[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 26, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1656-S1657]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I didn't have the opportunity to respond to 
the Senator from California when she stated her willingness to 
reexamine the issue of partial-birth abortion. The minority leader was 
on the floor waiting to speak, and had reserved time for that.
  However, I would like to just say that, No. 1, I am pleased that they 
are willing to revisit the issue. It is an issue that I think deserve 
revisiting.
  I want to correct some information that might be misconstrued, as 
referenced by the Senator from California--the fact that, if we could 
just make sure that we provided an exception for women whose lives were 
in danger, were the procedure not proposed. As I think the Senator 
remembers, that was clearly addressed in the bill that was before the 
Senate last Congress--that exception for life of the mother was clearly 
stated in that language. Now this whole addition of the well health of 
the mother--first of all, as the Senator from Pennsylvania [Senator 
Santorum] so eloquently described, there were no instances, there were 
no partial-birth abortions performed to protect the health of the 
mother. There was a lot of erroneous misinformation discussed about 
that. And this has always been the reason why opponents--of whatever 
attempts are made to address the question of abortion from the pro-life 
side--it is always, ``If we could just add the exception for health of 
the mother.''
  As we have learned over the years and as has been demonstrated in 
numerous court holdings and other information that is presented to us, 
health of the mother is so broadly defined. Are we talking about 
psychological health of the mother, emotional health of the mother? It 
has really just been used as an excuse to provide abortionists, doctors 
who perform abortions, a basis for simply saying we will use this 
exception to allow the abortion to go forward.
  I really think what we are dealing with here is a procedure that goes 
beyond the pale. It really, as many have said in the debate, is not an 
abortion issue. It is not a pro-choice abortion issue. This is the 
issue of a deliberate taking of life, of a fetus, of a baby that is 
well beyond the age of viability, however that is defined. My own 
personal belief is that life begins at conception.
  Even if you do not agree with my personal belief on this, there is no 
question that at the 5th, 6th and 7th month, the times when partial-
birth abortions are performed, because the head of the child is so 
large it cannot be extracted through the birth canal and therefore has 
to be collapsed by the doctor after the baby is killed, there is no 
question that the partial-birth abortion issue is one that is not in 
the purview of what we generally have been talking about on the pro-
life pro-choice issues. It is clearly a situation where we have a baby 
who, if born at that moment, would be able to sustain life. Someone 
said 3 inches and 3 seconds from being declared murder.
  I remember the situation when the young couple in New Jersey, I think 
it was, was arrested for the killing of

[[Page S1657]]

their recently born baby. How ironic it is that had they gone to an 
abortionist and had a partial-birth abortion 1 minute before the baby 
was born and then they killed the baby, it would have been a perfectly 
accepted procedure without any criminal penalty, without any penalty 
whatsoever. And so we are talking about a human life that is capable of 
being sustained on its own that is deliberately ended, terminated, by 
an abortion doctor to provide for a more convenient abortion.
  That is what is at stake here. That is what the debate is going to 
have to be about if we bring it back up. I am pleased that the minority 
leader and the Senator from California, who was the primary opponent of 
our efforts to override the President's veto, I am pleased they want to 
revisit the issue, but let us revisit it on the right terms and let us 
know what we are talking about.

                          ____________________