[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 26, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1654-S1655]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I will comment on another article in the 
New York Times which is titled, ``An Abortion Rights Advocate Says He 
Lied About Procedure'' of partial-birth abortions.
  Many here remember the very heated and controversial and difficult 
and emotional debate that we had on this floor in attempting to 
override the President's veto of the partial-birth abortion bill 
passed, again on a bipartisan basis, in both the Senate and the House 
but vetoed by the President on the grounds that this was a rare 
procedure, it rarely happened, and, therefore, we should not make a 
policy which would deny on those few rare occasions, as the President 
described them, the opportunity to women to avail themselves of a 
partial-birth abortion.
  A Planned Parenthood news release of November 1, 1995, which was 
cited by many on this floor as the basis for the fact that this is 
rare, said, ``The procedure is extremely rare and done only in cases 
when the woman's life is in danger or in cases of extreme fetal 
abnormality.'' The President cited that and quoted medical experts that 
said that this was a rare procedure and used that as the basis for his 
veto of the bill, which prevented us from passing a ban against 
partial-birth abortions.

  Now, today, the New York Times comes out with an article indicating 
that one of the doctors that was so frequently quoted, and the fact 
that it was so frequently used by opponents on this floor to argue 
against the ban on partial-birth abortions, that doctor has stated that 
he lied when he said this was a rare procedure.
  Reading the article:

       A prominent member of the abortion rights movement said 
     today that he lied in earlier statements when he said a 
     controversial form of late-term abortion is rare and 
     performed primarily to save the lives or fertility of women 
     bearing severely malformed babies.
       He now says the procedure is performed far more often than 
     his colleagues have acknowledged, and on healthy women 
     bearing healthy fetuses.
       Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National 
     Coalition of Abortion Providers, said he intentionally misled 
     in previous remarks about the procedure.
       But he is now convinced, he said, that the issue of whether 
     the issue remains legal, like the overall debate about 
     abortion, must be based on the truth.
       Mr. Fitzsimmons recalled the night in November 1995, when 
     he appeared on ``Nightline'' on ABC and ``lied through my 
     teeth'' when he said the procedure was used rarely and only 
     on women whose lives were in danger or those fetuses were 
     damaged.
       ``It made me physically ill,'' Mr. Fitzsimmons said in an 
     interview, ``I told my wife the next day, `I can't do this 
     again.' ''
       As much as he disagreed with the National Right to Life 
     Committee and others who oppose abortion under any 
     circumstances, he said he knew they were accurate when they 
     said the procedure was common.

  As I said, last April, President Clinton vetoed a bill that would 
have outlawed this procedure, and in explaining that veto, as the New 
York Times quotes, ``Mr. Clinton echoed the argument of Mr. Fitzsimmons 
and his colleagues.'' And I quote from the President:

       ``There are a few hundred women every year who have 
     personally agonizing situations where their children are born 
     to or are about to be born with terrible deformities, which 
     will cause them to die either just before, during or just 
     after childbirth,'' the President said. ``And these women, 
     among other things, cannot preserve the ability to have 
     further children unless the enormity--the enormous size of 
     the baby's head--is reduced before being extracted from their 
     bodies.''

  Meaning a tube is stuck into the baby's head, the skull, the brains 
are sucked out, and the skull is collapsed. That is the procedure we 
are talking about here. He is reduced before being extracted from their 
bodies.

       A spokeswoman for Mr. Clinton, said tonight that the White 
     House knew nothing of Mr. Fitzsimmons' announcement and would 
     not comment further.

  I bring this to light, Mr. President, and I am putting it in the 
Record because I hope that the President would have the opportunity to 
now gain this information that was erroneous.
  Mr. Fitzsimmons has admitted now on record that he ``lied through his 
teeth,'' was deliberately deceptive. That was the justification on 
which the President formed his opinion and decision. I hope we can now 
use this opportunity to clarify the record, and that the President can 
revisit his decision, on the basis of this new information that this is 
a common procedure and not a rare procedure. The President could--and 
hopefully the Congress will be addressing this at some point--when 
presented again with an opportunity to provide a ban against a 
procedure that is inhuman, and many believe is infanticide, a grisly 
procedure that is even difficult to describe anywhere in public, and 
particularly on the floor of the Senate. I hope the President, now 
armed with this new information, will be able to reexamine his position 
on the issue, and when and if a bill is presented to him that bans 
partial-birth abortion, would, on the basis of this new information, 
and the justification he used to veto the previous bill, reverse his 
position and support our efforts to bring some level of decency and 
humanity into this abortion procedure.
  We are not discussing here the issues that have so consumed us on the 
abortion question in the past. We are talking about a situation that 
most find abhorrent, and which is something I don't believe this Nation 
can have a policy advocating. So with this new information, we are 
providing an opportunity for people to revisit their decisions and 
their conclusions because, clearly, that was the justification and 
basis for the opposition to the ban on partial-birth abortion, and 
clearly now we have evidence refuting that opposition and, hopefully, 
that will provide

[[Page S1655]]

the basis for us to go forward and correct what I believe was a serious 
mistake we made in the last Congress.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.

                          ____________________