[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11136-S11142]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I think it is appropriate, as a result
of the comments of the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from
Missouri, to talk about another issue that deals with the issue of
life, an issue that will be before us in a very short few days. That is
the issue of partial-birth abortions.
I took to the floor on Friday afternoon when this place was pretty
empty to talk about the issue of partial-birth abortions. I said at
that time that while the term ``partial-birth abortion'' is used, this
is not a pro-life or pro-choice issue. This is not whether you are for
or against abortion. This debate should be limited, must be limited to
the procedure that we are discussing, and that is the procedure called
partial-birth abortions.
I said at that time that I thought we should have a good debate, that
the Senate, being the greatest deliberative body in the history of the
world, should live up to its moniker, that we should have a deliberate,
thoughtful debate on facts. I felt if we did have such a debate here,
if we had such a deliberate, thoughtful debate, that, in fact, people
who may have voted one way the last time, when presented with all the
facts, in reexamining all the information that has come to light since
the original vote in the Senate, might feel compelled to vote for this
bill and override the President's veto.
I read an article today in the Washington Post that gave me some hope
that people who consider themselves to be pro-choice can take a good
look at the facts and change their mind on this procedure, this
gruesome procedure. What gave me heart was an article published today
in the Washington Post by Richard Cohen. Richard Cohen is a columnist
who proclaims himself to be, and has consistently been, pro-choice. He
believes in the woman's right to choose--in fact, in this article so
states again.
Mr. Cohen, back in June of last year, wrote an article that condemned
the bill.
In fact, it says, ``In Defense of Late-Term Abortions,'' Tuesday,
June 20, 1995, the Washington Post.
He goes on to give his reasons why he believes that partial-birth
abortions should continue to be legal in this country.
Fast forward to today an article by Richard Cohen: ``A New Look at
Late-Term Abortion'':
A rigid refusal even to consider society's interest in the
matter endangers abortion rights.
[[Page S11137]]
He writes this article from the perspective of someone who is a
defender of abortion rights, someone who still believes in a woman's
right to choose, using his terms.
I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
A New Look at Late-Term Abortion--A Rigid Refusal Even to Consider
Society's Interest in the Matter Endangers Abortion Rights
(By Richard Cohen)
Back in June, I interviewed a woman--a rabbi, as it
happens--who had one of those late-term abortions that
Congress would have outlawed last spring had not President
Clinton vetoed the bill. My reason for interviewing the rabbi
was patently obvious: Here was a mature, ethical and
religious woman who, because her fetus was deformed,
concluded in her 17th week that she had no choice other than
terminate her pregnancy. Who was the government to second-
guess her?
Now, though, I must second-guess my own column--although
not the rabbi and not her husband (also a rabbi). Her
abortion back in 1984 seemed justifiable to me last June, and
it does to me now. But back then I also was led to believe
that these late-term abortions were extremely rare and
performed only when the life of the mother was in danger or
the fetus irreparably deformed. I was wrong.
I didn't know it at the time, of course, and maybe the
people who supplied my data--the usual pro-choice groups--
were giving me what they thought was precise information. And
precise I was. I wrote the ``just four one-hundredths of one
percent of abortions are performed after 24 weeks'' and that
``most, if not all, are performed because the fetus is found
to be severely damaged or because the life of the mother is
clearly in danger.''
It turns out, though, that no one really knows what
percentage of abortions are late-term. No one keep figures.
But my Washington Post colleague David Brown looked behind
the purported figures and the purported rationale for these
abortions and found something other than medical crises of
one sort or another. After interviewing doctors who performed
late-term abortions and surveying the literature, Brown--a
physician himself--wrote: ``These doctors say that while a
significant number of their patients have late abortions for
medical reasons, many others--perhaps the majority--do not.''
Brown's findings brought me up short. If, in fact, most
women seeking late-term abortions have just come to grips a
bit late with their pregnancy, then the word ``choice'' has
been stretched past a reasonable point. I realize that many
of these women are dazed teenagers or rape victims and that
their anguish is real and their decision probably not
capricious. But I know, too, that the fetus being destroyed
fits my personal definition of life. A 3-inch embryo (under
12 weeks) is one thing; but a nearly fully formed infant is
something else.
It's true, of course, that many opponents of what are often
called ``partial-birth abortions'' are opposed to any
abortions whatever. And it also is true that many of them
hope to use popular repugnance over late-term abortions as a
foot in the door. First these, then others and then still
others. This is the argument made by pro-choice groups: Give
the antiabortion forces this one inch, and they'll take the
next mile.
It is instructive to look at two other issues: gun control
and welfare. The gun lobby also thinks that if it gives in
just a little, its enemies will have it by the throat. That
explains such public relations disasters as the fight to
retain assault rifles. It also explains why the National
Rifle Association has such an image problem. Sometimes it
seems just plain nuts.
Welfare is another area where the indefensible was defended
for so long that popular support for the program evaporated.
In the 1960s, '70s and even later, it was almost impossible
to get welfare advocates to concede that cheating was a
problem and that welfare just might be financing generation
after generation of households where no one works. This year,
the program on the federal level was trashed. It had few
defenders.
This must not happen with abortion. A woman really ought to
have the right to choose. But society has certain rights,
too, and one of them is to insist that late-term abortions--
what seems pretty close to infanticide--are severely
restricted, limited to women whose health is on the line or
who are carrying severely deformed fetuses. In the latter
stages of pregnancy, the word abortion does not quite
suffice; we are talking about the killing of the fetus--and,
too often, not for any urgent medical reason.
President Clinton, apparently as misinformed as I was about
late-term abortions, now ought to look at the new data. So
should the Senate, which has been expected to sustain the
president's veto. Late-term abortions once seemed to be the
choice of women who, really, had no other choice. The facts
now are different. If that's the case, then so should be the
law.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I will not read the entire article, but
it is in the Record, and I do not think what I do read, which is most
of the article, takes away from the meaning.
He mentioned a case in his previous article in June of a woman who
had an abortion and used that sort of to justify late-term abortions
and particularly the partial-birth abortion procedure. He revisits that
in the beginning of the article and says he still agreed this woman who
did not have a partial-birth abortion but had a late-term abortion, was
right to do so. But he said, ``What seemed justifiable to me last June,
does not now.''
He said:
I was led to believe that these late-term abortions were
extremely rare and performed only when the life of the mother
was in danger or the fetus irreparably deformed.
You heard in the House of Representatives last week when they were
debating this issue and you will hear over and over again from the
advocates of partial-birth abortions that this is only done in extreme
medical emergencies when fetuses have no chance of survival outside of
the womb and that they are done very rarely.
Mr. Cohen says:
I was wrong. I didn't know at the time, of course, and
maybe the people who supplied my data, the usual pro-choice
groups * * *
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator from
Pennsylvania that the 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in
morning business for 10 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I ask my colleague, since
I want to respond to some of what he said and I do not have that much
time and we are under a 5-minute rule, if he can complete in 2, and
then I can make my 5-minute remarks, because I cannot stay to hear the
rest of my friend's remarks. So if he can complete in 2 minutes.
Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from
California speak for 5 minutes, and I will just continue from there.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I came to the floor today because I
listened to the Senator's presentation, and I think it is very
interesting. We have had a number of high-profile men comment on this
particular vote that is coming up, and my colleague from Pennsylvania
goes at length into the remarks of a columnist.
I think it is very important to listen to the women who were told
that if they didn't have this particular procedure that my colleague
wants to outlaw they could die, they could be made permanently
infertile, they could be paralyzed for life, these women who have come
to our offices to beg us to stay out of the emergency room, to stay out
of the surgical room, to support the President's veto of this extreme
bill.
Why do I call it extreme? I call it extreme because this bill would
ban the procedure, regardless of the circumstance. It has a narrow
exception, and I have it here: ``* * * to save the life of a mother
whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness or injury,
provided that no other medical procedure would suffice.''
This is the first time in history that the people who oppose abortion
have made such a narrow life exception. The Hyde amendment simply says
we can outlaw the procedure except ``to save the life of the mother''
if the pregnancy is carried to term.
This life exception is so narrow in this bill that a physician could
only use this life-saving procedure if the woman had a preexisting
condition such as diabetes, but not if he believed carrying the
pregnancy forward or a Caesarean section or other methods would, in
fact, endanger her life.
If a physician does choose to use this procedure, even in the
situation of a preexisting condition of the woman, this physician could
be hauled into court and have to provide a defense for himself.
I say to my friends, if this debate was really about outlawing this
procedure, we could pass this bill in 1 minute. Every one of us who
voted for the amendment that I offered, which simply said make an
exception for the health and life of the mother--and we did not even
leave it open-ended; we said serious adverse health risk--we
[[Page S11138]]
were willing to ban this procedure, every one of us who voted against
this bill, if it had a true life exception and if, in fact, it had a
health exception tightly drawn so that if a woman was told, ``You may
not bear another child again unless you have this procedure,'' or ``You
may be paralyzed for life unless you have this procedure,'' or, ``You
could even die if that procedure goes forward in those cases,'' we
would all vote together.
If the people who stand up here and quote columnists would come
together with us, we could craft a bill in a minute that would, in
fact, outlaw this procedure, except if the woman's life was threatened
if the pregnancy was carried to term or she had severe health
consequences facing her family. We could pass that 100 to nothing. But
we don't have that before us today, because those on the other side
would rather have a political hot-potato issue again.
It is sad. We can outlaw this procedure today with an exception for
life of the mother or serious health impacts, but, no, better to make
the President have to explain it. And let me tell you, he is explaining
it.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated
September 23 that he has sent to us.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The White House,
Washington, DC, September 23, 1996.
Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Leader: I am writing to urge that you vote to
uphold my veto of H.R. 1833, a bill banning so-called
partial-birth abortions. My views on this legislation have
been widely misrepresented, so I would like to take a moment
to state my position clearly.
First, I am against late-term abortions and have long
opposed them, except, as the Supreme Court requires, where
necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. As
Governor or Arkansas, I signed into law a bill that barred
third trimester abortions, with an appropriate exception for
life or health. I would sign a bill to do the same thing at
the federal level if it were presented to me.
The procedure aimed at in H.R. 1833 poses a difficult and
disturbing issue. Initially, I anticipated that I would
support the bill. But after I studied the matter and learned
more about it, I came to believe that it should be permitted
as a last resort when doctors judge it necessary to save a
woman's life or to avert serious consequences to her health.
In April, I was joined in the White House by five women who
were devastated to learn that their babies had fatal
conditions. These women wanted anything other than an
abortion, but were advised by their doctors that this
procedure was their best chance to avert the risk of death or
grave harm, including, in some cases, an inability to bear
children. These women gave moving testimony. For them, this
was not about choice. Their babies were certain to perish
before, during or shortly after birth. The only question was
how much grave damage the women were going to suffer. One of
them described the serious risks to her health that she
faced, including the possibility of hemorrhaging, a ruptured
cervix and loss of her ability to bear children in the
future. She talked of her predicament:
``Our little boy had . . . hydrocephaly. 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.''
Some have raised the question whether this procedure is
ever most appropriate as a matter of medical practice. The
best answer comes from the medical community, which believes
that, in those rare cases where a woman's serious health
interests are at stake, the decision of whether to use the
procedure should be left to the best exercise of their
medical judgment.
The problem with H.R. 1833 is that it provides an exception
to the ban on this procedure only when a doctor is convinced
that a woman's life is at risk, but not when the doctor
believes she faces real, grave risks to her health.
Let me be clear. I do not contend that this procedure,
today, is always used in circumstances that meet my standard.
The procedure may well be used in situations where a woman's
serious health interests are not at risk. But I do not
support such uses, I do not defend them, and I would sign
appropriate legislation banning them.
At the same time, I cannot and will not accept a ban on
this procedure in those cases where it represents the best
hope for a woman to avoid serious risks to her health.
I also understand that many who support this bill believe
that a health exception could be stretched to cover almost
anything, such as emotional stress, financial hardship or
inconvenience. That is not the kind of exception I support. I
support an exception that takes effect only where a woman
faces real, serious risks to her health. Some have cited
cases where fraudulent health reasons are relied upon as an
excuse--excuses I could never condone. But people of good
faith must recognize that there are also cases where the
health risks facing a woman are deadly serious and real. It
is in those cases that I believe an exception to the general
ban on the procedure should be allowed.
Further, I reject the view of those who say it is
impossible to draft a bill imposing real, stringent limits on
the use of this procedure--a bill making crystal clear that
the procedure may be used only in cases where a woman risks
death or serious damage to her health, and in no other case.
Working in a bipartisan manner, Congress could fashion such a
bill.
That is why I asked Congress, by letter dated February 28
and in my veto message, to add a limited exemption for the
small number of compelling cases where use of the procedure
is necessary to avoid serious health consequences. As I have
said before, if Congress produced a bill with such an
exemption, I would sign it.
In short, I do not support the use of this procedure on
demand or on the strength of mild or fraudulent health
complaints. But I do believe that it is wrong to abandon
women, like the women I spoke with, whose doctors advise them
that they need the procedure to avoid serious injury. That,
in my judgment, would be the true inhumanity. Accordingly, I
urge that you vote to uphold my veto of H.R. 1833.
I continue to hope that a solution can be reached on this
painful issue. But enacting H.R. 1833 would not be that
solution.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in this letter, the President says that he
would sign such a bill that outlawed this procedure with those humane
exceptions.
So, Mr. President, as we approach this vote, I am going to be on this
floor as often as I can, and I hope others will, to make the offer to
my friends on the other side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator from California
that the 5 minutes under morning business have expired.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, let's ban this procedure except for life
of the mother or serious health impact.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
(Disturbance in the galleries.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair reminds the galleries that applause
is not appropriate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, as I was saying, quoting Mr. Cohen:
I didn't know at the time--
Mr. Cohen, who, again, previously wrote that he was in favor of
allowing this procedure to be legal, says:
I didn't know at the time, of course, and maybe the people
who supplied my data--the usual pro-choice groups--were
giving me what they thought was precise information. And
precise I was. I wrote that ``just four one-hundredths of one
percent of abortions are performed after 24 weeks'' and that
``most, if not all, are performed because the fetus is found
to be severely damaged or because the life of the mother is
clearly in danger.''
It turns out, though, that no one really knows what
percentage of abortions are late-term. No one keeps figures.
But my Washington Post colleague David Brown looked behind
the purported figures and the purported rationale for these
abortions and found something other than medical crises of
one sort or another. After interviewing doctors who performed
late-term abortions and surveying the literature, Brown--a
physician himself--wrote: ``These doctors say that while a
significant number of their patients have late-term abortions
for medical reasons, many others--perhaps the majority--do
not.
Brown's findings brought me up short. If, in fact, most
women seeking late-term abortions have just come to grips a
little bit late with their pregnancy, then the word
``choice'' has been stretched past a reasonable point. I
realize that many of these women are dazed teenagers or rape
victims and that their anguish is real and their decision
probably not capricious. But I know, too, that the fetus
being destroyed fits my personal definition of life. A 3-inch
embryo (under 12 weeks) is one thing; but a nearly fully
formed infant is something else.
He goes on to say:
A woman really ought to have the right to choose. But
society has certain rights, too, and one of them is to insist
that late-term abortions--[which] seems pretty close to
infanticide--are severely restricted, limited to women whose
health is on the line or who are carrying severely deformed
fetuses. In the latter stages of pregnancy, the word abortion
does not quite suffice; we are talking about the killing of
the fetus--and, too often, not for any urgent medical reason.
President Clinton, apparently as misinformed as I was about
late-term abortions,
[[Page S11139]]
now ought to look at the new data. So should the Senate,
which has been expected to sustain the president's veto.
Late-term abortions once seemed to be the choice of women
who, really, had no other choice. The facts now are
different. If that's the case, then so should be the law.
Mr. President, what Mr. Cohen talks about is the fact that late-term
abortions are not as rare as some would suggest, and that partial-birth
abortions are not as rare.
The Senator from California said that we should not get involved in
the emergency room. The Senator from California knows that the partial-
birth abortion procedure is not an emergency procedure. It is a 3-day
procedure. It takes 3 days from the time the woman presents herself to
the abortionist to the time that the abortion is completed. So it can
never be used in an emergency.
She also said, well, if we only had an exception for the health of
the mother. The Senator from California, who debates this issue on the
floor a lot, knows fully well, that health of the mother has been
interpreted by courts over and over and over again to include virtually
everything. When I say that, what do I mean? Yes, it includes physical
health, but it includes mental health, financial health, social health,
any kind of health impact. That is a limitation without limit.
There is no limitation when we put in there health of the mother. And
that is exactly what she wants to accomplish. That is exactly what she
wants to accomplish. She does not want to limit this procedure, or any
other abortion procedure, at any time during the pregnancy for any
reason. I respect her opinion. I just do not agree with it. I do not
think the Members of the Senate agree with that. There is new evidence
out. I hope that my colleagues--and the Senator from California made it
sound like this was a pro-life/pro-choice issue. I can give her a
laundry list. She knows them well, and that many people who are pro-
choice here in the Senate and in the House voted for this bill to
outlaw this procedure.
Why? Because this crosses the line. This goes too far. You have a
person here who, in very strong terms in this article, talks about how
adamantly pro-choice he is; and he in fact writes the reason we should
draw the line here is because if you do not draw the line, you endanger
a woman's right to choose generally because of the extremism of this
position.
I do not think the Senate should go down in history as that body that
allowed infanticide to continue, as so described, not only by Mr.
Cohen, but by the former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop and the Pope,
and many others. Senator Moynihan, others--Senator Moynihan, I say to
Senator Boxer, is not adamantly pro-life by any stretch of the
imagination, and has said this looks perilously close to infanticide.
How often does this procedure take place? Again, let us look at all
the information that we have gathered since the original vote in the
Senate. This is The Sunday Record in Bergen County, NJ, September 15,
1996, just a few days ago, an article, ``The facts on partial-birth
abortion.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
the Facts on Partial-Birth Abortion--Both Sides Have Misled the Public
(By Ruth Pabawer)
Even by the highly emotional standards of the abortion
debate, the rhetoric on so-called ``partial-birth'' abortions
has been exceptionally intense. But while indignation has
been abundant, facts have not.
Pro-choice activists categorically insist that only 500 of
the 1.5 million abortions performed each year, in this
country involve the partial-birth method, in which a live
fetus is pulled partway into the birth canal before it is
aborted. They also contend that the procedure is reserved for
pregnancies gone tragically awry, when the mother's life or
health is endangered, or when the fetus is so defective that
it won't survive after birth anyway.
The pro-choice claim has been passed on without question in
several leading newspapers and by prominent commentators and
politicians, including President Clinton.
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--three times the supposed
national rate. Moreover, doctors say only a ``minuscule
amount'' are for medical reasons.
Within two weeks, Congress is expected to decide whether to
criminalize the procedure. The vote must override Clinton's
recent veto. In anticipation of that showdown, lobbyists from
both camps have orchestrated aggressive campaigns long on
rhetoric and short on accuracy.
For their part, abortion foes have implied that the method
is often used on healthy, full-term fetuses, an almost-born
baby delivered whole. In the three years since they began
their campaign against the procedure, they have distributed
more than 9 million brochures graphically describing how
doctors ``deliver'' the fetus except for its head, then
puncture the back of the neck and aspirate brain tissue until
the skull collapses and slips through the cervix--an image
that prompted even pro-choice Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan, D-
N.Y., to call it ``just too close to infanticide.''
But the vast majority of partial-birth abortions are not
performed on almost-born babies. They occur in the middle of
the second trimester, when the fetus is too young to survive
outside the womb.
The reason for the fervor over partial birth is plain: The
bill marks the first time the House has ever voted to
criminalize the abortion procedure since the landmark Roe v.
Wade ruling. Both sides know an override could open the door
to more severe abortion restrictions, a thought that comforts
one side and horrifies the other.
how often it's done
No one keeps statistics on how many partial-birth abortions
are done, but pro-choice advocates have argued that intact
``dilation and evacuation''--a common name for the method,
for which no standard medical term exists--is very rare, ``an
obstetrical non-entity,'' as one put it. And indeed, less
than 1.5 percent of abortions occur after 20 weeks gestation,
the earliest point at which this method can be used,
according to estimates by the Alan Guttmacher Institute of
New York, a respected source of data on reproductive health.
The National Abortion Federation, the professional
association of abortion providers and the source of data and
case histories for this pro-choice fight, estimates that the
number of intact cases in the second and third trimesters is
about 500 nationwide. The National Abortion and Reproductive
Rights Action League says ``450 to 800'' are done annually.
But those estimates are belied by reports from abortion
providers who use the method. Doctors at Metropolitan Medical
in Englewood estimate that their clinic alone performs 3,000
abortions a year on fetuses between 20 and 24 weeks, of which
at least half are by intact dilation and evacuation. They are
the only physicians in the state authorized to perform
abortions that late, according to the state Board of Medical
Examiners, which governs physicians' practice.
The physicians' estimate jibe with state figures from the
federal Centers for Disease Control, which collects data on
the number of abortions performed.
``I always try an intact D&E first,'' said a Metropolitan
Medical gynecologist, who, like every other provider
interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity
for fear of retribution. If the fetus isn't breech, or if
the cervix isn't dilated enough, providers switch to
traditional, or ``classic,'' D&E--in utero dismemberment.
Another metropolitan area doctor who works outside New
Jersey said he does about 250 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. ``I do an intact D&E whenever I can,
because it's far safer,'' he said.
The National Abortion Federation said 40 of its 300 member
clinics perform abortions as late as 26 weeks, and although
no one knows how many of them rely on intact D&E, the number
performed nationwide is clearly more than the 500 estimated
by pro-choice groups like the federation.
The federation's executive director, Vicki Saporta, said
the group drew its 500-abortion estimate from the two doctors
best known for using intact D&E, Dr. Martin Haskell in Ohio,
who Saporta said does about 125 a year, and Dr. James McMahon
in California, who did about 375 annually and has since died.
Saporta said the federation has heard of more and more
doctors using intact D&E, but never revised its estimate,
figuring those doctors just picked up the slack following
McMahon's death.
``We've made umpteen phone calls [to find intact D&E
practioners],'' said Saporta, who said she was surprised by
The Record's findings. ``We've been looking for spokespeople
on this issue. . . . People do not want to come forward [to
us] because they're concerned they'll become targets of
violence and harassment.''
When it's done
The pro-choice camp is not the only one promulgating
misleading information. A key component of The National Right
to Life Committee's campaign against the procedure is a
widely distributed illustration of a well-formed fetus being
aborted by the partial-birth method. The committee's
literature calls the aborted fetuses ``babies'' and asserts
that the partial-birth method has ``often been performed'' in
the third trimester.
The National Right to Life Committee and the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops
[[Page S11140]]
have highlighted cases in which the procedure has been
performed well into the third trimester, and overlaid that on
instances in which women have had less-than-compelling
reasons for abortion. In a full-page ad in the Washington
Post in March, the bishops' conference illustrated the
procedure and said, women would use it for reasons as
frivolous ad ``hates being fat,'' ``can't afford a baby and a
new car,'' and ``won't fit in to prom dress.''
``We were very concerned that if partial-birth abortion
were allowed to continue, you could kill not just an unborn,
but a mostly born. And that's not far from legitimizing
actual infanticide,'' said Helen Alvare, the bishops'
spokeswoman.
Forty-one states restrict third-trimester abortions, and
even states that don't--such as New Jersey--may have no
physicians or hospitals willing to do them for any reason.
Metropolitan Medical's staff won't do abortions after 24
weeks of gestation. ``The nurses would stage a war,'' said a
provider there. ``The law is one thing. Real life is
something else.''
In reality, only about 600--or 0.04 percent--of abortions
of any type are performed after 26 weeks, according to the
latest figures from Guttmacher. Physicians who use the
procedures say the vast majority are done in the second
trimester, prior to fetal viability, generally thought to be
24 weeks. Full term is 40 weeks.
Right to Life legislative director Douglas Johnson denied
that his group had focused on third-trimester abortions,
adding, ``Even if our drawings did show a more developed
baby, that would be defensible because 30-week fetuses have
been aborted frequently by this method, and many of those
were not flawed, even by an expansive definition.
WHY IT'S DONE
Abortion rights advocates have consistently argued that
intact D&Es are used under only the most compelling
circumstances. In 1995, the Planned Parenthood Federation of
America issued a press release asserting that the procedure
``is extremely rare and done only in cases when the woman's
life is in danger or in cases of extreme fetal abnormality.''
In February, the National Abortion Federation issued a
release saying, ``This procedure is most often performed when
women discover late in wanted pregnancies that they are
carrying fetuses with anomalies incompatible with life.''
Clinton offered the same massage when he vetoed the Partial
Birth Abortion Ban Act in April, and surrounded himself with
women who had wrenching testimony about why they needed
abortions. One was an antiabortion marcher whose health was
compromised by her 7-month-old fetus neuromuscular disorder.
The woman, Coreen Costello, wanted desperately to give
birth naturally, even knowing her child would not survive.
But because the fetus was paralyzed, her doctors told her a
live vaginal delivery was impossible. Costello had two
options, they said: abortion or a type of Caesarean section
that might ruin her chances of ever having another child. She
chose an intact D&E.
But most intact D&E cases are not like Coreen Costello's.
Although many third-trimester abortions are for heart-
wrenching medical reasons, most intact D&E patients have
their abortions in the middle of the second trimester. And
unlike Coreen Costello, they have no medical reason for
termination.
``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 physician who teaches said: ``In my private practice,
90 to 95 percent are medically indicated. Three of them today
are Trisomy-21 [Down syndrome] with heart * * *, the mother
has brain cancer and needs chemo. But in the population I see
at the teaching hospitals, which is mostly a clinic
population, many, many fewer are medically indicated.''
Even the Abortion Federation's two prominent providers of
intact D&E have showed documents that publicly contradict the
federation's claims.
In a 1992 presentation at an Abortion Federation seminar,
Haskell described intact D&E in detail and said he routinely
used it on patients 20 to 24 weeks pregnant. Haskell went on
to tell the American Medical News, the official paper of the
American Medical Association, that 80 percent of those
abortions were ``purely elective.''
The federation's other leading provider, Dr. McMahon,
released a chart to the House Judiciary Committee listing
``depression'' as the most common maternal reason for his
late-term non-elective abortions, and listing ``cleft lip''
several times as the fetal indication. Saporta said 85
percent of McMahon's abortions were for severe medical
reasons.
Even using Saporta's figures, simple math shows 56 of
McMahon's abortions and 100 of Haskell's each year were not
associated with medical need. Thus, even if they were the
only two doctors performing the procedure, more than 30
percent of their cases were not associated with health
concerns.
Asked about the disparity, Saporta said the pro-choice
movement focused on the compelling cases because those were
the majority of McMahon's practice, which was mostly third-
trimester abortions. Besides; Saporta said, ``When the
Catholic bishops and Right to Life debate us on TV and radio,
they say a woman at 40 weeks can walk in and get an abortion
even if she and the fetus are healthy.'' Saporta said that
claim is not true. ``That has been their focus, and been
playing defenses ever since.''
where lobbying has left us
Doctors who rely on the procedure say the way the debate
has been framed obscures what they believe is the real issue.
Banning the partial-birth method will not reduce the number
of abortions performed. Instead, it will remove one of the
safest options for mid-pregnancy termination.
``Look, abortion is abortion. Does it really matter if the
fetus dies in utero or when half of it's already out?'' said
one of the * * * method at Metropolitan Medical in Englewood.
* * * what's safest for the woman,'' and this procedure, he
said, is safest for abortion patients 20 weeks pregnant or
more. There is less risk of uterine perforation from sharp
broken bones and destructive instruments, one reasons the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has
opposed the ban.
Pro-choice activists have emphasized that nine of 10
abortions in the United States occur in the first trimester,
and that these have nothing to do with the procedure abortion
foes have drawn so much attention to. That's true, physicians
say, but it ducks the broader issue.
By highlighting the tragic Coreen Costellos, they say, pro-
choice forces have obscured the fact that criminalizing
intact D&E would jettison the safest abortion not only for
women like Costello, but for the far more common patient: a
woman 4\1/2\ to 6 months pregnant with a less compelling
reason--but still a legal right--to abort.
That strategy is no surprise, given Americans queasiness
about later-term abortions. Why reargue the morality of or
the right to a second-trimester abortion when anguishing
examples like Costello's can more compellingly make the case
for intact D&E?
To get around the bill, abortion providers say they could
inject poison into the amniotic fluid or fetal heart to
induce death in utero, but that adds another level of
complication and risk to the pregnant woman. Or they could
use induction--poisoning the fetus and then ``delivering'' it
dead after 12 to 48 hours of painful labor. That method is
clearly more dangerous, and if it doesn't work, the patient
must have a Caesarean section, major surgery with far more
risks.
Ironically, the most likely response to the ban is that
doctors will return to classic D&Es, arguably a far more
gruesome method than the one currently under fire. And, pro-
choice advocates now wonder how safe from attack that is, now
that abortion foes have American's attention.
Congress is expected to call for the override vote this
week or next, once again turning up the heat on Clinton
barely seven weeks from the election.
Legislative observers from both camps predict that the vote
in the House will be close. If the override suceeds--a two-
thirds majority is required--the measure will be sent to the
Senate, where the override is less likely, given that the
initial bill passed by 54 to 44. . . .
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, let me, if I can, just quote from some
of the article as to the facts that were uncovered.
You heard Mr. Cohen reference Dr. Brown in his work with the
Washington Post finding out about more of these procedures being
performed in more late-term abortion procedures being done in this
country. Let me share with you this analysis done by a Ruth Padawer,
who is the health reporter for the newspaper. She talks about how the
prochoice people say that this is a very rare procedure. I quote:
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--three times the supposed
national rate. Moreover, doctors say only a ``minuscule
amount'' are for medical reasons.
What are we talking about here? We are talking about abortions
performed--I know this is an uncomfortable topic for many people to
listen to, and I am sure some people are tuning out and turning off.
But this is going on in this country. We have an obligation to face up
to who we are and what we are doing here, and not turn our backs
because it is just not proper dinner conversation.
We are performing abortions in this country on babies, fully formed
babies in their third trimester, and viable babies who are in the late
second. I am talking about 22, 23, 24 weeks, the second trimester.
As I said on Friday, my wife is a neonatal intensive care nurse. She
took care of 22-week-olds and 21-week-olds and 24-week-olds in
Pittsburgh at Magee Woman's Hospital. She has told me story after story
of how many of them have survived and how the percentages are
increasing.
[[Page S11141]]
We are talking about delivering these babies, for no medical reason,
feet first through the birth canal, and then kill, by taking a pair of
metzenbaum scissors and shoving them into the base of the skull,
inserting the catheter into the brain and sucking the brains out to
kill the baby, and then deliver the head. And 1,500 times, according to
this article, it happens in New Jersey alone every year. The facts, as
presented by those who argued against the bill, the facts they quoted
from reputable sources, were only a few hundred in the country done
every year.
The article goes on:
But those estimates are belied by reports from abortion
providers who use the method. Doctors at Metropolitan Medical
Center in Englewood estimate that their clinic alone performs
3,000 abortions a year on fetuses between 20 and 24 weeks, of
which at least half are by partial-birth abortions.
``I always try an intact D&E (which is the medical term for
partial-birth abortion) first,'' said a Metropolitan Medical
gynecologist, who, like every other provider interviewed for
this article, spoke on condition of anonymity.
Another metropolitan area doctor who works outside New
Jersey said he does about 260 post 20-week abortions a year,
of which half are partial-birth abortions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 10 minutes has expired.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President.
The doctor, who is also a professor at two prestigious
teaching hospitals, said he has been teaching intact D&E
partial-birth abortions since 1981, and he said he knows of
two former students on Long Island and two in New York City
who use the procedure.
In fact, he says, ``I do an intact D&E whenever I can * * *''
This is not a rare procedure. This is a procedure that is done all
too frequently in this country. Those were not presented to this Senate
when it deliberated on this bill the first time. Those facts were
somehow not researched well by the prochoice groups, like the
Guttmacher Institute that provided us the statistics we were using in
the first place, because there is no, as Mr. Cohen said, national
record keeping of this. There is no agency in Government that keeps
track of this. We only have to go by the people who provide the
abortions to tell us what they do. And of course--I shouldn't say ``of
course''--but what has happened, in fact, is that they provided us a
number that is not anywhere close to the numbers that really go on in
this country.
I would suggest that if they were so cavalier with their numbers as
to how many, how cavalier are they with other facts associated with
this issue? The fact of the matter is, this is not a prolife/prochoice
issue. This is an issue about how far we will go as a country, how far
we have gone in blurring the lines.
I asked the question to a person the other day on the Fox Morning
News when I was on last week--I will ask it to the Senator from
California, if she would answer--and that is, if we had a 24-week baby
or 25-week or 26-week baby delivered, normal baby, healthy fetus, that
someone just decided, as these articles indicate, they wanted to have a
late-term abortion because they just did not get around to it sooner,
or they had a change of heart, if that baby were pulled through the
birth canal, feet first, and delivered, everything except for the head,
and by some mistake of the doctor, the baby's head also was delivered,
instead of the doctor, as has been testified before having to hold the
baby's head in so he can puncture the skull and suction the brains, if
the doctor let the baby's head slip out, I ask the Senator from
California, if that baby's head slipped out and that baby was born,
would the doctor and the mother have a right to choose whether that
baby should live? Would the doctor be able to kill the baby at that
point?
I am happy to yield time to the Senator from California if the
Senator would like to answer that question. Would the doctor be
permitted at that point to kill the baby?
Mrs. BOXER. Well, the Senator clearly does not understand the Supreme
Court decision of Roe versus Wade, which I strongly support, and I
daresay the majority of Senators and the majority of the American
people support. That is, a woman has the right to choose in the first
trimester, and after that the State comes in with strong and strict
controls. A woman does not have an unfettered right to choose after the
first trimester. The Senator should know that and should read that
case. She does not, except if her life is threatened.
I would assume, frankly, since the Republican platform does not even
have a like exception----
Mr. SANTORUM. I reclaim my time. I would like an answer. If I can,
let me restate the question again, based on the information that has
been read here and the facts that have been provided.
You have the former Surgeon General of the United States who says
this procedure is never medically necessary. You have an article that I
will be reading from later, from a series, a group of gynecologists and
obstetricians that say partial-birth abortion is bad medicine.
You have some organizations who support--I think the American College
of Gynecologists opposes the legislation, but not because they support
partial-birth abortions. They do not recognize that as proper medical
procedure. They do not like any criminalization of anything. They do
not like to have doctors be subject to any kind of criminal complaints.
That is why they are opposed to it. That is what they said in their
letter to Congress.
We should focus on the question. The fact of the matter is, we have
sufficient evidence here that these are not medically necessary
abortions. They are not to save the life of the mother. In fact, we
have a provision in our bill, as the Senator knows, to make an
exception for the life of the mother. They are not medically necessary.
It is for the health of the mother. You have physician after physician
after physician saying so. So talk about the facts.
I ask this question--and I know the Senator would like to give a long
answer and give a speech--but see if you can answer the question very
succinctly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The time of the Senator has
expired.
Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANTORUM. If a partial-birth abortion was being performed on this
baby, and for some reason the head slipped out and the baby was
delivered, which, in my understanding, is not unprecedented, would the
doctor, in consultation with the mother, be able to choose to kill the
baby?
Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend that I am going to take 5 minutes to
answer his question because it is a very serious question and I intend
to answer it in my time, so he can finish up in his time.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, after the Senator from California
speaks, I will talk about the medical necessity for this procedure, and
I will cite a group of physicians and other people, other physicians,
who have written extensively on the fact that this procedure is never
medically indicated. In fact, it is contraindicated. In fact, it is
more dangerous to the mother to have one than to do other procedures
that are not under the debate here in the Senate.
I will get to that as soon as the Senator answers my question.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I do not want to interrupt the debate, and
I have a different subject I want to comment on.
I ask unanimous consent that if the Senator from California is going
to speak for 5 minutes, that I be allowed by unanimous consent to
follow the Senator from California for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend from North Dakota because I know he has
been patiently waiting to talk about another topic. I was not going to
come back to the floor, but I understand that the Senator from
Pennsylvania, in what I consider to be a very unfair way, described my
position on a woman's right to choose. Now, I would never, never do
that for another Senator because this is a crucial issue.
As a mother, as a grandmother, whose grandson is the most precious
thing in my life, I do not want to hear that there is another Senator
on the floor talking about how I regard pregnancy, motherhood, or
childbearing. I
[[Page S11142]]
would rather have the chance, if someone is going to attack me on an
issue, that that person be courageous enough to do it when I am on the
floor of the U.S. Senate. So I have come back to the floor to speak.
What I want to say is that the vast majority of Americans believe
this entire subject should be left to the privacy of families, to the
religious convictions of our people, and that U.S. Senators do not
belong in the hospital room, they do not belong in the consulting room,
and if the woman is told by a doctor, ``You might die unless I use a
certain procedure, you might die, and the children you have now will
not have a mother,'' and if that doctor believes this procedure is the
only one to save the life of that woman or to spare her a life of
infertility or paralysis, I believe families should have the right to
make that choice.
If the Senator from Pennsylvania was faced with that choice, if his
daughter was in that situation, I really do believe in his heart of
hearts if this was not a hot political issue, that he would want the
ability, with his God, with his family, to make this decision.
Now, my colleague talks about doctors who say this procedure is not
necessary. Some believe it is not. They do not have to use this
procedure.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who do this
work every day, opposes this legislation that does not have an
exception for the life and health of the mother. The American Medical
Women's Association opposes this legislation that does not have a true
life exception or a health exception. The California Medical
Association strongly opposes this extreme legislation.
Now, I just want to put on the record when we are talking about
emergency procedures and abortions that take place in late term, this
is not about a woman's right to choose. This is about an emergency
health situation. My colleagues come here and quote columnists, and on
and on. I wish they would look in the eyes of the women in this country
who have had this procedure who know because of this procedure they
were able to bear children.
I say to my colleagues, I know this is a hard vote, but when the
American people understand that the legislation before the Senate has
no life exemption, it only says if a woman has a preexisting condition
her doctor may use that procedure, and then he will have to defend
himself in a courtroom if he does, but it does not have the Hyde
language--life-of-the-mother, straightforward--that we have seen in
other pieces of legislation. That Hyde exception is not in this bill.
That is why some of my colleagues are going to stand against this bill.
Now, the Boxer amendment we put forward said very simply that this
procedure can only be used if it can spare a woman's life or if she
could suffer long-term, serious, adverse health impacts. Now, does that
not sound reasonable? Does that not sound fair?
I say to my colleagues, if they look in their heart and it happened
to their wife, and the doctor said, ``She will die if I do not use this
procedure,'' not because she has diabetes or a preexisting condition
but because the problem with the fetus is so great, if she does not
have this procedure she could bleed to death, I say to my colleagues,
if they look in their heart, and the doctor looked at them and said,
``You could lose your wife unless I use this procedure,'' they look in
their heart and they are honest; or, if the doctor said, ``You will
never have another baby unless I use this procedure,'' or she will be
paralyzed from the waist down and in a wheelchair for the rest of her
life.
I honestly believe--I do believe--my colleagues, that if you take
away the 30-second commercials that Americans are going to see in this
campaign, you would say to the doctors, ``Save my life.'' And that is
all we are asking. All we are asking is only use this procedure if the
woman's life is at stake or she would suffer serious adverse health
risks if the procedure was not used. I think that is a moderate
position. Roe versus Wade does not allow abortions at the end term. The
State has a right to regulate it. I hope Senators will not misstate
other Senators' positions. It is too important of a debate.
Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield my time.
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
____________________