[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 17 (Tuesday, February 11, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1242-S1243]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




COMMENDING SENATOR SANTORUM'S SEARCH FOR COMMON GROUND IN THE ABORTION 
                                 DEBATE

 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleague, 
Senator Santorum, for the article he recently had published in the 
Washington Times concerning partial birth abortion.
  All too often, Mr. President, debates over public policy issues 
degenerate into uncivil attacks on each side's motives. Mr. Santorum's 
article does an excellent job of showing how this bickering can be 
avoided even when the issue is as serious and sensitive as abortion. 
How can we reach common ground on partial birth abortion? By realizing 
that this procedure has nothing to do with the Supreme Court's decision 
in Roe versus Wade or the subsequent decision in Doe versus Bolton. By 
realizing that partial birth abortion is simply unacceptable.
  Whatever one's view of abortion, one should recognize this procedure 
as one that is, as Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan phrased it, ``just 
too close to infanticide.''
  We are a civilized society, Mr. President. I hope that our debates 
over this contentious issue can be made more civil. I also hope that we 
can reach common ground in banning partial birth abortion.
  Mr. President, I ask that Senator Santorum's article from the 
Washington Times be printed in the Record.
  The article follows:

               [From the Washington Times, Jan. 22, 1997]

              Partial Birth Abortion: The Art of Agreement

                           (By Rick Santorum)

       A wide spectrum of individuals has coalesced around the 
     recent effort to ban partial birth abortions. These varied 
     individuals and groups have raised their voices in support of 
     a ban both because of the brutality of partial birth 
     abortions and because they recognize that this debate is not 
     about Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision 
     legalizing abortion. It is not about when a fetus becomes a 
     baby. And it is certainly not about women's health. It is 
     about virtual infanticide, it is about killing a child as he 
     or she is being born, an issue that neither Roe vs. Wade nor 
     the subsequent Doe vs. Bolton addressed.
       During the Senate debate last year, many traditionally pro-
     choice legislators voted in support of legislation to ban 
     this particular procedure. Among them was my colleague Sen. 
     Arlen Specter who stated on the floor of the Senate, ``In my 
     legal judgment, the issue is not over a woman's right to 
     choose within the constitutional context of Roe versus Wade . 
     . . The line of the law is drawn, in my legal judgment, when 
     the child is partially out of the womb of the mother. It is 
     no longer abortion; it is infanticide.'' He was joined in 
     these sentiments by other such consistently pro-choice 
     members as Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Sen. Ben 
     Nighthorse Campbell.
       Such coalescence with pro-choice proponents suggests the 
     enormous scope of the tragedy that this procedure represents. 
     This broad coalition further confirms that extraneous 
     considerations, such as the anticipation of a disabled 
     child, or a mother's broadly-defined health concerns, were 
     just that--

[[Page S1243]]

     extraneous to the debate. And for those who may still be 
     unclear what a partial birth abortion procedure is, it is 
     this: a fully formed baby--in most cases a viable fetus of 
     23-26 weeks--is pulled from its mother until all but the 
     head is delivered. Then, a scissors is plunged into the 
     base of the skull, a tube is inserted and the child's 
     brains are suctioned out so that the head of the now-dead 
     infant collapses and is delivered.
       Partial birth abortion is tragic for the infant who loses 
     his or her life in this brutal procedure. It is also a 
     personal tragedy for the families who choose the procedure, 
     as it is for those who perform it--even if they aren't aware 
     of it. But partial birth abortion is also a profound social 
     tragedy. It rips through the moral cohesion of our public 
     life. It cuts into our most deeply held beliefs about the 
     importance of protecting and cherishing vulnerable human 
     life. It fractures our sense that the laws of our country 
     should reflect long-held, commonly accepted moral norms.
       Yet this kind of tragedy--can be an unexpected catalyst for 
     consensus, for new coalitions and configurations in our 
     public life. The partial birth abortion debate moves us 
     beyond the traditional pro-life/pro-choice lines of 
     confrontation to hollow out a place in the public square 
     where disparate individuals and groups can come together and 
     draw a line that they know should not be crossed.
       The stark tragedy of partial birth abortion can be the 
     beginning of a significant public discussion, where we 
     define--or redefine--our first principles. Why is such a 
     discussion important? Precisely because it throws into relief 
     the fundamental truths around which a moral consensus is 
     formed in this country. And, as John Courtney Murray reminds 
     us in We Hold These Truths, Catholic Reflections on the 
     American Proposition, a public consensus which finds its 
     expression in the law should be ``an ensemble of 
     substantive truths, a structure of basic knowledge, an 
     order of elementary affirmations . . .''
       If we do not have fundamental agreement about first 
     principles, we simply cannot engage one another in civil 
     debate. All we have is the confusion of different factions 
     locked in their own moral universe. If we could agree 
     publicly on just this one point--that partial birth abortion 
     is not something our laws should sanction, and if we could 
     then reveal the consensus--a consensus that I know exists--
     against killing an almost-born infant, we would have 
     significantly advanced the discussion about what moral status 
     and dignity we give to life in all its stages. Public 
     agreement, codified by law, on this one prohibition gives us 
     a common point of departure, a common language even, because 
     we agree, albeit in a narrow sense, on the meaning of 
     fundamental terms such as life and death. And it is with this 
     common point of departure and discourse--however narrow--that 
     we gain a degree of coherence and unity in our public life 
     and dialogue.
       I truly believe that out of the horror and tragedy of 
     partial birth abortions, we can find points of agreement 
     across ideological, political and religious lines which 
     enable us to work toward a life-sustaining culture. So, as 
     hundreds of thousands of faithful and steadfast citizens come 
     together to participate in this year's March for Life let us 
     remember that such a culture, the culture for which we hope 
     and pray daily, might very well be achieved one argument at a 
     time.

                          ____________________