[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 135 (Thursday, September 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11337-S11361]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 1995--VETO

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of the veto message on H.R. 1833.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message 
from the House of Representatives:

       The House of Representatives having proceeded to reconsider 
     the bill (H.R. 1833) entitled ``An act to amend title 18, 
     United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions,'' 
     returned by the President of the United States with his 
     objections, to the House of Representatives, in which it 
     originated, it was
       Resolved, That the said bill pass, two-thirds of the House 
     of Representatives agreeing to pass the same.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill pass, the 
objection of the President of the United States to the contrary 
notwithstanding?
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader still has the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the debate we are going to hear today on 
this partial-birth abortion issue is certainly not an easy one. It is a 
discussion of matters that we really should not even have to talk about 
and should not have to deal with, not in this country, not in this day 
in age, not among people who profess regard for human rights.
  I cannot imagine a more blatant disregard of the most fundamental 
human right, the right to life, than this partial-birth abortion 
procedure.
  I will spare the Senate another graphic description of the procedure. 
I know the Senators know it by now. And more and more Americans are 
becoming familiar with this procedure.
  Without regard to religion, race, sex, philosophy, or party, people 
have to be horrified that this procedure is actually used as often as 
it is.
  All of us who have followed this debate over the past year must have 
by now permanent memories of what we have heard and seen. The almost-
born baby, the surgical scissors, the dehumanizing terminology that 
transforms the killing into a medical procedure.
  I think there has, in the process, been a tremendous amount of 
misinformation--some might say disinformation. There are some facts we 
need to be made aware of. We were told that partial-birth abortions 
sometimes are necessary to protect the mother's health or fertility. I 
do not believe that is so.
  I think the facts do not bear that out. I discussed this procedure 
this morning with my wife, who has a medical-related background. She 
said there clearly are other options that can be used that would be 
safe to both mother and the baby.
  Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, along with many prominent 
specialists in obstetrics and gynecology, has made clear ``that 
partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to protect a 
mother's health or her future fertility.''
  We were told that partial-birth abortions were rare, but they are 
not. This week's Time magazine claims there are only about 600 partial-
birth procedures in the entire country. I do not consider 600 
insignificant. Yet, earlier this month the Bergen County Sunday Record 
reported that in New Jersey alone at least 1,500 partial-birth 
abortions are performed each year.
  Just this week in the Washington Post--yes, even the Washington 
Post--an article by Richard Cohen indicated that when he checked into 
it, when he found the facts, he found it no longer acceptable.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of his article in 
that newspaper be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 24, 1996]

                    A New Look at Late-Term Abortion

                            (Richard Cohen)

       Back in June, I interviewed a woman--a rabbi, as it 
     happens--who had one of those late-term abortions that 
     Congress would have outlawed last spring had not President 
     Clinton vetoed the bill. My reason for interviewing the rabbi 
     was patently obvious: Here was a mature, ethical and 
     religious woman who, because her fetus was deformed, 
     concluded in her 17th week that she had no choice other than 
     to terminate her pregnancy. Who was the government to second-
     guess her?
       Now, though, I must second-guess my own column--although 
     not the rabbi and not her husband (also a rabbi). Her 
     abortion back in 1984 seemed justifiable to me last June, and 
     it does to me now. But back then I also was led to believe 
     that these late-term abortions were extremely rare and 
     performed only when the life of the mother was in danger or 
     the fetus irreparably deformed. I was wrong.
       I didn't know it at the time, of course, and maybe the 
     people who supplied my data--the usual pro-choice groups--
     were giving me what they thought was precise information. And 
     precise I was. I wrote that ``just four one-hundredths of one 
     percent of abortions are performed after 24 weeks'' and that 
     ``most, if not all, are performed because the fetus is found 
     to be severely damaged or because the life of the mother is 
     clearly in danger.''

[[Page S11338]]

       It turns out, though, that no one really knows what 
     percentage of abortions are late-term. No one keeps figures. 
     But my Washington Post colleague David Brown looked behind 
     the purported figures and the purported rationale for these 
     abortions and found something other than medical crises of 
     one sort or another. After interviewing doctors who performed 
     late-term abortions and surveying the literature, Brown--a 
     physician himself--wrote: ``These doctors say that while a 
     significant number of their patients have late abortions for 
     medical reasons, many others--perhaps the majority--do not.''
       Brown's findings brought me up short. If, in fact, most 
     women seeking late-term abortions have just come to grips a 
     bit late with their pregnancy, then the word ``choice'' has 
     been stretched past a reasonable point. I realize that many 
     of these women are dazed teenagers or rape victims and that 
     their anguish is real and their decision probably not 
     capricious. But I know, too, that the fetus being destroyed 
     fits my personal definition of life. A 3-inch embryo (under 
     12 weeks) is one thing; but a nearly fully formed infant is 
     something else.
       It's true, of course, that many opponents of what are often 
     called ``partial-birth abortions'' are opposed to any 
     abortions whatever. And it also is true that many of them 
     hope to use popular repugnance over late-term abortions as a 
     foot in the door. First these, then others and then still 
     others. This is the argument made by pro-choice groups: Give 
     the antiabortion forces this one inch, and they'll take the 
     next mile.
       It is instructive to look at two other issues: gun control 
     and welfare. The gun lobby also thinks that if it gives in 
     just a little, its enemies will have it by the throat. That 
     explains such public relations disasters as the fight to 
     retain assault rifles. It also explains why the National 
     Rifle Association has such an image problem. Sometimes it 
     seems just plain nuts.
       Welfare is another area where the indefensible was defended 
     for so long that popular support for the program evaporated. 
     In the 1960s, '70s and even later, it was almost impossible 
     to get welfare advocates to concede that cheating was a 
     problem and that welfare just might be financing generation 
     after generation of households where no one works. This year, 
     the program on the federal level was trashed. It had few 
     defenders.
       This must not happen with abortion. A woman really ought to 
     have the right to choose. But society has certain rights, 
     too, and one of them is to insist that late-term abortions--
     what seems pretty close to infanticide--are severely 
     restricted, limited to women whose health is on the line or 
     who are carrying severely deformed fetuses. In the latter 
     stages of pregnancy, the word abortion does not quite 
     suffice; we are talking about the killing of the fetus--and, 
     too often, not for any urgent medical reason.
       President Clinton, apparently as misinformed as I was about 
     late-term abortions, now ought to look at the new data. So 
     should the Senate, which has been expected to sustain the 
     president's veto. Late-term abortions once seemed to be the 
     choice of women who, really, had no other choice. The facts 
     now are different. If that's the case, then so should be the 
     law.

  Mr. LOTT. But the most important fact in this debate is that the 
subject of partial-birth abortion cannot be dismissed as an embryo or 
as a fetus or what the abortion industry actually refers to as ``the 
product of conception.''
  No. In this case, the subject is a baby, a baby moments away from 
being born, from making its first cry, from taking its first breath; a 
baby who, in only a few moments, would be squinting its eyes against 
the lights of the delivery room; a baby who, in only a few minutes, 
would be trying, in its clumsy newborn way, to nurse.
  That baby is the reason why we have come so far with this 
legislation. That baby is why the House of Representatives, with 
significant Democratic support, overrode the President's veto of this 
bill.
  A veto override has been a rare occurrence in the last 2 years. But 
that baby is why so many members of the President's own party have 
broken with him on this issue, why some Senators who voted against this 
bill earlier are now laboring with the decision and are perhaps going 
to change their vote.
  In my own State of Mississippi, Eric Clark, the Democratic secretary 
of state, newly elected, highly acclaimed for his efforts so far, 
refused to attend an event celebrating President Clinton's 50th 
birthday in protest against the veto of this bill.
  In Alabama, Circuit Judge Randall Thomas, a long-time Democrat, 
resigned his judgeship to protest the President's veto of this bill. 
Judge Thomas declared, ``We're killing babies. It breaks my heart.''
  In Texas, Jose Kennard resigned from the executive committee of the 
Texas Democratic Party to protest the veto.
  The president of the 100,000-member International Union of 
Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, John Joyce, has broken ranks with 
most of organized labor by refusing to support the President because of 
the veto of this bill.
  All of which brings me to what I most want to say to my colleagues 
here in the Senate today. John Kennedy once observed that sometimes 
party loyalty demands too much. I know what he meant. I found myself in 
that position on a few occasions over the years, on at least one or two 
occasions stepping aside from my position as the minority whip in the 
House, because I could not in good conscience advocate the position 
that was being promoted by my party and my President. I just could not 
do it. So while I would not work it, I could not work against it in 
view of the fact I had a leadership position in the party, so I stood 
aside.
  It is not easy to vote against a President of your own party. I know. 
I felt those pressures sometimes tremendously in the leadership as whip 
in both Houses. Especially it is true on a vote to override his veto. 
However, I have done it a few times, and I remember a couple times 
voting to override President Reagan's vetoes. That was very tough to do 
because I loved him, but on occasion you had to stand for principle or 
your constituency or your conscience.
  This is a political year. That makes it all the more difficult to get 
in a position of closing ranks. I understand that. But sometimes party 
loyalty does demand too much, and this is one of those times. When I 
came to Washington almost three decades ago, I came as a Democrat. I 
know something about the Democratic Party's tradition and heritage. 
Keeping partial-birth abortion legal is not part of that tradition. 
Protecting those who routinely perform hundreds of partial-birth 
abortions in their clinics is not part of the heritage of either party. 
Turning a blind eye to an atrocity is not a part of the heritage of the 
Democratic Party and certainly not of the Republican Party, either.
  Yes, this is a political season, and if this bill dies, if the Senate 
upholds President Clinton's veto, partial-birth abortion will 
immediately become one of the most powerful issues in the fall 
elections. That is not a warning. It is just a candid statement of 
fact. It is happening already, all across America. I am asking my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take this away from politics. 
Put an end to it. Keep it out of the elections by voting today to end 
it.
  I ask my Democratic colleagues to join us to override President 
Clinton's veto, and in the process give children a chance to live, who, 
with this procedure, clearly would not live. We can still have our 
disagreements about abortion, but we need not have daily on our 
conscience this wound, this affront, this offense of partial-birth 
abortions.
  I do not know what else I can say except to assure you I am speaking 
from the heart today. I would rather not have this issue available for 
political gain or political use. What I would rather have is a way to 
get rid of this terrible procedure that is a plague on our country's 
conscience. There is so much violence in our society, sometimes we seem 
powerless to stop it--on the streets, drive-by shootings and crime, 
drug abuse, drug pushing and all that is going on. There is too much 
suffering for which sometimes we feel like we can do little. I know we 
can do more, and we will. This is one horror we can stop if we act 
together in a nonpartisan way and let nothing but our conscience 
dictate our actions.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I have next to me, Mr. President, a picture of Coreen Costello, with 
her new baby, Tucker. Coreen is a full-time wife and mother. She has 
three children now, Tucker being the youngest. Her husband, Jim, is 33, 
and is a chiropractor.
  If it was not for the procedure that Senator Lott, Senator DeWine, 
and many other Senators here want to outlaw, Tucker would never have 
been born because Coreen could have been made infertile if she did not 
have that procedure. Her doctor writes, ``She might have died without 
the procedure,'' leaving her two other children

[[Page S11339]]

without a mother for the rest of their life.
  Coreen writes to us, as Democrats and Republicans, that we should 
support the President's veto. It would not have been possible for her 
to have Tucker without the procedure that this Congress wants to 
outlaw. She says, ``Please, please give other women and their families 
this chance. Let us deal with our tragedies without any unnecessary 
interference from our Government. Leave us with our God, our families, 
and our trusted medical experts.''
  Mr. President, the bill before the Senate which bans a medical 
procedure, even if it is necessary to save the life of a woman, or to 
spare her serious adverse long-term health risks, the bill before the 
Senate, if it becomes the law, will result in women dying, women 
suffering, women becoming infertile, maybe paralyzed, surely gravely 
harmed.
  Women like Coreen Costello and others I will talk about today, 
several of whom are on Capitol Hill talking to Senators, several of 
whom are here with us during this debate, these are women who have been 
devastated by pregnancies gone wrong, gravely and tragically wrong--
women who deserve our support, not our wrath.
  It has been my purpose ever since this debate began many, many months 
ago, and it has been the purpose of Senators like Patty Murray and 
Chuck Robb and others, to put a woman's face on this issue.
  Let me unequivocally say that the bill that is before the Senate, the 
vetoed bill, is not about whether abortion should be allowed in the 
late term of a pregnancy, of a healthy pregnancy. It is not about that. 
There is not one Senator that believes a healthy pregnancy in the late 
term should be aborted--not one--despite what has been said on this 
floor over and over the past few days.
  Our President does not believe that abortion should be allowed in the 
late term. As a matter of fact, our President, as Governor of Arkansas, 
signed a bill outlawing late-term abortion in all cases except if the 
woman's life or health was at stake.
  Roe versus Wade, the law of the land on this matter, which is broadly 
supported in this country and in this U.S. Senate, gives no right to 
unregulated late-term abortion.
  So those who support Roe do not support late-term abortion. The 
Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, in the last couple of 
days, when I was not on this floor, and then when I came to this floor, 
asked me over and over again did I support abortion in a healthy 
pregnancy. I said, ``No, I do not.'' I think it is extremely sad that 
Senators would come down to this floor and, on such an issue, try to 
say that another Senator has a view that is not, in fact, that 
Senator's view. I think it is sad, I think it is demeaning to this 
institution, and I think it shows a lack of respect for one another, 
and I am very sorry about that.
  Mr. President, the bill that is before us, which has been vetoed by 
the President, is not about choice, it is about health and life. 
Frankly, I believe that it is about politics. That is the saddest thing 
of all. Why else do you think this override is before us now, very 
close to this election, in the waning hours of the session? The 
Republican Congress has had this vetoed bill for more than 5 months. 
But it is brought to us right before the Republican leadership gets 
ready to adjourn this Congress to go home and campaign.
  After distorting what this bill is really about--although we will be 
on the floor minute by minute to reply to these distortions--they hope 
to go home and make political points, make political commercials, and 
say that those of us who disagree with them are defending late-term 
abortion, when we are not. We are defending the lives of women--women 
like Coreen Costello, mothers, loving family members, who have asked 
us, in the name of God, to allow them to save these mothers.
  I think not only is this political that we have seen months go by 
without action on this veto override--not only is it political, but it 
is cynical. It is cynical because I believe they know that if we added 
a true life exception to this bill--and there is no Hyde language, 
there is no true life exception in this bill, which I will go into 
later in the day, they know that if they added a true life exception to 
this bill, and a strong and tightly worded health exemption to this 
bill, this bill would pass overwhelmingly and the President would sign 
it. He has said he would sign it. In his veto message, he holds out his 
hand and says: Make an exception in cases like Coreen's and I will sign 
the bill. Again, this is the President who was Governor of Arkansas, 
who signed a bill to outlaw late-term abortion.
  So, in its current state, without those exemptions added to it, which 
we all would vote for--it would pass by unanimous consent in a moment. 
We could send it back to the House, they could act on it, we could send 
it to the President's desk. But without those exemptions, what is the 
bill about? It is about banning a medical procedure that doctors have 
testified is necessary in certain tragic circumstances to save a 
woman's life or to spare her unbelievably tragic health consequence. 
Surely, if we have a heart, we should not ban such a procedure in those 
circumstances.
  Now, I ask, why would Senators want to place themselves in an 
emergency room, in an operating room, and prevent the doctor from 
saving a woman's life? Why would a Senator want to place himself or 
herself in an emergency room or an operating room and stop the doctor 
from saving a mother, a woman, from irreversible paralysis or 
infertility? Why? Why?
  Now, I know those of us who go into politics are not shy or reticent 
people. I know we have confidence in ourselves and we believe in 
ourselves. In order to take a lot of harsh criticism and the hits that 
we take every day, we have to be strong, we have to be secure, we have 
to believe in ourselves. But surely we are not that egotistical to 
believe that we know more than well-trained physicians, and surely we 
are not so egotistical that we believe we should outlaw a medical 
procedure that many doctors say they need. Not every doctor says he or 
she needs it, and we have heard the letters from those who say they 
don't feel it is necessary. But there are many other doctors who feel 
it is necessary, like doctors at the Columbia School of Health.
  In a letter dated yesterday, Allan Rosenfield, dean of the Columbia 
University School of Public Health writes:

       The bill in Congress targeting intact D&E abortion, H.R. 
     1833, is an extreme piece of legislation in that it provides 
     no exception at all for abortions necessary to preserve a 
     woman's health, or in cases where a severe fetal abnormality 
     is incompatible with survival after delivery. To force a 
     woman to carry to term a fetus with a horrible abnormality, 
     such as absence of a brain, once the diagnosis is known, is 
     truly cruel and inhumane.

  Are we that egotistical to think we know more than those doctors?
  And then a medical doctor from Colorado writes:

       I can assure you that I know of no physician who will 
     provide an abortion in the seventh, eighth, or ninth month of 
     pregnancy by any method at all, for any reason, except when 
     there is a risk to the woman's life or health, or a severe 
     fetal anomaly.

  The doctor talks about Coreen Costello, whose picture is right here 
with her son, who she never could have had if she didn't have this 
procedure, because she could have been rendered infertile.
  The fact is that women like Coreen Costello, a Republican who is 
opposed to abortion, who desperately wanted her daughter Katherine 
Grace to be able to live, are exactly the women who would be affected 
should this bill become law. And these women would be devastatingly 
hurt by it. They would have a safe medical option taken away from them 
at their time of greatest need.
  The doctor goes on:

       I have dedicated much of my professional life to the health 
     of these women. They are the patients to whom we physicians 
     must commit our greatest skill and compassion. We cannot do 
     that if we risk jail for exercising our best medical 
     judgment.

  Are we that egotistical? Do we think we know more than doctors, those 
who take the Hippocratic oath and swear that they will do everything in 
their power to save lives? My colleagues on the other side of this 
issue say this procedure is not necessary. They think they know more. 
They think they know more than these doctors, and they have doctors who 
say they don't ever use this procedure. If those doctors don't feel 
they need that procedure, that is up to those doctors. But don't ban a 
procedure that other doctors say is absolutely necessary to save

[[Page S11340]]

a woman's life, or spare her irreparable permanent damage to her body. 
Do Senators have that much arrogance, that much hubris, that they want 
to take away an option from a doctor who swears to God to do everything 
he or she can do to save lives? I hope not. I hope and I believe that 
enough Senators will stand with these women, and with our President who 
stands with these women, and these families, and I hope and I believe 
they will stand for them and that they will in fact sustain this veto.
  Mr. President, I have lived quite awhile and I have seen a lot of 
life. I have seen enough to know that if my daughter, who just gave me 
a magnificent grandson, found herself in the late term of pregnancy 
with a tragic situation like the one of Coreen Costello--where she did 
not know because science couldn't tell us at the early stages that this 
pregnancy was tragic, indeed that perhaps the baby had no brain but 
that the head was filled with fluid and the baby could never live but 
for a few excruciating seconds--if my daughter found out that the child 
that she was bearing and loving and wanting had an anomaly such as 
this, and, if the doctor told me, told my daughter's father, told my 
daughter's husband that we might lose her were it not for this 
procedure and that my son might lose his sister and my grandson might 
lose his mother, and all because some Senator decided he knew better 
than a doctor who was trained for years in just such medicine, I think 
if I could get past my anger, I would tell such Senators to stay out of 
my family's life, to stay out of my family's love, and let us decide 
together with our God and our doctor.
  I would say to that Senator, ``If you want to do this to your own 
family, if you want to tell your daughter that she cannot have the 
safest procedure, that is your right. But don't you tell that to my 
family.'' I would say, if I could get past my anger, ``I didn't elect 
you to be a surgeon, or a physician, or to play God with my daughter. 
Stay out of my family's life, stay out of my family's love, and let us 
decide with our doctor and our God how to handle this most tragic 
situation.'' I would say that.
  That is exactly what the women who have had this procedure are 
telling us. They were on Capitol Hill last week. They are on Capitol 
Hill this week, and they are courageous. They are courageous because in 
telling their stories they are reliving the most difficult moments of 
their lives. I had the privilege of meeting such families and 
introducing them to some my colleagues. Many of these women are very, 
very religious. They are against abortion. But all of them oppose this 
bill and support President Clinton's decision to stand with them and 
veto that bill.
  Again, at any moment we could have a unanimous-consent request to add 
a health and life exception to this bill, and we could walk side by 
side and have a bill signed into law.
  So who is it that is playing politics with this? I ask. The women who 
were here on the Hill who have come to tell their stories are not doing 
it for themselves but for others who could face the same horror that 
they did. They are here to stand up to those Senators who would have 
condemned them to grave injury--maybe even to death.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for these women and their families and 
families like them who need every medical option at their disposal. 
This issue is not about choice. Roe versus Wade does not give a woman a 
choice to have an abortion at the end of her pregnancy--only if her 
life and health is at undeniable risk.

  Let me repeat that. There is no law or Supreme Court decision that 
allows a woman to have a late-term abortion--only if her life is at 
stake, or she faces severe health risks.
  So we can pass a bill today that will allow this procedure to be used 
only if a woman's life is at stake, or if she faces severe serious 
health consequences. The President would sign such a bill. He has 
stated so in his letter.
  Let me read to you from the President's letter. I believe that every 
American who listens to this letter will see the compassion in our 
President toward women and families who find themselves in tragic 
danger and circumstances, and to children. Yes, to children. If Coreen 
Costello didn't have that procedure, she could have died. She has two 
other children, and the President cares about those children and about 
this child, and about this woman.
  The President writes:

       Dear Mr. Leader: I am writing to urge that you vote to 
     uphold my veto of H.R. 1833, a bill banning so-called 
     partial-birth abortions. My views on this legislation have 
     been widely misrepresented, so I would like to take a moment 
     and state my position clearly.

  This is the President.

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

  Here is the President saying that as Governor he outlawed late-term 
abortions but for the life and health, and he would in fact sign the 
bill outlawing this procedure if there was an exception for the life 
and health.

       The procedure aimed at in H.R. 1833 poses a difficult and 
     disturbing issue. Initially, I anticipated that I would 
     support the bill. But after I studied the matter and learned 
     more about it, I came to believe that it should be permitted 
     as a last resort when doctors judge it necessary to save a 
     woman's life or to avert serious consequences to her health.
       In April, I was joined in the White House by five women who 
     were devastated to learn that their babies had fatal 
     conditions. These women wanted anything other than an 
     abortion, but were advised by their doctors that this 
     procedure was their best chance to avert the risk of death or 
     grave harm, including, in some cases, an inability to bear 
     children. These women gave moving testimony. For them, this 
     was not about choice. Their babies were certain to perish 
     before, during or shortly after birth. The only question was 
     how much grave damage the women were going to suffer. One of 
     them described the serious risks to her health that she 
     faced, including the possibility of hemorrhaging, a ruptured 
     cervix and loss of her ability to bear children in the 
     future. She talked of her predicament.

  And then the President, in his letter asking for our support, quotes 
this woman:

       Our little boy had . . . hydrocephaly. All the doctors told 
     us there was no hope. We asked about in utero surgery, about 
     shunts to remove the fluid, but there was absolutely nothing 
     we could do. I cannot express the pain we still feel. This 
     was our precious little baby, and he was being taken from us 
     before we even had him. This was not our choice, for not only 
     was our son going to die, but the complications of the 
     pregnancy put my health in danger, as well.

  The President, retelling stories that we hear from families all over 
this Nation, families, some of whom oppose all abortion, some of whom 
support Roe verses Wade, some of whom are extremely religious, some of 
whom are Democrats and some of whom are Republicans and some who are 
Independents. This is about health and life and compassion.
  The President goes on:

       Some have raised the question whether this procedure is 
     ever most appropriate as a matter of medical practice. The 
     best answer comes from the medical community, which believes 
     that, in those rare cases where a woman's serious health 
     interests are at stake, the decision of whether to use the 
     procedure should be left to the best exercise of their 
     medical judgment.
       The problem with H.R. 1833 is that it provides an exception 
     to the ban on this procedure only when a doctor is convinced 
     that a woman's life is at risk, but not when the doctor 
     believes she faces real, grave risks to her health.
       Let me be clear. I do not contend that this procedure, 
     today, is always used in circumstances that meet my standard. 
     The procedure may well be used in situations where a woman's 
     serious health interests are not at risk. But I do not 
     support such uses, I do not defend them, and I would sign 
     appropriate legislation banning them.

  The President of the United States says if this procedure is used in 
any other circumstance other than health and life of the mother, he 
would ban it, and we could do that by unanimous consent today. I want 
to alert my colleagues, at some point during the debate I will be 
making a unanimous consent request to do just that. I wanted to alert 
them to that.
  The President goes on:

       At the same time, I cannot and will not accept a ban on 
     this procedure in those cases where it represents the best 
     hope for a woman to avoid serious risks to her health.
       I also understand that many who support this bill believe 
     that a health exception could be stretched to cover almost 
     anything, such as emotional stress, financial hardship

[[Page S11341]]

     or inconvenience. That is not the kind of exception I 
     support. I support an exception that takes effect only where 
     a woman faces real, serious risks to her health. Some have 
     cited cases where fraudulent health reasons are relied upon 
     as an excuse--excuses I could never condone. But people of 
     good faith must recognize that there are also cases where the 
     health risks facing a woman are deadly serious and real. It 
     is in those cases that I believe an exception to the general 
     ban on the procedure should be allowed.
       Further, I reject the view of those who say it is 
     impossible to draft a bill imposing real, stringent limits on 
     the use of this procedure--a bill making crystal clear that 
     the procedure may be used only in cases where a woman risks 
     death or serious damage to her health, and in no other case. 
     Working in a bipartisan manner, Congress could fashion such a 
     bill.
       That is why I asked Congress, by letter dated February 28 
     and in my veto message, to add a limited exemption for the 
     small number of compelling cases where use of the procedure 
     is necessary to avoid serious health consequences. As I have 
     said before, if Congress produced a bill with such an 
     exemption, I would sign it.
       In short, I do not support the use of this procedure on 
     demand or on the strength of mild or fraudulent health 
     complaints. But I do believe that it is wrong to abandon 
     women, like the women I spoke with, whose doctors advise them 
     that they need the procedure to avoid serious injury. That, 
     in my judgment, would be the true inhumanity. Accordingly, I 
     urge that you vote to uphold my veto of H.R. 1833.

  He finishes with these words:

       I continue to hope that a solution can be reached on this 
     painful issue. But enacting H.R. 1833 would not be that 
     solution.

  I ask my colleague from Pennsylvania, without losing the right to the 
floor, did he want to offer a unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thought we did, but I have just been informed to wait 
a second. Have you seen the unanimous consent?
  Mrs. BOXER. No, I have not.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I will hand a copy to my colleague.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield for 1 second?
  Mrs. BOXER. I will be happy to yield.


                           Golden Gavel Award

  Mr. SANTORUM. I just wanted to recognize the Senator from New 
Hampshire. I have been informed that the hour of 10 o'clock will be the 
100th hour of the Senator from New Hampshire presiding in the Chair. He 
will be awarded a golden gavel for doing so. I just wanted to commend 
him for his work in that regard. My understanding is he is the first 
Senator from the State of New Hampshire to receive such an award. I 
congratulate the distinguished Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. May I add my words of congratulations? I have not sat in 
that chair as often as I would like to, so I am falling far behind his 
record, but I do offer my congratulations to the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  It is difficult, sometimes, to sit there, particularly when I know 
the Senator would love nothing more than to jump into this debate at 
any point during my words here, so I particularly want to thank him for 
his generosity of spirit.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator will yield, I will propound the 
unanimous-consent agreement.
  I ask unanimous consent there now be 4 hours for debate on the veto 
message to accompany H.R. 1833, the partial-birth abortion bill, with 
the time equally divided in the usual form. Further, that the Senate 
recess between the hours of 12:30 and 1:30 today, and that when the 
Senate reconvenes at 1:30, there be a period of morning business until 
2 p.m., with the Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes, 
during which time statements relating to the veto message will be 
prohibited.
  I further ask that, at the hour of 2 o'clock, the Senate resume 
consideration of the veto message with the remaining time limitations 
still in effect. And, finally, following the expiration or yielding 
back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the question, ``Shall the 
Senate pass the bill, the objections of the President to the contrary 
notwithstanding?"
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object and I will 
not, I think this is a fair request. I just want to make sure that it 
is clear that the Senator from California, me, will be controlling the 
time of the side that wishes to sustain the veto, and if the Senator 
from Pennsylvania is on the other side--I think it would clarify 
matters.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I add that to the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the request is so modified. 
Without objection, the unanimous-consent request is agreed to.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, to all Senators on both sides, so we 
can bring this difficult issue to a close, at least for this session, 
because I am sure this entire issue will be debated again.
  Mr. President, what I have done in this part of my presentation, and 
I am almost finished with this first part and I will save the rest for 
the rest of the debate, I have tried to make the case that the reason 
the President vetoed this bill, and the reason I am here asking my 
colleagues to support his veto, is because the bill in its form is 
extreme. It is extreme because it does not have, first of all, a clear 
life exception, which I will go into this afternoon. It does not have 
the usual high life exception. It has only an exception for preexisting 
conditions which might threaten the woman, but not the actual pregnancy 
itself. And it has no exemption for health.

  I do believe that this President, who has really taken a tremendous 
amount of time to lay out his reason for vetoing this bill, is very, 
very clear and very willing to work with all sides to craft a bill that 
he can sign. I think, again, we can do that pretty easily.
  So the issue that is before us today is not about choice, it is not 
about a woman's right to choose. A woman doesn't have a right to choose 
at the end of her pregnancy to have an abortion. It is not allowed 
under Roe versus Wade. No physician I ever heard from ever performed 
such an abortion. No Senator I know condones such an abortion.
  What we are saying is only in the cases where this tragic pregnancy 
exists at the end of a pregnancy and was not known earlier, a woman 
should have a chance with her God and her family to have all medical 
options available to her so that she can have other children, so that 
she can continue to live a life on this Earth.
  Again, we can pass a bill today that would allow this procedure to be 
used if a woman's life is at stake or if she faces serious adverse 
health consequences. I keep repeating that because the majority leader, 
Trent Lott, in his remarks said he would like to see us work together. 
We are ready to work together, and before the end of my remarks today, 
I am going to make such a unanimous-consent request, I alert my 
colleagues, and I will be doing that all through this debate.
  I suspect that when I make the unanimous-consent request that will, 
in essence, ban this procedure except for life and health, it will be 
objected to. The reasons will be stated and they will be, No. 1, there 
already is a life exception in this bill. As I stated, there really is 
no life exception in this bill except for a preexisting condition. No. 
2, they will say that the health risks represent a loophole. A woman 
can say, ``My life is at stake,'' and it isn't. We have crafted it such 
a way to say serious adverse health consequences to the woman. We think 
that is very, very tightly drawn.
  The end result by not supporting this unanimous-consent request that 
I will make is that we will have no bill signed into law, but instead 
we will have a political issue. In essence, I have to say, that those 
who do not support the life and health exemption, in essence, are not 
placing the woman's health or her life in an important position.
  I will say this not as a matter of philosophy but as a matter of fact 
that Coreen Costello, who is pictured here with her son, might not have 
lived had she not had that procedure. We are looking at a 31-year-old 
mother of three who might not be here. So we are not talking philosophy 
here. We are talking reality. We are not talking a woman's right to 
choose here, we are talking health and life.
  In retrospect, it shouldn't surprise us that when we offered our 
amendment in the original debate, which was the Boxer amendment to 
outlaw this procedure but for life and health, in retrospect it 
shouldn't surprise us that we lost our amendment. We were able to

[[Page S11342]]

get 47 votes. We do have some Republican votes, which are very 
meaningful and very important to us, but we didn't know at that time 
that the Republican platform was going to actually call for 
criminalizing all abortion, even those in the first weeks of a 
pregnancy and even in the case of rape and incest.
  So I guess in retrospect, I shouldn't be surprised that I lost my, 
what I thought to be, very moderate, very straightforward amendment 
when we see the most antichoice Congress in history.
  Even when it comes to a tragic situation that Coreen Costello found 
herself in and other women whose stories I will bring to the floor this 
afternoon, colleagues cannot even allow these women the chance to save 
their lives, save their fertility, save them from paralysis, save them 
from hemorrhaging? They cannot even do that.
  So I say, in many ways, the debate today is unnecessary. We could sit 
down and work out this amendment. We could get the bill to the 
President. But it is really about a political agenda for the 
Presidential, senatorial, and House races. That is why we have this 
veto override in what may be the last week of the Senate of this 
particular Congress.

  Mr. President, I am going to save the rest of my remarks for later in 
the debate. Right now, I am going to make a unanimous-consent request 
to set aside the pending veto message and proceed immediately to a bill 
that allows this procedure only in cases where the mother's life is at 
stake or she would suffer serious adverse health consequences without 
this procedure. I make that unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Reserving the right to object. I say to the Senator 
from California that, first off, we had an opportunity to debate this 
issue, and we did debate this issue when the bill originally came up. 
The issue was debated at length. The Senator from California lost. The 
Senate worked its will. The Senator's amendment was defeated.
  In addition, obviously, we have already had a veto override in the 
House, including dozens of Members who were pro-choice supporting the 
override of this, what you would term, extreme provision, this extreme 
law.
  I suggest that the health of the mother exception that you want to 
include is unnecessary, and the reason it is unnecessary is because, 
according to physicians, not according to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania--I am not an obstetrician; I am not using my words in 
responding to the Senator from California, I will use the words of a 
Dr. Harlan Giles, a professor of high-risk obstetrics and perinatology 
at the Medical College of Pennsylvania. He performs abortions by a 
variety of procedures.
  I say to the Senator from California that even if this bill were to 
become law, there are still a variety of other abortion procedures 
available to women to have late-term abortions. This outlaws one which 
many of us believe is the most barbaric.
  His testimony was as follows:

       After 23 weeks, I do not think there are any maternal 
     conditions--

  I repeat that.

     there are any maternal conditions that I'm aware of that 
     mandate ending the pregnancy that also require that the fetus 
     be dead or that fetal life be terminated. In my experience 
     for 20 years, one can deliver these fetuses either vaginally 
     or by cesarean section, for that matter, depending on the 
     choice of the parents, with informed consent. But there's no 
     reason these fetuses cannot be delivered intact vaginally 
     after a miniature labor, if you will, and be at least 
     accessed at birth and given the benefit of the doubt.

  This is someone who performs abortions.
  Senator Brown from Colorado quoted a doctor from Boulder, CO, a Dr. 
Hern, who performs late-term abortions. He is the only one in Colorado, 
according to the Senator from Colorado, who performs these procedures, 
performs lots of abortions and has said identical things: that there is 
no reason to perform this procedure; that this procedure is not to 
benefit the health of the mother; and that the women who have this 
procedure done, the women who were trotted out to the White House, were 
misinformed about what health consequences beset them at the time of 
their abortion.
  So I object because the premise that the health of the mother is 
somehow improved by this procedure is a false premise, and that is not 
pro-life doctors talking, although we have many of them who are, that 
is not just pro-choice doctors talking, although we have many of them 
that do, but I am talking about people who perform late-term abortions 
talking.
  So to stand up and give credibility to this idea that there is a 
health reason to perform this abortion is factually incorrect, 
according to a very broad spectrum of physicians who don't and who do 
perform late-term abortions and abortions at other points in time.
  So I do object on the fact that the premise underlying the Senator's 
amendment is a faulty premise and is not appropriate for this 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I object.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator objects to 
my unanimous consent request to set aside this veto fight and instead 
craft a bill that would have a very fairly drawn exception for these 
most tragic cases. That is exactly what we want. And I will say in 
response to the Senator's objection a couple of things.
  He said there were dozens of Members who were pro-choice on the House 
side who voted for the bill. The fact is, those same dozens of House 
Members had no opportunity to vote on an exception, a true life and a 
true health exception. They were not given that by the Republican 
leadership. They had no choice to state their position as Senators here 
do on the Boxer amendment, which had 47 votes.
  When my colleague says he objected, we already debated it, he is 
right; we did fail by three votes. The fact is, since that time we have 
a letter from the President asking us--and he is the President of the 
United States of America, and he does represent the people, and he is 
saying, ``Please send me a bipartisan bill.'' He says, ``We can draw a 
bill that would address the small number of compelling cases where the 
use of this procedure is necessary to avoid serious health 
consequences.'' He says if Congress produced such a bill, he would sign 
it.
  So that is new information. That is why I planned to offer this 
unanimous consent request. I think if we really wanted to get something 
done on this, we could outlaw this procedure except in those narrow 
cases.
  I thank my colleagues for their courtesy, and we will obviously have 
several hours of this debate. When I come back to the floor for further 
debate, I am going to introduce by way of their photographs many other 
families with compelling stories like this. We can talk about this in 
the abstract. I intend to put the family's face on this issue, and I 
think the President has done that magnificently in his veto message.
  There is one more thing I wanted to point out. There was an editorial 
today in the New York Times. I am going to be placing it on the desks 
of Senators. I am going to just read the very end of it.

       Whatever one's views of late-term abortions, this bill is 
     not a serious effort to confront the issue directly. Rather, 
     it is the first shot in a campaign by antiabortion forces to 
     erode access to abortion by banning one procedure after 
     another. These forces have already gained ground in 
     individual States, imposing legal restrictions and conditions 
     that have made it extremely difficult, particularly for poor 
     women or those in rural or remote areas, to get abortions, 
     without outlawing the practice outright. Mr. Clinton was 
     right to veto their efforts and the Senate should stand with 
     him.

  I ask unanimous consent to have this editorial printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the New York Times, Sept. 26, 1996]

                        Uphold the Abortion Veto

       The politically charged issue of abortion returns to the 
     Senate today in the form of a veto to override President 
     Clinton's veto of a bill outlawing certain late-term 
     abortions and imposing criminal sanctions on doctors who 
     perform them. Last week, the House voted by 285 to 137 to 
     override Mr. Clinton. That leaves only the Senate to stop 
     this campaign-season rush to outlaw a procedure that, despite 
     its distasteful nature, remains the safest method to abort a 
     fetus for valid medical reasons late in pregnancy.
       The bill passed earlier this year, would ban a particular 
     procedure, known as intact dilation and extraction, but 
     called a ``partial birth'' abortion in the bill by anti-
     abortion advocates. It is used only in late-term abortions, 
     after 20 weeks of gestation. Reliable statistics are 
     difficult to come by, but the

[[Page S11343]]

     Alan Guttmacher Institute, which as long tracked abortion 
     issues, reports that only some 15,000 of the estimated 1.5 
     million abortions each year take place after 20 weeks and 
     only about 600 of those take place after 26 weeks or during 
     the third trimester. The minority of these third-trimester 
     abortions use the procedure that has stirred Congress' ire.
       The procedure involves partially pulling the fetus into the 
     birth canal and then collapsing the skull in order to let it 
     be extracted. Graphic pictures have been circulating to stir 
     up opposition to the procedure, but is actually considered 
     safer and less traumatic than the alternative late-term 
     procedure, in which the fetus is broken apart in the uterus 
     before it is suctioned out.
       The bill should be rejected as an unwarranted intrusion 
     into the practice of medicine. It would mark the first time 
     that Congress has outlawed a specific abortion procedure, 
     thus usurping decisions about the best method to use that 
     should properly be made by doctor and patient. The bill would 
     actually force doctors to abandon a procedure that might be 
     the safest for the patient and resort to a more risky 
     technique.
       Although the bill allows the procedure to be used to 
     preserve the mother's life, that exception is drawn so 
     narrowly as to make the technique virtually unusable. A 
     doctor charged with violating the law would have to prove in 
     defense that no other procedure could have saved the mother's 
     life. Moreover, the exception only covers cases in which the 
     mother's life was endangered by physical disorder, illness or 
     injury. Many opponents argue that the exception is so narrow 
     that it ignores cases in which the pregnancy itself poses the 
     threat to life. A further weakness is that the bill also does 
     not recognize any broader threat to the mother's health.
       In addition, the fact that the defense could only be raised 
     after criminal charges were brought would have a chilling 
     effect on the already small number of doctors who perform 
     abortions. The penalty, for anyone convicted, could be up to 
     two years in prison and $250,000 fine.
       Whatever one's views of late-term abortions, the bill is 
     not a serious effort to confront the issue directly. Rather, 
     it is the first shot in a campaign by anti-abortion forces to 
     erode access to abortion by banning one procedure after 
     another. These forces have already gained ground in 
     individual states, imposing legal restrictions and conditions 
     that have made it extremely difficult, particularly for poor 
     women or those in rural or remote areas, to get abortions, 
     without outlawing the practice outright. Mr. Clinton was 
     right to veto their efforts and the Senate should stand with 
     him.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, when I come back, I will go into some 
other editorials. I will introduce you to more women like Careen 
Costello, and I will go into the life exception in this bill, which is 
not a true life exception. I hope that at the end when we count the 
votes we will stand with the women, with the families, with compassion, 
and sustain our President's veto.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record a letter from a woman who had a child with a fetal 
defect, a fetal abnormality, and decided to go through and have the 
baby, and her comments about this legislation.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       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 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 caesarean 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.
                                           Whitney and Bruce Goin,
                                                      Orlando, FL.

  Mr. SANTORUM. Every time the Senator from California would bring up 
one of these cases, I will, unfortunately--Members on this side and 
maybe on the other side--have to tell the entire story about all these 
cases that the Senator from California would like to bring up, because, 
in fact, as was said earlier, there is no health or life reason to do 
this procedure. There is no reason. In fact, the Senator from Ohio, who 
I am going to yield to in a minute, will go through the case of Coreen 
Costello.
  We do not want to do this. I am sure Mrs. Costello went through some 
terrible things, but if the Senator from California is going to offer 
her up as a justification for this procedure, then the American public 
and the Members of the Senate have to know all the facts related to the 
procedure that was done and how she was misinformed about her 
alternatives. We have hundreds and hundreds of physicians, 
obstetricians, both pro-life, pro-choice, people who perform abortions, 
people who do not, who agree with that assessment of that.
  With respect to the New York Times article, I would say to the 
Senator from California the New York Times is the same paper that said 
we do not need to reform welfare because if we just change a little 
bit, it is a slippery slope and all of a sudden there will not be 
welfare. And they are the same people who criticize the National Rifle 
Assocation, which opposes any restriction on the second amendment, 
because of their slippery slope argument, and they criticize them for 
``standing firm.'' And yet they are taking this position if you do one 
thing, even though it is reasonable, and you might argue it is 
reasonable, it is just a real big, sort of plot effort. That is just 
absolutely baloney. Baloney.
  My goodness, the New York Times, they are just--get a life. This is 
murder. Let us not call it partial-birth

[[Page S11344]]

abortion. Call it partial-birth infanticide. That is what this is. If 
we think that is OK in this country, we have gone much too far.
  It is my pleasure to yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we have begun a very historic debate in 
this Chamber. It really is the conclusion of a debate that has been 
going on for several months. I think it might be instructive to review 
how we got here.
  The House, of course, took this matter up. The Senate Judiciary 
Committee held hearings. I will be quoting from some of those hearings 
in just a moment. The House passed the bill. The Senate passed the 
bill. Then the President vetoed it. The House overrode the President's 
veto, and now we are in the Senate.
  I think it is important that we keep our eye on the ball as this 
debate goes on. We should try to stay with the facts and try as much as 
possible to keep personal comments out of this.
  My friend from California, the Senator from California, repeatedly 
has come to the floor the last few days and said she has been offended 
by other Senators characterizing her position. I understand that. Yet, 
she has repeatedly this morning talked about politics and talked about 
cynicism and talked about motives that she believes drive Members of 
the Senate who happen to be on this side, the other side from her in 
this debate.
  Quite frankly, I think that is too bad. I think those assertions are 
too bad. I think it is too bad when anyone in this debate attempts to 
look into the heart and mind, the soul of any Senator. And I think it 
is wrong to do that. Please, please, spare us that argument.

  The Senator specifically said that she was going to offer a unanimous 
consent, which she did, which would add this health exception. Let me 
assure my colleague and friend from California, those of us who oppose 
that and who would object, do not do it for political reasons. No. We 
oppose it because we know, based on court decisions, that an amendment 
such as that would make the bill useless--useless. I think if the 
Senator will read the opinions of the Court, Supreme Court decisions, 
that she will see that. But it is not because of politics. It is 
because we believe this bill should pass and we believe this bill 
should pass in a form that accomplishes something.
  I will return to that later today.
  My friend from California talked about Coreen Costello. I was in the 
Judiciary Committee when she testified. It was compelling testimony. It 
was testimony that would break your heart. However, Coreen Costello did 
not--let me repeat--did not have a partial-birth abortion. Let me read 
the proposed law, the bill that is in front of us. And then I will turn 
to Coreen Costello's testimony. Here is the pertinent part of the 
legislation. As used in this section, the term ``partial-birth 
abortion'' means ``an abortion in which the person performing the 
abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the 
fetus and completing the delivery.''
  Coreen Costello testified--again everyone's heart went out to her 
when she testified--this is what she said.

       When I was put under anesthesia, Katherine's heart stopped. 
     She was able to pass away peacefully inside my womb, which 
     was the most comfortable place for her to be. . . .
       When I awoke a few hours later, she was brought in to us. 
     She was beautiful. She was not missing any part of her brain. 
     She had not been stabbed in the head with scissors.

  Coreen Costello did not have a partial-birth abortion. If she had 
intended to have a partial-birth abortion, we know--we know--from all 
the testimony, that is undisputed, that all of the baby's body, with 
the exception of the head, would have had to have been delivered 
anyway.
  I will quote Dr. Haskell later in regard to the actual procedure. So, 
although many of the stories that we are going to hear will be 
compelling, I am not sure, frankly, that they are at all relevant to 
our discussion.
  Let me talk about the essential facts as we really begin this debate. 
There are, in my opinion, four essential facts that we need to keep in 
mind, Members of the Senate need to keep in mind, as we debate this.
  No. 1. This procedure is not recognized in medical circles. This 
procedure, Mr. President, is not recognized in medical circles. Dr. 
Pamela Smith, Medical Education Director at Mount Sinai Medical Center 
in Chicago testified November 17, 1995, citing the medical textbook 
``Williams Obstetrics,'' that this is not a recognized procedure. The 
term is not even found in medical textbooks.
  The American Medical Association Legislative Council voted, without 
dissent, to recommend that the AMA's board endorse the partial-birth 
abortion ban. And they did it because they felt, according to the 
Congress Daily, ``This was not a recognized medical technique.'' I want 
to point out that the AMA ended up taking no position. They overrode 
the legislative council. They overrode it because they did not want to 
take a position on a policy issue, but there is no indication that they 
disagreed with the statement ``This was not a recognized medical 
technique.''

  Dr. Nancy Romer, chairman of ob-gyn and a professor at Wright State 
University Medical School in Ohio said, ``there is simply no data 
anywhere in the medical literature in regards to the safety of this 
procedure. There is no peer review or accountability of this procedure. 
There is no medical evidence that the partial birth abortion procedure 
is safer or necessary to provide comprehensive health care to women.
  Finally, Dr. Donna Harrison, a fellow of the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists put it most simply:

       This is medical nonsense . . . it is a hideous travesty of 
     medical care and should rightly be banned in this country.

  That is essential fact No. 1. The procedure is not recognized in 
medical circles.
  Fact No. 2. The procedure is not used to save the life of the mother. 
We have testimony that a partial-birth abortion takes 3 days to 
perform. Now, let me just say it again. The testimony is it takes 3 
days to perform this abortion. This is not an emergency procedure. 
Emergency procedures exist to save the life of the mother. This is 
simply not one of those procedures.
  Listen again to the testimony of Dr. Pamela Smith: ``So for someone 
to choose a procedure that takes 3 days, if they are really interested 
in the life of the mother, that puts the mother's life in further 
jeopardy.'' Those are not my words, those are the words of Dr. Pamela 
Smith.
  In his medical paper describing partial-birth abortion, Dr. Martin 
Haskell--now, this is the doctor who performs the abortions, one of the 
doctors who performs this procedure--he put it in a medical paper. This 
is, in part, what he said. He described in great detail the 3-day 
process for performing this type of abortion.
  His paper goes through day 1, which is dilation, day 2, more 
dilation, and day 3, the actual operation. Let me quote directly from 
the doctor's paper. Again, this is the doctor's own paper, Dr. Haskell.

       Day 1--Dilation.
       The patient is evaluated with an ultrasound. . . . Hadlock 
     scales are used to interpret all ultrasound measurements.
       In the operating room, the cervix is prepped, anesthesized 
     and dilated 9-11 [millimeters]. . . .
       Day 2--More Dilation.

  I am going to summarize this. The patient returns to the operating 
room, and the previous day's Dilapan are removed. The cervix is 
scrubbed.

       Day 3. The patient returns to the operating room, and the 
     previous day's Dilapan is removed, and the procedure begins.

  Mr. President, by definition and by description, this is not an 
emergency procedure used to save the life of the mother. That is fact 
No. 2.
  Fact No. 3. My friends who are opposed to this bill have argued this 
procedure is usually medically necessary, when, in fact, these 
abortions are overwhelmingly elective. Here again, the testimony of 
those individuals who do these abortions is instructive. Dr. Martin 
Haskell, in a tape-recorded statement to the American Medical News, 
said the following: ``Eighty percent of these abortions are purely 
elective.'' Another physician said the following: ``We have an 
occasional abnormality, but it is a small amount. Most are for 
elective, not medical, reasons.''

[[Page S11345]]

  The Washington Post reports that although no statistics are kept on 
partial-birth abortion, ``Perhaps the majority are not for medical 
reasons.''
  President Clinton has said this procedure is necessary ``to prevent 
ripping the mother to shreds and to protect future fertility.''
  But, Mr. President, Dr. Joseph DeCook, another fellow at the American 
College of OB-GYNs, says, ``Both contentions are, of course, incorrect, 
and probably merit the adjective `absurd.' ''
  Finally, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop sums up this issue by 
saying, ``In no way can I twist my mind to see that late-term abortion 
is a medical necessity for the mother.''
  So that is fact No. 3. These abortions, the vast majority of them, 
are elective, not medically necessary.
  No. 4, a living, fully formed living child is killed. You can use all 
the language you want to to try to hide this fact, but the basic fact 
is a living child is killed. We need, I think, to understand this 
procedure. In a partial-birth abortion, the entire body of the baby has 
been delivered except the head--the entire body is delivered except the 
head. The only reason the head has not been delivered--the only 
reason--is because under the law the doctor would have to protect the 
rights of a fully delivered baby.
  Listen to nurse Brenda Shafer's description. Remember that Brenda 
Shafer had described herself as being pro-choice before she walked into 
the doctor's office that day, to that clinic. This is what she saw:

       The baby's heart beat was clearly visible on the ultrasound 
     screen . . . Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the 
     baby's legs and pulled them down . . . Then he delivered the 
     baby's body and the arms--everything but the head . . . The 
     baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his 
     little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors 
     in the back of his head and the baby's arms jerked out, like 
     a startle reaction . . . The doctor opened up the scissors, 
     stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked 
     the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp.''

  Mr. President, it has been argued that the baby was dead before the 
procedure was initiated. But listen again to Dr. Haskell, listen again 
to his own comments. He said in his interview, ``No, it is not. No, it 
is really not.'' It was argued that the anesthesia given to the woman 
killed the baby, but the American Society of Anesthesiologists 
testified this is absolutely untrue. Anesthesia does not kill the 
child. The baby is alive.
  Mr. President, the essential facts about partial-birth abortion are 
as follows: One, it is not recognized in traditional medical circles. 
No. 2, it is not necessary to save the life of the mother. In fact, 
there are safer methods to protect maternal health. No. 3, those who 
perform these abortions admit they are overwhelmingly done for elective 
reasons. They are elective. No. 4, this procedure kills a living child. 
Mr. President, civilized society simply cannot tolerate this procedure.

  How, then, did partial-birth abortion come about? Why was this 
technique developed? Why are there some doctors--not many, but some--
doing this? Why was this particularly gruesome procedure ever 
developed?
  I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I yield 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. President, how did this come about? We know now it has no medical 
purpose. We heard testimony that partial-birth abortions are not taught 
in any medical school. The term is not found in any medical text. In 
fact, the American Medical Association does not recognize it as a 
medical procedure.
  We also know, Mr. President, that mainstream medical doctors would 
never use this procedure for any medical purpose. We have testimony to 
that effect. Doctors who do these partial-birth abortions admit that 
most are ``purely elective.'' Fellows at the American College of OB-
GYNs describe the contention of this type of abortion being used for 
legitimate medical reasons as, ``incorrect and absurd.'' Dr. Koop says, 
``In no way can I twist my mind to say that late-term abortion is a 
medical necessity for the mother.''
  So we know that partial-birth abortion is not a medical term or a 
medical procedure. How did this come about? I believe the evidence is 
clear, Mr. President, that it came about as a perversion of the law. 
Under the law, a child outside the womb is, of course, a fully 
protected human being. That child has civil rights. That child has 
rights under the Constitution as a person--rights we all enjoy. 
However, if the child is almost ready to be born but remains in the 
womb, the law permits the child to be aborted. The law permits the 
child to be killed.
  Remember the testimony, remember the evidence, when we say, ``almost 
ready to be born.'' Every part of this child is out, outside the womb, 
except the head. The head is kept in. The problem for the person doing 
the abortion is that when a baby is nearly ready to be born, a more 
traditional style of abortion is uncertain and dangerous, because in a 
traditional abortion the child is kept totally in and the abortion is 
performed totally inside the womb. When the baby is ready to be born 
and is fully developed, it is more difficult to kill the child with 
certainty, and the abortion may be more dangerous.
  Dr. Haskell, an abortion provider who is a self-described ``pioneer'' 
in this procedure, was most proud of the fact that partial-birth 
abortion is the most effective and certain way to kill a child that is 
legal under the law today. The most effective way to kill a late-term 
child, a child that is very close to being born, is to use this 
procedure. That is why it is used.
  You could argue, Mr. President, that the safest and easiest way to 
kill such a child ready to be born would be to allow complete delivery, 
allow the head to come out as well as the rest of the body, and then 
kill the baby. That, of course, is illegal. That is why it is not done. 
The law does not allow a fully delivered child to be killed. Current 
law does allow a child that four-fifths of the child's body is out, to 
be killed. That is what the facts are. No matter how we talk or how we 
try to gloss over the fact, that is the essential fact of this debate.

  Mr. President, those who do partial-birth abortions have done what 
they think is the best way, the best thing under the law. They nearly 
fully deliver the baby. Every part of the child is delivered except the 
head, and they hold the head inside the birth canal. Mr. President, 
they cannot let the head slip out. As Dr. Haskell says again, the man 
who does these procedures, ``That's the goal of your work, to complete 
an abortion--not to see how do I manipulate the situation so I get a 
live birth instead.''
  Mr. President, the law allows this. This cannot be what the Senate of 
this country or the American people believe to be good public policy.
  What happens, Mr. President, if a doctor makes a mistake, a sneeze, a 
cough, a knock at the door, or the doctor looks away, is distracted, 
and by mistake the baby's head comes out? The doctor meant to hold it 
in, but it slipped out. Can he still kill the child? Well, of course 
not--not legally, because we now have a fully delivered baby with civil 
rights.
  Mr. President, how can we permit a situation to exist in this country 
where, if the doctor makes a mistake, it is a child, but if he is 
coldly efficient, it is not? How do we say that a few inches is the 
difference between the life or death of this child? Surely, this Senate 
can stand up for the rights of that defenseless child. Surely, this 
Senate cannot stand by and allow such a legal absurdity to continue, a 
perversion of medicine, a perversion of the law.
  This is why we are here today. This is not about the right to choose. 
This is not about the right to abortion generally. This is a question 
of whether the Senate will permit a legal fiction that says that if you 
are fully born, you are protected, but if a doctor holds just your head 
inside the birth canal, you may be killed.
  Mr. President, in conclusion, is there no limit to what we will 
accept in this country? Is there no limit to what we will tolerate as a 
people? Are we so numb or are we so insensitive that we cannot raise 
our voice and say, ``No, not this. This is just too much''? Mr. 
President, what are we willing to turn our backs on?
  My colleague and friend from Illinois, Congressman Hyde, is a great 
spokesperson and very eloquent in this area. He was very eloquent in 
his closing argument in the House. But he is also not only eloquent 
with regard to

[[Page S11346]]

this issue, he is eloquent about the duty each one of us has not just 
in this country, but the duty we each have as individuals. Many times, 
he quotes from St. Ambrose: ``Not only for every idle word, but for 
every idle silence must man render an account.''
  I don't think this is unique to the Christian faith. I do not think 
this is unique to St. Ambrose. I think this is a universal truth. Let 
me quote from a book written by Henry Hyde a number of years ago that 
speaks, I think, to personal responsibility, because that is what we 
are about on the Senate floor today:

       I believe . . . that when the final judgment comes--as it 
     will surely--when that moment comes that you face Almighty 
     God--the individual judgment, the particular judgment--I 
     believe that a terror will grip your soul like none other you 
     can imagine. The sins of omission will be what weigh you 
     down; not the things you've done wrong, not the chances 
     you've taken, but the things you failed to do, the times that 
     you stepped back, the times you didn't speak out.
       ``Not only for every idle word but for every idle silence 
     must man render an account.'' I think that you will be 
     overwhelmed with remorse for the things you failed to do.

  Mr. President, this Senate should not fail to do what is right. This 
Senate should not fail to override the President's very misguided veto.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Washington, Senator Gorton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, there have been a number of occasions on 
which this body has debated policy relating to abortion in which I have 
not found myself on the same side as my friends and distinguished 
colleagues from Pennsylvania and Ohio and New Hampshire. But this, Mr. 
President, is not such an occasion.
  From the time that I first became involved in national politics, it 
has seemed to me that, for mature adults, under most circumstances, the 
law was not an appropriate method of determining what are ultimately 
moral choices for the people most intimately involved with those 
choices. But, Mr. President, when we talk about late-term abortion and 
when we speak specifically about partial-birth abortion, we are not 
dealing with most cases. We are not dealing with this issue in the way 
in which we speak about it under most circumstances.
  I believe that my views probably reflect those of a majority of the 
American people who do believe that this should be a matter of an 
individual woman's choice and that of close family--again, under most 
cases. But I think it is clear that the majority of the American 
people, as they come increasingly to understand exactly what this 
procedure is, are horrified by it.
  This isn't most cases, Mr. President. This is a practice that is not 
necessary. This is a practice that is not compassionate. This is a 
practice that is not within the bounds of civilized or humane behavior. 
My colleagues have described it in detail, and I don't need to repeat 
that detail. But I do think that it is significant that those who would 
uphold the President's veto, generally speaking, talk in 
circumlocution, disguise the language, resist and object not only to a 
description of the procedure itself, but even to the title--partial-
birth abortion. They speak about slippery slopes rather than the 
procedure itself and attempt to avoid the true brutality and extreme 
nature of the procedure.
  It is significant also, I think, Mr. President, as this has become a 
greater issue of consequence to the American people, that few, if any, 
of the Members of this body--I think none--who voted for this bill the 
first time are even remotely considering switching their votes to 
uphold the President's veto. Several who voted against the bill the 
first time are likely to vote to overturn the President's veto. I am 
convinced, even from private conversations, that many others would like 
to, but they feel bound by their former vote.
  Finally, many of them simply wish the issue would go away, and that 
they would not have to vote at all. But that vote will be a defining 
issue about our own society, about our feelings for indifference to 
brutality, about violence, about uncivilized, inhumane behavior.
  For all of those reasons, Mr. President, I am convinced that we 
should override the President's veto, and I deeply hope that a 
sufficient majority of my colleagues will vote to do that.
  Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. President.
  While the Senator from Pennsylvania is still on the floor, I would 
like to compliment the Senator for his compassion, interest, and 
involvement in this issue. I know that during the previous debate, he 
was, by his own admission, not very much involved in it but came down 
to listen and was so overwhelmed by what he heard and what the details 
of this procedure were that he became involved, and he has now become 
the leader in his own right on this issue. We certainly welcome his 
support, his compassion, and his commitment. I just want to say it is 
an honor to serve with Senator Santorum.
  Mr. President, there has been a lot said about this issue. I do not 
know what else could be said. But I want to, in as quiet and as 
compassionate a way as I can, urge my colleagues to vote to override 
President Clinton's veto of H.R. 1833--not necessarily to listen to my 
words, or to listen to anyone's words in particular, but to look into 
your own consciences as deeply as you can and examine the facts.
  This vote that we will face this afternoon, Mr. President, has 
presented this Congress with an issue that transcends abortion. I want 
to repeat that. It transcends abortion. We have had our differences 
here on the floor on abortion, and I respect those who differ with me, 
and I hope they respect me for differing with them. It is an issue that 
we debate over and over again--both here and sometimes in our personal 
lives, as well as our political lives. That is not the issue today. It 
transcends abortion. The reason we know that is that there is a long 
list of very distinguished Members of the House and the Senate and the 
medical profession who identify themselves as pro-choice who have 
courageously stepped forward and supported the Partial-Birth Abortion 
Ban Act.
  Last week, the House of Representatives voted 285 to 137 to override 
President Clinton's veto. That is the people's House. I served in it. 
The distinguished occupant of the chair served in the House of 
Representatives. That is the people's House. They are elected every 2 
years. They are very close to their constituents. They heard from their 
constituents, and they listened. That bipartisan, overwhelming two-
thirds supermajority included the two Democratic leaders of the House, 
Richard Gephardt, David Bonior, as well as some of the leading pro-
choice Representatives, such as Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island, James 
Moran of Virginia, and Susan Molinari of New York--Democrats, 
Republicans, liberals, moderates, and conservatives.
  To be perfectly frank with my colleagues, I know we face an uphill 
struggle in this Senate. I know that. I know what the numbers are. We 
all do. But every time we come down on a vote that is this close, we 
come down with hope and optimism.
  I might say that 6 or 7 votes on the floor of this Senate today will 
determine as many as 900--perhaps 1,000, 1,500--lives a year; 6 votes, 
7 votes, hundreds of lives. That is what it really comes down to.
  When the Senate passed this ban last year, last December, it did so 
by a vote of 54 to 44. We know the numbers. You all know the numbers. 
To override the President of the United States, you need two-thirds. 
That is 67, if we have 100 Senators, and two-thirds of whoever is here 
to vote.
  So it is an uphill struggle to win. I know that. We all do. But I am 
optimistic, Mr. President, I am optimistic that people are going to 
listen to the facts here who can be available.

  There has been some very emotional testimony here. But it is not 
emotion that should guide us in our decision. It is the facts. Let me 
say again. This issue transcends abortion. It is not about a pro-choice 
and pro-life. It is not about the abortion debate.
  One of the most distinguished and respected Members of this Senate on 
either side of the aisle is a man that I have the utmost respect for 
and immense admiration for--an honest man,

[[Page S11347]]

a man of integrity--Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the Senator from New York. 
He didn't vote when the Senate considered this last December, but 
subsequently, and after a lot of soul-searching, the distinguished 
Senator from New York announced that he would vote to override the 
President's veto. Voting against the President of your own party--I 
have had to do it. That is not easy. But this isn't partisan politics. 
This has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans--nothing at all.
  If you want to write ``a profile in courage,'' you can write it about 
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who had the courage to look at the facts and 
not get into the debate about pro-choice and pro-life. Senator Moynihan 
is pro-choice. He and I differ. But he looked at the facts.
  Another Democrat, President Clinton's own Ambassador to the Vatican, 
the former Democratic mayor of Boston, Ray Flynn, was courageous enough 
to criticize the President who appointed him to one of the world's most 
coveted ambassadorial posts, was quoted in April 1996 in the Washington 
Post, saying, ``I think that the Catholic Church and the Holy Father 
are absolutely right in condemning President Clinton's veto of the 
partial-birth abortion ban.''
  I also urge my colleagues who are rethinking--hopefully some are--
their position to consider the words of another very, very respected 
individual, I think one of the most respected individuals in all of the 
United States, perhaps second only to Billy Graham, is the U.S. Surgeon 
General, C. Everett Koop. Here is what Surgeon General Koop told the 
American Medical Association's American Medical News in an interview 
published on August 19, 1996:

       I believe that Mr. Clinton was mislead by his medical 
     advisers on what is fact and what is fiction in reference to 
     late-term abortions. Because in no way can I twist my mind to 
     see that late-term abortion as described--you know, partial 
     birth, and then destruction of the unborn child before the 
     head is born--is a medical necessity for the mother. It 
     certainly can't be a necessity for the baby. So I am opposed 
     to. . . partial-birth abortions. C. Everett Koop.''

  Mr. President, if there is any physician who would be known as 
America's doctor or the conscience of America's doctors, it is C. 
Everett Koop. He is widely admired. He is revered all across the 
Nation. He is not a partisan man. I do not even know what his position 
is on abortion; I have no idea. He is not an ideological man. He is a 
doctor. He is a doctor first. He is an honest, plain-speaking doctor in 
whom Americans have learned to have a great deal of trust.
  So consider again what Dr. Koop said:

       . . . in no way can I twist my mind to see that late-term 
     abortion . . . partial-birth . . . is a medical necessity for 
     the mother.

  Those are not my words. Those are not my words. They are the words of 
a doctor, Dr. Koop. I wish President Clinton had listened to Dr. Koop 
before he vetoed this bill.
  Mr. President, at this point I ask unanimous consent that an excerpt 
from the American Medical News interview with Dr. Koop be printed in 
the Record immediately following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, let me emphasis that H.R. 1833 includes the 
life-of-the-mother exception. I know because I put it in there. I wrote 
it. Senator Dole and I offered it as an amendment, and the Senate 
approved it by a vote of 98 to 0.
  Given his consistent portrayal of himself as someone who is a 
moderate on the abortion issue--Mr. Clinton said in 1992 that he wants 
abortion to be safe, legal, and rare--then one would think President 
Clinton would have signed this bill. I thought that the President might 
well sign it.
  In fact, after the Senate passed the bill, I twice--on two separate 
occasions--sent President Clinton personal notes, personal messages. 
And in those personal messages, Mr. President, I asked the President of 
the United States for 15 minutes, 15 minutes of his time, 15 minutes of 
his time to sit down with me anywhere he wished--the Oval Office, 
library, wherever, in his car, on the way to the airport, anything--he 
does not usually go to the airport--on the way to the helicopter or 
whatever, face to face, one on one, no staff, no advisers, no press, 
and no comment afterward. My pledge: I say nothing about the meeting. 
You say nothing about the meeting, if you wish. All I want to do is sit 
down and say to you listen to the facts as I would like to present them 
to you, not screened by staff, one on one.
  No response, not even the courtesy of a response from the President 
of the United States. Even after he vetoed it, no response.
  Your learned and respected colleague, for those of you who think it 
might be partisan, Senator Moynihan, has already indicated he is going 
to vote to override. If you are concerned about medical aspects, then 
listen to Dr. Koop. Listen to him the way you would listen to him when 
he speaks about the dangers of smoking. I have heard so many people in 
the Chamber quote Dr. Koop, especially on smoking and other medical 
issues. He opposes these partial-birth abortions. He denies that they 
are ever medically necessary. Dr. Koop supports the bill.
  I urge my colleagues to consider the words of one of their House 
colleagues shortly after he voted in favor of H.R. 1833 last year, 
liberal Democrat, pro-choice, Virginia Congressman James Moran. He said 
he knew his vote would anger some pro-choice supporters but he could 
not put his conscience on the shelf. That is a man of courage right 
there, to say that and do something like that.
  Mr. President, I want to close by making a couple of points on the 
individual women who participated in the press conference with 
President Clinton. These women went through terrible ordeals. I admire 
them. I respect them. My heart goes out to them for what they went 
through. We have three children, my wife and I. We were lucky; our 
children were born with no problems. This is not about the problems 
that these five women had. This is not about that.
  None of those five women had a partial-birth abortion. The Senator 
from Ohio has made that point. And it is interesting. At the April 10 
veto ceremony concerning this bill President Clinton displayed, if you 
will, or had stand by his side these five women whom he initially said 
had the kind of abortion procedure that would be banned.
  Later in the ceremony--and this is very interesting about Bill 
Clinton and pretty consistent--later in the ceremony Mr. Clinton said 
that the H.R. 1833 description of the procedure did not cover the 
procedure that these women had. Let me repeat that. The President of 
the United States in the press conference on the veto with five women 
standing there that he indicated had such procedure said the 
description of the procedure did not cover the procedure that these 
women had. None of the five women had a partial-birth abortion.
  I know that there are tremendous differences between the two sides on 
the issue of abortion. We have debated it, as I said before. Whatever I 
feel personally about abortion is not the issue here. Under H.R. 1833, 
a partial-birth abortion is defined as an abortion in which the person 
performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus 
before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.
  Coreen Costello, a wonderful, brave woman who went through a horrible 
ordeal, who was shown in the photograph with another child in this 
Chamber by the Senator from California, conceded during her testimony 
before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she did not have a partial-
birth abortion. Her baby was able to pass away peacefully.

  We do not stop the doctor in this legislation from stopping Ms. 
Costello from having the procedure that she had. That is not a partial-
birth abortion. I could go through the cases of the other four women 
because it is the same situation.
  Let me just close, Mr. President, by saying reach into your hearts, 
my colleagues. Ask yourself, no matter how you feel on abortion, 
whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, whether or not a baby held in 
the hands of a physician, all but the head being allowed to enter this 
world and killed for whatever reason, is that really what we are about 
in America?
  That does not have a thing to do with interfering with the medical 
procedure

[[Page S11348]]

or interfering with a doctor and a patient, not a thing. That is a 
child. That is not an abortion. That is a child. That is a child in the 
hands of a doctor. As the Senator from Ohio said, that child has rights 
under the Constitution, civil rights.
  So reach into your hearts. Think carefully about this vote because, 
as I say, 6 or 7 votes are going to determine hundreds of lives.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.

                               Exhibit 1

                 [American Medical News, Aug. 19, 1996]

                        The View From Mount Koop

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

  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am going to yield to Senators at this point. I know the 
other side has had a chance to yield to a few people. Before I yield to 
Senator Murray, I want to just yield myself 3 minutes to respond 
specifically to the remarks of the Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. President, everyone involved in this debate opposes late-term 
abortion. Let me repeat that. Everyone involved in this debate opposes 
late-term abortion. All we are saying, along with the President, who 
outlawed late-term abortion when he was Governor of Arkansas, is that 
in the most tragic of circumstances where pregnancies take a tragic 
turn, where there is no healthy viable child--in many cases the brain 
is outside the baby's skull or there is no brain and the skull is 
filled with fluid and the situation presents a danger, a high level of 
danger to the woman's long-term health or to her life--there be an 
exception.
  A little while ago I made a unanimous-consent request to set aside 
the pending bill, the pending veto and craft such a bill together. It 
was objected to by the Senator from Pennsylvania. I am going to offer 
that later again and again to make the point that we could walk down 
this aisle together and just keep those abortions to those crisis 
pregnancies. That is what the President wants. Again, in his letter he 
says send him a bill in a bipartisan manner and he would sign it with 
those tightly drawn exceptions. There has been reference made to a life 
exception in this bill. The Senator from New Hampshire said he wrote 
it. Well, it is clear it is not the usual Hyde exception which just 
says an exception ``to save the life of the mother.'' That is not in 
this bill. What is in this bill is a very narrowly crafted life 
exception which only triggers if the woman has a preexisting condition 
and that preexisting condition threatens her life, not the pregnancy 
itself.
  That is why the New York Times, in its editorial today, says the life 
exception ``is drawn so narrowly as to make the technique * * * 
unusable.'' Unusable.
  So the fact is, there is no Hyde life exception here. What we want to 
see is a life exception, the Hyde life exception, plus a narrowly drawn 
exception for health.
  The last point I would make before yielding to my friend from 
Washington is this. I talked about the arrogance of politicians who 
think they know better than a physician. I pointed out that we have a 
lot of self-confidence. You have to in this political life that we 
lead. But how could we ever know more than a physician? Why would we 
want to take away a tool that many say they need?
  Then we have the arrogance of colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, saying that Coreen Costello, whom I talked about and will talk 
about some more, did not have this procedure. They think they know 
better than Coreen Costello and her doctor. Coreen Costello writes us 
just yesterday, ``Some who support this bill state I do not fit into 
the category of someone who had this so-called procedure. This is 
simply not true.''
  So, I hope we could work together, craft a bill that makes a life and 
health exemption, and take this out of the political arena. For anyone 
who thinks it is not in the political arena, why did it take 5 months 
to bring this override right here, into the last week of this session? 
Let us be honest with one another. It is a political issue.
  I yield to my colleague from Washington, Senator Murray, as much time 
as she may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have listened to my colleagues on the 
floor discussing this issue over the last several days, and over the 
last several months, as it has increasingly become an inflammatory 
issue both here and across this country. I found myself going home last 
night feeling more and more angry. I asked myself, why is it that I 
feel so angry listening to this debate? I realized it was because I 
feel that we have really offended the women and the families who have 
had to make this decision, and they probably are sitting at home 
watching this debate in tears. Because none of us were there when they 
had to face a horrendous decision, women and men, young families, who 
wanted very much to have a baby, who found themselves at the end of a 
long pregnancy, after months of people coming up to them and telling 
them, ``Oh, how exciting. When is your baby due?'' Of planning for that 
baby, of having the furniture ready in the baby's room. Only at the end 
of that pregnancy to find out there were tragic circumstances involved, 
that perhaps their baby's brain was not formed, that their baby would 
not survive. Not only that, but to be told by their doctor that if this 
baby were to be delivered at the end of 9 months, the woman's life 
would be in serious jeopardy, or perhaps her ability to have future 
children.
  I feel so sorry for those families who have had to live through this 
tragic experience, who now have to watch an inflammatory and divisive 
debate on this floor in this Senate by people who are not medical 
doctors, who have not been there, who do not know the circumstances 
surrounding that horrendous decision they had to make, now try to make 
it a criminal offense for them to go through that. I apologize to those 
families. I apologize to them for having to listen to this debate. For 
us to be sitting here second-guessing them and their doctors--I find it 
offensive. Again, I thought about it--why am I so angry? Mr. President, 
I am angry at the arrogance of those who sit out here on this floor and 
describe to us the joys they have had in being with their wives when 
their babies were born under wonderful circumstances. And I have had 
that opportunity twice in my life. But there are some on this floor who 
have had to live through similar experiences, and I think it is 
arrogant of people to be on this floor talking about it who have not 
been through the same thing. It is extremely difficult to sit in a 
doctor's office, when you have been pregnant for many months, and be 
told that your baby is not going to live. It is a tragic, horrendous 
experience that no one can understand unless they have been there.
  Mr. President, I am offended that Members of this body know, or think

[[Page S11349]]

they know, what that would be like. If you have not lived through it, 
you do not know. This Senate, this Congress, should not be deciding the 
lives of those women, their families, or their future. It should be up 
to the doctor and the husband and the wife, as it has in the past and 
it better well be in the future, for my daughter and the other women 
around this country.
  Mr. President, this is an emotional, distorted debate. We are using 
the lives of a few women to create divisions across this country. I 
know that many women are offended, as I am. Again, I extend my apology 
to the women in this country who have been through this experience and 
who know. I commend our President for having had the strength and the 
courage to stand up and say that he will veto this bill. I commend my 
colleagues who have the courage as well, despite the often offensive 
comments that we have heard, and the horrendous articles that we have 
seen written, and the divided doctors' opinions we have read. If we can 
be smart today and not override this veto and have courage to vote what 
is right, we will leave it up to women in the future to make their own 
decisions. That is extremely important for us to do.
  Mr. President, the New York Times today had an extremely important 
editorial. I hope my colleagues who are sitting back, thinking about 
this debate and what their vote will mean, will take the time to read 
it. It states the case very well, in a very cognizant manner. I remind 
my colleagues, despite what you hear, if we can save the life of one 
woman and we can save the tragedy of one family not being able to make 
the decision that is good for the mother's health, then we have done 
the right thing today.

  I urge my colleagues to sustain the veto of the President of the 
United States, and I yield my time back to Senator Boxer from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I just need to restate, we have quoted 
physician after physician, obstetrician after obstetrician, pro-life, 
pro-choice, people who have performed abortions--this is not Rick 
Santorum or James Inhofe or Mike DeWine or Bob Smith--these are 
physicians, obstetricians, who are saying that this procedure is never, 
never, never medically necessary to save the health or life of the 
mother. Never. Never.
  So, when we suggest we are doing this and we are denying something to 
women, let me also state that Dr. Hern, whom the Senator from Colorado 
quoted just yesterday, performs late-term abortions and will continue 
to perform late-term abortions if this bill passes. He believes that 
this is an unsafe procedure. It is not a medically recognized 
procedure. There is no literature on it, there is no peer review on it, 
there is nothing anywhere that says that this procedure is a proper 
procedure to use. This is not Rick Santorum talking. I wish the Members 
who argue would at least argue the facts. I am not speaking for me. I 
am quoting doctors.
  So let me quote doctors and describe this, because no one has 
described this procedure. I know, I will warn people, this is not 
something that I want to do. But I think the American public has to 
know what this procedure is and who it is performed on and at what time 
in the pregnancy it is performed.
  Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with 
forceps. This baby is anywhere from 20 weeks, into the third trimester, 
30 weeks or more old. At 23 weeks, babies can survive with the new 
surfactant drugs and the like. It is not a high probability.
  Just remember a couple of years ago when that young girl in Texas was 
down in that well, and for 80 hours the American public was just 
riveted on what was going to happen to that little girl. People cried 
and wept when we saved that little girl.
  Well, these are little girls and little boys. They are not inch blobs 
of tissue. These are little girls and little boys. These are viable 
babies, not tissue--viable babies.
  The doctor grabs the legs and pulls it into the birth canal feet 
first. That is a breech delivery. It is a dangerous delivery. No 
physician would ever deliver a baby deliberately breech if there was an 
alternative. So they deliver the baby breech. It is dangerous to the 
mother to deliver a breech baby.
  The baby's entire body is delivered, with the exception of the head. 
Nurse Brenda Shafer, who testified here, talked about the arms and legs 
of the baby moving outside of the mother.
  At that point, the abortionist takes a pair of scissors and, by feel, 
jams the scissors into the base of the skull for one purpose, to kill 
the baby, and creates a hole and takes a suction catheter, a powerful 
one, and suctions the baby's brains out until the head collapses, and 
then the rest of the baby is delivered.
  This is the procedure that people say they are outraged that we are 
trying to stop? Can you imagine? Can you imagine that people are 
outraged that we want to stop this? It is outrageous that we want to 
stop this? I have seen many reasons for outrage, justifiable outrage. 
Stopping this, people are outraged? What have we become when we become 
outraged?
  I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I regret that we are so short on time, 
that we have a time agreement. I had planned, as I announced yesterday 
when I spoke on this subject, to speak for at least 30 minutes. So I 
will not be able to use all the material I have. It is such a critical 
issue, I deeply regret that. I think it is probably appropriate that I 
speak, in that tomorrow at this time my daughter-in-law will be 
presenting me with my fourth grandchild. I plan to be there at the 
birth of that child. I am hoping to name it Perry Dyson Inhofe III. I 
don't know that will happen for sure.
  I think if you just wrap up some of the things that were said here 
that are very significant, No. 1, we are not talking about abortion. We 
are talking about, in many cases, the normal birth process.
  When I stood here before I spoke yesterday, I heard Senator Hank 
Brown from Colorado, a guy who has always been pro-choice --I have 
disagreed with him; I have always been pro-life--but he stood up and 
recognized the fact that we are not talking about abortions. I wish 
they never named this ``partial-birth abortion.'' Maybe people would 
wake up. I agree with the senior Senator from New York who 
characterized it as ``infanticide.''
  So we are talking about now a third-trimester type of a treatment. I 
was going to elaborate on some of the comments that were made. I have 
here with me 17,601 signatures on petitions that I got this weekend as 
I was doing town meetings. They were given to me from all over 
Oklahoma. I haven't heard from anyone on the other side of this issue.

  One of the things that they fail to talk about, because it is painful 
to talk about, is the pain that a baby feels when the baby is 
eliminated using this partial-birth-abortion procedure.
  There is a paper I was going to read, but I will paraphrase it. It is 
a paper that was produced by a British research group, that a Dr. 
White, a neurosurgeon in the United States, agrees with, where they say 
it is now proved that a child in the second trimester or third 
trimester feels the same type of pain that is felt by any of us in this 
room, in this Chamber.
  So we are not talking about something that is painless for a child 
that is being aborted, being destroyed in the process that was 
described by the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  I ask unanimous consent that this paper be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the paper was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

     Fetal Pain as It Relates to the Partial-Birth Abortion Method

       Partial-birth abortions are most commonly performed on 
     fetuses between the 20th and 24th weeks and beyond. Studies 
     by British researchers and a Cleveland neurosurgeon have 
     found that the fetus at this stage feels pain.
       Dr. Robert White, Neurosurgeon, Case Western Reserve 
     University School of Medicine, testimony given before the 
     House Subcommittee on the Constitution, June 15, 1995:
       1. The neuroanatomical pathways which carry the pain 
     impulses are present in fetuses by the 20th week of 
     gestation.
       Also, the neurosystems which would modulate and suppress 
     these pain impulses are either not present or immature during 
     this stage of fetal development.
       2. The classical cardiovascular responses associated with 
     stress and pain are found in

[[Page S11350]]

     fetuses of this age who experience painful incidents such as 
     the introduction of a needle in the abdomen.
       His summary: ``The fetus within this time frame of 
     gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is fully capable of 
     experiencing pain.''
       British study Journal: ``The Lancet''; ``Fetal Plasma 
     Cortisol and Beta-Endorphin Response to Intrauterine 
     Needling'' July 9, 1994:
       Study: The study was on the effects of fetal blood 
     sampling.
       Conclusion: When the fetus is subjected to an abdominal 
     injection, it reacts with a hormonal stress response, 
     characteristic of a pain response.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I had occasion to talk to a Dr. Mary 
Ballenger this morning. Dr. Mary Ballenger was called to do a very 
unpleasant thing about a year ago. My kids' dog, a Labrador, was 16 
years old. She came out and had to put it to sleep because the dog had 
cancer and was beyond any help and was in pain.
  She described and wrote down the procedure that she used to destroy 
the dog. It was necessary. She first injected a drug into the dog, 
which puts the dog into a euphoric state and is completely relaxed, and 
then, of course, sodium pentothal to put the dog to sleep.
  I thought it was ironic, when I look at this procedure. We are so 
humane in the procedure that we use in putting someone to death who has 
committed a heinous crime for which he must be destroyed. It is the 
same procedure, because we are so humane in this country. Yet, we have 
no concern over the pain that is inflicted on a small person who is a 
victim of this type of a termination.
  If I were to suggest that the procedure that was described by the 
Senator from Pennsylvania were to be used on dogs or cats, the same 
people who are promoting this procedure would be out there picketing.
  Something has happened. Perversion has taken place in this country 
where we put a higher value on critters than we do human life. In fact, 
under our laws, it is a criminal violation if you were to kill a gray 
bat that is endangered. It would be a $50,000 fine or 1 year in prison.
  I have a testimonial from a young lady in my State of Oklahoma. I 
will only use her first name. This is the testimony of Nancy. I would 
like you to listen very carefully, Mr. President:

      Testimony of Nancy, Sent to Frank Parone of Priests for Life

       I am twenty-one years old and a native of southwest 
     Oklahoma. Five years ago, I had a partial birth abortion. I 
     was 36 weeks pregnant.
       I was sixteen at the time I got pregnant. I hid my 
     pregnancy from my mother. It wasn't hard for me to do that 
     because I was somewhat over weight and wearing large, baggy 
     clothes was already in style. My mother had always told me 
     that if I got pregnant, the baby would be gone. It was just 
     as simple as that. I knew that I had to protect my baby.
       One day, my mother accidentally saw me in the shower, and I 
     think it was at that point, it dawned on her that I was 
     pregnant. My mother took me to see a friend of hers who was a 
     doctor. He said that the baby and I were both healthy and 
     doing fine. We did a sonogram, and I got to see my little boy 
     for the first and only time. It was so exciting. I had been 
     able to feel him kick and turn in my belly for a long time, 
     but it touched my heart to get to see him face to face. My 
     heart melted as the doctor pointed out him sucking his thumb.
       My mother didn't speak to me for two days. I knew that my 
     mother was a very determined woman who would do anything to 
     accomplish what she wanted. Her silence really frightened me.
       Then we got the call from her friend. The doctor said that 
     I had a hernia in my abdominal wall. If I wanted to have any 
     chance for a normal delivery, I had to have surgery which 
     wasn't easy for a pregnant woman. He recommended a doctor in 
     Wichita, Kansas. Little did I know that my mother, through 
     the doctor, had just handed my baby the death sentence.
       We drove to Kansas the next day. The doctor said it 
     wouldn't be too painful for me because I would be asleep. All 
     I remember about the time just before going to sleep was a 
     feeling that this wasn't right. Waves of fear kept washing 
     over me. My mother sat there and kept saying that we had to 
     do what we had to do. What comforting words.
       I woke up several hours later. The first thing I did was 
     reach for my belly. I remember screaming a lot and I couldn't 
     stop. My belly was flat and my baby was gone. I ripped the IV 
     out of my arm. The doctor ordered the nurse to restrain me. I 
     then remember them giving me a shot to calm me down. To this 
     day, I still remember the cold pain and horror I felt when I 
     realized what had happened.
       It took several months after the abortion for the fights to 
     begin. Every time I wanted to talk about the situation, my 
     mother just turned stone silent. When she did speak, she 
     flipped off cliches like, ``What was done was done.'' and 
     ``Don't cry over spilt milk.'' More comforting words.
       After one major fight, she finally did tell me that the 
     abortion procedure that was done was the D and X, dilation 
     and extraction, a partial birth abortion. I just couldn't 
     bear to look at my mother anymore. She had lied to me and 
     killed her own grandson. I just don't see how anyone could 
     have looked at that sweet face on the ultrasound screen and 
     have that baby brutally and cold-bloodedly murdered. I left 
     my mother's house that day, and I have never been back.
       Because of the damage of the abortion, I can no longer have 
     any more children. I failed my children, I really failed my 
     little boy, I failed to protect him. And he died.
       My life hasn't been the same. I cry so much for my little 
     boy. I never got to hold him in my arms. People made 
     decisions for me and took him away. I am not sure that the 
     hurt will ever go away.

  Mr. President, this is not just someone who has talked about, third 
hand, the agony that is experienced by so many people. When I hear 
people say that this is a rare procedure, and it is not used very 
often, I remember the testimony of Dr. Haskell who has performed, he 
said, over 1,000 partial-birth abortions. And he said, ``In my 
particular case''--I don't know about all of them nationwide, but ``In 
my particular case probably 20 percent are for genetic reasons. And the 
other 80 percent are purely elective . . .''
  Since my time is about up, I would like to repeat something that I 
heard this morning, Mr. President, that perhaps puts a sense of urgency 
on this. At a prayer breakfast this morning there were a number of 
people who prayed. One was Rev. Herb Lusk from Pennsylvania who 
described this procedure as ``an unrighteous act.'' The next was 
Cardinal Belivacqua. He said, ``If we don't respect life, then what is 
left to respect?'' Then Rabbi Daniel Lapin said, ``We must defy this 
monstrous evil.''
  But it was when Dr. James Dobson said his prayer that it first 
occurred to me, when he said, ``You know, you folks on the floor are 
going to be speaking for those who are not here today and cannot speak 
for themselves. You will be speaking in their behalf.''
  That is what we are looking at right now, Mr. President. I do agree 
with Charles Colson who said on his prison fellowship broadcast, ``The 
vote is the most significant of my lifetime, and is about life itself, 
about who will live and who will die.''
  I honestly believe, Mr. President, this is the most significant 
character vote in the history of this institution.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am going to yield to the Senator from 
Illinois and then the Senator from Massachusetts, as we have discussed 
with my colleagues on the other side. But first I will yield myself 
just 2 minutes to respond to some of the statements that have been made 
here.
  I want to comment on the statement of my colleague, Patty Murray. I 
think that every Senator should have been here to listen to her. She 
talked from the depths of her soul about what it is like for a family 
to be faced with this extraordinary circumstance. For a baby you have 
craved, you have wanted, you adore, is suddenly in grave danger with a 
severe anomaly, such as no brain or a cranium filled with fluid, 
putting the mother's life at risk. And here we are in the U.S. Senate 
with some of my colleagues in essence sounding like doctors, saying 
that the procedure that they want to ban in all cases is not necessary.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a series of statements by medical groups and doctors who oppose this 
bill and support the President's veto. They include the American 
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the California Medical 
Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Medical 
Women's Association, the American Public Health Association, and 
numerous individual doctors who basically say that this politically 
motivated bill is going to lead to irreparable harm to women.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Medical Groups and Doctors Oppose H.R. 1833, Support President's Veto

       American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

[[Page S11351]]

       ``The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 
     (ACOG), an organization representing more than 37,000 
     physicians dedicated to improving women's health care, does 
     not support HR 1833, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 
     1995. The College finds very disturbing that Congress would 
     take any action that would supersede the medical judgment of 
     trained physicians and criminalize medical procedures that 
     may be necessary to save the life of the woman.''
       California Medical Association:
       ``When severe fetal anomalies are discovered late in 
     pregnancy, or the pregnant woman develops a life-threatening 
     medical condition that is inconsistent with continuation of 
     the pregnancy, abortion--however heart-wrenching--may be 
     medically necessary. In such cases, the intact dilation and 
     extraction procedure (IDE)--which would be outlawed by this 
     bill--may provide substantial medical benefits.''
       American Nurses Association:
       ``It is the view of the American Nurses Association that 
     this proposal would involve an inappropriate intrusion of 
     federal government into a therapeutic decision that should be 
     left in the hands of a pregnant woman and her health care 
     provider . . . The American Nurses Association is the only 
     full-service professional organization representing the 
     nation's 2.2 million Registered Nurses.''
       American Medical Women's Association:
       ``On behalf of the 13,000 women physicians . . . we 
     encourage the Senate to actively oppose S. 939 . . . this 
     legislation represents a serious impingement on the rights of 
     physicians to determine medical management for individual 
     patients.''
       American Public Health Association:
       ``APHA opposes [HR 1833] because it prevents women from 
     receiving medical care which ensures their safety and well-
     being.''
       Individual Doctors:
       ``[HR 1833] is not good public health policy, it is not 
     good medical care, and it harms families.''--Philip G. 
     Stubblefield, MD, Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and 
     Gynecology, Boston University School of Medicine.
       ``This legislation represents an unprecedented intrusion 
     into the practice of medicine and the doctor/patient 
     relationship. The bill . . . eliminates a therapeutic choice 
     for physicians and imposes a politically inspired risk to the 
     health and safety of a pregnant woman.''--Allan Rosenfield, 
     MD, Dean, Columbia University School of Public Health.
       ``One concept that seems to be lost on the general public 
     is that these pregnancies can have a significant health risk 
     to the mother. Often fetuses that have physical abnormalities 
     will have increased amniotic fluid that can cause uterine 
     agony and severe maternal bleeding at birth. Fetuses that 
     have fluid in their lungs and bodies can cause mothers to 
     experience `mirror syndrome,' where they themselves become 
     bloated and dangerously hypertensive. Abnormal fetuses often 
     require operative deliveries, and this puts the mother at 
     increased risk of infection and death. The usual type of 
     termination of pregnancy is a traumatic stretching of the 
     cervix that then increases a woman's chance for infertility 
     in the future. The procedure that is up for `banning' allows 
     very passive dilation of the cervix and allows gentle 
     manipulation to preserve the very much desired fertility of 
     these distraught women.''--Dru Elaine Carlson, MD, Director, 
     Reproductive Genetics, Department of Obstetrics and 
     Gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Assistant Professor, 
     UCLA.
       ``Sometimes, as any doctor will tell you, you begin a 
     surgical procedure expecting that it will go one way, only to 
     discover that the unique demands of the case require you to 
     do something different. Telling a physician that it is 
     illegal for him or her to adapt his or her surgical method 
     for the safety of his patient is, in effect, legislating 
     malpractice, and it flies in the face of standards for 
     quality medical care.''--J. Courtland Robinson, MD, MPH, 
     Division of Gynecologic Specialties, Johns Hopkins Medicine.
                                                                    ____



                               California Medical Association,

                              San Francisco, CA, October 24, 1995.
     Re: H.R. 1833.

     Representative Sam Farr,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Farr: The California Medical 
     Association is writing to express its strong opposition to 
     the above-referenced bill, which would ban ``partial-birth 
     abortions.'' We believe that this bill would create an 
     unwarranted intrusion into the physician-patient relationship 
     by preventing physicians from providing necessary medical 
     care to their patients. Furthermore, it would impose an 
     horrendous burden on families who are already facing a 
     crushing personal situation--the loss of a wanted pregnancy 
     to which the woman and her spouse are deeply committed.
       An abortion performed in the late second trimester or in 
     the third trimester of pregnancy is extremely difficult for 
     everyone involved, and CMA wishes to clarify that it is not 
     advocating the performance of elective abortions in the last 
     stage of pregnancy. However, when serious fetal anomalies are 
     discovered late in a pregnancy, or the pregnant woman 
     develops a life-threatening medical condition that is 
     inconsistent with continuation of the pregnancy, abortion--
     however heart-wrenching--may be medically necessary. In such 
     cases, the intact dilarion and extraction procedure (IDE)--
     which would be outlawed by this bill--may provide substantial 
     medical benefits. It is safer in several respects than the 
     alternatives, maintaining uterine integrity, and reducing 
     blood loss and other potential complications. It also permits 
     the parents to hold and mourn the fetus as a lost child, 
     which may assist them in reaching closure on a tragic 
     situation. In addition, the procedure permits the performance 
     of a careful autopsy and therefore a more accurate diagnosis 
     of the fetal anomaly. As a result, these families, who are 
     extremely desirous of having more children, can receive 
     appropriate genetic counseling and more focused prenatal care 
     and testing in future pregnancies. Thus, there are numerous 
     reasons why the IDE procedure may be medically appropriate in 
     a particular case, and there is virtually no scientific 
     evidence supporting a ban on its use.
       CMA recognizes that this type of abortion procedure 
     performed late in a pregnancy is a very serious matter. 
     However, political concerns and religious beliefs should not 
     be permitted to take precedence over the health and safety of 
     patients. CMA opposes any legislation, state or federal, that 
     denies a pregnant woman and her physician the ability to make 
     medically appropriate decisions about the course of her 
     medical care. The determination of the medical need for, and 
     effectiveness of, particular medical procedures must be left 
     to the medical profession, to be reflected in the standard of 
     care. It would set a very undesirable precedent if Congress 
     were by legislative fiat to decide such matters. The 
     legislative process is ill-suited to evaluate complex medical 
     procedures whose importance may vary with a particular 
     patient's case and with the state of scientific knowledge.
       CMA urges you to defeat this bill. The patient who would 
     seek the IDE procedure are already in great personal turmoil. 
     Their physical and emotional trauma should not be compounded 
     by an oppressive law that is devoid of scientific 
     justification.
           Sincerely,
                                        Eugene S. Ogrod, II, M.D.,
     President.
                                                                    ____



                                  American Nurses Association,

                                 Washington, DC, November 8, 1995.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: I am writing to express the opposition 
     of the American Nurses Association to H.R. 1833, the 
     ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995'', which is 
     scheduled to be considered by the Senate this week. This 
     legislation would impose Federal criminal penalties and 
     provide for civil actions against health care providers who 
     perform certain late-term abortions.
       It is the view of the American Nurses Association that this 
     proposal would involve an inappropriate intrusion of the 
     federal government into a therapeutic decision that should be 
     left in the hands of a pregnant woman and her health care 
     provider. ANA has long supported freedom of choice and 
     equitable access of all women to basic health services, 
     including services related to reproductive health. This 
     legislation would impose a significant barrier to those 
     principles.
       Furthermore, very few of those late-term abortions are 
     performed each year and they are usually necessary either to 
     protect the life of the mother or because of severe fetal 
     abnormalities. It is inappropriate for Congress to mandate a 
     course of action for a woman who is already faced with an 
     intensely personal and difficult decision. This procedure can 
     mean the difference between life and death for a woman.
       The American Nurses Association is the only full-service 
     professional organization representing the nation's 2.2 
     million Registered Nurses through its 53 constituent 
     associations. ANA advances the nursing profession by 
     fostering high standards of nursing practice, promoting the 
     economic and general welfare of nurses in the workplace, 
     projecting a positive and realistic view of nursing, and by 
     lobbying the Congress and regulatory agencies on health care 
     issues affecting nurses and the public.
       The American Nurses Association respectfully urges you to 
     vote against H.R. 1833 when it is brought before the Senate.
           Sincerely,
                                            Geri Marullo, MSN, RN,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                          American Medical Women's


                                            Association, Inc.,

                                                    March 4, 1996.
     President William J. Clinton,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear President Clinton: On behalf of the American Medical 
     Women's Association, I would like to commend you for 
     reiterating your support of Roe v. Wade in your letter to 
     Congress dated February 28, 1996. However, we are dismayed 
     that you have agreed to support H.R. 1833 if it is amended as 
     you requested in your letter to Congress. Our association 
     opposes any efforts to erode the constitutionally protected 
     rights guaranteed by Roe v. Wade. AMWA objects to laws and 
     court rulings that interfere with the doctor-patient 
     relationship, either in requiring or proscribing specific 
     medical advice to pregnant women. Further, we oppose any 
     measures that limit access to medical care for pregnant 
     women, particularly the poor or underserved and measures that 
     involve spousal or parental interference with their personal 
     decision to terminate pregnancy. This bill would not only 
     restrict the reproductive rights of American women but also

[[Page S11352]]

     impose legal requirements for medical care decisions.
       The American Medical Women's Association strongly opposes 
     H.R. 1833 in its current form on several grounds. We continue 
     to support a woman's right to determine whether to continue 
     or terminate her pregnancy without government restrictions 
     placed on her physician's medical judgment and without 
     spousal or parental interference. This bill would subject 
     physicians to civil action and criminal prosecution for 
     making a particular medical decision. We expect that the 
     provisions for prosecutions of physicians would generate 
     considerable litigation if this bill becomes law. We do not 
     believe that the federal government should dictate the 
     decisions of physicians and feel that passage of H.R. 1833 
     would in effect prescribe the medical procedures to be used 
     by physicians rather than allow physicians to use their 
     medical judgment in determining the most appropriate 
     treatment for their patients. The passage of this bill would 
     set a dangerous precedent--undermining the ability of 
     physicians to make medical decisions. It is medical 
     professionals, not the President or Congress, who should 
     determine appropriate medical options.
       We will continue to press the White House and Congress to 
     protect the provisions of Roe v. Wade and support a woman's 
     right to continue or terminate her pregnancy.
           Sincerely,
                                      Jean L Fourcroy, M.D., Ph.D,
     President.
                                                                    ____



                           American Public Health Association,

                                   Washington, DC, April 10, 1996.
     President Clinton,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear President Clinton: Thank you for expressing opposition 
     to H.R. 1833, legislation banning certain late term abortion 
     procedures, and for urging Congress to include legislative 
     protections for the life and the health of the woman. The 
     American Public Health Association urges you to veto this 
     bill because of the potential deleterious effects it could 
     have on the health of American women.
       APHA opposes this legislation because it prevents women 
     from receiving medical care which ensures their safety and 
     well-being. APHA recognizes that in certain cases when a 
     wanted pregnancy results in a tragic outcome for the fetus or 
     places the woman in harms way the procedure banned by H.R. 
     1833 may be appropriate. This procedure is used rarely but 
     should remain legal and available to ensure that women who 
     face life and health threatening conditions due to their 
     pregnancies are protected and that their health is preserved.
       The bill passed by both chambers of Congress fails to 
     include acceptable life exception language. As it reads, if 
     any other procedure is available, regardless of the risks or 
     injurious long-term effects it could have on the woman, a 
     physician is required by law to utilize the other option. 
     This precludes a physician from employing the dilation and 
     extraction procedure when it would prove less harmful and be 
     more likely to preserve a woman's life and health.
       We urge you to veto this version of the legislation and 
     return it to Congress with a request for the inclusion of 
     broader life exception language which truly protects the 
     lives and health of American women.
           Sincerely,
                                   Fernando M. Trevino, Ph.D. MPH,
      Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                                 Boston University


                                      Medical Center Hospital,

                                        Boston, MA, July 22, 1996.
     Representative Olver,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Olver: Thank you very much for your 
     past opposition of H.R. 1833, the so called partial birth 
     abortion bill. Please vote against the attempt to override 
     President Clinton's veto of this legislation.
       This attempt to prevent women with malformed pregnancies 
     from obtaining late abortion services is not good public 
     health policy, it is not good medical care, and it harms 
     families. Please vote against the override attempt.
           Sincerely,
                                    Phillip G. Stubblefield, M.D.,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

                                        Columbia University School


                                             of Public Health,

                                      New York, NY, June 26, 1996.
     Hon. Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
     U.S. Senate,
     Oneata, NY.
       Dear Senator Moynihan: I write to you to express my concern 
     about an attempt to override President Clinton's veto of H.R. 
     1833, a bill that would allow for the criminal prosecution of 
     physicians who perform certain kinds of abortions.
       This legislation represents an unprecedented intrusion into 
     the practice of medicine and the doctor/patient relationship. 
     The bill targets an abortion method used only in rare and 
     tragic circumstances, eliminates a therapeutic choice for 
     physicians, and imposes a politically inspired risk to the 
     health and safety of a pregnant woman.
       I have attached a copy of the editorial I wrote for the New 
     York Times that outlines my concerns. I went on record on 
     this issue to respond to the overwhelming misinformation 
     surrounding this legislation. As a physician, I am trying my 
     best to counter the religious political extremists who are 
     purposely distorting the facts.
       I have also attached for your review a fact sheet compiled 
     by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to 
     outline some of the medical realities surrounding these 
     medically necessary abortions. I hope you find it helpful, 
     and that you will reconsider your intention to override 
     President Clinton's veto of H.R. 1833.
       I stand ready to provide any information you may need. I 
     can be reached at (212) 305-3929.
           Sincerely,
     Allan Rosenfield, M.D.
                                                                    ____



                                  Cedars-Sinai Medical Center,

                                   Los Angeles, CA, June 27, 1995.
     Hon. Patricia Schroeder,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear------ ------: This is a letter to encourage you to 
     defeat bills H.R. 1833 and S. 9392. These bills aim to ban 
     the surgical procedure of second trimester abortion known as 
     intact D & E.
       I am the Director of Reproductive Genetics and a 
     perinatologist and geneticist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center 
     in Los Angeles. My practice consists primarily of pregnant 
     women who are referred to me by their Obstetrician for an 
     ultrasound and/or genetic evaluation of their ongoing 
     pregnancy. Sometimes I am asked to see women who have a 
     possible abnormal finding on a prenatal ultrasound done by 
     another practitioner. I am usually the final diagnostician in 
     these cases and I spend a tremendous amount of my time 
     counseling families about what I see, how we can approach 
     this problem, how we can clarify what is wrong, and 
     sometimes, how we can fix the fetal abnormality. Often 
     nothing can be done and we are left with an abnormal fetus 
     that is in the late second trimester and a devastated family. 
     With the help of their private doctor, other geneticists, and 
     genetic counselors, we advise parents that we will support 
     them in whatever decision they choose. If they continue the 
     pregnancy, we will be there with them. If they choose to end 
     the pregnancy or wish to explore that option, I refer them to 
     Dr. James McMahon, a practitioner of the type of abortion 
     that is being singled out to be banned in H.R. 1833 and S. 
     9322.
       Dr. McMahon provides an unusual expertise in the 
     termination of late in gestation flawed pregnancies. Without 
     his help, these women would have to go through a pregnancy 
     knowing their child will be born dead, or worse, will live a 
     horribly damaged life. One concept that seems to be lost on 
     the general public is that these pregnancies can have a 
     significant health risk to the mother. Often fetuses that 
     have physical abnormalities will have increased amniotic 
     fluid that can cause uterine atony and severe maternal 
     bleeding at birth. Fetuses that have fluid in their lungs and 
     bodies can cause mothers to experience the ``mirror 
     syndrome'', where they themselves become bloated and 
     dangerously hypertensive. Abnormal fetuses often require 
     operative deliveries, and this puts the mother at increased 
     risk of infection and death. The usual type of termination of 
     pregnancy is a traumatic stretching of the cervix that then 
     increases a woman's chance for infertility in the future. The 
     procedure that is up for ``banning'' allows very passive 
     dilatation of the cervix and allows gentle manipulation to 
     preserve the very much desired fertility of these distraught 
     women. To put it mildly, this is not just a ``fetal issue'', 
     it is a health care issue for the mother as well.
       Who is served by having malformed children born to families 
     that cannot financially or emotionally support them? I know 
     that these decisions are not taken lightly by these families. 
     Some do continue; and they are always back in my office for 
     prenatal diagnosis in their next pregnancy. Raising a damaged 
     child is a sobering experience. Why should families have to 
     go through this once, much less again and again? For those 
     who believe this is ``God's will'' I would challenge them to 
     be that child's caretaker for a day, a week, a month, a 
     lifetime. Frankly, I have the religious conviction that fetal 
     malformations are not ``God's will'' but the devil's work. I 
     cannot believe the Good Lord wants little babies to suffer in 
     this way. And I can't believe the United States of America's 
     Congress is interested in causing families to undergo 
     suffering and pain when they don't have to experience this 
     nightmare. Undergoing a late gestation termination of 
     pregnancy is a terribly heart-wrenching and soul-searching 
     process. Since I refer Dr. McMahon a large number of 
     families, I have gone to his facility and seen for myself 
     what he does and how he does it. The emotional pain that 
     these families suffer will be life-long. But they are 
     comforted by the fact that Dr. McMahon is caring, and gentle, 
     and ultimately life-affirming in his approach to the abortion 
     procedure. Essentially he provides analgesia for the mother 
     that removes anxiety and pain and as a result of this 
     medication the fetus is also sedated. When the cervix is open 
     enough for a safe delivery of the fetus he uses ultrasound 
     guidance to gently deliver the fetal body up to the shoulders 
     and then very quickly and expertly performs what is called a 
     cephalocentesis. Essentially this is removal of cerebrospinal 
     fluid from the brain causing instant brain herniation and 
     death. There is no struggling of the fetus; quite the 
     contrary, from my personal

[[Page S11353]]

     observation I can tell you that the end is extremely humane 
     and rapid. He provides dignity for all of his patients: the 
     mothers, the fathers, the extended families and finally to 
     the fetuses themselves. He does not ``mangle'' fetuses, 
     rather they are delivered intact and that allows us (a team 
     of physicians at Cedars) to evaluate them carefully, and for 
     families to touch and acknowledge their baby in saying 
     goodbye. We work with Dr. McMahon in evaluating many of the 
     malformed fetuses with careful autopsy, molecular studies, 
     and dysmorphological examinations to try and provide the 
     clearest and most precise diagnosis we can for our families 
     as to why this happened to them. Often we can reassure them 
     that this won't happen again; too frequently we must advise 
     them that they carry a genetic mutation that does have a risk 
     of recurrence.
       If Dr. McMahon did not exist I will assure you that most of 
     these families would simply not have children. The divorce 
     and emptiness that would bring is something that, thankfully, 
     is not necessary now. Certainly we all pray that this does 
     not occur again; but if it does the family knows that they 
     can end that pregnancy and try again until finally they 
     achieve what we all want: a healthy, happy, whole baby. That 
     is the essence of family values and I implore each and every 
     person to see beyond their own prejudices and walk in that 
     family's shoes. What would you do if you, your wife, your 
     daughter, or your son's wife had a fetus with half of a 
     brain; a hole where its face should be; a heart malformation 
     so complex that it will require years of painful and 
     ultimately unsuccessful surgery; a lethal chromosome 
     abnormality where your child would never recognize you or 
     itself? Most people are thankful there is another option 
     besides just enduring this.
       My goal is for no family to have to experience abortion. I 
     am working as hard as I know how to understand malformation 
     and the wrong signals of our genes. But until my lofty goal 
     is realized, we need individuals like Jim McMahon to provide 
     the competent services to help these families. This is not 
     just an individual freedom issue, it is a basic issue of 
     society. There is enough tragedy in ordinary life; why make 
     more of it if there are clear and safe alternatives? If you 
     decide that Dr. McMahon and his colleagues should no longer 
     be allowed to practice medicine as they know how, you will be 
     denying women and their families the basic right of freedom 
     of choice and the pursuit of happiness. And you will be 
     condemning a generation of malformed newborns to a life of 
     very expensive pain and suffering. The payment due on that 
     bill is going to be very, very costly to the Government 
     because eventually you and I are going to be maintaining 
     these children. But the payment due on the personal grief 
     this will cause can never be adequately paid. I can't imagine 
     that any of you want to contribute to that debt and you don't 
     have to. Just leave Dr. McMahon alone to do what he does best 
     and let us all work toward the day when he isn't needed 
     anymore.
       Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion.
           Sincerely,
                                         Dru Elaine Carlson, M.D.,
                                  Director, Reproductive Genetics.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the President of the United States has 
offered us today in his veto message a way to pass a bill that makes an 
exception for these narrow cases that Senator Murray talked about, for 
the cases of these families whose faces you will see on this floor. We 
could walk together and do this.
  I made a unanimous-consent request that we set aside this veto 
message, that we pass the bill with a true Hyde life exception and an 
exception for serious adverse health consequences to the woman, and it 
was objected to by the Senator from Pennsylvania. I claim, Mr. 
President, this is politically motivated. Why would they hold this veto 
override for 5 months and bring it up on the last week?
  I urge my colleagues to be courageous. We know what polls show, but I 
am convinced that when people understand that this bill as it is 
crafted will lead to the death of women, to the devastation of 
families, that the American people will side with this courageous 
decision of the President of the United States of America and those of 
us who are willing to stand up and fight for these women and their 
families. I pray to God that we will sustain. Yes, we may have a few 
people who change. That is inevitable in this controversial issue. But 
I think we have enough Democrats and Republicans to sustain this veto.
  At this time I yield 10 minutes to my colleague from Illinois, 
Senator Simon, immediately followed by Senator Kennedy for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. One of 
the things I think all of us who are here ought to consider is the 
Members of the U.S. Senate who could face this problem are the female 
Members of this body. If the women in the U.S. Senate were to cast the 
decisive votes, this bill would never pass. I think that is just one 
thing to keep in mind.
  But these are very practical problems. I would like to read to you, 
Mr. President, a letter from a woman in Naperville, IL. She and her 
family have their picture right in back of me.

       My name is Vikki Stella. I am writing to thank you for 
     opposing this bill, and courageously standing by families 
     like ours. My husband Archer and I have two daughters, 
     Lindsay and Natalie, as well as a beautiful baby boy named 
     Nicholas Archer. Two years ago I had the procedure that H.R. 
     1833 would ban when I found out my unborn son Anthony was 
     dying.
       I was in the third trimester of a pregnancy my doctor 
     called ``disgustingly normal'' when, at 32 weeks, our world 
     turned upside-down. After amniocentesis and five ultrasounds, 
     the sixth ultrasound found grave problems which had not been 
     detected before. Ultimately, my son was diagnosed with at 
     least nine major anomalies, including a fluid-filled cranium 
     with no brain tissue at all; compacted, flattened vertebrae; 
     congenital hip dysplasia; and skeletal dysplasia; and 
     hypertoloric eyes. He would never have survived outside my 
     womb.
       My options were extremely limited because I am diabetic and 
     don't heal as well as other people. Waiting for normal labor 
     to occur, inducing labor early, or having a C-section would 
     have put my life at risk. The only option that would ensure 
     that my daughters would not grow up without their mother was 
     a highly specialized, surgical abortion procedure developed 
     for women with similar difficult conditions. Though we were 
     distraught over losing our son, we knew the procedure was the 
     right option (the very procedure that would be outlawed by 
     H.R. 1833).
       And, as promised, the surgery preserved my fertility. Our 
     darling Nicholas was born in December of 1995.

  Nicholas is the little boy that she is holding, in the picture.

       In our joy over Nicholas' birth, my husband, my daughters 
     and I remember Anthony. The way his short life ended made it 
     possible for this new baby to be born. This beautiful child 
     would not be here today if it were not for Dr. McMahon and 
     the safe and legal surgical procedure he performed.
       I have shared Anthony's story to help you understand that 
     the procedure I underwent helped temper my family's sorrow. 
     Thank you for listening to Anthony's story, for understanding 
     the danger of H.R. 1833, and for supporting President Clinton 
     in his veto of this horrible bill.

  I think we have to listen to women like Vikki Stella. We are not 
talking about abstractions. We are talking about real people, people 
who do not take a baby to that third trimester without the expectation 
of delivering the baby, but something horrible happens like in this 
case.
  I do not think the U.S. Senate or the Federal Government ought to sit 
in judgment. That is a decision for the Stella family, their 
physicians, their spiritual counselors to make. Some people, because of 
conviction, would not have made that decision.
  What I am unwilling to say is the physician who helped them is a 
criminal and should be sent to prison for 2 years. I am unwilling to 
say that Vikki and her husband, Archer, are accessories to a crime. I 
think that decision ought to be made by women and their physicians and 
their spiritual advisers.
  It is interesting that the National Association of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists, who are interested in preserving life and having happy 
families, oppose this legislation.
  I think we need to draw down the emotional temper that is here and 
say, what is happening and why do families feel they are in these 
desperate straits? The one woman I remember who testified, who faced a 
more horrible situation, who chairs her local Roman Catholic Church 
council, just told of her experience.
  These are practical things. If this veto is overridden, this will 
have a practical effect on the lives of a great many people. If this 
bill had passed, little Nicholas, the happy little boy in this picture, 
would not be alive today. We are talking about saving lives. We are 
talking about saving lives like little Nicholas' life. I hope the 
President's veto is not overridden.
  Mrs. BOXER. The Senator from Massachusetts is to immediately follow.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I hope our colleagues listened very 
carefully to our friend and colleague from the State of Washington, 
Senator Murray. She gave one of the finest presentations I have heard 
in the Senate regarding this subject. She spoke about this issue in 
such moving terms.

[[Page S11354]]

  Many of us have seen, over the course of the past days, the real 
appeal to emotionalism. Attempts to try and portray individual Senators 
as being more concerned about life or about children or about women's 
health or other issues than other Senators. I think--having listened to 
a good many of those statements and comments and being a member of the 
Judiciary Committee who attended the hearings--Senator Murray's very 
clear and eloquent statement powerfully summarized the very dramatic 
challenge this issue presents to the Senate. I hope her words and her 
recommendations and her support of the President's veto will be adhered 
to.
  I thank the Senator from California for her leadership during this 
debate, her work on this issue, and all of her efforts with regard to 
women's and children's health issues and health care reform. Although 
others have shown leadership on these issues, I think no one is more 
concerned and more diligent in ensuring good health policy for 
expectant mothers, children, and all Americans, as our friend from 
California. When she addresses these issues, she brings enormous 
credibility to her argument. I commend her for it and for her 
leadership.
  I oppose this legislation, and I urge the Senate to sustain the 
President's veto. The President was right to veto this bill, because it 
fails to include adequate safeguards for the life or the health of the 
mother.
  It makes no sense to criminalize a medical procedure that has saved 
the lives and preserved the health of many women. If our Republican 
colleagues are serious about this difficult and complex issue, they 
would have included a full exception for the life of the mother instead 
of the inadequate exception in this bill. They would also have included 
an exception for serious threats to the health of the mother.
  This bill is too harsh and too extreme in both of these areas. 
Without good faith exceptions for the life and health of the mother, 
the bill, in addition to being too harsh and too extreme, is 
unconstitutional under Roe versus Wade.
  Because of these serious deficiencies, this bill imposes an 
unacceptable burden on women and their doctors. Congress should not 
criminalize a medical procedure needed to deal with cases that threaten 
the life or the health of the mother. In these difficult and traumatic 
and heart-rending cases, Congress should not second guess the judgment 
of the doctor, let alone threaten the doctor with prison.
  Our actions on this issue are not abstract or theoretical as we have 
heard so eloquently from both Senator Murray and Senator Boxer. They 
have real consequences for real families. Listen to the words of 
Richard Ades. Richard and his wife Claudia were expecting a baby boy 
when they discovered the baby had a severe chromosomal abnormality and 
would not live. Claudia's health and life were at risk if the pregnancy 
continued, and their physician recommended this procedure. Now, Mr. 
Ades says,

       I have major concerns with this legislation and what it 
     will mean to our wives, our sisters and our daughters. This 
     is not a women's issue. This was my baby too. This is a 
     family issue. This is not a choice issue. This is a health 
     issue for everyone * * * The procedure under assault * * * 
     protected my wife's health and possibly saved her life. It 
     allowed my son's suffering to end. It allowed us to look 
     forward to a growing family. It was the safest medical 
     procedure available to us.

  It is a fact that this procedure may well be the safest procedure for 
women whose pregnancies have gone tragically wrong and whose life or 
health is in danger. Women in this tragic situation may have other 
options, but those options involve alternative procedures that are 
permitted by this legislation yet are more dangerous for the mother. 
This bill does not stop late-term abortions. It does make such 
abortions more dangerous to the mother. As Prof. Louis Michael Seidman 
testified during the Judiciary Committee hearings, ``All this bill does 
is to channel women from one less risky abortion procedure to another 
more risky abortion procedure.''
  Consider the case of Coreen Costello, who testified before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. She told us that when she was 7 months pregnant, 
her doctor discovered that her baby had a lethal neurological disorder. 
She still wanted to have her baby. She consulted several specialists. 
She was told that natural birth or induced labor were impossible, and 
that a caesarean section would put her health and possibly her life in 
danger. As she said, ``There was no reason to risk leaving my children 
motherless if there was no hope of saving the baby.'' And so she had 
the procedure that this bill would criminalize.
  Mrs. Costello's testimony was powerful and moving. In an attempt to 
undermine it, some of our Republican colleagues questioned whether Mrs. 
Costello actually had the procedure at issue in this legislation. As 
she and other women at our committee hearing testified,

       We are shocked and outraged at attempts by you and other 
     members of the Senate to dismiss our significance as 
     witnesses against the partial birth abortion bill. We are not 
     doctors * * * but we do know that the surgical procedure we 
     went through is the method that is insultingly parodied on 
     your charts and in the ads of the Right-To-Life groups.

  No major medical association supports this legislation. It is 
specifically opposed by many leading medical organizations, including 
the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American 
Public Health Association, the American Medical Women's Association, 
the American Nurses Association, and the California Medical 
Association.
  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which 
represents 35,000 physicians, opposes this legislation. According to 
their statement of opposition, they ``find it very disturbing that 
Congress would take any action that would supersede the medical 
judgment of trained physicians and criminalize medical procedures that 
may be necessary to save the life of a woman. Moreover, in defining 
what medical procedures doctors may or may not perform, H.R. 1833 
employs terminology that is not even recognized in the medical 
community--demonstrating why congressional opinion should never be 
substituted for professional medical judgment.''
  If this bill is enacted into law, Congress will be violating sound 
medical practice and adding to the pain and misery and tragedy of many 
women and their families.
  I urge the Senate to vote to sustain the President's veto.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Does the Senator from Utah want to go forward first?
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield briefly, yes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I yield, first, to the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment 
at the President's decision to veto the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. 
The President's veto was a shocking act. For this President, there are 
apparently no limits.
  While I was very pleased that the House was able to override the 
President's veto, I know that it will be very difficult for the Senate 
to muster the two-thirds supermajority needed to override the veto.
  That makes the President's veto all the more discouraging, because he 
has succeeded in preventing Congress from outlawing an indefensible 
late-term abortion procedure which is disturbingly close to 
infanticide.
  The partial-birth abortion bill received thoughtful consideration in 
the House and the Senate and was the subject of an informative and in-
depth hearing that I chaired in the Judiciary Committee last December.
  The bill is a very limited measure and bans one particularly brutal 
method of late-term abortion that has been performed by only a handful 
of doctors and that is never medically necessary.
  Frankly, I still find it very difficult to believe that anyone could 
oppose this bill. In fact, even pro-choice Members of Congress 
supported this bill. One need not be antiabortion to oppose this 
particularly gruesome procedure.
  In the partial-birth abortion procedure, the doctor partially 
delivers a living fetus so that all but the baby's head remains outside 
the mother's uterus.
  The doctor then uses scissors to make a hole in the baby's skull, 
inserts a suction catheter into the baby's head, and sucks out the 
brains. This kills the baby.

[[Page S11355]]

  The doctor then completes what would otherwise have been a live 
delivery and removes the dead baby.
  I find this procedure indefensible.
  The President indicated that he would support this bill if it was 
amended to provide an exception for the health of the mother.
  I would like to point out how illusory that exception is.
  As testimony at our Judiciary Committee hearing demonstrated, this 
procedure is not performed primarily to save the life of the mother or 
to protect her from serious health consequences.
  Instead, the evidence shows that this procedure is often performed in 
the late second and third trimesters for purely elective reasons.

  I acknowledge that there may have been rare cases where this awful 
procedure was performed and where there was a possibility of serious, 
adverse health consequences to the mother.
  However, even in those cases, a number of other procedures could have 
been performed. In fact, other procedures would have been performed had 
the mothers gone to any other doctor than one of the handful of doctors 
who perform these awful partial-birth abortions.
  The former U.S. Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, recently described 
his opposition to the partial-birth abortion procedure in an interview 
with the American Medical News, which was published in its August 19, 
1996 issue. Dr. Koop stated:

       I believe that Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical 
     advisers on what is fact and what is fiction in reference to 
     late-term abortions. Because in no way can I twist my mind to 
     see that the late-term abortion as described--you know, 
     partial birth, and then destruction of the unborn child 
     before the head is born--is a medical necessity for the 
     mother. It certainly can't be a necessity for the baby. So I 
     am opposed to . . . partial birth abortion.

  That is the view of one of this nation's most distinguished Surgeon 
Generals ever.
  And the fact of the matter is--and this is something that the 
President has not acknowledged--this reprehensible procedure is being 
performed primarily where there are only minor problems with the fetus 
and for purely elective reasons.
  It is not the worthy, necessary procedure the President paints it to 
be.
  Dr. Martin Haskell, one of the few doctors who perform this 
procedure, admitted in testimony given under oath in Federal district 
court in Ohio that he performs the procedure on second trimester 
patients for ``some medical'' and ``some not so medical'' reasons.
  Transcripts from a 1993 interview with the American Medical News 
reveal that Dr. Haskell stated ``most of my abortions are elective in 
the 20-24 week range * * * In my particular case, probably 20 percent 
are for genetic reasons [and] the other 80 percent are purely 
elective.''
  Dr. Nancy Romer, who is a practicing ob-gyn, a professor in the 
department of obstetrics and gynecology at the Wright State University 
School of Medicine, and the vice-chair of the department of obstetrics 
and gynecology at Miami Valley Hospital, both in Dayton, OH, testified 
before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she has cared for patients 
who had received a partial-birth abortion from Dr. Haskell for reasons 
that were purely based on the woman not wanting a baby--as she put it, 
for social reasons.
  This procedure is simply not being done to protect the health and 
safety of women. After reviewing all of the evidence that came out of 
the hearings in the House and Senate on this bill, I don't think there 
can be any question about that.
  However, some of the doctors who perform this procedure 
disingenuously claim that they do it for the health of the mother.

  That is why a health-of-the-mother exception--even one that is, as 
the President now characterizes it, for ``serious, adverse'' health 
consequences--would gut this bill and would be easily exploited by the 
few selected doctors who do this procedure.
  Those doctors would be able to justify it under any circumstances--
particularly since, under the President's suggestion, they would be the 
ones to determine what constituted a ``serious, adverse'' health 
consequence.
  Just look at how the doctors who have performed this procedure have 
already mischaracterized essentially elective reasons for an abortion 
as health-related reasons.
  Dr. McMahon--one of the other doctors who admitted performing this 
procedure--indicated in a 1995 letter submitted to Congress that 
although all of the third trimester abortions he performed were ``non-
elective,'' approximately 80 percent of the abortions he performed 
after 20 weeks of pregnancy were ``therapeutic.''
  But Dr. McMahon then provided the House Judiciary Committee with a 
listing of the so-called therapeutic indications for which he performed 
the procedure. That list is astonishing.
  It shows that the single most common reason for which the partial-
birth abortion was performed by him was maternal depression.
  He also listed substance abuse on the part of the mother as a 
therapeutic reason for which he performed the procedure.
  In terms of so-called fetal abnormalities, Dr. McMahon's own list 
indicates that he performed the procedure numerous times in cases in 
which the fetus had no more serious a problem than a cleft lip.
  Dr. Haskell has similarly acknowledged that he is not performing the 
procedure in critical instances of maternal or fetal health.
  In Dr. Haskell's testimony in Federal district court in Ohio, Dr. 
Haskell stated: ``Patients that are critically ill at the time they're 
referred for termination, I probably would not see. Most of the 
patients that are referred to me for termination are at least healthy 
enough to undergo an operation on an outpatient basis or else I would 
not undertake it.''
  When asked about the specific health-related reasons for which he 
performed the partial-birth abortion procedure, Dr. Haskell specified 
that he has performed the procedure in cases involving high blood 
pressure, diabetes, and agoraphobia--fear of going outside--on the part 
of the mother.
  Would we want to entrust these doctors with determining when a 
``serious, adverse'' health consequence existed?
  Is it any wonder that those who really want to see this horrifying 
procedure ended see the President's proposed exception for the giant 
loophole that it really is?
  The evidence has shown that in no case is this particularly gruesome 
procedure necessary for the woman's life or health. Medical testimony 
in the committee's hearing record indicates that, even if an abortion 
were to be performed in late pregnancy for a variety of complications, 
a number of other procedures could be performed, such as the far more 
common classical D&E --or dilation and extraction procedure or an 
induction procedure.

  When asked whether the exact procedure Dr. McMahon used would ever be 
medically necessary, several doctors at our hearing explained that it 
would not. Dr. Nancy Romer stated that she had never had to resort to 
that procedure and that none of the physicians that she worked with had 
ever had to use it.
  Dr. Pamela Smith, the director of medical education in the department 
of obstetrics and gynecology at the Mount Sinai Medical Hospital Center 
in Chicago, stated that a doctor would never need to resort to the 
partial-birth abortion procedure.
  Further, the hearing record refutes the claim that in some 
circumstances a partial-birth abortion will be the safest option 
available for a late-term abortion.
  An article published in the November 20, 1995 issue of the American 
Medical News quoted Dr. Warren Hern as stating, ``I would dispute any 
statement that this is the safest procedure to use.'' Dr. Hern is the 
author of ``Abortion Practice,'' the Nation's most widely used textbook 
on abortion standards and procedures.
  He also stated in that interview that he ``has very strong 
reservations'' about the partial-birth abortion procedure banned by 
this bill.
  Indeed, referring to the procedure, he stated, ``You really can't 
defend it. I'm not going to tell somebody else that they should not do 
this procedure. But I'm not going to do it.''
  In fairness to Dr. Hern, I note that he does not support this bill in 
part because he feels this is the beginning of legislative efforts to 
chip away at abortion rights. His opinion on the this procedure, 
however, is highly informative.

[[Page S11356]]

  I think Dr. Nancy Romer's testimony explained it best. She said:

       If this procedure were absolutely necessary, then I would 
     ask you, why does no one that I work with do it? We have two 
     high-risk obstetricians, and a medical department of about 40 
     obstetricians, and nobody does it. We care for and do second-
     trimester abortions, and we have peer review. We are watching 
     each other, and if we truly were doing alternative procedures 
     that were killing women left and right, we would be out there 
     looking for something better. We would be going to Dr. 
     Haskell and saying, please, come help us do this. And we are 
     not. We are satisfied with what we do. We are watching each 
     other and we know that the care that we provide is adequate 
     and safe.

  In short, this procedure cannot be justified as needed for the health 
or safety of women. The President's attempt to characterize it as such 
is misleading and disingenuous.
  Let me be clear that this bill does not penalize the mother if a 
partial-birth abortion is performed in violation of the bill. Moreover, 
there is a life-of-the-mother exception in the bill.
  President Clinton came into the White House pledging to take a 
moderate, mainstream course on the abortion issue. But his veto of this 
legislation reveals his extreme views for what they are.
  This veto does not even represent the thoughtful pro-choice position. 
It represents the abortion anytime, anywhere, under any circumstances, 
position.
  We should be very clear that this horrifying procedure, which is 
never medically necessary for the life or health of the mother, will 
continue because of the actions of the President.
  He could have taken a compassionate position on this issue, 
determined that even as a pro-abortion President, this procedure is 
beyond the pale, and signed this legislation.
  Instead, he chose to preserve this procedure. I agree with our 
colleague Senator Moynihan, who observed that this procedure was ``as 
close to infanticide as anything I've ever seen.''
  The victims of late-term partial birth abortions are children. There 
can be no question about that.
  Thanks to this Presidential veto, if the Senate fails to override it, 
this procedure will continue to be performed in this country. And that 
is a sad commentary on just how immune we have become to blood and 
gore, even when it is performed on innocent babies.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to override this veto.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I remember the first time I visited 
Washington. I was 18 years old and came here with my mother and father 
and my sister, Mary. It was in the spring and I was a young college 
student. I remember visiting the Capitol and seeing for the first time 
the Chamber that we are now in--a memory I have never lost. I came back 
here 3 years later as a law student.
  During my years at Georgetown, I visited the Congress, especially the 
U.S. Senate, over and over again. I heard so many of the great debates, 
from civil rights, through Supreme Court nominations, to what the 
Senate would do following the tragic change of Presidents in 1963.
  In those debates, the Senate upheld its role in the continuity of our 
country and the Senate helped shape the conscience of the Nation.
  After law school I went back to Vermont and was fortunate to become a 
prosecutor in our State's largest county. To many, it may appear that a 
prosecutor faces cut-and-dried questions. One either broke the law or 
one didn't.
  I quickly learned that it was not quite that easy a choice. The 
greatest thing a prosecutor possesses besides his or her integrity is 
prosecutorial discretion. The prosecutor always has to ask if the law 
is just and does the penalty fit the crime. In 1972 I was faced with a 
question about Vermont's abortion statute. I long felt that this was a 
case where the law, even if constitutional, carried a punishment that 
did not reflect the crime. The law said that there would be significant 
penalties of 10 years and not less than 3 years for anybody who brought 
about an abortion at any time during a pregnancy for any reason except 
to save the life of the mother. To me, such a statute was unrealistic, 
apparently unconstitutional, and far too strict. I felt this even as 
one who wished there never would be abortions.

  This matter became a Vermont Supreme Court issue in the case of 
Beechem v. Leahy (130 VT 1164) decided on February 8, 1972.
  The Vermont Supreme Court actually used my argument and said:

       We hold that the legislature, having affirmed the right of 
     a woman to abort, cannot simultaneously, by denying medical 
     aid in all but the cases where it is necessary to preserve 
     her life, prohibit its safe exercise. This is more than 
     regulation, and an anomaly fatal to the application of this 
     statute to medical practioners.

  The court spoke of the statute being not regulative but prohibitive 
and in doing that they were a remarkable prelude to Roe versus Wade 
decided 11 months later.
  We Vermonters said the question of having an abortion was a difficult 
and personal question and one to be decided between a woman and her 
doctor. The law stepped in only in extraordinary circumstances.
  I am proud of the Vermont Supreme Court and proud of my role in their 
decision because it did protect a woman's right to choose. That has to 
be one of the most difficult decisions any woman can make.
  Today, it is still the most difficult decision, and no legislator and 
no legislation should interfere, except in the most extreme cases, 
because a woman must make that decision for herself and for her 
conscience.
  To this day, I recall the awe I felt walking on the Senate floor for 
the first time. I knew I walked where the giants of all parties who 
served here had walked. Today, like every day since, I remember the 
emotion of that first day in the Senate. I also recall the days as a 
young law student, sitting in the visitor's gallery, and thinking 
``This truly is the body where our Nation's conscience resides.''
  When I first ran for the Senate, I quoted Edmund Burke when I asked 
my fellow Vermonters to trust me with this office.
  Burke said:

       * * * it ought to be the happiness and glory of a 
     representative to live in the strictest union, the closest 
     correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with 
     his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight 
     with him; their opinions high respect; their business 
     unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, 
     his pleasure, his satisfactions, to theirs--and above all, 
     ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own.
       But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his 
     enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, * * 
     * These he does not derive from your pleasure * * * no, nor 
     from the law and the Constitution. They are a trust from 
     Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. 
     Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his 
     judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he 
     sacrifices it to your opinion.

  When the issue before us came up for a vote, I saw a poorly drafted 
statute; in fact, the suggestions contained in the letter from 
President Clinton to Senator Daschle demonstrate how much better the 
statute could have been drafted, and I wish this body had followed the 
suggestion of the distinguished Senator from California, Senator Boxer, 
who asked that we introduce and pass--as we would almost unanimously--
legislation similar to what was suggested by the President. I was also 
offended by some--although not all--in the debate who looked only to 
politics and not the protection of a viable fetus. While President 
Clinton's veto may not be overridden today, I would ask both sides to 
put politics aside and consider writing legislation similar to what the 
President suggested. It would get broad bipartisan support.

  As I have thought, and rethought that vote, I believe I reacted to a 
poorly drafted statute and a political debate. Instead, I should have 
asked, what for me is the ultimate question, what does the conscience 
of Patrick Leahy say?
  The Senate can only be our Nation's conscience if we Senators follow 
ours on these matters. I respect all my constituents and all the 
Senators who will vote on this override. But on this issue my 
conscience, and my conscience alone, must determine my vote. I will 
vote to override.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Texas.

[[Page S11357]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, the issue before us is not about the right 
of a woman to choose. It is not even about the right to life for unborn 
children. This debate is about a repulsive procedure which should not 
be condoned in any civilized society. We are talking about banning a 
late-term abortion that is carried out through a gruesome procedure 
where a living baby is delivered through the birth canal feet first--
everything except the head--and then the life of the child is 
terminated. The child is literally 3 inches away from the full 
constitutional protection of the law.
  This is an issue about how civilized our society is and what 
practices we will allow to be conducted on human beings.
  So I hope my colleagues, no matter where they stand on the issue of 
right to life or the right of a woman to choose, will recognize that 
this is a special case. This is a gruesome, uncivilized procedure, and 
this procedure should be banned.
  I hope each of us will think through this issue and ponder it--not 
only in our minds but in our hearts. I believe, if Senators will do 
that, we will override this veto, and that we will ban this practice 
that no civilized society should condone.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Alaska 3 
minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on December 7, 1995, this body passed S. 
939, a bill that would place a national ban on the partial-birth 
abortion procedures, except in cases in which the procedure is 
necessary to save the life of the mother. On April 10, 1996, President 
Clinton vetoed that bill. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my 
colleagues to override the Presidential veto and put an end to the 
tragic procedure known as a partial-birth abortion.
  President Clinton defended his act of vetoing this bill by stating 
that a partial-birth abortion is a procedure that is medically 
necessary in certain ``compelling cases'' to protect the mother from 
``serious injury to her health'' or to avoid the mother ``losing the 
ability to ever bear further children.''
  President Clinton was misinformed. According to reputable medical 
testimony and evidence given before this Congress by partial-birth 
abortion practitioners, partial-birth abortions are: more widespread 
than its defenders admit; used predominantly for elective purposes; and 
are never necessary to safeguard the mother's health or fertility.
  Mr. President, my Alaskan office has received more mail in the last 
week on this issue than any other issue this year--over 1,900 calls and 
letters--imploring the Senate's help to end this tragic procedure.
  Mr. President, I note the extraordinary effort by many of our Members 
to try to take the emotion out of this procedure, and I was 
particularly moved by statements made by our colleague from Tennessee, 
who is a medical physician. In his statement, Senator Frist was 
specific relative to the reality that this was not a necessary 
procedure. His statement certainly supports other experts.
  Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop stated that he ``believed that 
Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical advisers on what is fact and what 
is fiction in reference to late-term abortions.'' Dr. Koop went on to 
say, ``In no way can I twist my mind to see that the late-term abortion 
as described as * * * partial birth * * * is a medical necessity for 
the mother.''
  In an editorial in today's New York Times, C. Everett Koop, added,

       With all that modern medicine has to offer, partial-birth 
     abortions are not needed to save the life of the mother * * 
     *. Recent reports have concluded that a majority of partial-
     birth abortions are elective, involving a healthy woman and a 
     normal fetus.

  Mr. President, I ask that the remainder of Dr. Koop's editorial be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the New York Times, Sept. 26, 1996]

                   Why Defend Partial-Birth Abortion?

                          (By C. Everett Koop)

       Hanover, NH.--The debate in Congress about the procedure 
     known as partial-birth abortion reveals a deep national 
     uneasiness about abortion 23 years after the Supreme Court 
     legalized it. As usual, each side in the debate shades the 
     statistics and distorts the facts. But in this case, it is 
     the abortion-rights advocates who seem inflexible and rigid.
       The Senate is expected to vote today on whether to join the 
     House in overriding President Clinton's veto of a bill last 
     April banning partial-birth abortion. In this procedure, a 
     doctor pulls out the baby's feet first, until the baby's head 
     is lodged in the birth canal. Then, the doctor forces 
     scissors through the base of the baby's skull, suctions out 
     the brain, and crushes the skull to make extraction easier. 
     Even some pro-choice advocates wince at this, as when Senator 
     Daniel Patrick Moynihan termed it ``close to infanticide.''
       The anti-abortion forces often imply that this procedure is 
     usually performed in the third trimester on fully developed 
     babies. Actually, most partial-birth abortions are performed 
     late in the second trimester, around 26 weeks. Some of these 
     would be viable babies.
       But the misinformation campaign conducted by the advocates 
     of partial-birth abortion is much more misleading. At first, 
     abortion-rights activists claimed this procedure hardly ever 
     took place. When pressed for figures, several pro-abortion 
     groups came up with 500 a year, but later investigations 
     revealed that in New Jersey alone 1,500 partial-birth 
     abortions are performed each year. Obviously, the national 
     annual figure is much higher.
       The primary reason given for this procedure--that is often 
     medically necessary to save the mother's life--is a false 
     claim, though many people, including President Clinton, were 
     misled into believing this. With all that modern medicine has 
     to offer, partial-birth abortions are not needed to save the 
     life of the mother, and the procedure's impact on a woman's 
     cervix can put future pregnancies at risk. Recent reports 
     have concluded that a majority of partial-birth abortions are 
     elective, involving a healthy woman and normal fetus.
       I'll admit to a personal bias: In my 30 years as a 
     pediatric surgeon, I operated on newborns as tiny as some of 
     these aborted babies, and we corrected congenital defects so 
     the could live long and productive lives.
       In their strident effort to protect partial-birth abortion, 
     the pro-choice people remind me of the gun lobby. The gun 
     lobby is so afraid of any effort to limit any guns that it 
     opposes even a ban on assault weapons, though most gun owners 
     think such a ban is justified.
       In the same way, the pro-abortion people are so afraid of 
     any limit on abortion that they have twisted the truth to 
     protect partial-birth abortion, even though many pro-choice 
     Americans find it reasonable to ban the procedure. Neither 
     AK-47's nor partial-birth abortions have a place in civil 
     society.
       Both sides in the controversy need to straighten out their 
     stance. The pro-life forces have done little to help prevent 
     unwanted pregnancies, even though that is why most abortions 
     are performed. They have also done little to provide for 
     pregnant women in need.
       On the other side, the pro-choice forces talk about medical 
     necessity and under-represent abortion's prevalence: each 
     year about 1.5 million babies have been aborted, very few of 
     them for ``medical necessity.'' The current and necessarily 
     graphic debate about partial-birth abortion should remind all 
     of us that what some call a choice, others call a child.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, other physicians agree with the former 
Surgeon General: Three physicians, who treat pregnant women and their 
babies on a regular basis, submitted an editorial in a September 19, 
1996, Wall Street Journal editorial and declared that ``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.''
  A partial-birth abortion is not only tragic, it is violent. The 
procedure is one in which four-fifths of the child is delivered before 
the abhorrent process of killing the child begins. Sadly, throughout 
this procedure the majority of babies are alive and able to move and 
may actually feel pain during this ordeal.
  Ms. Brenda Schafer, a nurse who observed a partial-birth abortion, 
made this moving statement before a congressional committee:

       The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and 
     his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the 
     scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked 
     out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does 
     when he thinks he is going to fall.
       The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered 
     suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains 
     out. Now the baby went completely limp.

  Mr. President, we have heard much of the brutal reality associated 
with the

[[Page S11358]]

process, but let us not forget this reality: the child is within a few 
moments or a few inches from being protected by law. The suggestion is 
that this is a fetus; Mr. President, I suggest that this is a baby.
  It is not a fetus. It is a baby.
  Mr. President, it's not easy for any here to discuss this topic, but 
unfortunately, those are the true, stark, and brutal realities of a 
partial-birth abortion. And Mr. President, I must tell you that as a 
father of six, I am profoundly affected and disturbed by Ms. Schafer's 
statement.
  I, and others who support this act, sympathize with a woman who is in 
a difficult and extreme circumstance, but no circumstance can justify 
the killing of an infant who is four-fifths born. My good friend and 
colleague Senator Moynihan, who is a pro-choice Democrat declared that 
this practice of partial-birth abortions is just too close to 
infanticide.
  That is why I hope that this is the one issue that can unite pro-life 
and pro-choice individuals. Because, Mr. President, the vote today is 
not an issue of pro-life or pro-choice--it's an issue of putting an end 
to an abhorrent and inhumane procedure.
  Dr. Pamela Smith, in a House hearing on this issue, succinctly stated 
why Congress must act: ``The baby is literally inches from being 
declared a legal person by every state in the union. The urgency and 
seriousness of these matters therefore require appropriate legislative 
action.''
  We are here with an obligation. Mr. President, this matter is urgent. 
This procedure cannot be defended medically and cannot be defended 
morally. I profoundly believe that it is a fitting and proper interest 
of the Government to protect human life--both of the mother and the 
child--healthy and disable. I strenuously urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of overriding President Clinton's veto of the partial-birth 
abortion ban.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. I am going to ask that the 
Senator from Illinois address us for up to 15 minutes, or as much time 
as she wishes. Before that, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond to a 
couple of the statements that have been made.
  Mr. President, we could reach an agreement by unanimous consent to 
send a bill to the President that he would sign without all of this 
procedure but for the life and health of the woman. In fact, I have 
offered that by unanimous consent, and it was objected to by the 
Senator from Pennsylvania. He does not believe in that exemption, and 
he opposes it. He says it is a loophole. We say we can draw it in such 
a way that it could only be used to save precious lives. And instead of 
making this a political issue that goes into the election cycle, we 
could agree today to outlaw this procedure but for saving the life of 
the woman or to spare her long-term adverse health consequences.
  I agree with the Senator from Texas when he says this is about how 
civilized our society is. And I would ask all Americans to decide for 
themselves. Is it civilized to outlaw a procedure that saved this 
woman's life, Coreen Costello? It is one example of many we will talk 
about. It ensured her fertility so she could have this little baby, 
Tucker. It seems to me it is uncivilized, indeed. It is cruel and 
inhumane to take away a tool from a doctor who feels it is, in fact, 
the only tool he or she may have to save this little life and to spare 
her husband and her children the tragedy of this situation.
  My friend from Ohio says, ``Well, this woman does not know what she 
is talking about. She didn't have this procedure.'' Well, she just 
wrote us yesterday. How arrogant can we get? Some Senators down here 
think they know more than doctors. They think they know more than the 
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American 
Nurses Association, the national organization representing 2.2 million 
registered nurses. They think they know more than the American Medical 
Women's Association. They think they know more than the American Public 
Health Association, and now they think they know more than this woman. 
They are telling this woman what procedure she had and didn't have when 
she and her doctor know very well that if this bill had been the law of 
the land, she may not be here.
  I ask for order in the Chamber, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California may proceed.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think this is a test of whether or not 
we are civilized. I think protecting mothers and babies and families is 
civilized. I think we can join hands here and outlaw this procedure 
unless the woman's life is at stake or her health is severely 
threatened.

  I yield as much time as she may consume to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator from California.
  Mr. President, the Senate's job is to be as rational as possible in 
our discussion of volatile issues like this one and to consider what is 
really at stake. There are many issues in this debate. What is at stake 
is a woman's personal liberty as guaranteed by our Constitution. What 
is at stake is the setting of a precedent by the Members of this 
Congress in making medical decisions and judgments that are better left 
to physicians.
  What is at stake is a determination whether or not Congress should in 
good conscience prevent a woman from making decisions regarding her own 
difficult reproductive choices in consultation with her family, her 
doctor, and her God.
  Personal liberty, Mr. President, is something that every American 
holds dear. It is woven into the fabric of our Nation and our beliefs 
and represented in our Declaration of Independence and our 
Constitution. There are certain aspects of our life in which we 
encourage Government intervention, where we, the people, wish to 
provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare as 
stated in the Constitution. We expect the police to come in when we are 
in trouble; we want our water to be clean and our medicine to be safe.
  There are other aspects of our lives in which, however, we expect the 
Government to honor our inalienable rights and our personal liberty and 
to refrain from interfering. Who we vote for, what we believe in, where 
we live are all choices that we make free from Government intervention. 
We should hope that these decisions will always be private and personal 
ones without the dictates of the law telling us what we must do.
  The ability of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a 
pregnancy is, I believe, one of those instances where the Government 
must refrain--indeed, is required by our Constitution to refrain--from 
interfering in our personal lives. It is a central issue of a woman's 
citizenship and goes to the most private matter of her life. The U.S. 
Supreme Court in Roe versus Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey said a 
State may not prohibit postviability abortions to protect the life or 
health of a woman. It upheld the woman's equality under the law when 
such personal matters are concerned and said that a woman, in 
consultation with her physician, could make a decision about her 
health, about her life and about her pregnancy.
  Women do not always have the luxury of making a popular decision 
regarding termination of a pregnancy. Indeed, it is probably one of the 
most difficult matters in anyone's family. But women should have the 
protection of the law in making a decision that is in the best 
interests of her health and of her family. I would point out that this 
is probably the most personal decision and should be one of the most 
private ones.
  I also point out--and this is a point that somehow or other gets lost 
in this debate all the time--no Member of this Senate can face the 
trauma that is represented by the issue of late-term abortion--no 
Member of this Senate. The men of this Senate cannot be pregnant, and I 
daresay for the women of the Senate pregnancy is a hypothetical matter 
of nostalgia.
  This theoretical debate we are having seems to ignore altogether the 
very personal issues for those who are of childbearing years. I believe 
that we have an obligation to consider their views even when those 
views may be unpopular and make certain that their liberties are not 
eroded by the passion of this debate.

[[Page S11359]]

  This bill takes a personal decision and makes it a public one, and it 
provides for an exception in this instance only for life and then only 
for life as a way of affirmative defense. Reproductive choice is, in 
the final analysis, about the relationship of women citizens, of female 
citizens to their Government. Reproductive choice is central to their 
liberty.

  We are charged in this democracy with doing what is right and not 
simply what is popular. There is no question but that abortion is a 
highly charged and volatile issue. Our Constitution guarantees the 
right to hold views and opinions that may not always be popular ones. 
Protection of those minority views is also central to our liberty. A 
family in crisis with a late-term pregnancy may not be able to consider 
the debate that we have here but they will very much consider what is 
going on in their family, what is going on with their life and the 
practical effect that it may have on not just the life but the health 
of the people involved.
  I think it is very important for us to take a look at and to consider 
for a moment what is at stake with regard to those who have gone 
through the late-term abortion trauma that is reflected in this debate.
  One of the issues that was raised by the senior Senator from Illinois 
had to do with an Illinois woman, Vikki Stella. This is her picture 
with her family. It has been on the floor for a while. Vikki Stella's 
story is one of tragedy and of courage. She and her husband were 
expecting their third child. At 32 weeks, she had her second sonogram. 
When the technician asked her to come upstairs and talk to the doctor, 
Vikki thought maybe it was because the baby was a breech. She is a 
diabetic, and she knew that any complications could be serious. After 
the second ultrasound, however, Vikki and her husband learned from the 
doctor that the child she was carrying had no brain. Vikki had to make 
the hardest decision of her life, and this is how she explains it. She 
said, I had to remove my son from life support and that was me.
  Vikki did the hardest thing that a parent can do. She watched her 
child abort. She says in a letter which has been read on the floor but 
I want to have it accepted for the record, and I quote:

       My options were extremely limited because I am diabetic and 
     don't heal as well as other people. Waiting for normal labor 
     to occur, inducing labor early, or having a C-section would 
     have put my life at risk. The only option that would ensure 
     that my daughters would not grow up without their mother was 
     a highly specialized, surgical abortion procedure developed 
     for women with similar difficult conditions. Though we were 
     distraught over losing our son, we knew the procedure was the 
     right option (the very procedure that would be outlawed by 
     H.R. 1833).

  So I tell the story to my colleagues because it is a true story about 
a real woman, about a real family handling an awful situation in the 
best way that they knew how. This is exactly the kind of case where my 
colleagues who want to override this veto want to substitute their 
judgment for the judgment of the family and their doctor.
  I have told the story before in the Chamber and I would point out 
that just yesterday--just yesterday--I had occasion to speak with 
another woman in my office, Claudia Ades, a woman who lived in Illinois 
at one point and she now lives in California. This woman described a 
situation in which she and her husband desperately wanted their baby 
and learned only at the late term that the baby could not live if born 
and she would give up any ability she might have to carry a subsequent 
child to term if she did not abort. So she had to make a similar 
difficult decision.
  She sat in my office with tears in her eyes and she wondered why she 
had to go through this. She asked the Lord, ``Why me?'' She had come to 
the conclusion that she had had to go through that precisely so she 
could tell the story to help save the lives of other women who would be 
faced with the same situation, and that her child had been a sacrifice 
which she hoped would mean that other women would be able to hold on to 
their personal liberty, would be able to hold on to their right to make 
their own medical decision regarding a pregnancy.
  We are with this attempt to override trying to substitute the 
judgment of a group of people who do not have to go through this, who 
do not have to go through this in life, or not have it even touch their 
lives, and yet we are becoming physicians and we are becoming experts 
and we are speaking about this issue in terms which frankly appeal to 
the popular consciousness because this procedure is not an easy one to 
look at, to hear about, to talk about.
  It is almost embarrassing to stand on this floor and talk about the 
vaginal cavity and the procedure that is performed, but I daresay if we 
talked about the harm we may well do by stepping in where we have no 
right, by taking liberties away from people to make their own private 
decisions, we will do more harm to our country and to women who are 
faced with this decision and their families than anything else.
  Mr. President, I have to tell you, I do not personally, and I have 
said this on the floor before as well, I do not favor abortion. My own 
religious beliefs hold life dear, and I would prefer that every 
potential child have a chance to be born. But the personal, fundamental 
right of freedom and liberty that we hold dear in this country dictates 
to me that we must not intervene with the most personal of all 
decisions, and that is a decision about whether or not to carry a 
traumatic pregnancy to term.
  I am not prepared to substitute the Government's judgments for the 
judgments of women, of their families, and of their physicians in this 
decision. I am not prepared to say that a woman's life is worth less 
because she is carrying a pregnancy. I do not believe that the State 
has a right to intervene in the relationship between a woman and her 
body, her doctor, and her God. I urge my colleagues to vote to uphold 
this veto.
  This difficult issue has a lot of aspects to it, but one that I hope 
that my colleagues will consider is the constitutional liberty that is 
at stake here today, the delicate balance between the rights of a woman 
to make decisions about her health and her body and the rights of the 
State.
  At the end of the drafting of our Constitution there was a colloquy. 
At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin 
Franklin was asked, ``Well, Doctor. what have we got * * *?'' And 
Benjamin Franklin answered, ``A Republic, if you can keep it.''
  I believe that our Republic stands for the inalienable rights that we 
enjoy as human beings and, as citizens of this great country, those 
include the right of a woman and her family to make a decision about 
her health and her body and whether or not she will carry a difficult 
pregnancy to term. I do not believe that it is consistent with our 
constitutional responsibilities, that it is consistent with the scope 
of our understanding, that we intervene in this very difficult and 
personal and private decision; that we take the liberty from women to 
make this decision. I encourage my colleagues to uphold the veto in 
this emotionally charged case.
  I yield the floor to the Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, is there any time remaining on the 15 
minutes of mine?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator used about 12 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield myself the 3 minutes that Senator 
Moseley-Braun did not use, to talk about her remarks for a moment. Then 
I intend to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, Senator 
Lautenberg.
  Let me say, before my friend and colleague has to leave the floor, 
Senator Moseley-Braun, because I know she has people waiting in her 
office but I just want to thank her so much for participating at this 
point. I think both Senators from Illinois did a very special service 
to this body by bringing the issue out of theory, out of cartoon 
drawings of women's bodies which, frankly, many of us find offensive on 
the floor, to the reality of what happens in families today. The story 
she has told about Vikki Stella is a story that, unfortunately, too 
many of our families go through.
  A loving family, a wanted and loved child, suddenly learning at the 
end of a pregnancy that something has gone terribly wrong, danger to 
the woman, danger to her family, and at that point I think what the 
Senator has put in

[[Page S11360]]

such good terms in this debate: Who do we want to make the decision of 
what is best for her? Do we want that family, that doctor, and their 
God to make this decision? Or do we want a U.S. Senator to make that 
decision and take a tool away from a physician, a physician who says he 
or she needs that tool to save that mother's life?

  I think the answer is clearly, if we are a civilized society, we can 
walk down together on this bill. We can say this procedure should only 
be allowed in just those circumstances that the Senator described. The 
President has said that. The President has offered that. He has held 
out his hand. He has said he would sign such a bill that made a true 
life exception and a health exception. He, in fact, outlawed late-term 
abortion when he was the Governor of Arkansas, but for life and health. 
So I thank my colleague. Before she left, I wanted to thank her so much 
for her participation.
  I also want to say that, again, it seems to me arrogant of some who 
would, in fact, substitute their own judgment for the judgment of 
families and physicians. I want to quickly quote, in the time I have 
remaining, from some of the finest doctors, from some of the finest 
medical schools in this United States of America.
  From Boston University, a doctor says, ``This bill eliminates the 
therapeutic choice for physicians and imposes a politically inspired 
risk to the health and safety of a pregnant woman.''
  From Cedar-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, one of the most 
respected institutions in California. I am going to read this quote 
much later, but just in part it basically says if you outlaw this 
procedure you cannot help distraught women.
  I yield myself an additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator there is a 
unanimous-consent order we would vacate the Chamber at 12:30.
  Mrs. BOXER. I set this aside, and yield the floor to Senator 
Lautenberg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will be brief because I have 
listened to the debate as it has gone on. I must at the outset say that 
I hope we will support the President's veto. The case has been made by 
those with whom I disagree, obviously, I think very carefully, very 
articulately. I think there is one thing we can agree upon. That is, 
neither side accepts late-term abortions as something they would like 
to see done routinely; neither side. Not this side, for sure. I say, 
this side, I am not talking about the party side of the aisle. I am 
talking about those on this side of the debate. It is a terrible thing 
to contemplate. The problem is, this bill is a confrontation of a 
problem that is very serious, being judged, in my view, by the wrong 
folks in the wrong place. The decision has to be made in the privacy of 
a discussion between a woman, her conscience, and her physician.
  President Clinton has, along with many of us here, argued that this 
bill should be modified to take account of women's health needs. One of 
the most extreme elements of this bill is the failure to include the 
exception in which the health of the mother is at risk. My friend and 
colleague, who is managing the support for the President, has so 
clearly said so many times: Give the doctors and families a chance to 
make the decision that includes an analysis of the mother's health 
requirements and you would not have any problem obtaining support for 
that legislation. I commend her for her courage, for her determination 
in leading this effort.
  To try to cloak this in terms of whimsical or casual decisionmaking 
is really unfair. This is not something where a woman carries the fetus 
6 months and then, in the later stage, would one think, anyone think, 
rationally, that she would just like to say, ``OK, it's time. I want to 
get rid of this. I am tired of carrying it.'' No. Those decisions are 
not casual or careless. Those decisions are very weighty decisions and 
they have to be taken in that context. They are about the life and 
health of women.
  My youngest daughter, one of my three daughters, carried her first 
pregnancy 7 months. We were all elated at the prospect of her having a 
child. She would have been--all three daughters now have children, this 
one included. After 7 months she called me up and in very tearful terms 
said to me, ``Daddy, the baby died.'' Seven months--the child got 
twisted in the cord and expired.
  I know from talking to physicians that there was always the worst 
possibility, that that child could wind up brain damaged and cause, in 
fact, a collateral risk to her health.
  She has since had the most beautiful child in the whole world, and I 
know that. None of us who are defending the President's veto are casual 
about life. It is unfair to cast us that way.
  The argument, Mr. President, I think, has unfairly been made in 
pictorial terms. The most simple operation, the simplest procedure is 
ugly to witness--ugly to witness--whether it is an appendectomy, or 
whatever have you. If you are not a professional, to see the blood, to 
see the tissue torn, et cetera, is a hideous sight to behold.
  The picture that ought to be taken for the nonprofessional is the one 
that is postoperative, the one that shows a woman's health, the one 
that shows vibrancy, the one that shows the future. That is the picture 
that has to be taken.
  I know time is limited, and we are forced by conditions here to 
conclude our debate momentarily. I will just say, for goodness sake, 
don't, in this room where politics dominates the discussion, take away 
the right of a woman, with her conscience fully included in her 
decision, to make this important decision in consultation with a 
physician. Let's not interfere in this difficult decision. This bill is 
not fair to American women and I hope we will stick with the President 
and his veto of this legislation.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from New Jersey the 
question I asked the Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object. Was time to be up at 
12:30?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. If so, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from 
Pennsylvania be given a minute and the Senator from California be given 
a minute and then we close down.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, if that baby at 24 weeks was delivered 
accidentally, just like that, but instead of the head being held in by 
the physician, the head was accidentally delivered by mistake, would 
the doctor and the mother have a right to kill that baby?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. My colleague from Pennsylvania can cloak it in any 
terms. What I support is a ban on late-term, healthy conditions.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Answer the question.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. No, frame the question----
  Mr. SANTORUM. If the baby was delivered and the head slipped out, 
would you allow the doctor to kill the baby?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am not making the decision.
  Mr. SANTORUM. But that's what we are doing here, we are making 
decisions.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. You are making decisions that say a doctor doesn't--
--
  Mr. SANTORUM. Three inches doesn't make the difference as to whether 
you answer the question?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Someone has the knowledge, intelligence, and 
experience making the decision, as opposed to a graphic demonstration 
that says this is the way we are going to do it.
  Mr. President, I would just like to make a few other comments about 
this bill. When the Senate originally considered this bill, it failed 
to pass the Boxer amendment. That amendment would have created an 
exception to the ban on late term abortions, where necessary to ``avert 
serious adverse health consequences to the woman.''
  As a result, if a doctor expects that a woman would otherwise become 
permanently disabled, sterile, or seriously impaired, under this bill, 
the doctor would still be prohibited from performing this procedure. A 
doctor would have to feel absolutely certain that carrying a fetus to 
term would endanger the life of the mother, or the doctor

[[Page S11361]]

could not provide the medical services to avoid this consequence.
  Mr. President, this issue is a question of trust. Do you trust 
politicians to make complicated medical decisions affecting women's 
lives? Or do you trust medical experts consulting with families? This 
bill says: politicians know best. I say: let's trust the doctors and 
the families.
  Mr. President, let me say that I know there are many Americans who 
feel very strongly about the issue of abortion. It's a deeply personal 
and emotional issue, on both sides. I have the greatest respect for 
many of our citizens who hold different views on this matter. But I 
would not try to intrude on these complicated decisions, or tell a 
woman focusing on serious health or fertility risks how to make this 
difficult decision.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this intrusion into the 
doctor-patient relationship. Let's give families, not politicians, the 
right the choose.
  Mr. President, during this debate some Members supporting this 
measure have been citing statistics that appeared in a recent Bergen 
Record article on late term abortions. I ask unanimous consent to 
insert a letter from Metropolitan Medical Associates of Englewood, NJ, 
that directly refutes the accuracy of those figures.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                              Metropolitan Medical Associates,

                                Englewood, NJ, September 23, 1996.
     Mr. Glenn Ritt,
     Editor, The Record, Hackensack, NJ.
       Dear Mr. Ritt, We, the physicians and administration of 
     Metropolitan Medical Associates, are deeply concerned about 
     the many inaccuracies in the article printed in September 15, 
     1996 titled ``The Facts on Partial-Birth Abortions''.
       The article incorrectly asserts that MMA ``performs 3,000 
     abortions a year on fetuses between 20 and 24 weeks, of which 
     at least half are by intact dilation and evacuation.'' This 
     claim is false as is shown in reports to the New Jersey 
     Department of Health and documents submitted semiannually to 
     the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners. These 
     statistics show that the total annual number of abortions for 
     the period between 12 and 23.3 weeks is about 4,000, with the 
     majority of these procedures being between 12 and 16 weeks. 
     The intact D&E procedure (erroneously labeled by abortion 
     opponents as ``partial birth abortion'') is used only in a 
     small percentage of cases between 20 and 23.3 weeks, when a 
     physician determines that it is the safest method available 
     for the woman involved. Certainly, the number of intact D&E 
     procedures performed is nowhere near the 1,500 estimated in 
     your article. MMA perform no third trimester abortions, where 
     the State is permitted to ban abortions except in cases of 
     life and health endangerment.
       Second, the article erroneously states that most women 
     undergoing intact D&E procedures have no medical reason for 
     termination. The article then misquotes a physician from our 
     clinic stating that ``most are Medicaid patients * * * and 
     most are for elective, not medical, reasons * * * Most are 
     teenagers.'' This is a misrepresentation of the information 
     provided to the reporter. Consistent with Roe v. Wade and New 
     Jersey State law, we do not record a woman's specific reason 
     for having an abortion. However, all procedures for our 
     Medicaid patients are certified as medically necessary as 
     required by the New Jersey Department of Human Services.
       Because of the sensitive and controversial nature of the 
     abortion issue, we feel that it is critically important to 
     set the record straight.
       The Management of Metropolitan Medical Associates.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. The Senator from New Jersey has 
spoken, as he always does, with intelligence and with compassion. He is 
the proudest grandfather I have ever met. A close second is my husband.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. You haven't seen my grandchildren.
  Mrs. BOXER. And I say to my friend, his participation in this debate 
is welcome. It is a welcome part of this debate, because he went 
through the trauma that these women have gone through, as far as being 
in a family where such a circumstance occurred.
  I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania who stands up and asks the 
same question, he got his answer. All of us on this side who support 
the President oppose late-term abortion. We could pass a bill that 
would ban this procedure but for life and health. I ask him again to do 
that. Clearly, he prefers this bill with no real exceptions.
  I thank the President for his forbearance, and we will continue this 
debate after the lunch break.

                          ____________________