[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11144-S11151]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                VALUJET

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today on a matter of vital 
concern to the economic well-being of thousands of Georgia families. I 
think we all remember the tragedy of the event in May, May 11, when 
ValuJet 592 plunged into the Florida Everglades. And, forever, as with 
any incident like this, we all are grieving over the families that were 
affected.
  However, following this investigation, ValuJet airlines was grounded 
and went through the most thorough, grinding analysis of every aspect 
of

[[Page S11145]]

their procedures possible. Because, obviously, safety is first and 
foremost, the center of any question as to whether the airlines could 
return to the air. I do not think it is generally known that on August 
29, at 3:45 p.m., after having gone through this arduous procedure, the 
Federal Aviation Administration returned ValuJet airline's carrier 
operating certificate. In their own press release it says, ``This 
action will permit ValuJet to resume operations at a future date if the 
airline is found to be managerially and financially fit by the 
Department of Transportation.''
  The point I want to make here is that 4,000 employees have been 
unable to draw a paycheck; 4,000 homes, not to mention the hundreds of 
business associated with the peripheral support of the airline, they 
have not been able to draw a paycheck. The FAA settled the preeminent 
question, is the airline safe? And they returned the certificate.
  The Department of Transportation, which I had not realized, also must 
verify or issue a certificate to allow the airline to return to 
operations. It is now September 24, nearly a full month--and this is 
just the story of Washington over and over and over. The Department of 
Transportation said, on August 29, that the background and experience 
of ValuJet's management team fully qualifies them to oversee the 
carrier's operation. The Department of Transportation review of 
ValuJet, its forecast of current financial condition, finds that, ``the 
company continues to have available to it funds sufficient to allow it 
to recommence operations at its planned, scaled-back level without 
undue economic risk to consumers. ValuJet has taken a number of steps 
to strengthen management procedures and has demonstrated a disposition 
to comply with all applicable laws and regulations.''
  August 29: FAA returns the certificate. It is safe. August 29: The 
Department of Transportation issues its findings that in the three 
major criteria it is to review it appears the airline is ready to fly. 
Today is September 24, and there is not one engine turning and there is 
not one paycheck being issued to one of those 4,000 families. In fact, 
we are being threatened with firing the remaining 400 employees. This 
is not right. This is not right. This is what everybody out there 
becomes so incensed about in the Washington apparatus. This airline is 
now ready to fly. Those workers need to be put back to work. The 
economic health that this airline represents needs to be returned to 
the air.
  They have met the criteria that their Government demanded for safety 
and they have met the other basic criteria. We are now mired in 
bureaucracy. There was a period of time when this press release was 
issued, 7 days, during which anybody who had anything to say could say 
it. The airline had 4 days to comment on it. That has happened. It is 
long since passed. We still do not have the authorization to fly. I am 
just stunned by it. I do not know why. It happens every day in this 
town, the insensitivity, the 9 to 5 attitude. So what if 4,000 people 
are not getting a paycheck? So what if every day that goes by actually 
threatens one of the major criteria, economic solvency? Obviously, they 
do not become more solvent by sitting nailed to a tarmac. So what if we 
are about to fire 400 more people, even though FAA has said it is ready 
to go and DOT has said for all practical purposes it is ready to go?
  Mr. President, these folks need to get their bureaucratic mishmash 
settled, and they need to get this airline back in the air, and they 
need to get these families economically solvent and able to pay their 
mortgages and pay for their kids' education, and get their families 
back together.
  Mr. President, I can see the consternation on your face, which means 
my 5 minutes has expired. I appreciate the Chair's patience, and I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, while my colleague from California was 
on the floor I didn't get a chance to hear her, and much of what she 
said was in response to my question--and I use that term loosely 
because, in what I heard, she did not respond to the question. My 
question is a very simple question. The question, obviously, needs to 
be asked and, hopefully, at some point someone will answer me. That is, 
what will be the position of innocence if, in the performance of this 
procedure where the baby is delivered feet first, this birth canal, the 
entire baby's arms and legs, torso, are outside of the mother's womb 
completely, arms and legs moving outside the mother, all that is left 
in is the head, that is, when this procedure is performed and the baby 
is then killed, what if--which is not unknown from what I understand--
if, for some reason, when the shoulders were delivered the head were 
accidentally delivered, will the mother and the physician then have a 
right to choose whether that baby lives or not? Or, would they be 
responsible--would the physician have to do something to keep the baby 
alive, since it is now completely outside the mother?

  I understand the Senator from California went in, started talking 
about when the procedure should be used, and certain facilities, and 
all the things that could happen as a result of not using this 
procedure, talked about Roe versus Wade, but did not answer the 
question as to whether it was still the woman's right to choose at that 
point. Since she wanted to have the abortion, whether it would still be 
the woman's right to terminate that pregnancy? She defends the 
procedure, but she does not answer the question, and I will ask that 
question again, as I will be on the floor for some time. I will ask 
that question again of the Senator from California or anybody else who 
wants to defend this procedure being used on a 24-week-old or 30-week-
old baby.
  The Senator from California talked about this procedure as medically 
necessary to stop--to prohibit infertility or if it is more dangerous 
because it could cause paralysis, and all of these medical-health 
reasons why this procedure should be performed. Let me read to you some 
information from a group of physicians. They call themselves FACT, 
Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth.
  The first quote is from a doctor, Nancy Romer, chairman of obstetrics 
and gynecology at Miami Valley Hospital, in Ohio. People deserve to 
know, ``partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to protect 
a woman's health or her fertility.''
  ``Never medically indicated.'' The Senator from California talked 
about how the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 
support this procedure. You hear this often, how ACOG, which is how 
they go, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have come 
out in opposition to the bill and support partial-birth abortions. That 
is only half true.
  They have opposed this bill. I will read to you the letter. I have a 
copy of the letter sent to the Speaker of the House dated last week:

       Dear Mr. Speaker: The American College of Obstetricians and 
     Gynecologists, an organization representing more than 37,000 
     physicians dedicated to improving women's health care, does 
     not support H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 
     1995. The College finds very disturbing that Congress would 
     take any action that would supersede the medical judgment of 
     trained physicians and criminalize medical procedures that 
     may be necessary to save the life of a woman. Moreover, in 
     defining what medical procedures doctors may not perform, 
     H.R. 1833 employs terminology that is not even recognized in 
     the medical community--demonstrating why Congressional 
     opinion should never be substituted for professional medical 
     judgment. For these reasons we urge to you oppose the veto 
     override. . . .

  They do not support this procedure. What is very clear in this 
letter, to me, and I think to everyone who reads it, is they do not 
like having procedures criminalized. They do not want any doctor 
procedure criminalized. They want the doctor, basically, to have the 
say what kind of procedures they perform, if any.
  I would ask the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists--
and they will give me an answer. I guarantee you, in fact we will write 
them a letter today and fax it over: If this procedure was done and the 
baby's head slipped out, would the obstetrician be allowed to kill the 
baby?
  If they would be so kind as to respond to that I will send the 
letter, if necessary. But I would suspect the answer would be pretty 
clear: No. No.
  I do not know if we will get that answer from anybody on the other 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Pennsylvania has 
expired.
  Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

[[Page S11146]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, let me return to the issue of partial-birth abortion. 
I would like to respond to a comment that was made about an hour ago, I 
guess, by my colleague from California, Senator Boxer. She is certainly 
very eloquent. She and I have debated this issue before, and I suspect 
we will be debating it again.
  She made a statement to the effect that we have heard from the men, 
we have heard men come down to the floor, we have heard from the men, 
now let's hear from the women. Mr. President, there are many women in 
this country adamantly opposed to partial-birth abortions. I have 
received in my office over 90,000 postcards and letters from people in 
Ohio. That does not include the thousands of calls that we have 
received. By looking at some of these postcards, it is clear that a 
large number of these individuals are women who are writing about this 
issue.
  But let's talk about three specific people, three women, three women 
who are professionals, who are experts, who have, I think, something 
really to say about this issue.
  Let me first start with Brenda Shafer. Brenda Shafer described 
herself as pro-choice. She is working as a nurse in Dayton, OH. I am 
going to read very briefly from the testimony that she gave to the 
Judiciary Committee on November 17, 1995. She is describing at this 
point, Mr. President, in her testimony how she came to work in Dr. 
Haskell's office. This is what she said:

       So, because of strong pro-choice views that I held at that 
     time, I thought this assignment would be no problem for me. 
     But I was wrong. I stood at the doctor's side as he performed 
     the partial-birth abortion procedure, and what I saw is 
     branded on my mind forever.

  Then she describes what she saw:

       The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and 
     his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the 
     scissors in the back of his head and the baby's arms jerked 
     out, like a startled reaction, like a flinch, like a baby 
     does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor opened up 
     the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the 
     opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went 
     completely limp. I was really completely unprepared for what 
     I was seeing. I almost threw up as I watched Dr. Haskell 
     doing these things.

  Then she goes on:

       I've been a nurse for a long time, and I've seen a lot of 
     death, people maimed in auto accidents, gunshot wounds, you 
     name it. I've seen surgical procedures of every sort. But in 
     all my professional years, I never witnessed anything like 
     this.

  Finally, she concluded:

       I will never be able to forget it. What I saw done to that 
     little boy and to those other babies should not be allowed in 
     this country. I hope that you will pass the Partial-Birth 
     Abortion Ban Act.

  Brenda Shafer described herself as pro-choice. She knew she was 
walking into a clinic where abortions were done. That is what they did. 
That is what she saw. That is what she described. No dispute about it. 
Dr. Haskell himself in the printed literature, articles he has written, 
describes, basically, the same procedure. That is Brenda Shafer.

  The next woman I would like to reference and call the Senate's 
attention to and the testimony she gave to our committee is Dr. Pamela 
Smith. Dr. Pamela Smith is the director of medical education, 
department of obstetrics and gynecology, Mt. Sinai Medical Center, 
Chicago, IL.
  In her testimony, she systematically described how this procedure is 
really not indicated, that it is not a medical procedure that is 
required. It does not really have to take place.
  Let me read a portion of the testimony that she gave.
  I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, for 5 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, here is what she says about the necessity 
of this procedure:

       I went around and described the procedure of partial-birth 
     abortion to a number of physicians and lay persons who I knew 
     to be pro-choice. They were horrified to learn that such a 
     procedure was even legal.

  Later on in her testimony she says the following. Again, this is Dr. 
Pamela Smith:

       Now, the cruelty to the baby is there for everyone to see, 
     if you will acknowledge it. But I think that it is more 
     difficult for people to recognize the risk to the mother that 
     is associated with these procedures. I might also add that 
     these risks have been acknowledged not only in standard 
     medical literature, but by people who perform abortions as 
     well.

  Continuing her testimony, she concludes as follows:

       Enactment of this legislation is needed both to protect 
     human offspring from being subjected to a brutal procedure 
     and to safeguard the health of pregnant women in America.

  This is just one of the witnesses that we heard who said this 
procedure is simply not indicated, it is not something that is accepted 
in the medical field. It is not something that medical journals 
recognize. It is not something that doctors believe is necessary. That 
was Dr. Pamela Smith.
  Let me conclude with a third individual, and that is Dr. Nancy Romer, 
a medical doctor. She is a clinical professor, ob-gyn, Wright State 
University, chairman of the department. This is her quote:

       This procedure is currently not an accepted medical 
     procedure. A search of medical literature reveals no mention 
     of this procedure, and there is no critically evaluated or 
     peer review journal that describes this procedure. There is 
     currently also no peer review or accountability of this 
     procedure. It is currently being performed by a physician 
     with no obstetric training in an outpatient facility behind 
     closed doors and no peer review.

  Again, only one of several witnesses who testified that this is 
really not an accepted medical procedure at all.
  Mr. President, I will be commenting further about this issue later on 
in the debate.
  Let me conclude by saying what we are really about today, tomorrow 
and Thursday when we vote on this matter when we determine whether or 
not there are enough votes in this Senate to do what the House did, and 
that is override the President's veto, a veto that I believe was very 
misguided. The issue really is about what kind of a people we are and 
what we will tolerate, what we will turn our back to, what we will turn 
our head on and what we will say is OK: ``I wouldn't do it, I don't 
like it, but I'm not going to do anything about it.''

  I think we really define who we are as a people, what kind of a 
people we are in this debate, because, Mr. President, if this procedure 
can be accepted, can be allowed in this country, I think virtually 
anything can be allowed.
  My colleague from Pennsylvania, who has been very eloquent in this 
matter, and other colleagues have referred to the fact that this 
child--there is nothing else to call it, a child--is within seconds of 
being born, is within inches of being born. It is almost all the way 
out when that child is killed in the manner described by Nurse Shafer, 
and that if this procedure--and I think that almost debases the English 
language by calling it a ``procedure,'' it is such a sterile word--is 
allowed to continue in this country, there is literally no limit to 
what we will tolerate, what we will turn our back on, what we will say: 
``We don't like it, but we will put up with it.''
  So I think we really do in this debate define what we are as a 
people, what we care about, what is important to us and what is not 
important to us. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from 
Ohio for his statement and for the tremendous amount of work he has 
done on this issue from the committee level through passage in the 
Senate, and here he is back again.
  I can tell you that those of us who have spoken on this issue do not 
relish the opportunity to do so. It is a very difficult issue. It is a 
very tough issue to talk about. And Senator DeWine has eight children. 
I have three children. My wife and I are expecting our fourth in March. 
We know how very serious this issue is. And we very much believe that 
in this case, on this issue, this is an issue of the life and death of 
a little baby. And we think it is important for us to stand up and say 
something about it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 20 minutes to 
speak on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President.

[[Page S11147]]

  Mr. President, what I was talking about a few minutes ago, Senator 
DeWine highlighted. I just want to reinforce some of the evidence that 
has come forward throughout the process of the hearings and the debates 
in the House and Senate, but also new information that has been made 
available to us. I want to say again to Members who are thinking about 
this issue, who have possibly opposed this issue in the past, that 
there certainly is enough information that has come out since the 
original passage of this bill that would give any Member who truly does 
deliberate on this issue the opportunity to take another look and to 
gather all the facts.
  I am going to read an article written by four obstetricians, two who 
the Senator from Ohio just referred to, Nancy Romer and Pamela Smith, 
but also Curtis Cook and Joseph DeCook. These are all obstetricians. 
They are members of an organization called PAHCT, which is, Physicians 
Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth. My understanding is that that group is now 
comprised of over 300 such physicians who share the opinion of this 
text that was printed on Thursday, September 19, in the Wall Street 
Journal.
       The House of Representatives will vote in the next few days 
     on whether to override President Clinton's veto of the 
     Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. The debate on the subject has 
     been noisy and rancorous. You've heard from the activists. 
     You've heard from the politicians. Now may we speak?

  And speaking as obstetricians.

       We are the physicians who, on a daily basis, treat pregnant 
     women and their babies. And we can no longer remain silent 
     while abortion activists, the media and even the president of 
     the United States continue to repeat false medical claims 
     about partial-birth abortion. The appalling lack of medical 
     credibility on the side of those defending this procedure has 
     forced us--for the first time on our professional careers--to 
     leave the sidelines in order to provide some sorely needed 
     facts in a debate that has been dominated by anecdote, 
     emotion and media stunts.
       Since the debate on this issue began, those whose real 
     agenda is to keep all types of abortion legal--at any stage 
     of pregnancy, for any reason--have waged what can only be 
     called an orchestrated misinformation campaign.
       First the National Abortion Federation and other pro-
     abortion groups claimed the procedure didn't exist. When a 
     paper written by the doctor who invented the procedure was 
     produced, abortion proponents changed their story, claiming 
     the procedure was only done when a women's life was in 
     danger. Then the same doctor, the nation's main practitioner 
     of the technique, was caught-on tape-admitting that 80% of 
     his partial-bath abortions were ``purely elective.''
       Then there was the anesthesia myth. The American public was 
     told that it wasn't the abortion that killed the baby, but 
     the anesthesia administered to the mother before the 
     procedure. This claim was immediately and thoroughly 
     denounced by the American Society of Anesthesiologists, which 
     called the claim ``entirely inaccurate.'' Yet Planned 
     Parenthood and its allies continued to spread the myth, 
     causing needless concern among our pregnant patients who 
     heard the claims and were terrified that epidurals during 
     labor, or anesthesia during needed surgeries, would kill 
     their babies.
       The lastest baseless statement was made by President 
     Clinton himself when he said that if the mothers who opted 
     for partial-birth abortions had delivered their children 
     naturally, the women's bodies would have been ``eviscerated'' 
     or ``ripped to shreds'' and they ``could never have another 
     baby.''
       That claim is totally and completely false. Contrary to 
     what abortion activities would have us believe, partial-birth 
     abortion is never medically indicated to protect a woman's 
     health or her fertility. In fact, the opposite is true: The 
     procedure can pose a significant and immediate threat to both 
     the pregnant woman's health and her fertility. It seems to 
     have escaped anyone's attention that one of the five women 
     who appeared at Mr. Clinton's veto ceremony had five 
     miscarriages after her partial-birth abortion.
       Consider the dangers inherent in partial-birth abortion, 
     which usually occurs after the fifth month of pregnancy. A 
     woman's cervix is forcibly dilated over several days, which 
     risks creating an ``incompetent cervix,'' the leading cause 
     of premature deliveries. it is also an invitation to 
     infection, a major cause of infertility. The abortionist then 
     reaches into the womb to pull a child feet first out of the 
     mother (internal podalic version), but leaves the head 
     inside. Under normal circumstances, physicians avoid breech 
     births whenever possible; in this case, the doctor 
     intentionally causes one--and risks tearing the uterus in the 
     process. He then forces scissors through the base of the 
     baby's skull--which remains lodged just within the birth 
     canal. This is a partially ``blind'' procedure, done by feel, 
     risking direct scissor injury to the uterus and laceration of 
     the cervix or lower uterine segment, resulting in immediate 
     and massive bleeding and the threat of shock or even death to 
     the mother.
       None of this risk is ever necessary for any reason. We and 
     many other doctors across the U.S. regularly threat women 
     whose unborn children suffer the same conditions as those 
     cited by the women who appeared at Mr. Clinton's veto 
     ceremony. Never is the partial-birth procedure necessary. 
     Not for hydrocephaly (excessive cerebrospinal fluid in the 
     head), not for polyhydramnios (an excess of amniotic fluid 
     collecting in the women) and not for trisomy (genetic 
     abnormalities characterized by an extra chromosome). 
     Sometimes, as in the case of hydrocephaly, it is first 
     necessary to drain some of the fluid from the baby's head. 
     And in some cases, when vaginal delivery is not possible, 
     a doctor performs a Caesarean section. But in no case is 
     it necessary to partially deliver an infant through the 
     vagina and then kill the infant.
       How telling it is that although Mr. Clinton met with women 
     who claimed to have needed partial-birth abortions on account 
     of these conditions, he has flat-out refused to meet with 
     women who delivered babies with these same conditions, with 
     no damage whatsoever to their health or future fertility!
       Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop was recently asked 
     whether he'd ever operated on children who had any of the 
     disabilities described in this debate. Indeed he had. In 
     fact, one of his patients--``with a huge omphalocele [a sac 
     containing the baby's organs] much bigger than here head''--
     went on to become the head nurse in his intensive care unit 
     many years later.

  So he delivered this baby that had these organs outside the body. Not 
only was that repaired, but that woman went on to become the head nurse 
in his intensive care unit.

       Mr. Koop's reaction to the president's veto? ``I believe 
     that Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical advisers on what 
     is fact and what is fiction'' on the matter, he said. Such a 
     procedure, he added, cannot truthfully be called medically 
     necessary for either the mother or--he scarcely need point 
     out--for the baby.
       Considering these medical realities, one can only conclude 
     that the women who thought they underwent partial-birth 
     abortions for ``medical'' reasons were tragically misled. And 
     those who purport to speak for women don't seem to care.
       So whom are you going to believe? The activist-extremists 
     who refuse to allow a little truth to get in the way of their 
     agenda? The politicians who benefit from the activists' 
     political action committees? Or doctors who have the facts?

  Mr. President, I would like to read from the American Medical News. 
This was an interview with C. Everett Koop. In fact, I read most of it. 
I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From American Medical News, Aug. 19, 1996]

                        The View From Mount Koop

                 (By Diane Gianelli and Christina Kent)

       Q: Clinton just vetoed a bill to ban ``partial birth'' 
     abortions, a late-term abortion technique that practitioners 
     refer to as ``intact dilation and evacuation'' or ``dilation 
     and extraction.'' In so doing, he cited several cases in 
     which women were told these procedures were necessary to 
     preserve their health and their ability to have future 
     pregnancies. How would you characterize the claims being made 
     in favor of the medical need for this procedure?
       A: I believe that Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical 
     advisers on what is fact and what is fiction in reference to 
     late-term abortions. Because in no way can I twist my mind to 
     see that the late-term abortion as described--you know, 
     partial birth, and then destruction of the unborn child 
     before the head is born--is a medical necessity for the 
     mother. It certainly can't be a necessity for the baby. So I 
     am opposed to . . . partial birth abortions.
       Q: In your practice as a pediatric surgeon, have you ever 
     treated children with any of the disabilities cited in this 
     debate? For example, have you operated on children born with 
     organs outside of their bodies?
       A: Oh, yes indeed. I've done that many times. The prognosis 
     usually is good. There are two common ways that children are 
     born with organs outside of their body. One is an 
     omphalocele, where the organs are out but still contained in 
     the sac composed of the tissues of the umbilical cord. I have 
     been repairing those since 1946. The other is when the sac 
     has ruptured. That makes it a little more difficult. I don't 
     know what the national mortality would be, but certainly more 
     than half of those babies survive after surgery.
       Now every once a while, you have other peculiar things, 
     such as the chest being wide open and the heart being outside 
     the body. And I have even replaced hearts back in the body 
     and had children grow to adulthood.
       Q: And live normal lives?
       A: Serving normal lives. In fact, the first child I ever 
     did, with a huge omphalocele much bigger than her head, went 
     on to develop well and become the head nurse in my intensive 
     care unit many years later.

  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I think it is important to realize again the new information that has 
come out. The information provided by

[[Page S11148]]

these physicians, the information provided by Mr. Cohen. And I have an 
article here by David Brown, published in the Washington Post, on 
September 17, just last week. This was the article that Mr. Cohen 
referred to in his column where he changed his mind. He changed his 
mind. Someone who is admittedly very pro-choice changed his mind on 
whether this procedure should be legal or not.
  One of the reasons he changed his mind--the principal reason was as a 
result of Dr. Brown's article talking about ``Late Term Abortions, Who 
Gets Them and Why,'' which is the name of the article by David Brown. 
He talks about who gets them and why. He talks about Dr. Haskell from 
Ohio, who says, ``I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are 
elective in that 20-24 week range. In my particular case, probably 20 
percent of the abortions are for genetic reasons. And the other 80 
percent are purely elective.''
  Elective means, according to David Brown, that the fetuses were 
normal, or that the pregnant woman was not seriously ill.
  I ask unanimous consent this article by David Brown be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 17, 1996]

                          Late Term Abortions

                            (By David Brown)

       In a White House ceremony in April, President Clinton 
     vetoed a bill outlawing a technique of abortion done only in 
     the second half of pregnancy. Termed ``partial-birth 
     abortion'' by the people who decry it, and ``intact dilation 
     and evacuation'' by the people who perform it, the technique 
     has become the latest lightning rod in the nation's stormy 
     debate about abortion.
       Standing next to the president when he announced the veto 
     were five women who had undergone late-term abortions with 
     the controversial technique because their fetuses had severe 
     developmental defects.
       The women, Clinton said, ``represent a small, but extremely 
     vulnerable group . . . They all desperately wanted their 
     children. They didn't want abortions. They made agonizing 
     decisions only when it became clear their babies would not 
     survive, their own lives, their health, and in some cases 
     their capacity to have children in the future were in 
     danger.''
       Others have sketched similar pictures. The Planned 
     Parenthood Federation of America called this procedure 
     ``extremely rare and done only in cases when the woman's life 
     is in danger or in cases of extreme fetal abnormality.'' The 
     National Abortion Federation, an abortion providers' 
     organization, said that ``in the majority of cases'' where it 
     is used, there is a ``severe fetal anomaly [birth defect].''
       But it is not possible to speak with certainty about who 
     undergoes ``intact D&E,'' as the ``partial-birth abortion'' 
     is known in medicine. The federal government does not collect 
     such information. Physicians do not have to report it to the 
     state health departments. Researchers do not study the 
     question or publish their findings in medical journals.
       Interviews with doctors who use the procedure and public 
     comments by others show that the situation is much more 
     complex. These doctors say that while a significant number of 
     their patients have late abortions for medical reasons, many 
     others--perhaps the majority--do not. Often they are young or 
     poor. Some are victims of rape or incest.
       Physicians who perform abortions beyond the first third of 
     pregnancy say that use of intact D&E is quite rare. Just over 
     1 percent (about 17,000) of all abortions in this country 
     occur after the 20th week of fetal development; it is after 
     that point when the intact D&E procedure is sometimes used. 
     Only a fraction are believed to be intact D&Es, the 
     controversial method in which the fetus is pulled by the feet 
     out of the uterus and the head is punctured so it can also 
     pass through the cervix. What's more, very few doctors 
     perform this surgery; interviews with abortion experts 
     suggest that there are less than 20.
       What follows are sketches of the experience of several 
     physicians who perform the intact D&E procedure, as well as 
     the experience of doctors who perform abortions on patients 
     with advanced pregnancies using an alternative technique. 
     Taken as a group, the descriptions and observations by these 
     practitioners paint a more complete picture of who decides to 
     end their pregnancy at an advanced stage, and why.


                          A QUESTION OF SAFETY

       One of the better-known practitioners of intact D&E is 
     Martin Haskell, an Ohio physician who in 1992 presented a 
     ``how-to'' paper on the technique at a medical conference in 
     Texas. The dissemination of this document to antiabortion 
     activists set the stage for the current campaign to ban the 
     technique.
       Although Haskell declined to be interviewed for this 
     article, in his 1992 paper he said he had performed ``over 
     700 of these procedures.'' Three years ago, American 
     Medical News, a weekly publication of the American Medical 
     Association, interviewed Haskell about his technique.
       ``I'll be quite frank most of my abortions are elective in 
     that 20-24 week range,'' Haskell said, according to a 
     transcript of the interview, which has circulated widely 
     during the debate on the ``partial-birth abortion'' bill. 
     ``In my particular case, probably 20 percent [of the 
     abortions] are for genetic reasons. And the other 80 percent 
     are purely elective.''
       ``Elective'' is not a medical term generally used with 
     abortion, but it is often used in medicine to denote 
     procedures that are not medically required. In this context, 
     it appears to mean that the fetuses were normal or that the 
     pregnant woman was not seriously ill.
       The American Medical News reporter also asked Haskell 
     ``whether or not the fetus was dead beforehand.'' The doctor 
     answered: ``No it's not. No it's really not. A percentage are 
     for various numbers of reasons. . . . In my case, I would 
     think probably about a third of those are definitely dead 
     before I actually start to remove the fetus. And probably the 
     other two-thirds are not.''
       Also performing intact D&E abortions in Ohio is a 45-year-
     old physician named Martin Ruddock. Interviewed recently, he 
     declined to estimate how many abortions he did each year, but 
     said that only 5 to 10 percent were done in the later stages 
     of pregnancy. Beyond the 18th or 19th week, Ruddock prefers 
     to use the intact D&E technique.
       He believes it is safer than its most common alternative, 
     which is called ``dismemberment dilation and evacuation.'' In 
     that procedure, the fetus is removed in pieces, generally 
     limbs first. It requires that the surgeon exert a great deal 
     of force on the fetus inside the uterus, and it often 
     produces short, bony fragments that can damage a woman's 
     reproductive organs. On rare occasions, ``dismemberment D&E'' 
     also exposes a woman to fetal substance (primarily brain 
     tissue) that can cause dangerous reactions.
       ``To minimize those problems is why the [intact] procedure 
     was developed,'' Ruddock said.
       In practice, however, he employs it only a third of the 
     times he'd like to, he said. Often the position of the fetus, 
     or some other variable, makes intact D&E impossible, and he 
     uses dismemberment instead. However, whenever he uses the 
     intact method, he first cuts the umbilical cord--a maneuver 
     designed to make sure the fetus is dead before he punctures 
     its skull.
       ``The fundamental argument [of the technique's opponents] 
     is that the fetus is alive. And what I am saying is that in 
     my practice that never happens,'' he said.
       In 45 percent of the cases done beyond beyond 20 weeks of 
     gestation, he said, the fetuses have obvious developmental 
     abnormalities or the women carrying them have illnesses that 
     are being made worse by the pregnancy. In the other 55 
     percent, however, the fetuses are normal.
       Another practitioner, who did not want to be identified, is 
     a physician in the New York area who is affiliated with 
     several teaching institutions. He does about 750 in the 
     second trimester of pregnancy. He uses intact D&E in ``well 
     under a quarter'' of those, he said. About one-third are his 
     private patients, and the rest are ones he sees at the 
     teaching hospitals, where he instructs physicians in 
     training.
       This doctor said that the ``great majority'' of the private 
     patients have medical reasons for their abortions: Either the 
     fetus is abnormal or the pregnant woman's health is 
     threatened by the pregnancy.
       The nonprivate patients, however, are different. They tend 
     to have lower incomes, and the fraction of them who have 
     medical reasons for abortion ``is not nearly as high, [but] I 
     can't quantify it,'' he said. In the cases in which there is 
     no medical indication, the fetuses are usually normal.


                    A California Doctor's Experience

       The notion that intact D&E is done only in the third 
     trimester--very late in the pregnancy, generally after 24 
     weeks--and only when the fetus has catastrophic defects, 
     appears to have arisen from widespread publicity about the 
     practice of a doctor in Los Angeles named James T. McMahon, 
     who died last year. His specialty was the very late abortion 
     of fetuses with severe developmental defects.
       Patients came to him from across the United States and 
     sometimes even from outside the country. All of the women who 
     appear with Clinton at the veto ceremony had their abortions 
     done by him.
       McMahon used intact D&E extensively because after about the 
     26th week of gestation dismemberment of fetuses is extremely 
     difficult, if not impossible.
       In a letter written in 1993 to doctors who referred 
     patients to him, he said that in 1991 he'd done 65 third-
     trimester abortions. All of these cases, he said, were 
     ``nonelective.'' Of all the abortions done beyond 20 weeks, 
     80 percent were for that he termed ``therapeutic 
     indications''--that is, medical reasons.
       In documents submitted to the House subcommittee on the 
     Constitution, McMahon provided a list of some of these 
     reasons. He categorized 1,358 abortions he'd performed over 
     the years, all of them done (his testimony suggested) on 
     women at least 24 weeks pregnant.
       Most of them were for extremely rare genetic defects.
       The list contained a few slightly more common conditions 
     including anencephaly

[[Page S11149]]

     (lack of a brain) in 29 cases, spina bifida (open spinal 
     column) in 28 cases and congenital heart disease in 31 cases. 
     A few of the conditions on the list, however, are rarely 
     fatal. Cleft lip, cited as the ``indication'' in 9 cases, is 
     surgically correctable after birth, sometimes with permanent 
     disability and sometimes without.
       The maternal indications in McMahon's list were similarly 
     varied. The severity of the illnesses can't be inferred, 
     although many of the problems he gave are not commonly life-
     threatening. These included breathlessness on exertion, one 
     case; electrolyte disturbance, one case; diabetes, five 
     cases; and hyperemesis gravidarum (intractable vomiting 
     during pregnancy), six cases. The two most common maternal 
     indications were depression (39 cases) and sexual assault (19 
     cases).
       Although the few other doctors who are known to use the 
     intact D&E method refused to be interviewed, one overseas 
     practitioner would. He is David Grundmann, a 49-year-old 
     physician from Brisbane, Australia, who learned the technique 
     from McMahon about five years ago during a visit to the 
     United States.
       Grundmann performs abortion up to 22 weeks of gestation 
     and, like McMahon, treats patients who travel great distances 
     for his services. He and his two partners do 60 to 100 intact 
     D&E cases a year.
       In an interview last week, he said that in about 15 percent 
     of those cases, there is a severe defect of the fetus.

                           *   *   *   *   *



                           The Women Affected

       It's difficult to say how representative these five doctors 
     are of the rest of the small fraternity of practitioners who 
     perform intact D&E in the United States. Interviews with 
     physicians who use other abortion techniques--generally 
     dismemberment--may help indirectly illuminate why most late-
     term abortions, including intact D&E abortions, are done.
       Warren Hern, a 57-year-old physician who practices in 
     Boulder, Colo., has a master's degree in public health and a 
     doctorate in anthropology. He is one of the few providers of 
     late-stage abortions who publishes research on the topic in 
     medical journals.
       Hern performs between 1,500 and 2,000 abortions a year. 
     About 500 are on women 20 to 25 weeks pregnant. Of those, 
     about one-quarter involve abnormal fetuses. He does between 
     10 and 25 abortions each year on women more than 26 weeks 
     pregnant, and all of them involve fetal abnormalities or 
     serious maternal disease, he said.
       ``It is true that a significant proportion of the community 
     is offended by any abortion after 26 weeks that is not 
     medically indicated,'' he said. ``We practice medicine in a 
     social context. So that is why I will not perform an abortion 
     after 26 weeks just because a woman has decided she does not 
     want to carry the pregnancy to term.''
       Women seeking an abortion late in pregnancy ``are often 
     young, frequently not married, and many have a child already, 
     or more,'' said Steve Lichtenberg, a obstetrician-
     gynecologist in Chicago who does abortions up to 22 weeks of 
     development. Many are poor, have not completed school or 
     established themselves in the work force, he said, and are in 
     excellent health.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       ``The number who volunteer that information is 
     substantially smaller than the number who've actually been 
     subjected to social or sexual violence.''
       Herbert Wiskind is the administrator of the 19-bed Midtown 
     Hospital in Atlanta, whose four doctors perform about 25 
     abortions a week on women at least 18 weeks pregnant. In his 
     experience many of the late procedures occur simply because 
     of denial.
       ``You have a young girl who becomes pregnant, someone 15 or 
     16 years old,'' he said. ``She doesn't know how to tell her 
     parents or her boyfriend. So she puts herself on a diet and 
     tries to deny she's pregnant.''
       However, Wiskind said, some fetal defects aren't diagnosed 
     until late in pregnancy for unavoidable reasons. 
     Amniocentesis, one technique of fetal genetic screening is 
     done between weeks 15 and 17 of pregnancy. Several weeks can 
     then pass before test results are known, and when they 
     indicate a problem it often takes a woman several more weeks 
     to decide about abortion, he said. In addition, many 
     deformities can only be diagnosed through sonograms and were 
     not apparent until the midpoint of pregnancy or later.
       Thomas J. Mullin does abortions through the 24th week of 
     gestation, as calculated by sonographic measurement of the 
     fetus's head. He practices in the New York area.
       Of the procedures Mullin does in weeks 20 through 24, about 
     one-third are for fetal abnormalities, he said. In about 10 
     percent of cases, the woman has an illness, such as severe 
     diabetes or painful uterine fibroids, that is not necessarily 
     life-threatening but is clearly made worse by pregnancy.
       ``The remainder of them are just errors,'' he said. ``Many 
     are young patients--12 to 20 years old--who are not in touch 
     with their reproductive system as well as they should be, so 
     they get stuck later than they want in pregnancy. They get 
     surprised, basically.''
       Jaroslav Hulka, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at 
     the University of North Carolina, supervises a teaching 
     program whose physicians do 250 to 300 abortions a year on 
     women carrying fetuses between 13 and 22 weeks old.
       ``Ninety-five percent of those are normal--that's fair to 
     say,'' he said. Occasionally, fetuses up to 24 weeks old are 
     aborted if they have a condition incompatible with life. The 
     physicians use the dismemberment technique--an arduous and 
     potentially risky procedure.
       ``The technique that the Congress is concerned about 
     [intact D&E] is a level of skill above this,'' Hulka said. 
     ``They are doing what we're all supposed to do--namely, 
     minimize the risk to the patient.''
       Practitioners of the intact procedure argue that their 
     method is the least traumatic among the many variants of 
     dilation and evacuation abortions used and is not--as their 
     critics claim--the most barbarous. In testimony submitted 
     last year to a congressional subcommittee, the late James 
     McMahon wrote:
       ``In a desired pregnancy, when the baby is damaged or the 
     mother is at risk, the decision to abort may be 
     intellectually obvious, but emotionally it is always a 
     personal anguish of enormous proportions . . . For the 
     physician who is willing to help the patient in this dilemma, 
     choices are few. Intact D&E can often be the best among a 
     short list of difficult options. . . . Dealing with the 
     tragic situations that I confront daily makes me constantly 
     aware that I can only limit the hurt by doing gentle surgery 
     and giving sympathetic counsel.''

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. Brown talks about the different reasons--and a lot 
of the reasons given by physicians are reasons that are not medical 
necessities. Dr. Markman from California, I believe, performed nine 
abortions on third-trimester abortions on babies. The fetal 
abnormality? Cleft palate.
  Dr. Pamela Smith sums it up best in a letter written October 28, last 
year, to Charles Canady, who carried this bill over in the House. The 
last paragraph:

       There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered 
     in this country which require a partially delivered human 
     fetus to be destroyed to preserve the health of the mother. 
     Partial birth abortion is a technique devised by abortionists 
     for their own convenience, ignoring the health risks of the 
     mother. The health status of women in this country will 
     thereby only be enhanced by the banning of this procedure.

  I think Mr. Cohen and the doctors I will refer to later have hit the 
nail on the head on what is going on with this whole debate.
  I came to the floor last year and spoke on this issue. It is the 
first time in 6 years as a Senator and Congressman that I had ever 
taken to the floor of either body and utter the word ``abortion.'' I am 
pro-life. I feel very strongly about that. But I have never felt moved 
before to stand up and do something about it until I saw this.
  I thought eventually in this country if we go out, as I have tried to 
do and talk to people, and try to change hearts by talking to people, 
young people, and talk about abortion, talk about how it is a scourge 
on our country, and that 1.5 million of these are performed every year 
in this country. It is not a healthy thing for women who have them. It 
is certainly not a healthy thing for our society that so many are done. 
I thought if we just kept vigilant we would see what the President said 
he would like to see--that abortions are safe, legal, and rare.
  To me, this bill and the President's veto of this bill showed me that 
the rhetoric--how appealing it is, that abortions be rare--is just 
rhetoric. You cannot, you cannot, in your heart want abortions to be 
rare and allow this to happen in this country. What are you saying? 
What are you saying to those young people who are home from school and 
maybe made the mistake of plopping on C-SPAN 2 for a few seconds and 
they hear someone stand up and say you can deliver a baby and you can 
kill it. What are you saying to people who actually have to deal with 
this issue, saying we can kill, not as Mr. Cohen says, a few weeks old 
inch-long embryo, but a fully formed viable baby, viable baby, inches 
away from that first breath. What kind of a message does that send? 
What kind of a country are we?
  If we knew of a procedure that had dogs delivered and then we 
performed that procedure on puppies, do you know how many letters from 
animal rights activists we would be getting now--and some of the very 
same people who would argue to keep this legal would argue to ban the 
other. What does that say about us?
  You have the President of the United States who works very hard in 
the language of his veto message to try to cast the debate in a 
different light, talking about issues that really are not

[[Page S11150]]

substantive here. I will read again and again until the cows come home, 
``there is absolutely no obstetrical situation encountered in this 
situation which requires a partially delivered human fetus to be 
destroyed to preserve the health of the mother.'' Yet the President 
vetoed it. Why? To preserve the health of the mother. It does not 
happen that way.

  We try to form the debate around things that people can feel 
comfortable with. This issue is an issue that a lot of people do not 
feel comfortable with. We do not like to talk about it. But we have to 
talk about this because we are defined not by what the President of the 
United States would like us to feel comfortable with, not by the 
language that we can hide behind and not think about, but by what goes 
on every day in this country.
  A lot of folks in Washington would like us to be cast in what we say. 
What we say is what we really are. I think in our hearts we know what 
we do is what we really are.
  I have a lot of faith in the U.S. Senate. I have a lot of faith in 
the people who sit here and serve here, that they will take that time 
and will gather that evidence and look at the United States of America 
and say in the greatest civilization known to man--will we allow this 
to happen here?
  I believe, even though all the media reports says we will never 
override the President's veto here, we are way short--well, we may have 
been, but I truly believe that my colleagues will study this issue 
well, will take all the new information that is available and will look 
at where we are in America and what signal we are going to send to this 
generation and future generations of Americans about what we will 
become.
  If this is not wrong, I do not know what wrong is. This is wrong, and 
I believe the U.S. Senate will stand up in the next few days and tell 
the American public, ``We heard you.'' Tell those babies we understand 
now we are not going to let this happen any more under our watch.
  I see the Senator from California is here and I asked her a question. 
I will ask it again because she did not answer it the two times 
previously when I asked, so I will ask one more time.
  A partial birth abortion is performed when a baby is delivered feet 
first, as the Senator from Ohio described, the baby is delivered feet 
first through the birth canal. Everything is delivered--arms, 
shoulders, torso, legs, all delivered outside of the womb, outside of 
the mother completely except for the head. As nurse Brenda Shafer said, 
``A pair of curved scissors, surgical scissors, are then inserted into 
the base of the skull and the brains removed.''
  My question to the Senator from California is, what would her 
position be if, when the shoulders were delivered, that accidentally 
the head was also delivered; would the woman and her doctor--and I hear 
so often it is the woman and her doctor's right to choose--would the 
woman and the doctor in that situation where the head is delivered and 
the baby is completely outside of the womb, would the doctor be 
permitted, then, to kill the baby?
  I will be happy, then, to yield the floor and await her answer.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Florida is here to 
talk on another matter. Could I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak for 10 minutes, immediately followed by the Senator from 
Florida for 15 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DeWINE. Reserving the right to object, I would like to inquire as 
to the amount of time we have remaining. My understanding is we will go 
to a vote at 5 o'clock.
  Is that our cutoff time?
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to the Senator, if you would like me to add the 
Senator, following Senator Graham, I am delighted.

  Mr. DeWINE. I do not think I will object. I want to see where we are.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). We were scheduled to resume the 
pending business at 4:30, with half an hour of debate and then a series 
of votes at 5 o'clock.
  Granting the Senator's request would delay those times.
  Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator will withhold we will see what the 
situation is. We will be happy to accommodate the Senator from Florida 
if we can.
  Mrs. BOXER. I renew my request. The Senator spoke for 20 minutes. I 
would like to speak for 10 minutes. I would be happy to make as part of 
that request that the Senator from Ohio follow.
  Is the Senator objecting to my getting 10 minutes?
  Mr. SANTORUM. We are scheduled to go to debate on the bill and votes 
at 5 o'clock. This unanimous consent would push that back, and because 
Members are scheduled later this evening, they do not want to do 
that. That is the problem.

  Mrs. BOXER. In trying to accommodate everybody, it seems to me--it is 
20 after 4. We go to the bill at 4:30. Then I would ask for the normal 
5 minutes to see where we go.
  I am going to try this, Mr. President: That we delay going to the 
bill by 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. BOXER. The reason I have been rather insistent is that for many 
hours today my name has been mentioned on the floor perhaps not 
directly but ``the Senator from California.'' And every time I go back 
to do business with being ``the Senator from California'' I hear 
another misstatement on the floor and the repeated question about how I 
feel about perfectly healthy babies and a perfectly healthy birth being 
aborted.
  Not one United States Senator who is pro-choice believes that there 
should be an abortion allowed on a perfectly healthy pregnancy in the 
late term. I repeat that again. It is my position certainly in the late 
term--this is in concert with Roe v. Wade--that these abortions not 
happen on a healthy baby. And I want to say to my friend when he keeps 
posing that, he has never given birth. I have had the honor and the 
privilege to do so twice. One of my babies was born in a breach 
fashion.
  So when the Senator asks me how I feel about that, I get a little 
upset because the way I felt about that at the time was God help me 
have a healthy baby. And she was premature, and I prayed every minute 
of the way.
  So I do not want anyone to come to this Senate floor--and I ask you, 
I plead with you, not to do this anymore--and talk about ``the Senator 
from California's position.''
  I am a grandmother. It is the greatest thing that has ever happened 
to my husband and myself. I prayed for healthy babies, and, no, I do 
not support the abortion of a healthy pregnancy--not one Senator does--
despite the fact that my colleague makes it sound as if we do.

  We could walk hand in hand down this aisle of the U.S. Senate and 
pass a bill in 60 seconds that outlawed this procedure except for life 
of the mother and serious adverse health impact. We could be together. 
But instead we have to face a debate that no doubt will show up on 30-
second commercials.
  I know that my colleague referred to the President as Mr. Clinton. 
Mr. Clinton met with mothers who have this procedure. He said, ``Why 
didn't he meet with other people on the other side?'' He has talked 
about this issue. He has looked at this issue. He has come to the 
conclusion that he would definitely sign a bill that made that life and 
health exception.
  I quote from his letter.

       I urge that you vote to uphold my veto of H.R. 1833. My 
     views on this legislation have been widely misrepresented.

  And I might say to the President, they are being misrepresented as we 
speak by Members on the other side of this issue.
  He says:

       I am against late-term abortions, and have long opposed 
     them except where necessary to protect the life or health of 
     the mother. As Governor of Arkansas, I signed into law a bill 
     that barred third-trimester abortions with an appropriate 
     exception for life and health. And I would sign a bill to do 
     the same thing at the Federal level, if it was presented to 
     me.

  So here you have a President who has indicated that he would sign a 
bill outlawing this procedure with an exception for life and health. 
But no. The other side does not want that. They would rather come down 
and demagog the issue.
  If I might say, I hear about Mr. Cohen's article. Good for Mr. 
Cohen. 

[[Page S11151]]

He has taken a lot of different positions on a lot of subjects.
  How about listening to the women who have gone through this like 
Maureen? Maureen is a 30-year-old Catholic mother of two, and lives in 
Massachusetts. On February 17, 1994 Maureen and her husband were 
joyously awaiting birth of their second child. On that date when she 
was 5 months pregnant a sonogram determined that her daughter had no 
brain and was nonviable. Her doctor recommended termination of the 
pregnancy.
  On February 18, 1994, a third-degree sonogram at New England Medical 
Center in Boston confirmed the diagnosis that the baby had no brain and 
was nonviable.
  Maureen and her family sought counsel from their parish priest, 
Father Greg, who supported the decision to terminate the pregnancy.
  Mr. President, may I have order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  Mrs. BOXER. Maureen found out that her baby had no brain. She is a 
practicing Catholic, and she went to her priest, Father Greg. On the 
record he supported her decision to terminate the pregnancy.
  They named their daughter Dahlia. She had a Catholic funeral and is 
buried at Otis Air Force Base in Cape Cod, MA.
  And Senators in this Chamber want to insert themselves into that 
family, insert themselves into the dialog between her priest, her God, 
and her family?
  President Clinton will sign a bill that outlaws this procedure with 
an exemption for life and health. Throughout this debate I will bring 
up example after example.
  And I urge my colleagues. This is not about 30-second commercials. 
This is about the life of women.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. We will continue this debate, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  Is it time now to go to the bill at hand?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, it would be time to 
go to the bill.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes, 
and I would be happy to share that time, half and half.
  Mrs. BOXER. If there is no objection, I save my 2\1/2\ minutes until 
after the Senator is finished.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Senator from California makes a 
point--again, it is a good one--that the President will sign the bill 
with the exception for the life and health of the mother. That is what 
the President said.
  I have two amendments. One, the health of the mother exception has 
been consistently held even though it has been narrowly drawn by many 
State legislatures, the health of the mother exception has been 
interpreted by courts unanimously as being anything--financial health 
is the health of mother; social interaction, health of the mother; her 
age, health of the mother; maturity; emotional health; mental health; 
physical health. Yes. It is a limitation without limit. It is no 
limitation at all. And the Senator from California knows that. More 
importantly, the President of the United States knows that very well.
  It is all how to frame the issue. It makes a lot of people feel 
comfortable that the President really does want to limit these things. 
It is only these serious health consequences, and that is reasonable 
until you understand that health consequences is not a limit on the 
procedure. It is not a limit on the procedure.
  So to make a limitation that does not have a limit is just what I 
described before which is someone who wants to be judged by what they 
say to you that sounds so nice instead of what the reality of what 
their words would be which means partial-birth abortions would continue 
to go on in this country without limitation if we passed a bill that 
had a health limitation. That is not Rick Santorum, the Senator from 
Pennsylvania speaking. That is court after court after court after 
court interpreting language that you would believe would be rock solid. 
But with the judges it is not. So I would just say go ahead and 
continue to use it, as I am sure you will--that we could agree on this 
rhetoric. But I can guarantee you we cannot agree on this rhetoric. We 
cannot agree on a limitation that is a phony limitation; to a procedure 
that is infanticide and nothing more.
  The second thing I would say is you have doctor after doctor who has 
written to us and said that this procedure is never medically necessary 
to save the life or health of the mother.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, once more I want to put on the table what the Members 
of the U.S. Senate could agree to at any moment. We would say this 
procedure cannot be used unless the woman's life is at stake because 
there is no true life exception in this extreme bill before us, or to 
spare her serious adverse health consequences.
  And let me just say to my colleague in all due respect--and as 
collegial as I can be in the moment here--if you are suggesting that 
anyone in this U.S. Senate is talking about financial health of the 
woman, let me just say it is an absolute outrage if you would think 
that is what we are talking about. We are talking about infertility for 
life. We are talking about paralysis. We are talking about bleeding to 
death.
  Vikki Stella, mother of two, was in the third trimester of her 
pregnancy when she discovered her son was diagnosed with nine major 
anomalies, including a fluid-filled cranium with no brain tissue at 
all, compacted flattened vertebrae, and skeletal dysplasia. The doctor 
told her the baby would never live outside the womb. She said, ``The 
only option that would assure that my daughters would not grow up 
without a mother was a highly specialized, surgical abortion procedure 
developed for women with similar difficult conditions. Though we were 
distraught over losing our son, we knew the procedure was the right 
option . . . and as promised, the surgery preserved my fertility. Our 
darling son Nicholas was born in December 1995.''
  Senators in this Chamber would stand up to this woman and tell her, 
``Too bad, even though your doctor said it was necessary to have this 
procedure so you could have another child; too bad.''
  You know, I will tell you something. For people who say they want to 
get Government out of the lives of the people, this is extraordinary to 
me. Let us leave these tragic situations to the mother, to the father, 
to the doctor, to the priest, to the rabbi, to God. Let us think 
seriously. If it was your wife, if it was your daughter, and the doctor 
looked in your eye and said, ``Your wife might die if I do not use this 
procedure,'' at that moment would you want him or her to use the 
procedure that would save that life?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you.

                          ____________________