[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.
____________________