[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.
____________________