[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11278-S11285]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, like the Senator from Indiana, this is 
kind of a preview to coming attractions. I plan tomorrow to spend some 
time on the floor talking about one of the most serious issues we have 
been addressing here in the U.S. Senate, that is, the issue of partial-
birth abortion.
  As I was listening to the Senator from Indiana, the statements he 
made, it occurred to me that if we made one mistake during this entire 
debate, it has been to refer to this as an abortion, because most 
people think of abortions as something that is taking place prior to 
the time that, in their own minds, a fetus becomes a human being. I 
suggest that everyone has to make that decision as to when human life 
begins. I made my decision many years ago.
  But I think when you deal with something as barbaric as a procedure 
such as the partial-birth abortion, you have to understand that this is 
something that happens at a time and can happen during a normal birth 
process.
  I know the occupant of the Chair recently went through an experience 
when his wife delivered a new child. I am happy to tell you, Mr. 
President, that on Friday of this week, I will have my fourth 
grandchild, so I know something about this, too.
  I remember so well, and I will be referring to this tomorrow, an 
experience I had about January of this year when we had the birth, at 
that time, of my third grandchild. My daughter called me up and said, 
``Daddy, would you like to come over and come into the delivery room?'' 
Of course, back when we were having babies they would not let you in 
the same hospital, let alone the same delivery room. I remember so well 
when the baby was born, baby Jason was just a tiny, beautiful thing, 
and it had not been more than a minute since his first breath and she 
handed this baby to me, and I thought, this is just about the time this 
procedure has been customarily used; if only people knew what was 
happening, the fact that an incision would be made into the back of the 
head in a baby that is three-fourths of the way already born in this 
world, open up the head, and place a catheter and suck the brains out 
and the skull collapses. It is barbaric. It is a procedure that we have 
to do something about in this country.
  I had occasion to ride back to Oklahoma with one of my fellow 
delegates, a Member of Congress, Tom Coburn, a medical doctor. Tom 
Coburn, Member of the House of Representatives, described this, because 
he saw this procedure take place one time. He said it was nightmarish.
  Last Monday, I had occasion to be in a number of cities and small 
towns in Oklahoma, having a series of town meetings, places, Mr. 
President, you have never heard of, like Durant, OK, and Idabel, OK, 
and Pontotoc, OK. There was not one place where they did not bring up 
in the course of this meeting: Are you really going to do something 
back there like the House did, do away with this procedure? Well, when 
I told them that the votes were not there and that President Clinton 
had vetoed our attempt to make this procedure illegal, it became, all 
of a sudden, a character question on him: Why would he do that? I have 
no way of answering that.
  Tomorrow I will present over 15,000 signatures of people from 
Oklahoma and the comments they have made, over 15,000 people who are 
saying: Whatever you do, override the veto as the House of 
Representatives did.
  As I have served here and I see people who want to retain a medical 
procedure that allows this method of taking the life of a small baby 
and I think of the people who are behind this, and you know what the 
baby is going through, because tomorrow I will read a report that will 
lead you to the incontrovertible conclusion that a baby, even in the 
first trimester, feels and senses the same pain that you feel, Mr. 
President, or anyone else in this Chamber, or any baby that is fully 
born and out and breathing today.
  It occurred to me when the distinguished Senator from Indiana, 
Senator Coats, was talking a few minutes ago and he talked about if 
this were happening in another country we would be invoking sanctions, 
we would be talking about how this might affect trade, talking about 
economic aid. I would go a step further than the Senator from Indiana. 
I would say if this had been happening, if this procedure were legal 
and taking place in an animal, a dog or a cat, those same people who 
are trying to keep this medical procedure in our law would be picketing 
back and forth outside our Senate offices.
  Tomorrow we will have a chance to talk about it.
  (The remarks of Mr. Inhofe pertaining to the introduction of S. 2129 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). The Senator from Colorado is 
recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I am advised by leadership that there will 
be no further votes today.
  Mr. President, I rise to address the question of the partial-birth 
abortion ban.
  Mr. President, I must disclose at the start of this discussion that I 
am pro-choice. I have been pro-choice ever since I entered public life. 
I have been pro-choice in my voting pattern in the Senate and pro-
choice in my voting pattern in the House of Representatives. I was pro-
choice in my voting pattern in the State legislature of Colorado. I 
have been pro-choice in the discussions and debates we have had in 
Colorado, as well as in Washington, DC. So I come to this question of 
partial-birth abortions with a clear pro-choice record.
  I must say that I am not for subsidizing abortions. In that regard, 
no one is liable to give you a perfect score--even the pro-choice 
groups of which I feel part of, because occasionally those votes get 
counted. But then I have not been very good at subsidizing anything 
with public funds. So perhaps I can be seen as unforgiving in that 
area.
  Mr. President, I am pro-choice because I believe in limited 
Government. I know many of my friends and colleagues have described 
someone who is pro-choice as being liberal. My own sense is that it is 
exactly the opposite. A society that gives citizens maximum choice and 
discretion in their lives is conservative, in my way of thinking, not 
liberal. For those who have suggested that this unreasonably or 
unfairly restricts a person's right to choose, I submit that that is a 
mistake. If someone shares my view that part of limited Government 
involves maximizing individual freedom and choice, then they rightly 
wish to preserve rights for people, even though they may not agree with 
them. Such, I think, is the case with many people who seek to preserve 
people's rights or the freedom to choose with regard to abortions. That 
does not mean--in spite of what the critics say--that one has to be in 
favor of abortions. It does mean that one has to understand that 
sometimes things happen in a free society, that we don't like, and 
where we do not think it is the Government's right to dictate the 
answer.
  Mr. President, it seems to me that it is important for Members, as 
they cast this very important vote on the veto override, to take a look 
at the specifics of the bill itself. Here are some observations, that I 
see as I look at it. The expert testimony we had before the committee 
indicated that as many as 1,000 to 1,500 abortions a year, perhaps more 
are done using this procedure. The actual number of partial-birth 
abortions performed in a year is unknown. Second, it is a very rare 
procedure and very limited in scope, primarily confined to a late-term 
pregnancies. If one approaches this issue with concern about preserving 
the right to choose, and suggests that banning this procedure 
eliminates the right to choose, I think they would be mistaken. It is 
quite clear, if one looks at the facts and the number of these 
procedures that are performed, that restricting them or prohibiting 
them does not eliminate someone's right to choose. The bill is 
extremely tightly drawn.

[[Page S11279]]

  Mr. President, I played a small part in helping to make it a tighter 
bill. As Members are aware, the bill does involve potential liability 
claims for people who violate the law. That liability was more broad 
than I thought it ought to be. To limit the scope of the bill on the 
issue of liability, my amendment was adopted to prohibited a 
complainant from suing those who assist the doctor in performing the 
procedure. Prior to that amendment, it was possible to sue the nurses, 
anesthesiologist, and attendants associated with one of these 
procedures. My amendment eliminated those potential liability claims 
because those people primarily respond to the initiatives of the 
patients and physicians and not acting on their own authority. I also 
offered the amendment that prohibited the father from suing under these 
circumstances, if he was not married to the mother at the time of the 
procedure and if he had not stepped forward to acknowledge the child 
and provide support for the child. I see no reason for us to provide a 
windfall to deadbeat dads. We ought to be encouraging people to take 
responsibility, not think up rewards for those who don't.
  But, Mr. President, we cannot ignore the medical evidence. Let me be 
specific in this case.
  The experts that testified before the committee not only indicated 
quite clearly that this is an extremely rare procedure but they 
disagreed dramatically with regard to the effectiveness of this 
procedure.
  Here I call to mind Dr. Warren Hern. Dr. Warren Hern is a resident of 
Colorado. He runs an abortion clinic in Boulder, CO. He runs a clinic 
that probably does more late-term abortions than any clinic in the 
State of Colorado and perhaps one of the largest number of late-term 
abortions of any clinic in the country. By anyone's description, Dr. 
Warren Hern is pro-choice. We were contacted by Dr. Hern a few days 
ago. He is director of the Boulder Abortion Clinic and the assistant 
clinical professor of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at 
the University of Colorado Health Science Center.
  Dr. Hern has written three books, is an avowed advocate of abortion 
choice, and has written over 40 academic papers concerning abortions 
and other aspects of women's health and fertility. He is clearly 
regarded as an expert in this field and an expert in this field who is 
clearly pro-choice. Dr. Hern's message, as it was relayed to me, is 
consistent with the testimony he submitted to our committee hearings; 
and, that was simply that the partial-birth abortion procedure is not a 
safe procedure for women and that he himself, who practices in this 
field and performs late-term abortions, would not use it because of the 
danger involved.
  Mr. President, some Members will choose to vote on this issue solely 
on the question of whether they are pro-choice or pro-life. Let me 
suggest that Members ought to give a little more deep thought to what 
this bill involves. It does not, in this Senator's belief, involve 
whether or not you are pro-choice or pro-life. It involves taking a 
look at a procedure that is judged by many experts to be extremely 
dangerous. We ought to be concerned about that.
  The partial-birth abortion ban does not preclude someone from having 
a late term abortion, it precludes the use of this horrific procedure. 
It protects women and protects those involved from what many experts 
consider a procedure that is not safe, is not advised and is not 
necessary.
  Former Surgeon General Everett Koop said.

       Contrary to what abortion activists 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 
     fertility. It is clear that late abortion is a dangerous 
     procedure, and in the instance of partial-birth abortion is 
     not necessary.

  Mr. President, let me reiterate that. Dr. C. Everett Koop says it is 
not necessary.
  Mr. President, I want to quote from one of our editorials in 
Colorado. I must say that in Colorado our newspapers and our population 
are probably some of the most pro-choice newspapers and pro-choice 
population of any State in the Nation. We were one of the first States 
in the Nation to eliminate the legal restrictions on abortions.
  This is an editorial from the Grand Junction Sentinel that has traced 
the Roe versus Wade decision and has consistently been pro-choice. Here 
are the Grand Junction Sentinel comments.
       Much will be made about the politics of the House vote 
     Thursday to override President Clinton's veto of a bill to 
     ban partial-birth abortions and whether it is possible to get 
     enough votes in the Senate to override.
       Lost in the haze if political rhetoric is information about 
     the procedure Congress seeks to ban.
       This corner historically has been supportive of the right 
     to choose, and in support of Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme 
     Court decision that guaranteed that right. But partial-birth 
     abortion, usually performed after the fifth month of 
     pregnancy, is quite simply an unconscionable procedure in 
     which the brain of the infant is sucked out after the baby 
     has been partially delivered.
       When he vetoed the bill in April, Clinton produced five 
     women whose lives, he said, were endangered by pregnancy 
     complications but saved by partial-birth abortions.
       This week four nationally recognized doctors who specialize 
     in obstetrics and gynecology, part of a growing national 
     medical group opposed to this, said Clinton's claims were 
     wrong. All of the conditions presented by the president could 
     have been treated by methods safer than partial-birth 
     abortions, they said.
       Women who have partial-birth abortions risk being cut, 
     having excessive bleeding and lifelong infertility.

  They close with this sentence.

       One doesn't have to be a member of the Christian Coalition 
     or an antiabortion zealot to believe that partial-birth 
     abortions should be outlawed.

  Mr. President, I am pro-choice and I believe partial-birth abortions 
should be outlawed, and I believe claims that outlawing partial-birth 
abortions interferes with the right to choose are simply not accurate. 
I believe a careful review of the medical evidence that is before us 
and that has been presented in the committee will clearly document 
this.
  Mr. President, what we need here is not Members lining up on the side 
of pro-life or pro-choice, although that surely will happen. It happens 
every time we vote on this issue. But we do need some common sense, and 
we do need to listen to each other. When we vote on this issue, I 
believe it is appropriate to look to the medical authorities that have 
condemned this practice. There are those who will cast a vote because 
they believe this procedure is immoral. Moreover, they believe that all 
abortions are immoral and wrong. I am one who has not fallen into that 
camp. But I do believe we would be remiss if we didn't take the time to 
look at the facts of the bill and look at the reality of the situation.
  These operations are disgusting and horrible and not essential for a 
woman's right to choose.
  I hope Members will go deeper than just their political party or 
their affection for the President. I hope they will go deeper in making 
their vote on just whether they are pro-life or pro-choice. I hope they 
will take the time to look at this procedure, and I believe an 
objective review of the procedure will lead to the conclusion that this 
is not an appropriate procedure that should be allowed in the United 
States.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I want to congratulate my friend from Colorado.
  The Senator from Nebraska was talking earlier about some Member who 
had distinguished himself in his ability to articulate his position 
well and to take stands on principles, ones he deeply believes in, not 
be afraid to cross the line sometimes and to take controversial stands 
that are outside of maybe what would be expected of him.
  I think the Senator from Colorado has done that in this case, and he 
will be missed for his thoughtful and thorough analysis of the issue. I 
think anyone who listened to his presentation had to come away with an 
understanding that this is someone who did exactly what I had been 
hoping and what he called for all Members of the Senate to do, which is 
to step back. It is not, Santorum, don't put your pro-life hat on, or, 
Hank Brown, don't put your pro-choice hat on, but let us look at the 
bill, let us look at the facts, and let us try to see whether this is 
something

[[Page S11280]]

that we want to have to continue in this country. I think what you saw 
in the House of Representatives is just that.
  No one can stand up on this floor and say that two-thirds of the 
House of Representatives are people who are pro-life. They are not. 
They are not pro-life. Two-thirds of the House is not pro-life. I am 
not even sure if half of them would consider themselves or call 
themselves pro-life by the traditional definitions used in this town 
and across the country. But two-thirds of the House said no to this 
procedure; said it is time to draw the line irrespective of your 
opinion on the issue.
  So for those who did in the House and already have done so in the 
Senate to come here and say, well, this is just some of these pro-life 
extremists trying to meddle again in the right to an abortion does not 
hold water. It did not happen in the House. That was not a group of 
pro-life extremists. It was in fact a bipartisan coalition. It was 
people of both opinions on the issue of abortion as it was here.
  You heard from the Senator from Colorado. You will hear, I hope, 
tomorrow the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] and others who are 
pro-choice say this goes too far, this crosses the line.
  I think we have done an injustice by, as the Senator from Oklahoma 
said, referring to this procedure as partial-birth abortion, because I 
know in having discussed this issue many times you mention the word 
abortion and people scurry to their column--pro-life, pro-choice, and 
tend to only listen to those who agree with them on that issue, as to 
what their opinion should be on this issue of abortion.
  That is why I wanted to thank the Senator from Colorado for his 
courage in not only offering amendments, as he did, to improve the bill 
and tighten the bill as he said, but for his courage to stand up and 
talk to people who may listen and identify with his position on that 
issue and recognize that it is anything but extremism to say that a 
child that is delivered all but the head, that in many, many cases is 
fully viable outside of the womb, is then killed by a blunt instrument 
to the back of the head and the suctioning procedure, banning that 
procedure is not extremism.
  I have not mentioned but I will--I do not like to talk about these 
things when I talk about issues of this nature--polls. I hesitate to 
talk about polls because this should not be an issue that we have to 
take a poll on. But the polls say that as people understand this and 
once it is explained to them what the procedure is, over three-quarters 
of the American public find this abhorrent--in some cases much higher 
than that. I would think if three-quarters of the American public once 
informed of this procedure find it to be abhorrent, that two-thirds of 
the Senate could find it to be abhorrent.
  I discussed in my comments earlier the medical necessity for doing 
this, and the Senator from Colorado did the same and quoted a different 
physician who said this is not a medically necessary procedure, this is 
in fact contraindicated as other physicians have said, that this in 
fact is dangerous to the woman's health, and I went through physicians 
and what they said about it. I talked about, as I just did, other 
Members of the House and now Members of the Senate who feel differently 
on the issue of abortion who have looked at all the evidence and 
decided that now with this new evidence--one thing the Senator from 
Colorado did not mention was the new evidence that this is not a rare 
procedure. I think he still referred to it as a rare procedure, and 
that is what everyone was led to believe when this bill was first 
passed, that this was a rare procedure. Planned Parenthood provided 
information that there was only a few hundred, 300 to 500 of these 
performed every year. And yet we hear from the report in the Washington 
Post by Dr. Brown, I think David Brown, on September 17 that this 
procedure is performed in this area more than just a few hundred times, 
just here. In fact, Planned Parenthood said this is only done by a 
doctor in Ohio and the doctor in California. They are the only two. And 
the Post found that in fact there are physicians in other areas who do 
it. It was found in the area around Bergen County there are 1,500 such 
abortions performed, partial-birth abortions performed on fetuses 20 to 
24, 26 weeks. I do not refer to a 26-week-old fetus as anything but a 
baby because it is viable, clearly viable outside of the mother's womb.

  So we have had all of that new information, and again I hope to share 
that and I hope that people do look at that and realize that with this 
information and with the medical--this is a medical procedure and 
should be judged not based on your opinion on abortion but based on 
medical evidence and whether this is medically necessary.
  That is one thing it should be judged on. Obviously, you cannot avoid 
the effect a decision like this has on our culture; about what we say 
is legal and permissible in our culture. It obviously has an impact on 
who we are. If the Government says that this is OK, it will have an 
impact on who we are. And so that is something that you have to think 
about, too.
  The other thing that is not talked about much that I think is 
important to discuss in light of those who support the procedure, and 
particularly the President, is the whole issue of fetal abnormality. 
The President of the United States brought to the White House when he 
decided to veto this legislation five women, all of whom said that they 
needed this procedure to be done to protect their health. All of these 
women had babies--some of them were late-term abortions--had babies who 
had some sort of fetal abnormality.
  In the House and in the previous debate in the Senate many of the 
supporters of this legislation and the President said that this is a 
very good reason to have an abortion, that a fetal abnormality, many of 
which are fatal, some of which are not always, is a good reason to have 
an abortion, a late-term abortion, and this type of abortion. We have 
discussed the health aspects of this, is this type of procedure 
necessary for the health reason. And clearly the evidence, the facts 
show physicians, both prolife and prochoice, say, no, it is not 
necessary.
  I think there is a bigger issue here. It really goes beyond this 
whole debate on abortion. And that is the debate on this whole issue of 
fetal abnormality as a good reason to kill a child, a baby. In some 
cases we are talking about very late term, we are talking about in the 
thirties weeks, very late-term abortion, because then we are getting 
into the fact that, well, it is OK to perform this procedure because 
the quality of life of the baby will not be what we believe is good, 
which is the perfect baby.
  Now, you have some extreme examples of this in this debate with Dr. 
McMahon out in California who said that he had nine third-trimester 
abortions--that is 7th, 8th and 9th month--he had nine such abortions 
that were done electively, which means there was no health risk to the 
mother in delivering the baby--nine such abortions done because the 
child had a cleft palate--a cleft palate. And we have the President of 
the United States and people in the Senate who are saying it is a 
decision between the mother and the doctor, it is not our job to say 
that that is wrong; that the mother has the determination as to what is 
perfect in her eyes and then the Government, the State has no decision.
  I said earlier that the very same people who make that argument are 
the very same people who stood in this Chamber and the House, and I am 
proud they did, and argued for the Americans with Disabilities 
Act. They said that people who are not perfect, who have a disability, 
have a right to be able to get around to different places, to have 
employment opportunities, to be treated equally.

  We did not bring up this issue. I do not know whether we will before 
we leave, but the issue of I-D-E-A, IDEA, which is education for the 
mentally disabled in our school system and the physically disabled--
again, the very same people, many of them, not all, but many of whom 
will stand and say this feature is OK because we have a deformed baby, 
say that we have an obligation to provide equal education to children 
with disabilities.
  If we have an obligation as a State, as a government, to provide 
equal opportunities for education for people who are not perfect, at 
least in the eyes of some, those who have disabilities should have the 
equal right to education, should have the equal right under the ADA to 
treatment in the workplace and other places, how can you stop short and 
say they do not

[[Page S11281]]

have an equal right to life? How can you be for all those things and 
not be for giving this poor--in some cases, yes, badly deformed--baby a 
right to die with dignity, if that is the case, a right to live?
  There is an article in the Washington Times today. It quotes a man, a 
correspondent. I should not say it is a man because it does not say 
that. I apologize for that. The article is written by a woman, Maggie 
Gallagher. It may, in fact, be a woman. It says:

       I ran across excerpts from a letter to the editor of the 
     London Spectator. The correspondent wrote: ``I have severe 
     spina bifida, and am a full-time wheelchair user . . . Every 
     day I read in the press about 'exciting breakthroughs' which 
     mean yet another way to kill people like me before birth.

  I think that is the point I want to make here. Let us just put aside 
the whole issue of partial-birth abortion for just one second. Think 
about what message we are sending out to the people who have 
disabilities, who have suffered through some of the disabilities 
described by some of the women that the President brought to justify 
his decision here. Yes, many of the people who had these disabilities--
in fact, in some cases, all of the people who had these deformities--
died. But some lived. Some lived for a short period of time, some for a 
long period of time. What are we saying to them? What are we saying to 
our culture? What are we saying about these people who came to the 
floor for month after month on the issue of disabilities, on the issue 
of welfare, and said, ``What about the children? Don't you care? Where 
is your compassion? Where is your concern for the least of us as a 
society?''
  Did these children do anything to end up disabled? Is it their fault 
that they were abnormal, that we should look upon them and say, ``Well, 
because you are abnormal, you are therefore expendable, and it is 
justifiable to treat you that way''?
  I am going to read an article from a doctor who wrote this just last 
month in the Los Angeles Times, the Washington edition. The doctor's 
name is Katherine Dowling. She is a family physician at USC School of 
Medicine. The title of the article is, ``What Constitutes a Quality 
Life?''
       The nights can be long and frustrating for we doctors whose 
     shifts fall with regularity in the wee hours. A young lady 
     comes in demanding to know if she is pregnant, then fussing 
     for instant termination when she is found to be. An elderly 
     lady wants a cure for her constipation. An addict arrives, 
     angling for a legal fix.
       But every once in a while, like the astronomer whose long 
     nocturnal vigils are rewarded one clear night with the smudge 
     of a new comet on his photography plate, we sometimes 
     encounter the extraordinary. I did one recent night.
       I doubt you'd peg the couple as extraordinary if you saw 
     them on the street. She had perhaps once been somewhat of a 
     beauty. Her brown hair was cropped short and hung limply, and 
     she clearly had put on a bit more weight with each of her 
     pregnancies. His tummy flopped over his belt, and he had a 
     kind smile. Their child was a young adult based on his birth 
     date, but his brain hadn't really developed much beyond that 
     of a 4-year-old. As he lay on the gurney, occasionally using 
     words only his mother could understand, she calmly told of 
     the recent worsening of his medical problems. When she left 
     the room, he searched for her with the tenacity of an infant, 
     and like an infant, looked into her eyes with pure joy when 
     she returned. Dad waited outside, ready with a smile and a 
     little joke.
       They had been caring for their child with love and patience 
     since early infancy, when his problem first began. I suspect 
     that he was a happy young man, in spite of his bad neurologic 
     luck. He'd certainly had good luck in his choice of parents.
       To me, these parents showed a caliber of heroism that only 
     a few humans are called on to exhibit in a lifetime. They had 
     put aside their own wants, had accepted a child who would 
     never be capable of doing things even the most ordinary of 
     nonhandicapped children could, had given their son enough 
     love and physical help to make his life not just bearable but 
     apparently happy. In the process, they'd raised a bunch of 
     other children now doing well, and they'd stayed together in 
     a strong and supportive marriage.
       Far too often, we assume that a child born with a medical 
     problem is a child whose life is not worth living. We think 
     that parenting such a child is an impossible task. When 
     President Clinton vetoed the bill that would have banned 
     partial birth abortions, implicit in the stories of the women 
     he gathered around him was that they were doing a noble thing 
     for their children and themselves. Extracting the brain from 
     a living, sensate fetus was felt to be better than allowing 
     that fetus to be born with a body that was less than perfect.
       In 1995, James McMahon, a leading Los Angeles abortion 
     doctor (recently deceased), sent a submission to the House 
     Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, which was holding 
     hearings on partial birth abortion. This document revealed 
     the reasons partial birth abortions were done in a survey of 
     more than 1,000 babies. More than 10% were done because of 
     fetal death, but by definition, this is not abortion. Twenty-
     four were done for cystic hydroma (a benign lymphatic mass, 
     usually treatable in a child of normal intelligence). Nine 
     were done for cleft lip-palate syndrome (a friend of mine, 
     mother of five, and a colleague who is a pulmonary specialist 
     both were born with this problem). Other reasons included 
     cystic fibrosis (my daughter went through high school with a 
     classmate with cystic fibrosis) and duodenal atresia 
     (surgically correctable, but many children with this problem 
     are moderately mentally retarded). Guess they can't enjoy 
     life, can they? In fact, most of the partial birth abortions 
     in that survey were done for problems that were either 
     surgically correctable or would result in some degree of 
     neurologic or mental impairment, but would not harm the 
     mother. Or they were done for reasons that were pretty 
     skimpy: depression, chicken pox, diabetes, vomiting.
       I'd like to commend those parents who have the courage to 
     raise handicapped children. Whenever I see a mother or father 
     holding a sickly baby and looking into its eyes with love, 
     each time there's a Down's syndrome child learning from its 
     sibling how to pile blocks on top of each other, I'm awed by 
     the power of the family to make a ``less than perfect'' life 
     a thing of happiness. And then I know how lucky I am to be in 
     a profession where every once in a while, I get a glimpse of 
     the best in humanity.
  Is what we are doing here today a sign of the best of humanity? If we 
allow this procedure to continue, is this the best we can be? Is this 
the seminal point? Is this the moment of pride that we came to the 
Senate to allow to happen on our watch?
  For those who voted to allow this procedure to continue, when we vote 
tomorrow, look around, look inside and tell me whether you think we are 
exhibiting the best of humanity.
  Dr. Dowling said that she had so much respect for parents who went 
through with difficult pregnancies possibly and maybe with the 
knowledge of an abnormal child being born.
  I would like to read--and I hope I can read, because they are 
sometimes very difficult to read--letters from mothers who knew that 
the child within them had fetal abnormalities. I believe all of the 
letters included here represent all of the conditions that the women 
that President Clinton had at his side when he vetoed this bill, all of 
the women--I shouldn't say that, I should read them--certainly a lot of 
the things that the fetuses of the mothers at President Clinton's veto 
ceremony --those conditions are represented in these cases.
  In some of these cases, the child didn't live an hour, and in some, 
miracles happened. But in every case, there is a case of courage, and 
their expressed purpose in writing was not to say that you won't hear 
this about partial-birth abortion, it was to deliver the point that, 
``Mr. President, and those who are arguing for this bill to be 
defeated, for the override to be sustained, please understand, that 
this procedure doesn't need to be done to protect the health of the 
mother, No. 1, and No. 2, that we went through with these pregnancies 
that you say are necessary to have these abortions, are necessary to 
preserve our health, that we actual actually did the alternative, and 
were alive and were well, and we had beautiful experiences. Tragic but, 
yes, in many cases beautiful experiences. And, please, Mr. President, 
please the Members who argue for the sustaining of the President's veto 
on this bill, don't use the baby, don't use the children as a shield. 
Don't use them as the reason for allowing this to continue. Don't make 
them the enemy of the mother. In fact, they are not.''
  I would like to read a letter first from Jeanne French, from Oak 
Park, IL, dated July 1996, to the President. And I think she conveys 
much better than I that point:
       Dear Mr. President: I write to you today as a fellow 
     Democrat with something to say about a difficult subject, 
     partial-birth abortion.
       You may know that last November I testified before the 
     Senate Judiciary Committee on the partial-birth abortion ban 
     legislation. I was on the same panel as those mothers who 
     chose partial-birth abortions. It was ironic to see you veto 
     the ban framed by the women whose stories I got to know as I 
     sat beside them that day. In my naivete, I expected that your 
     administration would be more open to hearing the other side 
     of the partial-birth abortion question.--I was deeply 
     saddened to be excluded from the dialog you sought on this 
     issue.

[[Page S11282]]

       In recent months, I've had the opportunity to get to know 
     many women who have carried and given birth to children with 
     fatal conditions from anacephaly encephaloceles, Trisom 18, 
     hydrocephaly, and even a rare disease called body stalk 
     anomaly in which internal organs develop outside a baby's 
     body. We gave birth to our children knowing that their 
     serious physical disabilities might not allow them to live 
     long.
       I do not tell you this because we are, or want to appear 
     heroic. We simply want the truth to be heard regarding the 
     risks of carrying disabled children to term. You say that 
     partial-birth abortion has to be legal for cases like ours, 
     because women's bodies would be ``ripped to shreds'' by 
     carrying the very sick children to term. By your repeated 
     statements, you imply that partial-birth abortion is the only 
     or most desirable response to children suffering severe 
     disabilities like our children.
       Perhaps inadvertently, you send a message of hopelessness 
     to women and families who anticipate the birth of children 
     with serious or fatal disabilities.
       This message is so wrong. We feel that it is imperative 
     that you reconsider the way you talk about options available 
     to mothers carrying very sick babies like ours. Will you 
     consider meeting with me and a few of the women I have come 
     to know over this issue? Will you please extend to the 
     Morsmans, Heinemans, Sheridans, and to me the same courtesy 
     extended to those families who had partial-birth abortions? 
     Will you meet with us personally, and hear our stories?
       Thank you for considering this request. I look forward to 
     your response.

  The response came back 13 days later that ``the President appreciated 
the letter but will not have the opportunity to speak with you or your 
group.''
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the President's 
response after the reading of the letter.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                        Washington, July 30, 1996.
     Ms. Jeannie W. French,
     Oak Park, IL.
       Dear Ms. French: Thank you for interest in speaking with 
     President Clinton on the subject of partial birth abortion. 
     President Clinton appreciates your kind letter.
       At this time, it seems that the tremendous demands on the 
     President will not give him the opportunity to speak with you 
     and your group. However, we will keep your invitation on file 
     and will be sure to contact you if any changes in his 
     schedule allow him to accept.
       Once again, thank you for your thoughtful letter. Your 
     continued interest and support are deeply appreciated.
           Sincerely,
     Stephanie S. Streett,
                                           Director of Scheduling.
     Anne Hawley,
                                           Director of Scheduling.

  Mr. SANTORUM. What are those stories? Why are they important in this 
debate? I think Mrs. French said why they are important. I think they 
are important for the purposes of this whole idea that we need to have 
these abortions legal because of the health of the mother. That is 
important. That is why, the President said, he vetoed the bill.
  We have all sorts of medical evidence and testimony, and even newer 
testimony, testimony from both pro-choice and pro-life physicians, who 
say that there is absolutely no health-of-the-mother or life-of-the-
mother reason for doing this procedure. In fact, it is contraindicated. 
It is more dangerous, according to Dr. Hern, who performs abortions and 
late-term abortions, to do this procedure. So we have lots of medical 
testimony about the cold medical aspect of it.
  What Mrs. French is getting to is something that is maybe more 
important for us who are nonphysicians, who do not, frankly, feel 
comfortable about making medical decisions but, hopefully, feel more 
comfortable about making cultural decisions. That is where we are. The 
cultural decision is, as Dr. Dowling said, what constitutes quality of 
life? We are making that decision here. If we sustain the President's 
veto, the children who just do not measure up, are not perfect, for 
that reason alone, that we should allow this procedure to continue 
because they are not wanted in the human family here in the United 
States of America.
  The Senator from Indiana said just a few minutes ago, if we knew that 
a civilization, a country, was deliberately killing disabled children, 
what an outcry--what an outcry--there would be from a lot of the very 
same people who say it is OK to do it if they are only 24 weeks old in 
their life.
  So I think it is necessary to read these stories. I do not know 
whether I will be able to read them all tonight because I find it very 
difficult to read them. I have been very lucky as a father of three 
children that we did not have any ``fetal abnormalities'' with our 
children. My wife Karen had three healthy pregnancies and is having 
another healthy pregnancy to date.
  But I cannot help but hear these stories and feel such great empathy, 
as a father, who stood there in the birthing room, in the delivery 
room, and just waited, with incredible anticipation, for that child to 
be born, and encouraging my wife, and seeing that little baby, and 
wondering how that little baby is. ``Please cry. Please take that first 
breath.'' Jeannie and William and Teresa, Whitney and Bruce, Margaret, 
the people who wrote these letters, knowing that they were delivering a 
baby, that once it took its first breath, how difficult that breath 
would be and how many breaths will they be able to take, and how to 
deal with them.
  The first story is of William and Teresa Heineman of Rockville, MD. I 
will read their story as they dictated it.

       We have noted with concern statements made by several 
     couples suggesting, from their very personal and very tragic 
     experiences, that the partial birth abortion is the only 
     procedure available to a women when the child she is carrying 
     is diagnosed with a severe abnormality.
       We have had experiences that were very similar and yet so 
     very different. We have had three children biologically and 
     have adopted three more. Two of our children were born with a 
     genetic abnormality--5-p Trisomy. One also had hydrocephalus. 
     The medical prognosis for these children was that they would 
     have at best a short life with minimal development. Some 
     medical professionals recommended abortion; others were ready 
     to help support their lives. We chose life. That decision 
     carried some hardships. However, God blessed us immeasurably 
     through their short lives.
       Our first child, Elizabeth, was diagnosed after her birth. 
     We were deeply saddened but desired to give her the best life 
     we could. Though she never could say a word and could not sit 
     up on her own, she clearly knew us. she learned to smile, 
     laugh, and clap her hands. She was a joy to us for two and 
     one half years. We clearly saw how many lives she had touched 
     with over 200 people attended her Memorial Mass! One child 
     was touched in a very personal way when he received 
     Elizabeth's donated liver. Two others received sight through 
     her eyes.
       Our third child, Mary Ann, had been diagnosed with 
     hydrocephalus in utero and shortly after birth with the same 
     genetic abnormality that our oldest daughter had. (We could 
     have known this during pregnancy via amniocentesis, but 
     refused the procedure due to the risk to the baby.) Terry's 
     obstetrician said that we were fortunate, though, that Mary 
     Ann would have the chance to go home with us. We learned to 
     feed her through a gavage tube as she was unable to suck to 
     receive nourishment. Our son, Andrew, developed a special 
     bond with his sister. We spent the next five months as a 
     family, learning, growing and caring for our children. When 
     our precious daughter died, we celebrated her life at a 
     memorial Mass with family and friends.
       Our belief in Jesus Christ and His gift of salvation 
     provided comfort for us as our daughters entered their new 
     home in heaven. They remain a part of our family and are 
     always in our hearts. They enriched our lives and touched the 
     lives of many others. Our Creator sent these children to us 
     and we were privileged to love and care for them. What a 
     tremendous loss to all of us who know them to terminate their 
     lives because they were not physically perfect. We look 
     forward to a joyous reunion with them in heaven.
       It is so easy to see the half of the glass that is empty 
     when we face difficult problems; will we have the courage to 
     allow our children to have the half of the glass that is 
     full? We pray for other mothers and fathers who are faced 
     with agonizing decisions that they will remain open to the 
     gift being entrusted to them. God's love is ever-present 
     during our times of joy and sadness. He is with us now as 
     well are parents to Andrew, now nine years old, and three 
     children: Maria, Christina, and Joseph; ages 11, 9, and 7, 
     who joined our family through adoption.

  Again, this is a story about children who die as a result of the 
fetal abnormalities that some would suggest are medically necessary to 
save the life of the mother or health of the mother.
  I think what Terry Heineman and Bill Heineman said is that not only 
is it not necessary to do this procedure to preserve the health of the 
mother, but I think it says something about how we value life in this 
country. It is a very disturbing thing, indeed.
  Whitney and Bruce Goin from Orlando, FL:

       On March 20, 1995 my husband and I found out that we were 
     expecting a precious baby. The discovery was an incredible 
     surprise. We were not trying to become pregnant, but knowing 
     that the Lord's plan for our lives

[[Page S11283]]

     was being carried out, we were overjoyed, a little 
     overwhelmed, but completely thrilled. I began my prenatal 
     vitamins immediately and followed all known guidelines to 
     protect my unborn child.
       Three months later, on June 18, I had an uneasy feeling, 
     nothing that I felt physically, just an anxious, strange 
     feeling. I called my obstetrician and requested a fetal heart 
     check. They dismissed my concern as the first-time-mother 
     jitters but agreed to let me come into the office. unable to 
     find a heart beat, the nurse sent me down the hall for a 
     sonogram to reassure me that there were no problems. This 
     would be my first sonogram where I would actually be able to 
     see the baby. I was five months pregnant.
       The nurse began pointing out our baby's toes and feet, and 
     when the baby kicked I smiled, believing that everything was 
     alright. Then, the nurse suddenly stopped answering my 
     questions and began taking a series of pictures and placed a 
     videotape into the recorder. Unaware of what a normal 
     sonogram projects, I did not decipher the enormous abdominal 
     wall defect that my child would be born with four months 
     later.
       My husband was unreachable so I sat alone, until my mother 
     arrived, as the doctor described my baby as being severely 
     deformed with a gigantic defect and most likely many other 
     defects that he could not detect with their equipment. He 
     went on to explain that babies with this large of a defect 
     are often stillborn, live very shortly or could survive with 
     extensive surgeries and treatments, depending on the presence 
     of additional anomalies and complications after birth. The 
     complications and associated problems that a surgical baby in 
     this condition could suffer include but are not limited to: 
     bladder exstrophy, imperforate anus, collapsed lungs, 
     diseased liver, fatal infections, cardiovascular 
     malformations, etc.
       I describe my situation in such detail in hopes that you 
     can understand our initial feelings of despair and 
     hopelessness, for it is after this heartbreaking description 
     that the doctor presented us with the choice of a late-term 
     abortion. My fear is that under this emotional strain many 
     parents do and will continue to choose this option that can 
     be so easily taken as a means of sparing themselves and their 
     child from the pain that lies ahead. With our total faith in 
     the Lord, we chose uncertainty, wanting to give us as much 
     life as we could possibly give to our baby.
       On October 26, 1995, the doctors decided that, although a 
     month early, our baby's chance of survival became greater 
     outside the womb than inside, due to a drop in amniotic 
     fluid. At 7:53 am, by cesarean section, Andrew Hewitt Goin 
     was born. The most wonderful sound that I have ever heard was 
     his faint squeal of joy for being brought into the world. Two 
     hours after being born he underwent his first of three major 
     operations.
       For two weeks Andrew lay still, incoherent from drugs, with 
     his stomach, liver, spleen and small and large intestines 
     exposed. He was given drugs that kept him paralyzed, still 
     able to feel pain but unable to move. Andrew had IV's in his 
     head, arms and feet. He was kept alive on a respirator for 
     six weeks, unable to breathe on his own. He had tubes in his 
     nose and throat to continually suction his stomach and lungs. 
     Andrew's liver was lacerated and bled. He received eight 
     blood transfusions and suffered a brain hemorrhage. Andrew's 
     heart was pulled to the right side of his body. He contracted 
     a series of blood infections and developed hypothyroidism. 
     Andrew's liver was severely diseased, and he received 
     intrusive biopsies to find the cause. The enormous pressure 
     of the organs being replaced slowly into his body caused 
     chronic lung disease for which he received extensive oxygen 
     and steroid treatments as he overcame a physical addiction to 
     the numerous pain killers he was given.
       The pain and suffering was unbearable to watch, but the 
     courage and strength of our child was a miraculous sight. We 
     were fortunate. The worst case scenarios that were painted by 
     the doctors did not come to fruition, and we are thankful 
     that our son was allowed the opportunity to fight. His will 
     to live overcame all obstacles, and, now, we are blessed by 
     his presence in our lives each and every minute. Our deepest 
     respect and prayers go out to the courageous parents who knew 
     that their baby would not survive and yet chose to love them 
     on earth as long as God allowed and intended for them to be.

  This is an issue that goes beyond abortion. This is an issue that 
goes beyond a medical procedure. This is an issue about what we view as 
life, as good enough life, to be born or to live. To use as a reason 
for allowing this procedure to continue, fetal abnormality, so badly 
misses the mark, sends a message to the women of this country, families 
of this country who are listening, who are having to deal with this 
issue today, right now the President of the United States said because 
of fetal abnormality these women should have abortions, it is a good 
reason to have an abortion, this kind of a partial-birth abortion.
  What these women are saying is that we do not need to do that to 
protect our health and that there is an alternative out there, and that 
the message from the President of hopelessness for their situation is, 
as Mrs. French said, wrong. There may be no hope for an encephalitic 
child to survive long, hours if that, but that does not mean that the 
situation is as hopeless as you have heard from these letters.
  We have an obligation here in the U.S. Senate when we vote on an 
issue to look at every aspect of that issue, particularly one of this 
importance and consequence, to look at every aspect of that issue and 
to weigh all the facts and to weigh the message that we send out when 
we do something--not only the direct consequences. The direct 
consequences are clear: Thousands of children, of babies that are 20 
weeks and later, will be allowed to be partially delivered, feet first, 
the entire body delivered except for the head, and will be allowed to 
be killed--that far, inches away from its first breath.
  We know that. That is a fact. That will happen if this bill is not 
passed here by the Senate over the President's objection. That is what 
we sort of focused on. We focused on, rightfully, the horror of that 
procedure being given a legal imprimatur by the U.S. Senate and by the 
President of the United States of America. That is a tough one for many 
of us to swallow. It is a tough one for many Americans to swallow. But 
there is more, and I think the stories of these women and the children 
involved is another element to this story. I think I am going to save 
these last couple of letters for tomorrow to read because I don't want 
to be repetitive tomorrow.

  My colleagues, many of whom are otherwise involved right now with 
meetings and receptions and other kinds of things here on Capitol Hill, 
I just hope that at some point tomorrow when we are debating this, 
their television sets are turned on, or they happen to be on the floor, 
and that they understand this is not just an issue--although it is an 
issue--of a medical procedure being performed. This is a horrific 
procedure. It is not just an abortion, it is infanticide. It is 
infanticide. It is killing a baby. If you can accept that, I guess the 
argument that we are also making a decision on regarding the quality of 
life in America sort of pales in comparison, maybe--I don't know. But 
if you are troubled by that, if it causes you to think again, with all 
the new information that has been provided over the past several months 
and weeks, if it bothers you enough to rethink, then also think about 
that message that we are sending to the less-than-perfect children of 
America and the mothers who are, right now, dealing with the 
possibility of delivering an abnormal baby.
  My wife is due in March. We haven't had a sonogram done. We are 
hopeful that everything is fine. What message would it send to me, in 
looking at that sonogram in a week or two, if they say that if that 
child just isn't what you want, if that baby of 20-some weeks is just 
not what you bargained for, you have our permission to go through this 
procedure. In fact, it is your right to do so. I don't think we want to 
send that out. As Dr. Dowling said, I don't think that's a glimpse of 
the best in humanity. I don't think that is a moment that many of the 
retiring Senators here want to look back and say, ``That was one of my 
last actions here in the U.S. Senate.'' I don't think we as Americans 
want our legislative bodies to say those things--that infanticide is 
OK, as long as the mother and the doctor agree that it is OK. And the 
children who just are not what we wanted them to be is a justification 
for terminating a pregnancy of a viable baby.
  But let's make no mistake about this; that is what we are saying if 
we do not override the President's veto. That will be the message to 
America, to the world, to children who have been so afflicted, and to 
mothers and fathers who have to make that decision. I think we are 
better than that.
  As Hank Brown, the Senator from Colorado, came down here and talked 
about his position on abortion, which is pro-choice, he said that this 
is the proper place to draw the line. That is all we are asking. Are 
there no more lines in this country?
  (Mr. SMITH assumed the chair.)
  Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I remember the original debate on this 
issue when the Senator from California talked about the very few 
numbers of

[[Page S11284]]

procedures and insisted that medical personnel--doctors--were solidly 
in favor of allowing these things to continue. I ask the Senator if he 
has seen the article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal a few 
days ago, where a group of doctors said it is time to stop listening to 
the politicians, stop listening to the special interest groups, and let 
the doctors speak. And they then said, ``We know the vast majority of 
these procedures are done for elective purposes only and that the 
health of the mother is, in fact, never in danger.''

  I ask the Senator if he is familiar with that presentation and if my 
memory of it is correct?
  Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator's memory is accurate. I, in fact, discussed 
that article yesterday on the floor and entered it into the Record for 
anyone who would like to see it, as well as other articles from 
physicians concerning this. Yesterday, a columnist, Richard Cohen--who 
is pro-choice and liberal, and who wrote an article a year ago 
supporting partial-birth abortions--wrote an article saying he was 
wrong, that what he was told by the pro-choice establishment here in 
Washington, the special interest establishment, was incorrect. He did 
not say this, but I will say it for him. They lied to him, or they 
deliberately misled him, based on an incomplete presentation of the 
facts. But in either case, he did not have all the information. He 
admits that he still doesn't have all the information as to how many of 
these procedures are done and when they are done. But what we do know 
is that that argument by Members who oppose this bill, who want to 
continue this procedure to be legal, no longer exists.
  Those who stood and said, well, this is a very rare procedure that is 
only used to protect the life of the mother--I can refer you to speaker 
after speaker in the Congressional Record of last week in the House who 
defended this procedure, who got up and said, ``But, Mr. Speaker, we 
have to do this to protect the life of the mother.''
  Well, we have all sorts of medical testimony that that is not the 
case, No. 1. No. 2, even if it were the case, the bill provides an 
exception for the life of the mother.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, that was going to be my next question of 
the Senator. It is my understanding that the bill says that in those 
circumstances where the life of the mother is in danger, the 
prohibitions of the bill would not apply.
  Mr. SANTORUM. That is correct.
  Mr. BENNETT. It is also my understanding that according to the 
medical information the health of the mother might in fact be in danger 
by this process.
  Mr. SANTORUM. There is testimony that I entered in the Record 
yesterday--and I know Senator Smith has entered into the Record 
previously, and we will do so again tomorrow--that provides ample 
testimony of how this procedure is in fact more dangerous than the 
alternatives, including and particularly delivering the baby at term 
through either a vaginal delivery or cesarean section. The Senator from 
Colorado again reminded everyone--who is pro-choice and talked about a 
physician in Boulder, CO, who performs late-term abortions--saying that 
this procedure is more dangerous than other abortion techniques used at 
that stage.
  So even if you are for, as I am, the belief that it is important that 
these mothers have that--we respect all life, even those who are less 
than perfect, and give them every opportunity to live--even if you do 
not believe in that, even if you believe that a child that has a fetal 
abnormality at 35 weeks, premature 5 weeks, should be allowed to be 
killed before it is born, even though you can deliver the baby without 
any additional health risks, if you waited 5 weeks, even if you believe 
that could happen, according to the Senator from Colorado, that is a 
still a more dangerous procedure.
  Mr. BENNETT. I will not prolong the conversation. I thank the Senator 
for yielding for these questions.
  I make this comment. My personal position on abortion is under the 
pro-life banner. I am one who would be willing to consider an abortion 
in a circumstance where the pregnancy came about as a result of a rape 
or incest-- which is really nothing more than another form of rape--or 
where the life of the mother is in fact in jeopardy by virtue of the 
pregnancy. I was, therefore, somewhat troubled with the initial debate 
by those who kept insisting that the sole justification for this 
procedure was because the life of the mother was at risk, and I worried 
about Congress micromanaging medical procedures. But I have come 
completely to the conclusion that we did the right thing in passing the 
bill in the first place. I voted for it.
  I intend to vote for the override, and I am heartened by the comment 
of my friend from New York, who is known for his independence, who is a 
pro-choice Senator on this issue but who summarized I think better than 
any of us can in a single sentence when he said, ``For me, this comes 
too close to infanticide.'' Infanticide, for whatever purpose, is not 
something with which I wish to be associated.
  I congratulate the Senator from Pennsylvania on his leadership on 
this issue. I congratulate him for his compassion. I congratulate him 
for the depth of his commitments to an issue that I think should touch 
the hearts of all Americans. I thank him for yielding.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Utah. If I can, I would like 
to deflect the praise, frankly, that in every respect should be 
deflected to the Senator who is sitting in the chair, the Presiding 
Officer, who in spite of calls against him of being an extremist, and, 
in spite of--as this issue was just beginning to rise in the political 
arena--being cast in an extreme pro-life position because, as the 
Senator from Utah, there is a lot of misinformation out there when this 
procedure was originally considered and even more misinformation when 
the Senator from New Hampshire introduced the bill to outlaw 
this procedure. But Senator Smith, to his credit, got all of the 
information, studied it, and presented a bill that was reasonable, 
mainstream--not by definition when you have 70 percent to 80 percent of 
the people in this country saying this procedure should not be legal--
it is not extreme to agree with them. You can say a lot of things. But 
when you are with 80 percent of the American public you are not an 
extremist by definition. Yet, I guarantee that you will hear Member 
after Member--I do not know how many Members will actually come up and 
speak against the override, but those that do will come up and will 
charge the Senator from New Hampshire, the Senator from Pennsylvania, 
the Senator from Utah, and other Senators with extremism for supporting 
this bill.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, if I might be allowed, I thank the 
Senator from Pennsylvania for his correction about the leadership of 
the Senator from New Hampshire. I agree that is where the credit goes. 
I say to the people of New Hampshire that Pat Moynihan is not generally 
thought of as a right-wing extremist, and to have him join the Senator 
from New Hampshire in this circumstance should provide sufficient cover 
for anyone who thinks the issue through.
  Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator from Utah is absolutely correct. I just 
have to finish my comment on the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The Senator from New Hampshire took this issue when no one else would 
take it. The Senator from New Hampshire stood on the floor of the 
Senate and carried the debate the last time in spite of enormous 
criticism for doing so. The Senator from Pennsylvania is a Johnny-come-
lately to this issue, admittedly. I was not aware of this issue until 
the Senator from New Hampshire was standing on the floor debating one 
day. I became aware of it, and couldn't believe that we were actually 
debating something like this on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Are you 
serious? This actually happens in this country? I will never forget 
listening to him and listening to the volleys that were lobbed at him 
and listening to him trying to stand up and present the facts although 
they were continually obfuscated by the other side. He stood tall, and 
he can stand tall because he is a tall guy. But he stood tall, and we 
were able to get this bill through.
  So now we are back. But I can tell you, as I said earlier, I had 
never wanted to debate the issue of abortion on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate, or in the House when I was there. The Senator from New 
Hampshire out of courage of

[[Page S11285]]

his conviction stands up and says we believe. I saw him that day going 
toe to toe with the opponents of this legislation. I said to myself 
``Where were you? Where were you when they needed to count the people 
to stand up for what you believe in?
  So I came down to the floor for a few minutes. And the Senator was on 
the floor for hours. I was on the floor, in comparison, for a second, 
but entered into the debate for the first time. And I want to say to 
the Senator from New Hampshire that the inspiration that he showed is 
the reason I am here today, and the reason we are all here today is we 
won a tough battle. People now are thinking, ``Well, 75 or 80 percent 
of the American public''--in fact then it was 75 to 80 percent. They 
had no idea. And there was a lot of misinformation out there that has 
now been clarified by thankfully a lot of obstetricians coming 
forward--hundreds of them coming forward--saying that we need to do 
this. The only people who are coming forward saying that this procedure 
is an acceptable medical procedure are those performing the procedure. 
No one else is. Some are saying we should allow this to continue 
because doctors should be able to do what they want to do; that we 
should not limit doctors' choices and women's choices. That is not the 
same as saying that this procedure is a healthy, good procedure; that 
they would do it, because they are not doing it and they wouldn't do 
it. And the Senator from New Hampshire stood up here and made the case. 
Unfortunately, by the skin of our teeth, we won here in U.S. Senate. I 
say ``unfortunately.'' We should have won by more, if people had had 
all of the information that they have today. We found that out over the 
last several months.

  I am hopeful that Republicans and Democrats alike who voted against 
this legislation will examine the facts. I am not even going to ask you 
to examine your conscience or examine your morals. Make that decision 
outside of that, although I hope you would not.
  Examine the facts as we now know them, not as given to us by the 
advocates of abortion, the National Abortion Federation or Planned 
Parenthood, but of doctors who are out there performing these 
procedures, of reporters, physicians, in some cases, who have done 
investigative reporting to find out what is going on out there--not 
what they tell us but what actually is going on.
  Now, you cannot hide behind what people who agree with you on this 
issue would like to have you believe. You have to face facts that this 
is not a rare procedure done to protect the lives and health of women. 
Anyone who stands up in this Chamber and says that this is a rare 
procedure done to protect the lives and health of women is not stating 
the facts. The facts counter that, are absolutely opposite to it.
  So let us have a debate about the facts. Let us not have a debate 
about the right to choose. This is not about the right to choose. 
Whether I like it or not, and, frankly, admittedly, I do not like it, 
late-term abortions will continue to be performed if this procedure is 
outlawed. And they have been described. We can enter into the Record 
all the varieties of other abortion procedures that can be done. So do 
not argue the right to choose. Do not argue it is a decision between 
the doctor and the patient, because the doctor and the patient have 
plenty of alternatives.
  This is an issue about what 100 Senators believe is the line in this 
country. Where is that line? Or do we not have a line anymore? Have we 
gotten to the point in our culture that any drawing of lines is 
offensive to us, any determination of what is right and what is wrong 
is for every individual to make a choice, that there is no right and 
wrong anymore, it is just whatever you decide to do is OK, no matter 
who it affects and how it affects them.
  I do not think that any Member of this Chamber believes there are no 
rights and wrongs and that there are no limits to what any individual 
can do to themselves or to somebody else. But you cannot hide from the 
fact that that is exactly what we are talking about here. We are 
talking about right and wrong. We are talking about how far we are 
going to let people go to infringe on the rights of others even if 
those others are less than perfect, are fetally abnormal.
  I hope we would stand up for those children, the lesser as some would 
suggest, lesser children. I would suggest--and the women more 
importantly, the women whose letters I read earlier would suggest--that 
they are not lesser, not by any stretch of the imagination are they 
lesser. They are important members of the human family and they make a 
significant contribution. I bet you could ask some of those mothers and 
they would tell you that the child who lived 2 months made more 
contributions to them and to their community than people who lived 
there for 30 years.
  I remember we in my generation always like to say when it comes to 
our children it is not the quantity of time, it is the quality of time 
you spend with your kids. How many times do you hear that? I wish that 
were true, but it is both. But certainly quality of time is important. 
Are we going to say that because their quantity of time is not going to 
be such for our standards, that their quality of life is not normal by 
our standards, that they are expendable by the most brutal procedure I 
think any of us have ever heard?
  Oh, I have faith in the Senate. I have faith that, as I look at these 
empty chairs--and most of them are empty, all but the Senator from 
Iowa--I look at those chairs, and I can see in those chairs every 
Senator sitting there as they will be tomorrow, or standing down in the 
well, and they will have to be making a decision that they have to come 
to terms with what is right and wrong, about what comes up to the line 
and what crosses the line. I believe that enough Senators will look 
inside and see that this calls for a moment to look at what the best of 
our humanity is about, not the worst, and they will do the right thing. 
I will pray for that tonight. I hope you will, too.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I compliment the Senator from Pennsylvania for all the 
time he has devoted to this issue and how he causes everyone in this 
body and throughout America to think of the importance of this issue. I 
also compliment the Presiding Officer, the Senator from New Hampshire, 
for his leadership and his work as well.
  I agree with everything the Senator from Pennsylvania has said. I am 
going to speak tomorrow on this issue during final debate.

                          ____________________