[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.

                          ____________________