[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11268-S11272]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to continue the 
deliberation here in the Senate of the issue of partial-birth 
abortions. We have had a discussion over the past several days in the 
Senate about this issue. I think it is good that we continue the 
debate. I have asked for a time agreement for tomorrow, and I hope we 
can get that, from 9 to 2 tomorrow morning and into tomorrow afternoon, 
and then a vote at 2 o'clock. I know that is being hot-lined right now. 
I do not know if there has been any objection to that. But I think 5 
hours of debate is a reasonable period of time for both sides to get 
the opportunity to put forward their views on this issue. I think, 
while we have had some debate, and maybe we will even have some more 
debate today, I think this is such an important issue that that kind of 
time is necessary to really have the Senate work its will, for it to be 
a deliberative process and a deliberative decision based on all the 
information.
  As I said yesterday, there is a tremendous amount of information, 
frankly even still coming out, about this issue and about the number of 
these procedures that are performed in this country. I think it is 
important for all Senators to realize exactly what we are voting on 
here and its impact, as I said yesterday, not only on what we will 
tolerate as a country, what lines we will draw as to what is 
permissible in our society, in our civilization, but what it will say 
about the quality of life in our country.
  While I was sitting here listening to some of the remarks, I thought 
about what I read last night in the House debate. Member after Member 
got up and

[[Page S11269]]

talked about: Well, you know, we are talking about deformed fetuses--I 
will talk about that later in my remarks--deformed fetuses, as if, 
because they are not perfect, they are expendable. I found it sort of 
ironic that the very people in the House of Representatives who stood 
up and gave as a rationale for allowing late-term abortions a deformity 
of a fetus, in many cases--in fact, in most of the cases described by 
the testimony--not fatal deformities but just deformities, those people 
who say that a mother can abort a baby because of that deformity are 
the same people who get up with passion--and I admire the passion--who 
fight for the Americans With Disabilities Act because they believe 
people with disabilities can, in fact, contribute to our society and 
who argue for IDEA because they believe children with mental 
difficulties or physical disabilities can, in fact, contribute to the 
educational process of all children.

  Yet, when it comes to the very initial right--not the right to go to 
school, not the right to have a curb cut so your wheelchair can get 
from street to street, but the right to live, the right to be a citizen 
of this country--that is where they draw the line; that that is not an 
issue worth fighting for; that that disability is somehow so great that 
it is not worth fighting to protect that disabled child from being 
delivered through this procedure feet first, completely delivered up to 
the head.
  The only thing remaining in the birth canal is the baby's head. A 
pair of scissors is taken and punctures the base of the skull. A 
catheter is then inserted into the brain and the brains are suctioned 
out. That brutal, gruesome, barbaric procedure administered to a baby 
from 20, 21 weeks on; in some cases, third trimester abortions, late 
third trimester abortions in some cases. That is OK, because the baby 
isn't perfect.
  Fortunately, in the House of Representatives, many Members who voted 
against this piece of legislation to ban this procedure had second 
thoughts, gathered more information, listened to the testimony that was 
given, listened to the new findings which I talked about yesterday in 
Richard Cohen's article in the Washington Post where he said when he 
wrote his original article back in June of last year, ``I was under the 
understanding that late-term abortions were rare and they were only for 
health and life of the mother reasons, or that the child to be born 
would have no chance of surviving. But I find that is not the case,'' 
he says. He cited an article written by a colleague of his, a physician 
at the Washington Post, Dr. Brown.
  We have another article written by a woman with the Bergen County 
Record who said that in New Jersey alone this late-term abortion 
procedure done, in many cases, on viable babies at 24 weeks and older 
are not 500 a year, as some of the pro-choice lobbyists would have you 
believe, like Planned Parenthood and others who conveniently don't keep 
close track of these things, but 1,500 a year, just in one particular 
area of New Jersey alone--1,500 a year.
  That fact was not known when the Senate first deliberated. It was an 
important fact that caused the change of opinion of one Member that was 
written about by Cal Thomas today in the Washington Times, Marge 
Roukema. I served with Marge during the 4 years I was in the House. 
Marge is a pro-choice moderate Republican from New Jersey. Quoting Mr. 
Thomas:

       Representative Marge Roukema, a pro-choice moderate 
     Republican from New Jersey, decided that instead of voting in 
     lock-step with the rest of her pro-choice colleagues, she 
     would go beyond the sloganeering and the sound bites. Though 
     Mrs. Roukema voted against the original bill banning partial-
     birth abortion--a procedure in which a fully formed baby is 
     delivered feet first--

  Scissors inserted in the head and the brains sucked out--

     she switched sides and voted to override President Clinton's 
     veto of the measure.
       The reasons Mrs. Roukema gave for her change were as honest 
     as they were profound. She said her concerns about protecting 
     the mother's life had been answered--

  In fact, there is a provision in the bill that was inserted by 
Senator Dole when the bill came through that this procedure would still 
be permitted if it were necessary to save the life of the mother

       putting the lie to pro-choicers' charges that the bill 
     would jeopardize women's lives. She also said she was 
     satisfied that doctors would not be prosecuted if the 
     procedure were performed in dire circumstances.
       Mrs. Roukema said, ``Over time, I've been reading about 
     this and informing myself. It's a decision that was very 
     difficult to make, but I decided (partial-birth abortion) 
     comes too close to infanticide.''

  She took the time to weigh the facts. As I said yesterday, I have a 
tremendous amount of faith--a tremendous amount of faith--in the U.S. 
Senate and its deliberative capabilities, and I have faith in every one 
of the Members here who will not be blinded or blocked into a position 
because they are pro-choice or pro-life.
  This is not a pro-life, pro-choice issue. This is an issue about a 
procedure that is so barbaric and inhumane that if it were performed on 
an animal, we would be hearing the animal rights activists storming the 
Capitol today. If it were performed in another country, the human 
rights people would be saying we should have trade sanctions against 
them until they stop it. And yet it is performed in this country 
thousands of times and in many, many cases, as I quoted yesterday from 
the doctors in the Bergen County Record, in most cases on healthy 
babies, healthy pregnancies, and healthy women who had no problem with 
their pregnancy but was purely elective.
  Other Members who are pro-choice stood up and took a very difficult 
position in support of the override of the President's veto.
  I give them a lot of credit for doing so, because it is not easy to 
stand up and draw a line. One such person was a Member from across the 
river, Mr. Moran, who I was elected with when I first came to the House 
of Representatives back in 1990. I will quote from his statement on the 
floor of the House just last week:

       Mr. Speaker, I am very hesitant to speak on this issue.

  I share with Mr. Moran that I was very hesitant to speak on this 
issue. I had been a Member of the House for 4 years and have been a 
Member of the Senate for 2 years. Never once, prior to this issue, did 
I ever speak on the issue of abortion. I have talked to several of my 
colleagues over the past few days, now that I have stood here talking 
about this and they, too, have told me, ``You know, Rick, I've never 
spoken on the floor of the Senate on this issue, but I feel compelled 
to do it this time.'' So I give credit to Mr. Moran, a Democrat, pro-
choice.
  Continuing his talk:

       For one thing, I have been associated with the pro-choice 
     side throughout my legislative career, and I do believe that 
     when the issue of abortion is considered, it really ought not 
     to be a legislative issue; it ought to be a personal decision 
     by a woman with the advice of her physician, within the 
     context of her religion and family. I do not believe that 
     this issue falls within that rubric, within that context 
     of decisionmaking.

  He then says he agrees with Roe versus Wade and describes the 
decision of Roe versus Wade. I will continuing quoting:

       What we are talking about now, though, goes beyond that 
     third trimester. We are talking about the delivery of a fetus 
     clearly in the shape and with the functions of a human being. 
     And when that human being is delivered in the birth canal, it 
     cannot be masked as anything but a human being.
       We should not act in any legislative way that sanctions the 
     termination of that life. And that is why I urge my 
     colleagues to vote to override the President's veto of this 
     legislation.

  I know that is not an easy thing to do. I know it is not easy to get 
up and talk about those issues. What I also know is I know it is not 
easy for people to listen to talk about this issue.
  One of the things that I think probably led me not to speak so much--
not so much--at all on the floor of the U.S. Senate about this issue is 
because it is so uncomfortable to talk about. I was assailed yesterday 
by one of my colleagues saying, ``Well, you never delivered a child, 
and so you really don't know what it's like, and you really don't have 
any standing to talk about it.''
  It is true I never delivered a child, but I have been there for the 
three deliveries of my children with my wife Karen, and I saw those 
children born. I had the privilege of cutting the umbilical cord in all 
three cases and holding that little, vulnerable baby. Two of our 
children were born premature. We are lucky enough to have a fourth 
child on the way, and we follow the growth and development of that 
child.
  No, I have never had a baby, but I am a father who understands what 
life is

[[Page S11270]]

about. So while I may not have the standing that some in this Chamber 
believe I should have, I think I have every right to stand up for those 
children as a father, as a citizen, and as a Senator. So I will 
continue to do so.
  This is a difficult issue because it pushes us to the edge and makes 
us so uncomfortable to think about a viable baby, not a blob of tissue 
an inch long, not a little embryo, but a baby. My wife--as I mentioned, 
we have three children--but my wife has had a lot more experience with 
babies than just our three children. For many years she was a neonatal 
intensive care nurse in Pittsburgh, PA. She worked in the NICU unit, 
level 3, which is the most severe level, with the babies that are 
having the toughest time surviving. She worked with 24-week-old babies. 
She even worked with a 23-week-old baby. She reminded me last night 
that the eyes were still fused on that baby. That baby is alive today.
  She said, yes, it is a struggle for those young babies. But they 
fought and they fought and they fought, so many of them, and they did 
survive. What this procedure does to those little babies, if we allow 
that to happen in this country--well, I hope we do not.
  The Senator from California yesterday said that we could get a bill 
agreed to here in the U.S. Senate just like that if we just had a 
provision that said, that in addition to protecting the life of the 
mother, that we added a section that said, ``to protect the health of 
the mother.'' I attempted to respond, but I sort of ran out of time. I 
would like to respond to that.

  I will assure the Senator from California that we could not get an 
agreement on that issue with Members who voted for this legislation. 
The reason is very simple. No. 1--and I will read for you physician 
after physician after physician who say that this procedure does not--
does not--protect the health of the mother. In fact, they would argue 
that in fact it greatly endangers the life of the mother, more so than 
other procedures, No. 1.
  No. 2, it also enhances the risk of infertility and the inability to 
carry a child to term.
  So even if you accept--I cannot accept the premise that there is a 
need for this procedure to save the health of the mother. It is in fact 
contradicted, and it is in fact more threatening to the health of the 
mother to do this procedure. So to say this procedure is necessary to 
do that puts forth a false assumption, and then you are asking me to 
agree to it. I cannot agree with something that is not true.
  Second, what we have seen repeatedly in this country is that health 
of the mother is in fact not a limitation at all; that health of the 
mother means, yes, physical health, but also mental health, social 
health in the sense that if it is a young girl who wants to have this 
procedure, that we have to worry about her social standing in order to 
allow this to happen, and financial health. Health has been broadly 
defined in this country to the point where it is not a limitation to a 
procedure at all. I think anyone who argues that fact knows fully well 
that it is not a limitation. So the underlying premise of the health 
exception is a faulty one. Secondly, health is not a limitation.
  So in either instance, I could not accept an amendment like that 
because, No. 1, it is not true, because the health is not endangered by 
doing some other procedure more than it is by doing this one, and, No. 
2, it is not a limitation.
  Let me read from some obstetricians who have commented on this health 
issue and life issue.

       ``I can't think of any situation where you would have to 
     carry out a specific, direct attack on the fetus,'' said Dr. 
     James R. Jones in an April 19 interview at St. Vincent's 
     Hospital and Medical Center in Manhattan.
       Dr. Jones is chairman of the department of obstetrics and 
     gynecology at the New York Medical College in Valhallaran. . 
     .and head of obstetrics and gynecology for the hospital.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       ``Their intent is fetal death,'' Dr. Jones said. ``I can't 
     imagine that being an indicated procedure for the saving of a 
     life or well-being of the mother.'' He said it amounted to 
     ``simply another elective abortion'' and was ``practically 
     infanticide.''
       In cases of special difficulty, obstetricians can always 
     resort to Caesarean delivery, he said. Even if an 
     obstetrician knows in a particular case that the baby is 
     unlikely to live, he said, its death is not the intent and no 
     direct action is taken to kill the baby.

  Dr. Nancy Roemer, who I know has testified before here, and in fact 
may have been up on the Hill today--I do not know that. I know there 
were some physicians up here again to try to educate Members of this 
body who are going to have to make this critical decision, possibly 
tomorrow afternoon, as to what the medical facts are, not some 
information thrown out there by advocacy groups attempting to influence 
the debate, like Planned Parenthood, who put out, ``Oh, there's only a 
few hundred of these done,'' when we find out the facts after the bill 
was passed and vetoed. The fact is, there are thousands of them done. 
In fact, as Richard Cohen said in his article in the Washington Post 
yesterday, nobody knows. Conveniently, those people who perform a lot 
of the abortions do not want to keep track of these kinds of abortions, 
do not want to keep track of late second-trimester and third-trimester 
abortions.

  It is inconvenient for their cause of trying to convince the American 
public that these abortions only occur when they are very early on, and 
we do not have a baby that looks like a baby. It is not really a baby. 
At 24 weeks, it is a baby. You can call it what you want, you can try 
to call it a choice, but it is a baby.
  I asked the Senator from California yesterday three times--and I 
really do not want to be combative. I really want the Senate to try to 
deliberate thoughtfully, to try to remove some of the emotion that 
always gets wrapped up in these debates, obviously, with reason. This 
is a very emotional subject. I asked her three times, and I will ask 
her again, because unfortunately she did not answer me any of the three 
times yesterday. I said, let me give you this set of facts: A partial-
birth abortion is being performed--whether it is a normal baby, a 
perfect baby, or a baby that has some abnormalities--and you have a 24-
week-old baby being delivered feet first, everything is delivered, the 
shoulders are then delivered, and by some mistake of the obstetrician, 
the head is also delivered. Would it be the choice of the mother and 
the obstetrician to then kill the baby?
  Now, I think most people within the sound of my voice would clearly 
say, ``No.'' But if you say no, if it is so obvious, and is it not 
obvious? Does it not just hit you? Of course not, of course not, 
absolutely not, not even a question that the doctor at that point, with 
a baby in its hand, and maybe just in one hand, moving, that that 
doctor could not kill that baby.
  Two or three inches, then, is the difference between what some would 
say, ``Of course not,'' to ``OK.'' Two inches before, ``OK,'' two 
inches later, ``Of course not.'' That is the line being drawn in this 
country now about life--about life. Is that the line that the U.S. 
Senate, this great deliberative body, this body that when I talk to 
people from other countries look at this place and see this country as 
something they aspire to, something they want to emulate, that we 
cannot get two-thirds of the men and women of this body to say that 2 
inches is too close of a call, that that is too fine a line, that we 
have gone over the line about what is right in our society?
  I think we as a body can do that. I think we as a body can stand up 
and do the right thing. I think Members who have voted differently on 
this issue in the past can change their vote based on new information.
  Dr. Nancy Roemer said on the claim ``medical necessity'' that the 
President has invoked and Members on the other side have invoked, ``I 
am insulted to be told that I am tearing a woman's body apart by not 
doing this procedure.'' The ``tearing a woman's body apart'' line comes 
from a White House ceremony where the President vetoed this bill. ``As 
physicians, we can no longer stand by while abortion advocates, the 
President of the United States, the newspaper and television shows, 
continue to repeat false medical claims to Members of Congress and the 
public. This procedure is currently not an accepted medical 
procedure.''
  The American Medical Association legislative counsel said it is not a 
recognized medical procedure. It is done in abortion clinics, as many 
of the doctors have said here, for the convenience of the person 
performing the abortion.

       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

[[Page S11271]]

     of this procedure. It is currently being performed by a 
     physician who is not an obstetrician. It is in an 
     outpatient facility behind closed doors and no peer 
     review.

  That is what Dr. Roemer says about the necessity for this procedure 
and the appropriateness of this procedure. Let me quote another 
physician who happens to also be a Member of Congress, and that is Dr. 
Coburn from Oklahoma, who spoke last week on the floor of the House of 
Representatives.

       Mr. Speaker, I have spent the last 18 years of my life, 
     including a great deal of time of the time 2 years while I 
     have been in this Congress, caring for women who deliver 
     babies. I personally have been involved in over 3,000 births 
     that I attended. I have seen every complication and every 
     anomaly that has been mentioned in this debate on partial-
     birth abortion.
       I am not standing here as someone who is pro-life. I am not 
     standing here as someone that is a freshman Republican. I 
     stand here today to make known to Members that they can vote 
     against an override for only two reasons on this bill: One is 
     that they are totally misinformed of the true medical facts; 
     or that they are pro-abortion at any stage for any reason.
       The facts will bear this out. That is not meant to offend 
     anybody. If someone feels that way, they should stand up and 
     speak that truth. But this procedure, this procedure is 
     designed to aid and abet the abortionist. There is no truth 
     to the fact that this procedure protects the lives of women. 
     There is no truth to the fact that this procedure preserves 
     fertility. There is no truth to the fact that this procedure, 
     in fact, is used on complicated anomalous conceptions. This 
     procedure is used to terminate mid and late second-term 
     pregnancies at the elective request of a woman who so 
     desired--in some cases, I might add, third-trimester 
     abortions.
       This has nothing to do with women's emotional health. This 
     has to do with termination of an oftentimes viable child by a 
     gruesome and heinous procedure.
       What we should hear from those who are going to vote 
     against overriding this is that they agree, that they agree 
     that this procedure is an adequate and expected procedure 
     that should be used, and that it is all right to terminate 
     the life of a 26-week fetus, that otherwise the physicians 
     would be held liable under the courts of every State to not 
     save its life should it be born spontaneously.

  This debate is not about the health of the women. This debate is 
about whether or not true facts are going to be discussed in this 
Chamber on the basis of knowledge and sound science, rather than a 
political end point that sacrifices children in this country.
  That is an obstetrician. I have a letter here signed by 4 
obstetricians of an organization called PHACT, which is the Physician 
Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth. It lists scores and scores of OB/GYN'S, who 
are against this procedure--and speak in very graphic terms against 
this procedure--including 123 members of the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists. They say the same thing: ``This 
procedure is not necessary to preserve health, fertility, or the life 
of a mother.''
  I see the Senator from Oklahoma here. I have more things to say, but 
I have been on the floor for a while, and I want to give him an 
opportunity to speak. I will continue talking about this at a later 
time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment the Senator from 
Pennsylvania for his courage in taking on this very sensitive and yet 
very important issue. It is an issue that we deal with in the Senate, 
maybe with some reluctance, but it is certainly an issue that deals 
with life and death. The Senator from Pennsylvania is trying to save 
the lives of innocent, unborn, almost-born human beings. He is trying 
to see that the overwhelming opinion of a majority of the American 
people is upheld--in this case, outlawing the most gruesome type of 
abortion possible.
  I was doing a little homework on this. I compliment the Senator from 
New Hampshire, Senator Smith, for his leadership on this issue because 
he made a lot of us aware that this practice was ongoing--a practice 
that people who are opposed to this ban, who don't want to see any 
restriction of abortion whatsoever, say rarely ever happens. I don't 
think that is the case. As a matter of fact, I have a couple comments 
that show there are thousands of these abortions performed every year. 
But in learning a little bit about the practice, it is really gruesome. 
The doctor--I don't want to call it a doctor. The abortionist has to go 
to some trouble to make sure the baby is not totally delivered. It is 
not an easy process. If the baby's head comes out, then you have a live 
child. Before that, you have a live fetus, by their definition. So they 
have to hold the baby's head in, in order to kill the baby, extract the 
brains from the head of the baby, and then remove the dead baby. This 
is happening thousands of times in our country.
  We passed a ban. Congress overwhelmingly passed a ban to stop this 
gruesome, painful procedure. Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed 
the ban. I think he was wrong. Dr. Koop mentioned that he thought maybe 
President Clinton had bad advice. I think he had bad advice, and I also 
think he was basically coopted by the groups who call themselves pro-
choice. I know a lot of individuals who classify themselves as pro-
choice that want to see this procedure stopped. They are offended by 
this procedure.
  Let me make this one comment. Dr. Pamela Smith, an obstetrician at 
Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago, and Director of Medical Education in the 
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at that hospital, testified 
before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution that even 
when describing the procedure to groups of pro-choice physicians, she 
found that ``many of them were horrified to learn that such a procedure 
was even legal.'' That is in the House report 104-267, page 5.
  As Dr. Smith further points out, ``partial-birth abortion is a 
surgical technique devised by abortionists in the unregulated abortion 
industry to save them the trouble of `counting the body parts' that are 
produced in dismemberment procedures.''
  That was in a letter to U.S. Senators on November 4, 1995. She says 
in the same letter, ``Opponents have insinuated that aborting a live 
human fetus is sometimes necessary to preserve the reproductive 
potential and/or life of the mother. Such an assertion is deceptively 
and patently untrue.''
  In a July 9, 1995, letter to Congressman Tony Hall, a registered 
nurse who had observed Dr. Haskell, who has performed over a thousand 
partial-birth abortions himself, perform several partial-birth 
abortions, described one such procedure. Again, this is somebody who 
was assisting the abortionist. She saw the procedure.

       The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were 
     clasping together. He was kicking his feet. All the while, 
     his little head was stuck inside. Dr. Haskell took a pair of 
     scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head. 
     Then he opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-
     powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's 
     brains out.

  That is this procedure. That is gruesome. That is cruel. That is 
killing an innocent baby that is only seconds or inches away from 
delivery.
  The American Medical Association's Council on Legislation, 12 
members, thoroughly considered H.R. 1833 and voted unanimously to 
endorse the bill. After their action became public, they reconsidered 
the matter and voted unanimously again to endorse the bill. Although 
the full AMA Board of Trustees decided to take a neutral stance, the 
Senate does have the benefit of the carefully considered judgment of 
the AMA Council on Legislation on the bill. The AMA Legislative Council 
did not call for more time in which to study the bill. They had all the 
facts they needed to make a judgment. And so does the Senate. This bill 
should be passed. The President's veto should be overridden.
  Mr. President, some people say that partial-birth abortions are done 
in order to save the life of the mother, or to protect her health. 
President Clinton used that as an excuse in his veto. I will give you a 
quote. According to the Physician's Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth, a 
coalition of about 300 medical specialists, including former Surgeon 
General C. Everett Koop, they emphatically state that even in cases 
involving severe fetal disorders partial-birth abortion is never 
medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future 
fertility. Never. These are the professionals. They say that a partial-
birth abortion is never necessary to protect the mother's health or 
future fertility.
  Dr. Martin Haskell--who I spoke about early and who performs partial-
birth abortions--one of the major proponents and practitioners of this 
technique, states that some 80 percent which he has performed were for 
purely elective reasons. That was in an interview with AMA's American 
Medical

[[Page S11272]]

News, July 5, 1993. His late colleague and fellow proponent of the 
partial-birth method claimed in material submitted to the House 
subcommittee that nonelective reasons to perform the procedure include 
psychiatric indications, such as depression and pediatric indications, 
that is, the mother is young.
  Mr. President, one other comment. Some of the people who have 
advocated that this procedure should not be banned say it is very rare. 
I think they are incorrect. The stark fact is that unless this bill 
becomes law, more innocent unborn children will have their lives 
brutally ended by the inhumane partial-birth procedure. During last 
year's debate, the New York Times quoted the pro-choice National 
Abortion Federation as saying that only about 450 partial-birth 
abortions are performed each year. However, two lengthy investigative 
reports published last week in the Washington Post and the Record of 
Hackensack, New Jersey, reporters for both newspapers found that the 
procedure is far more common than pro-abortion groups have indicated, 
and is typically performed for nonmedical reasons.
  The Record found, for example, that a single abortion clinic in 
Englewood, New Jersey, performs at least 1,500 partial-birth abortions 
per year--three times the number that the National Abortion Federation 
had claimed occur annually in the entire country. Doctors at the 
Englewood clinic say that only a minuscule amount are for medical 
reasons. One of the abortion doctors at that clinic told the Record

       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.

  Mr. President, it is unbelievable to me that this unspeakable 
abortion procedure even exists in this country, much less that we have 
to take legislative action to ban such a procedure, as well as attempt 
to override a Presidential veto.
  It is further unbelievable to me that anyone in good conscience can 
even defend the partial-birth abortion procedure. It is a fiction to 
believe that it is all right to end the life of a baby whose body, 
except the head, is fully delivered. In order to engage in such a 
fiction one has to take the position that the curling fingers and the 
kicking legs have no life in them. Those who subscribe to such a 
fiction are at best terribly misguided. It is time to end this 
injustice and the practice of this procedure. I urge my colleagues to 
join us in voting to override the President's veto.
  Mr. President, I agree with my colleague, Congressman Tom Coburn, who 
has delivered over 3,000 babies. He is still an active obstetrician. He 
is a professional in this area. He said this procedure is never, never 
called for. It is never necessary. He knows. The people who are 
supporting this procedure are saying we should never have any 
restrictions on abortion; that if you can't have this restriction, then 
you should not have any restriction, period. That means abortions for 
sex selection. That means abortion on demand for any reason. Abortion 
is a method of birth control; in this case birth control when the 
baby's head is only a few inches from delivery; maybe just a few 
seconds. Maybe the doctor is keeping the baby's head in so that life 
can be destroyed inside while the baby's head is still in the mother 
instead of just a few seconds later when it would be recognized as 
murder.
  Mr. President, how can you say when the baby's arms and legs are 
kicking that it is not a live baby? We need to protect the lives of 
those innocent children. We need to override the President's veto.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________