[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11165-S11166]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today as a physician concerned about 
women, concerned about women's health, concerned about safe medical 
practices. I rise to strongly support the ban on partial-birth 
abortions. My colleagues in this Chamber already know my position that 
this procedure called a partial-birth abortion is both medically 
unnecessary and unnecessarily brutal and inhumane.
  Mr. President, every baby deserves to be treated with respect, with 
dignity and with compassion. This procedure, which has been banned in a 
bipartisan, in a historic way by the U.S. Senate and by the House of 
Representatives, very deeply offends our sensibilities as human beings.
  I need to make very clear that those of us who oppose this very 
specific, very explicitly defined procedure care very deeply about 
women and about the horrific situations they sometimes face, but how 
can we answer to our children, to our families, to our constituents 
back home and to ourselves if we continue to allow babies to be aborted 
through this partial-birth abortion procedure, especially--and I think 
in some of the remarks earlier today it was made clear--especially in 
light that this procedure, this specific, well-defined procedure is 
medically unnecessary.
  As the Senate's only physician, the only physician in this body, as 
the only board-certified surgeon in this body, I feel compelled to 
address the issue surrounding the medical misinformation that is laid 
on our desks, that you hear on the floor of this body, that you read in 
the newspaper each day.

  There are really three medical myths that each of us in preparing to 
vote 2 days from now must address. There are medical myths that 
surround potential harm to the mother, to affecting the welfare of the 
mother, and they are as follows:
  Myth No. 1: We have heard it said in this body that this is an 
accepted and safe medical procedure, often necessary to save the 
reproductive health and/or life of the mother. I have talked to 
physicians who perform emergency and elective late-term abortions, both 
in Tennessee and around the country. Many of them had not heard of this 
specific procedure, but all of them, after hearing it--and I went back 
to the original papers, which I will share--all of them that I talked 
to, condemned it as medically unnecessary--meaning there are in those 
very rare situations alternative types of therapy--or even dangerous, 
dangerous, to the health of the mother. In every case of severe fetal 
abnormality or medical emergency, there are other alternative 
procedures that will preserve the life of the mother and the mother's 
reproductive health.
  Dr. Hern, the author of a textbook entitled ``Abortion Practice,'' 
which is a widely accepted text on abortion, disputed the claim that 
this is a safe procedure in an interview with the American Medical 
News. He cited, for example, concerns about turning the fetus into a 
breach position--which is part of this procedure--turning the baby 
around, which can cause placental abruption, or separation of the 
placenta, and amniotic fluid embolism.
  In an effort to combat much of the medical and scientific 
misinformation surrounding this issue, a number of physicians and 
specialists and medical spokespeople have gotten together, formed a 
coalition to address some of the medical errors, the medical 
misinformation, that have been put forward. Dr. C. Everett Koop, a 
former Surgeon

[[Page S11166]]

General is a member of this coalition. He has also stated that this 
procedure, in his clinical experience, ``is not a medical necessity for 
the mother.''
  I hesitate to go into the procedure, but, again, as a physician, what 
I turn to is the procedure itself as defined in the medical literature. 
So I turn to a presentation called Dilation and Extraction for Late 
Second Trimester Abortion, written and presented by Dr. Martin Haskell, 
presented at the National Abortion Federation risk management seminar, 
September 13, 1992. This is the actual paper that was presented. As 
with any medical paper, there is an introduction, a background, a 
patient selection, a description of the patient operation. Without 
going into the entire description of the operation, let me quote from 
this medical presentation presented at a medical scientific meeting.

       While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and 
     applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the 
     left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt carved 
     Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand [the Metzenbaum 
     scissors are scissors about that size, typically used in 
     surgery.] He carefully advances the tip carved down along the 
     spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact 
     the base of the skull with the tip of his middle finger.
       Reassessing proper placement of the closed scissors tip and 
     safe elevation of the cervix, the surgeon then forces the 
     scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen 
     magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the 
     scissors to enlarge the opening.
       The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction 
     catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. 
     With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the 
     fetus, removing it completely from the patient.
       The surgeon finally removes the placenta with forceps and 
     scrapes the uterine walls with a large Evans and a 14 mm 
     suction curette. The procedure ends.

  I share this because I have other descriptions, and I have seen the 
graphics. And I always wonder. ``What filter does this go through 
before it gets to the floor of the U.S. Senate, or to the House, or to 
the newspaper?'' And these are the exact words used in the oral 
presentation at a medical meeting of this procedure by one of its 
proponents.
  Myth No. 2: This procedure is only performed in cases of severe fetal 
abnormality when the fetus is already dead, or will die immediately 
after birth.
  Mr. President, this falsehood has been repeated again and again and 
again. It has been used as one of the principal defenses of the veto 
handed down by President Clinton. But the record clearly shows that 
this is false. Dr. Martin Haskell, one of the best known practitioners 
of this procedure, this partial birth method, told American Medical 
News that:

       Eighty percent of his partial-birth abortions were done for 
     ``purely elective reasons.''

  Another doctor testified before Congress that he has performed 
partial-birth abortions on late term babies simply because they had a 
``cleft lip.''
  Myth No. 3: The fetus is already dead or insensitive to pain during 
this procedure, which I just described, because of the anesthesia 
administered to the mother.
  Of all the misconceptions of this debate this has some of the most 
troubling implications for women's health. Some of the documents 
distributed to this body have stated ``The fetus dies of an overdose of 
anesthesia given to the mother intravenously.''
  Mr. President, this is not true. If it were true, then women who 
undergo elective operations during pregnancy--even life-saving 
procedures done under anesthesia--would probably avoid it because of 
fear of danger to that fetus. And it is wrong I think to scare women to 
endanger their health in order to defend an unnecessary procedure.
  Let me go back to the paper again, the medical scientific paper, 
because I forgot to mention that in closing of the paper, in the 
summary, the last paragraph on page 33, which says:

       In conclusion, dilation and extraction--the partial birth 
     procedure I just described--is an alternative method for 
     achieving late second trimester abortions to 26 weeks. It can 
     be used in the third trimester.

  So even the author says it is an alternative method. This procedure 
is medically unnecessary.
  I have heard from a number of my fellow colleagues who have been 
outraged at the blatant misinformation campaign that has come forward.
  The American Society of Anesthesiologists has issued repeated 
statements contradicting the argument of fetal death or coma due to 
anesthesia given to the mother.
  Mr. President, I know that this issue does stir up a lot of emotion. 
But I think we do need to be careful with the facts. The facts are this 
procedure is indefensible from a medical standpoint. There is never an 
instance where it is medically necessary in order to save the life of 
the mother or her reproductive health.
  I know a number of my colleagues oppose this bill not because they 
support the procedure but on the grounds that they fear further and 
further Government intervention into the practice of medicine. And I 
too have a fear of excessive Federal Government intervention into that 
practice of medicine. But I do think there comes a time when 
individuals, a few individuals on the fringe, force us to draw a line 
to protect innocent human life from the sort of brutality which I just 
described to you out of the literature. And I truly feel, Mr. 
President, that this is one of those times.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Are we in morning 
business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not at this moment.

                          ____________________