``When it is born.''
Dr. van Gend told NRL News,``At no stage during the
Australian debate over partial-birth abortions has Dr.
Grundmann or anyone else tried to pretend that the baby is
already dead before the head is punctured. The Baby is wide
awake and fully sensitive.''
Dr. van Gend explained that in Queensland, statutory law
generally prohibits abortion,
[[Page H10636]]
but a 1986 court ruling known as ``the McGuire ruling''
provides for exceptions in cases in which there is a
``serious'' danger to a woman's life or health, including
mental health. Dr. Grundmann has asserted that all of his
abortions fit under these criteria. However, in a 1995 civil
case, a Queensland judge ruled, ``I disbelieve Dr.
Grundmann's assertions that he honestly and sincerely applied
that test before each and every abortion which he
performed.''
``If Dr. Grundmann is ever prosecuted, a jury would be
asked to decide whether these late abortions--for these
reasons, by this method-- are justified under our law,'' Dr.
van Gend said.
Queensland law requires that a death certificate be filed
for abortions performed after 20 weeks, which Dr. Grundmann
wrote is ``certainly an inconvenience.''
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, recently, a physician asked
exactly what we meant by the term, partial-birth abortion ban and
instead of going through the grotesque explanation, we told her that
she was right--we had been calling it by the wrong name. Late-term, or
just plain abortion was probably more accurate.
However, one physician from my home State of Oklahoma said that she
called it infanticide. No matter what you call it, this veto needs to
be overridden.
Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about a medically proven treatment
that is going to save thousands of lives. In fact, we are stating the
exact opposite. This is not a medically necessary procedure. This is a
gruesome execution.
We need to be a Congress that stands for right causes, right
decisions, and plain old doing the right thing.
This late-term abortion--when the fetus is a viable baby--is the
right thing for this Congress to do. It is commanded by anyone who
believes in the sanctity of life.
We have had hundreds and hundreds of postcards, a petition with
literally thousands of names of it and letters of support from Catholic
bishops, evangelical pastors, and rabbis.
To my colleagues, I have to tell you: This is the right thing to do.
Please vote to override the veto and stop this infanticide.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
1833 and thus, in opposition to the misguided attempt to override the
President's veto. I do so for many reasons, all of which I have stated
before but will gladly reiterate in the hope of convincing those who
might support this override attempt of the error of their actions.
The first is that 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 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 a woman's right to choose and a
physician's ability to provide the best medical care for their
patients.
The second reason for my opposition is that H.R. 1833 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. 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.
The Republican Members of this body need look no further than their
own party for women who have offered their own stories, as testimony to
the need for such medical procedures.
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; and many others who needed this procedure to insure not
only their health, but their ability to have more children in the
future. 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.
I heard first hand, during judiciary committee hearings, the pain of
women who had this procedure. For hours we listened to their tales of
emotional and physical suffering during their testimony.
In April, the President was joined by five women who were heartbroken
to learn of their baby's fatal conditions. These women wanted their
children more than life itself, but were advised that this procedure
was their best chance to avert the risk of death or grave harm. He
found their testimony moving, because for them, this was not about
choice, but rather life. One of them described her predicament:
Our little boy had hydrocephally. All the doctors told us
there was no hope. We asked about in utero surgery, about
shunts to remove the fluid, but there was absolutely nothing
we could do. I cannot express the pain we still feel. This
was our precious little baby, and he was being taken from us
before we even had him. This was not our choice, for not only
was our son going to die, but the complications of the
pregnancy put my health in danger, as well.
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 woman's life or health.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this bill would create an
unwarranted intrusion into the physician-patient relationship by
preventing physicians from providing necessary medical care to their
patients. It would further intrude into this sacred association by
making doctors felons for doing that which they have taken an oath to
do: protect the lives of their patients. I am incredulous that
physicians will be seen as criminals in the eyes of the law for
attempting to save the life of an innocent mother. Furthermore, it
would impose a horrendous burden on families who are already facing a
crushing personal situation.
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? Many of my colleagues decry the intrusion of
the Federal Government into the lives of its citizens, but isn't
interfering in the doctor-patient relationship one of the most
intrusive actions that can be conceived?
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.
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.
While these are my reasons for opposing H.R. 1833 and this veto
override, I believe it is time to clear up some facts associated with
the procedure being debated here.
To begin with, the term ``partial birth abortion'' is not found in
any medical dictionaries, textbooks or coding manuals. The definition
in H.R. 1833 is so vague as to be uninterpretable, yet chilling. Many
OB/GYN's 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.
In addition, late term abortions are not common. Ninety-five and five
tenths percent of abortions take place before 15 weeks. Only a little
more than one-half of one 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 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 last 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.
[[Page H10637]]
Let me set the record straight, no one is advocating the abuse of
this process and those who would state differently are exaggerating the
frequency and circumstances under which this procedure is done. I have
great confidence in the American doctors and women to do the right
thing and not use this procedure for nothing less than saving the life
of the mother.
The decision to have an abortion is a very difficult one for any
woman, and I do not understand how the many Members of this House, who
will never face the possibility, can belittle the anguish that such a
decision causes. The determination of whether abortion is appropriate
for any individual is something that should be left up to herself, her
family and her God. And I am sickened and appalled that so many Members
of this usually honorable body would use this very private issue for
political gain. How they can minimize the tragedy that befalls families
when the loved and desired child is found to be inviable and the
ability for the mother to bear future children is in great jeopardy, I
do not know nor do I understand. During these times of misfortune, one
calls upon one's spiritual strength and to think the Government would
have the effrontery to intrude makes a mockery of the Constitution and
an individual's right to privacy. In short, we are not advocating this
procedure on demand or for feeble complaints regarding health or
convenience. To deny physicians the ability to use all of their medical
resources to avoid loss of life and save the mother would be to treat
these women less than human.
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.''
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 do what is right and sustain the President's
veto.
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to H.R. 1833 because I oppose
any legislation that fails to provide for the health concerns of the
mother when she and her doctor believe that her health is in jeopardy.
This legislation does not provide an exception for serious health risks
to the mother.
This procedure should only be used in cases where there is a serious
risk to a woman's health and I believe the legislation could have been
drafted to allow a limited exception for those cases in which it is
truly necessary. In fact, Pennsylvania has such an exception in its
abortion law. Under Pennsylvania law, all late-term abortions are
prohibited, except in cases in which it is necessary to preserve the
life of the mother or to ``prevent a substantial and irreversible
impairment of a major bodily function.'' Surely the supporters of this
legislation could have written a health exception that would prohibit
the procedure in most cases but that would allow women and their
physicians, in the most limited and serious of cases, access to a
procedure that will preserve both the life and health of the women
involved.
Further, I am opposed to this legislation because I believe that
medical decisions of this nature should be left to trained medical
professionals, in consultation with their patients. I do not believe
that this legislation, which forecloses medical options for women,
belongs before the Congress. This Congress is not comprised of medical
professionals with the knowledge or expertise to make medical judgments
about appropriate treatment for women in these tragic circumstances. I
believe that these judgments must be left in the hands of people who
are trained to give medical guidance to their patients, and then the
decision regarding the course of action to take must rest with women,
their families, their physicians and their religious counselors--not
with Congress.
I am ready to support legislation that limits this abortion procedure
to the most serious of cases, but I am not prepared to ban it in those
cases where it represents the best hope for a woman to avoid serious
risk of her health.
Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, over 300 physicians, including C.
Everett Koop, have joined together to expose the misinformation
campaign of the supporters of partial-birth abortion. I insert the
facts provided by PHACT in the Congressional Record:
A National Coalition of Doctors Says It's Unsafe and Unnecessary
The Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT) was
formed because we, as physicians, can no longer stand by
while abortion advocates, the President of the United States
and the media continue to repeat false claims to members of
Congress and to the public about partial-birth abortion. We
are over 300 doctors strong, most specialists in obstetrics,
gynecology, maternal/fetal medicine and pediatrics.
By congressional definition, partial-birth abortion is the
killing of an infant who has already been partially delivered
outside his or her mother's body. Medically, it is
accomplished by pulling an infant feet-first out of the
birth-canal until all but the head is exposed. The surgeon
then forces scissors into the base of the baby's skull,
spreads them, and inserts a suction catheter through which he
suctions out the brain.
Congress, the public--but most importantly women--need to
know that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary
to protect a mother's health or her future fertility.
On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant
threat to both. I the words of former Surgeon General C.
Everett Koop: ``In no way can I twist my mind to see that
partial birth--and then destruction of the unborn child
before the head is born--is a medical necessity for the
mother.''
Now you know the facts.
We urge you to tell your representatives to stop this
unnecessary and dangerous procedure. The vote is this week.
Please call now.
____
Former Surgeon General Koop Separates Medical Fact From Fiction on
Partial-Birth Abortions--Koop: The Partial-Birth Abortion Is ``In No
Way . . . A Medical Necessity''
Alexandria, VA.--In a wide ranging interview with the
American Medical News, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop
expressed his opposition to partial-birth abortions and
declared that they are not medically necessary.
The former Surgeon General was asked about President
Clinton's recent veto of a bill to ban partial-birth
abortions and claims regarding the medical need for them.
Following is Dr. Koop's response, reported in the August 19th
issue of American Medical News:
``I believe that Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical
advisers on what is fact and what is fiction in reference to
late-term abortions. Because in no way can I twist my mind to
see that the late-term abortion as described--you know,
partial-birth, and then destruction of the unborn child
before the head is born--is a medical necessity for the
mother. It certainly can't be a necessity for the baby. So I
am opposed to * * * partial birth abortions.''
Asked ``have you ever treated children with any of the
disabilities cited in the debate? For example have you
operated on children with organs outside of their bodies,''
Koop responded:
``Oh, yes indeed. I've done that many times. The prognosis
is usually good. [With an] omphalocele * * * organs are out
but still contained in the sac composed of the tissues of the
umbilical cord. I have been repairing those since 1946. In
fact, the first child I ever did, with a huge omphalocele
much bigger than her head, went on to develop well and become
the head nurse in my intensive care unit many years later.''
Dr. Koop's remarks echo over three hundred other medical
professionals--leaders in the fields of obstetrics,
gynecology and perinatology--who have joined the Physicians'
Ad-hoc Coalition for Truth to help Americans and Congress
understand that partial-birth abortion is never medically
necessary, and in fact can threaten a mother's health and
safety.
The Physicians' Ad-hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT), with
over three hundred members drawn from the medical community
nationwide, exists to bring the medical facts to bear on the
public policy debate regarding partial birth abortions.
Members of the coalition are available to speak to public
policy makers and the media. If you would like to speak with
a member of PHACT, please contact Gene Tarne or Michelle
Powers at 703-683-6004.
____
Physicians' Ad Hoc
Coalition for Truth,
Alexandria, VA, September 18, 1996.
Dear Member of Congress: We write to you as founding
members of the Physicians' Ad-hoc Coalition for Truth
(PHACT), an organization of over three hundred members drawn
from the medical community nationwide--most ob/gyns,
perinatologist and pediatricians--concerned and disturbed
over the medical misinformation driving the partial-birth
abortion debate. As doctors, we cannot remember another issue
of public policy so directly related to the medical community
that has been subject to such distortions and outright
falsehoods.
The most damaging piece of medical disinformation that
seems to be driving this debate is that the partial-birth
abortion procedure may be necessary to protect the lives,
health and future fertility of women. You have heard this
claim most dramatically not from doctors, but from a handful
of women who chose to have a partial-birth abortion when
their children were diagnosed with some form of fetal
abnormality.
As physicians who specialize in the care of pregnant women
and their children, we have all treated women confronting the
same tragic circumstances as the women who have publicly
shared their experiences to justify
[[Page H10638]]
this abortion procedure. So as doctors intimately familiar
with such cases, let us be very clear: the partial-birth
abortion procedure, as described by Dr. Martin Haskell (the
nation's leading practitioner of the procedure) and defined
in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, is never medically
indicated and can itself pose serious risks to the health and
future fertility of women.
There are simply no obstetrical situations encountered in
this country which require a partially-delivered human fetus
to be destroyed to preserve the life, health or future
fertility of the mother. Not for hydrocephaly (excessive
cerebrospinal fluid in the head); not for polyhydramnios (an
excess of amniotic fluid collecting in the woman); and not
for trisomy (genetic abnormalities characterized by an extra
chromosome).
Our members concur with former Surgeon General C. Everett
Koop's recent statement that ``in no way can I twist my mind
to see that [partial-birth abortion] is a medical necessity
for the mother.''
As case in point would be that of Ms. Coreen Costello, who
has appeared several times before Congress to recount her
personal experience in defense of this procedure. Her unborn
child suffered from at least two conditions: ``polyhydramnios
secondary to abnormal fetal swallowing,'' which causes
amniotic fluid to collect in the uterus, and
``hydrocephalus'', a condition that causes an excessive
amount of fluid to accumulate in the fetal head.
The usual treatment for removing the large amount of fluid
in the uterus is a procedure called amniocentesis. The usual
treatment for draining excess fluid from the fetal head is a
procedure called cephalocentesis. In both cases the excess
fluid is drained by using a thin needle that can be placed
inside the womb through the abdomen (``transabdominally''--
the preferred route) or through the vagina
(``transvaginally.'') The transvaginal approach however, as
performed by Dr. McMahon on Ms. Costello, puts the woman at
an increased risk of infection because of the non-sterile
environment of the vagina. Dr. McMahon used this approach
most likely because he had no significant expertise in
obstetrics and gynecology. After the fluid has been
drained, and the head decreased in size, labor would be
induced and attempts made to deliver the child vaginally.
Given these medical realities, the partial-birth abortion
procedure appropriate to address the medical complications
described by Ms. Costello or any of the other women who
were tragically misled into believing they had no other
options.
Indeed, the partial-birth abortion procedure itself can
pose both an immediate and significant risk to a woman's
health and future fertility. To take just one example, to
forcibly dilate a woman's cervix over the course of several
days, as this procedure requires, risks creating an
``incompetent cervix,'' a leading cause of future premature
deliveries. It seems to have escaped anyone's attention that
one of the five women who appeared at President Clinton's
veto ceremony who had a partial-birth abortion subsequently
had five miscarriages.
The medical evidence is clear and argues overwhelmingly
against the partial-birth abortion procedure. Given the
medical realities, a truly pro-woman vote would be to end the
availability of a procedure that is so potentially dangerous
to women. The health status of women and children in this
country can only be enhanced by your unequivocal support of
H.R. 1833.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Nancy G. Romer, M.D.,
FACOG, Clinical Professor, Department of Obstetrics and
Gynecology, Wright State University, Chairman, Dept. of
Ob/Gyn, Miami Valley Hospital, OH.
Curtis R. Cook, M.D.,
Maternal Fetal Medicine, Butterworth Hospital, Michigan
State College of Human Medicine.
Pamela E. Smith, M.D.,
Director of Medical Education, Department of Obstetrics
and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Medical Center, Chicago, IL.,
Member, Association of Professors of Ob/Gyn.
Joseph L. DeCook, M.D.,
FACOG, Holland, MI.
____
Doctors' Group Promoting Medical Facts About Partial-Birth Abortion
Quickly Swells to Over 300 Members--Medical Specialists Nationwide
Stand Firm: Partial-Birth Abortion Never A Medical Necessity
Alexandria, VA.--The Physicians Ad-hoc Coalition for Truth
(PHACT) has quickly grown to over 300 doctors nationwide,
actively promoting the fact that partial-birth abortions are
never medically necessary.
PHACT was formed by medical professionals concerned about
repeated medical misstatements about the procedure known as
partial-birth abortion. The misleading and false information
is potentially dangerous to women and their children.
Specialists from around the country in the fields of
obstetrics, gynecology, perinatology (maternal and fetal
medicine) and pediatric medicine have joined PHACT to correct
misstatements and distortions rampant in the debate over
partial-birth abortions, and to promote the fact that a
partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to
protect the health of a woman or to protect her future
fertility. In fact, the procedure can pose grave dangers to
the woman, and is not recognized in the medical community.
Recently, former Surgeon General G. Everett Koop publicly
confirmed that the partial birth abortions are not medically
necessary procedures. During an interview published in 8/19/
96 issue of American Medical News, Dr. Koop remarked ``I
believe Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical advisors on
what is fact and what is fiction in reference to late-term
abortions. Because in no way can I twist my mind to see that
late-term abortion as described--you know, the partial-birth,
and then destruction of the unborn child before the head is
born--is a medical necessity for the mother. It certainly
can't be a necessity for the baby. So I am opposed to
partial-birth abortions.''
The current PHACT membership of over 300 far surpasses the
founding members' stated goal to attract 200 members. PHACT
was formed in late July of this year, and held a
Congressional briefing on July 24 as their debut event to
educate Congress and the public on the medical facts about
partial-birth abortion.
The Physicians' Ad-hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT) exists
to bring the medical facts to bear on the public policy
debate regarding partial birth abortions. Members of the
coalition are available to speak to public policy makers and
the media. If you would like to speak with a member of PHACT,
please contact Gene Tarne and Michelle Powers at 703-683-
5004.
____
The Case of Coreen Costello--Partial-Birth Abortion Was Not a Medical
Necessity for the Most Visible ``Personal Case'' Proponent of Procedure
Coreen Costello is one of five women who appeared with
President Clinton when he vetoed the Partial-Birth Abortion
Ban Act (4/10/96). She has probably been the most active and
the most visible of those women who have chosen to share with
the public the very tragic circumstances of their pregnancies
which, they say, made the partial-birth abortion procedure
their only medical option to protect their health and future
fertility.
But based on what Ms. Costello has publicly said so far,
her abortion was not, in fact, medically necessary.
In addition to appearing with the President at the veto
ceremony, Ms. Costello has twice recounted her story in
testimony before both the House and Senate; the New York
Times published an op-ed by Ms. Costello based on this
testimony; she was featured in a full page ad in the
Washington Post sponsored by several abortion advocacy
groups; and, most recently (7/29/96) she has recounted her
story for a ``Dear Colleague'' letter being circulated to
House members by Rep. Peter Deutsch (FL).
Unless she were to decide otherwise, Ms. Costello's full
medical records remain, of course, unavailable to the public,
being a matter between her and her doctors. However, Ms.
Costello has voluntarily chosen to share significant parts of
her very tragic story with the general public and in very
highly visible venues. Based on what Ms. Costello has
revealed of her medical history--of her own accord and for
the stated purpose of defeating the Partial-Birth Abortion
Ban Act--doctors with PHACT can only conclude that Ms.
Costello and others who have publicly acknowledged undergoing
this procedure ``are honest women who were sadly misinformed
and whose decision to have a partial-birth abortion was based
on a great deal of misinformation'' (Dr. Joseph DeCook, Ob/
Gyn, PHACT Congressional Briefing, 7/24/96). Ms. Costello's
experience does not change the reality that a partial birth
abortion is never medically indicated--in fact, there are
available several alternative, standard medical procedures to
treat women confronting unfortunate situations like Ms.
Costello had to face.
The following analysis is based on Ms. Costello's public
statements regarding events leading up to her abortion
performed by the late Dr. James McMahon. This analysis was
done by Dr. Curtis Cook, a perinatologist with the Michigan
State College of Human Medicine and member of PHACT.
``Ms. Costello's child suffered from `polyhydramnios
secondary to fetal swallowing defect.' In other words, the
child could not swallow the amniotic fluid, and an excess of
the fluid therefore collected in the mother's uterus. Because
of the swallowing defect, the child's lungs were not properly
stimulated, and an underdevelopment of the lungs would likely
be the cause of death if abortion had not intervened. The
child had no significant chance of survival, but also would
not likely die as soon as the umbilical cord was cut.
``The usual approach in such a case would be to reduce the
amount of amniotic fluid collecting in the mother's uterus by
serial amniocentesis. Excess fluid in the fetal ventricles
could also be drained. Ordinarily, the draining would occur
`transabdominally.' Then the child would be vaginally
delivered, after attempts were made to move the child into
the usual, head-down position. Dr. McMahon, who performed the
draining of cerebral fluid on Ms. Costello's child, did so
`transvaginally,' most likely because he had no significant
expertise in obstetrics/gynecology. In other words, he would
not be able to do it well transabdominally--the standard
method used by ob/gyns--because that takes a degree of
expertise he did not possess.
``Ms. Costello's statement that she was unable to have a
vaginal delivery, or, as she called it, `natural birth or an
induced labor,'
[[Page H10639]]
is contradicted by the fact that she did indeed have a
vaginal delivery, conducted by Dr. McMahon. What Ms. Costello
had was a breech vaginal delivery for purposes of aborting
the child, however, as opposed to a vaginal delivery intended
to result in a live birth. A cesarean section in this case
would not be medically indicated--not because of any inherent
danger--but because the baby could be safely delivered
vaginally.''
The Physicians' Ad-hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT), with
over three hundred members drawn from the medical community
nationwide, exists to bring the medical facts to bear on the
public policy debate regarding partial birth abortions.
Members of the coalition are available to speak to public
policy makers and the media. If you would like to speak with
a member of PHACT, please contact Gene Tarne or Michelle
Powers at 703-683-5004.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
vote for the override of the President's veto of the partial birth
abortion bill. I sponsored the original legislation because it would
protect the sanctity of life and prevent the cruel and inhumane killing
of unborn children.
We know all too well the arguments on both sides of this issue.
Opponents of the bill argue that the partial birth abortion procedure
does not exist because it is only used to deliver babies who are
already dead. This argument is nonsensical because the definition of a
partial birth abortion requires the partial delivery of a fetus which
is still alive. A living fetus is viable and we should respect its
humananity.
Another argument offered by those who oppose the bill is that this
procedure is rare and utilized only in dire circumstances, when the
baby is defective or the mother's life is in danger. This is not true.
Many doctors admit that partial birth abortions are elective and are
quite common. There are many reasons why women have late-term
abortions. Some cite the lack of money or adequate health insurance to
support the child. Others may have social or psychological problems
which hinder their ability to go to full term on their pregnancy.
No matter what reasons are cited, this brutal and senseless procedure
should never be allowed.
We can certainly find humane ways to deal with whatever reasons or
undue burdens which cause women to resort to partial birth abortions.
But we should not, as a nation, sanction this procedure: it is wrong,
wrong, wrong.
For me and the people of Guam whom I represent, the importance of
childbearing and the worth of children in our culture are cornerstones
for sustaining family values. For us, abortion is not an option; it is
something we vigorously oppose because it destroys our concept of
family preservation.
I join the U.S. Catholic Conference, a number of antiabortion groups,
and a majority of my colleagues in the House in supporting the overturn
of the veto on this important legislation. This is not a constitutional
issue, nor a health policy issue--this is an issue of protecting
children who are killed before they are given a chance to experience
their humanity.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the ill-
advised attempt to override the President's veto of H.R. 1833.
The President's veto should be sustained--especially because 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.
This legislation would be a direct blow to the fight many of us led
for many, many years to secure--and then to preserve and to 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.
The President correctly vetoed the legislation because it does not
contain a true life and health exception provision. It does contain an
extremely narrow life exception, and it requires further that no other
medial procedure would suffice. But it provides no exception at all to
preserve the woman's health, no matter how seriously or permanently it
will be damaged.
This exception is obviously a basic and fundamental concern to women
and their families. Without it, 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 banned.
If this exception had been included, the bill would have at least
shown some respect for the paramount importance of a woman's life,
health, and future fertility.
The truth is, however, that we have absolutely no business
considering this prohibition and criminalization of a constitutionally
protected medical procedure.
This is a dangerous piece of legislation. It is the first time the
Federal Government would ban a particular method of abortion, and it is
part of an effort to make it almost impossible for any abortion to be
performed late in a pregnancy--no matter how endangered the mother's
life or health might be.
At stake here is whether or not we will be compassionate enough to
recognize that none of us in this legislative body has all the answers
to every tragic situation.
We are debating not merely whether to outlaw a procedure, but under
what terms. If legislation must be passed that is unprecedented in
telling physicians which medical procedures they may not, despite their
own best judgment, use, then it must permit a life or adverse health
exception. That is the only way that the legislation might possibly
meet the requirements that have been handed down by the U.S. Supreme
Court.
Mr. Speaker, on a personal note, I authored California's Therapeutic
Abortion Act, which was one of the first laws in the Nation to protect
the lives and health of women. Members may recall that then Gov. Ronald
Reagan signed my legislation into law in 1967. That was a difficult and
hard-won fight; it helped, I believe, save the lives of several million
women, and as I look back on my legislative career, it is the
legislation I am most proud of.
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled subsequently that the Government
cannot restrict abortion in cases where it is necessary to preserve a
woman's life or health, I believed that we had 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 I was obviously wrong, because this Congress is
willing even to criminalize for the first time a safe medical procedure
that is used only very, very rarely and to end the most tragic of
pregnancies. These are situations that are so desperate that it is hard
to understand why most people, except those who are opposed to abortion
under any circumstance at all, would not be able to understand that
these are the very situations that should be protected.
This is not a moderate measure, Mr. Speaker. It is an absolute
tragedy for women and their families who could very well find
themselves in the very desperate and tragic situation of other women
who have had the courage to talk about the seriously defective
pregnancies they had to end if they were to live or to protect their
health and future fertility.
We are talking about making a crime a medical procedure that is used
only in very rare cases--fewer than 500 a year. It is a procedure that
is needed only as a last resort, in cases where pregnancies that were
planned, and that are wanted, have gone tragically wrong.
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 me that it would be more than fitting if we showed
restraint and compassion for women who are facing those devastating
decisions.
Mr. Speaker, we should uphold the President's veto of this
legislation that is unwise, unconstitutional, and terrible public
policy that would return us to the dangerous situation that existed
over 30 years ago.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives has the
opportunity to stop the appalling practice known as partial-birth
abortion. I cosponsored and supported the legislation to ban partial-
birth abortions both because I am committed to protecting the rights of
the unborn and because they are particularly morally repugnant.
I will vote to override the President's veto and encourage my
colleagues to join me so that H.R. 1833, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban
Act can be enacted.
A partial-birth abortion is not, as President Clinton would have us
believe, an ordinary medical procedure. It is a gruesome practice which
pulls a baby from its mother's womb and ends its life.
There is no gray area in this debate. This heinous practice--coming
very late in the pregnancy--is clearly the killing of a human baby.
Thousands of Americans have written and called this House to plead
that we enact the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and protect the right
to life of these late-term children. I pray that we will hear their
plea and override the President's veto.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support overriding
President Clinton's veto of H.R. 1833, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban
Act.
The President's veto of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is morally
indefensible and his reason for vetoing the bill does not hold up under
closer scrutiny. The President claims this abortion procedure is
necessary, in fact, the ``only way,'' for women with certain prenatal
complications to avoid serious physical damage, including the ability
to bear further
[[Page H10640]]
children. If this is true, then why is partial-birth abortion not
taught in a single medical residency program anywhere in the United
States? Why is it not recognized as an accepted surgery by the American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists? Actually, the American
Medical Association's legislative council voted unanimously to endorse
the partial-birth abortion ban.
The fact is, a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve
the health of future fertility of the mother. However, you do not have
to take my word for it, listen to what former Surgeon General C.
Everett Koop has to say on the subject. Mr. Koop stated:
I believe that Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical
advisors on what is fact and what is fiction in reference to
late-term abortions. Because in no way can I twist my mind to
see that the late-term abortions as described--you know,
partial birth, and then destruction of the unborn child
before the head is born--is a medical necessity for the
mother.
The dangerous reality is, according to undisputed expert medical
testimony given before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, the
partial-birth abortion can be harmful to the mother in several ways.
First, the cervix must be forcefully dilated, threatening future
pregnancies by weakening the cervix. Next, the surgeon's hand must be
inserted into the uterus to turn the baby around. This maneuver is so
dangerous that it has been avoided in obstetrical practice for decades.
Finally, the removal of the baby's brain while the head remains in
utero may expose sharp fragments of bone. Uterine laceration and severe
hemorrhaging may result.
The difference between a partial-birth abortion and homicide is a
mere three inches. A society that strives for civility should not
tolerate such barbarism.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
1833, which will stop the senseless and inhumane practice of partial
birth abortions.
Patial birth abortions are gruesome, they are horrific and they are
wrong.
I voted in favor of H.R. 1833 on November 1, 1995 and again on March
27, 1996. Today, I continue my support for this much-needed legislation
by once again voting for H.R. 1833--and voting to override the
President's veto.
Critics of this bill say the majority of these procedures are health
related. Yet documents obtained by the committees studying this issue
show that the majority of late-term abortions are not done for medical
reasons at all.
Critics of this measure say it will harm mothers whose babies pose a
life-threatening hazard to their health. Yet H.R. 1833 contains an
exception that protects the mother if her life is in danger. This
exception allows the procedure if it is ever ``necessary to save the
life of a woman whose life is endangered by a physician disorder,
illness, or injury, provided that no other medical procedure would
suffice for that purpose.''
We must, as a society, move to address this issue with compassion and
with courage. The destruction of human life that results from a partial
birth abortion must stop now. I am pleased to join my colleagues in
voting to end this unnecessary and unethical procedure.
Mr. Christensen. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of overriding the
President's veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
I was honored to be an original cosponsor of this legislation because
it takes a stand against the most horrid abuses of the abortion
industry--abortions that are committed on a child that is partially
born before the abortionist kills the child.
This procedure is so indefensible that its proponents have been left
to medical distortions and falsehoods to defend their position.
According to Dr. Nancy Romer, of Wright State University, ``there is
no medical evidence that the partial birth abortion procedure is safer
or necessary to provide comprehensive health care to women.'' Dr. Romer
dealt with the medical issues surrounding this procedure in greater
detail in an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal, and I submit it for
the Record.
I believe that each of us--not just as Members of Congress but as
citizens and as human beings--has a moral obligation to stand up in
defense of our Nation's children and put an end to this horrible
procedure, and I urge my colleagues to support over-riding the
President's veto.
[From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 19, 1996]
Partial-Birth Abortion Is Bad Medicine
(By Nancy Romer, Pamela Smith, Curtis R. Cook, and Joseph L. DeCook)
The House of Representatives will vote in the next few days
on whether to override President Clinton's veto of the
Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. The debate on the subject has
been noisy and rancorous. You've heard from the activists.
You've heard from the politicians. Now may we speak?
We are the physicians who, on a daily basis, treat pregnant
women and their babies. And we can no longer remain silent
while abortion activists, the media and even the president of
the United States continue to repeat false medical claims
about partial-birth abortion. The appalling lack of medical
credibility on the side of those defending this procedure has
forced us--for the first time in our professional careers--to
leave the sidelines in order to provide some sorely needed
facts in a debate that has been dominated by anecdote,
emotion and media stunts.
Since the debate on this issue began, those whose real
agenda is to keep all types of abortion legal--at any stage
of pregnancy, for any reason--have waged what can only be
called an orchestrated misinformation campaign.
First the National Abortion Federation and other pro-
abortion groups claimed the procedure didn't exist. When a
paper written by the doctor who invented the procedure was
produced, abortion proponents changed their story, claiming
the procedure was only done when a women's life was in
danger. Then the same doctor, the nation's main practitioner
of the technique, was caught--on tape--admitting that 80% of
his partial-birth abortions were ``purely elective.''
Then there was the anesthesia myth. The American public was
told that it wasn't the abortion that killed the baby, but
the anesthesia administered to the mother before the
procedure. This claim was immediately and thoroughly
denounced by the American Society of Anesthesiologists, which
called the claim ``entirely inaccurate.'' Yet Planned
Parenthood and its allies continued to spread the myth,
causing needless, concern among our pregnant patients who
heard the claims and were terrified that epidurals during
labor, or anesthesia during needed surgeries, would kill
their babies.
The latest baseless statement was made by President Clinton
himself when he said that if the mothers who opted for
partial-birth abortions had delivered their children
naturally, the women's bodies would have been ``eviscerated''
or ``ripped to shreds'' and they ``could never have another
baby.''
That claim is totally and completely false. Contrary to
what abortion activists would have us believe, partial-birth
abortion is never medically indicated to protect a women's
health or her fertility. In fact, the opposite is true: The
procedure can pose a significant and immediate threat to both
the pregnant women's health and her fertility. It seems to
have escaped anyone's attention that one of the five women
who appeared at Mr. Clinton's veto ceremony had five
miscarriages after her partial-birth abortion.
Consider the dangers inherent in partial-birth abortion,
which usually occurs after the fifth month of pregnancy. A
women's cervix is forcibly dilated over several days, which
risks creating an ``incompetent cervix,'' the leading cause
of premature delivers. It is also an invitation to infection,
a major cause of infertility. The abortionist then reaches
into the womb to pull a child feet first out of the mother
(internal podalic version), but leaves the head inside. Under
normal circumstances, physicians avoid breech births whenever
possible; in this case, the doctor intentionally causes one--
and risks tearing the uterus in the process. He then forces
scissors through the base of the baby's skull--which remains
lodged just within the birth canal. This is a partially
``blind'' procedure, done by feel, risking direct scissor
injury to the uterus and laceration of the cervix or lower
uterine segment, resulting in immediate and massive bleeding
and the threat of shock or even death to the mother.
None of this risk is ever necessary for any reason. We and
many other doctors across the U.S. regularly treat women
whose unborn children suffer the same conditions as those
cited by the women who appeared at Mr. Clinton's veto
ceremony. Never is the partial-birth procedure necessary. Not
for hydrocephaly (excessive cerebrospinal fluid in the head),
not for polyhydramnios (an excess of amniotic fluid
collecting in the women) and not for trisomy (genetic
abnormalities characterized by an extra chromosome).
Sometimes, as in the case of hydrocephaly, it is first
necessary to drain some of the fluid from the baby's head.
And in some cases, when vaginal delivery is not possible, a
doctor performs a Caesarean section. But in no case is it
necessary to partially deliver an infant through the vagina
and then kill the infant.
How telling it is that although Mr. Clinton met with women
who claimed to have needed partial-birth abortions on account
of these conditions, he has flat-out refused to meet with
women who delivered babies with these same conditions, with
no damage whatsoever to their health or future fertility.
Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop was recently asked
whether he'd ever operated on children who had any of the
disabilities described in this debate. Indeed he had. In
fact, one of his patients--``with a huge omphalocele [a sac
containing the baby's organs] much bigger than her head''--
went on to become the head nurse in his intensive care unit
many years later.
Mr. Koop's reaction to the president's veto? ``I believe
that Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical advisers on what
is fact and what is fiction'' on the matter, he said. Such a
procedure, he added, cannot truthfully be called medically
necessary for either the mother or--he scarcely need point
out--for the baby.
Considering these medical realities, one can only conclude
that the women who thought they underwent partial-birth
abortions for ``medical'' reasons were tragically misled. And
those who purport to speak for women don't seem to care.
[[Page H10641]]
So whom are you going to believe? The activist-extremists
who refuse to allow a little truth to get in the way of their
agenda? The politicians who benefit from the activists'
political action committees? Or doctors who have the facts?
____
[From the National Right to Life Committee, Inc., Tuesday, Sept. 17,
1996]
Two Major Newspapers Discredit Key Claims of White House and Other Foes
of Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Washington.--The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled
to vote as early as Thursday, September 19, on whether to
override President Clinton's veto of a bill to ban partial-
birth abortions (except to save a mother's life). This week,
two daily newspapers--the Washington Post and the Record of
Bergen County, New Jersey--have published investigative
reports that discredit false claims by the White House and
pro-abortion advocacy groups that partial-birth abortions are
``extremely rate'' and are performed only or mainly in cases
of risk to the mother or lethal disorders of the fetus/baby.
The Record's investigative report, titled ``the Facts on
Partial-Birth Abortions,'' was written by ``women's issues''
staff writer Ruth Padawer and published on September 15. The
Record quoted the insistent claims of pro-abortion advocacy
groups that partial-birth procedures are performed in rare
and medically dire circumstances, before reporting: ``But
interviews with physicians who use the method reveal that in
New Jersey alone, at least 1,500 partial-birth abortions are
performed each year''--triple the 450-500 number which the
National Abortion Federation (NAF), a lobby for abortion
clinics, has claimed occur in the entire country.
The Record reported, ``Doctors at Metropolitan Medical in
Englewood [New Jersey] estimate that their clinic alone
performs 3,000 abortions a year on fetuses between 20 and 24
weeks [i.e., 4\1/2\ to 5\1/2\ months], of which at least half
are intact dilation and evacuation'' [i.e., partial-birth
abortion]. The abortion doctors at the Englewood facility
``say only a `minuscule amount' are for medical reasons,''
the Record reported.
``We have an occasional amnio abnormality, but it's a
minuscule amount,'' said one of the doctors at Metropolitan
Medical, an assessment confirmed by another doctor there.
``Most are Medicaid patients, black and white, and most are
for elective, not medical, reasons: people who didn't
realize, or didn't care, how far along they were. Most are
teenagers.''
The September 17 edition of the Washington Post contained
the results of an investigation conducted by reporters
Barbara Vobejda and David M. Brown, M.D., who concluded:
It is possible--and maybe even likely--that the majority of
these [partial-birth] abortions are performed on normal
fetuses, not on fetuses suffering genetic or other
developmental abnormalities. Furthermore, in most cases where
the procedure is used, the physical health of the woman
whose pregnancy is being terminated is not in jeopardy. .
. . Instead, the ``typical'' patients tend to be young,
low-income women, often poorly educated or naive, whose
reasons for waiting so long to end their pregnancies are
rarely medical.
In addition to the abortionists at the Metropolitan Medical
facility, the Record learned of at least five other doctors
performing partial-birth abortions in the region: ``Another
metropolitan area doctor who works outside New Jersey said he
does about 260 post-20-week abortions a year, of which half
are by intact D&E. The doctor, who is also a professor at two
prestigious teaching hospitals, said he has been teaching
intact D&E since 1981, and he said he knows of two former
students on Long Island and two in New York City who use the
procedure.''
Both articles unfairly say that leading supporters of the
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act have implied that partial-
birth abortions are performed primarily during the last three
months of pregnancy. In truth, it has been opponents of the
bill, including President Clinton, who have tried to narrow
the focus of the debate to ``third trimester'' procedures. In
contrast, NRLC has publicly and consistently challenged
attempts to characterize the bill as a ban on primarily
``third trimester'' procedures, and has stressed that most
partial-birth abortions are performed from 20 to 26 weeks--
4\1/2\ to 6 months--for entirely non-medical reasons. At even
24 weeks, an unborn baby is (on average) 10 inches long, and
if born prematurely has a one-in-three chance of survival in
a neo-natal unit.
[However, it is also well documented that many partial-
birth abortions have been performed even after 26 weeks
(i.e., during the third trimester), and in a variety of
circumstances besides ``severe fetal anomalies.'' Indeed, in
a 1995 written submission to the House Judiciary Committee,
the late Dr. James McMahon indicated that even at 29-30
weeks, fully one-fourth of the partial-birth abortions that
he performed were on fetuses with no ``flaw'' whatever.]
A questionnaire submitted to candidates by the U.S.
Catholic Conference, published on September 16, asked, ``What
is your position on a law banning partial-birth abortion?''
The Clinton campaign responded: ``If Congress sends the
president a bill that bars third-trimester abortions with an
appropriate exception for life or health, the president would
sign it.'' [emphasis added] By limiting this commitment to
``third-trimester'' abortions, Mr. Clinton's ``restriction''
effectively excludes most partial-birth abortions. Moreover,
as the Washington Post reported in its Sept. 17 examination
of the issue, the Supreme Court has defined ``health''
abortions to include those performed ``in the light of all
factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the
woman's age.'' The Post's reporters accurately concluded,
``Because of this definition, life-threatening conditions
need not exist in order for a woman to get a third-trimester
abortion.'' [Sept. 17 Washington Post Health, page 17]
In an advertisement published today in USA Today and other
newspapers, the Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth
(PHACT), a coalition of about 300 medical specialists
including former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, says
emphatically that even in cases involving severe fetal
disorders, ``partial-birth abortion is never medically
necessary to protect a mother's health or her future
fertility.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time having expired,
without objection, the previous question is ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the
contrary notwithstanding?
Under the Constitution, the vote must be determined by the yeas and
nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 285,
nays 137, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 422]
YEAS--285
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
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
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
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
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
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
[[Page H10642]]
NAYS--137
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Campbell
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kolbe
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Morella
Nadler
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pickett
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Thompson
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--12
Dicks
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Furse
Ganske
Hayes
Heineman
Johnston
Lincoln
Longley
Peterson (FL)
Thornton
{time} 1414
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Ganske for, with Ms. Furse against.
Mr. Longley and Mr. Fields of Texas for, with Mr. Johnston
of Florida against.
Mr. DOGGETT changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So, two-thirds having voted in favor thereof, the bill was passed,
the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Clerk will notify the
Senate of the action of the House.
____________________