[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 36 (Wednesday, March 19, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H1164]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will vote on the very important 
issue of partial birth abortion. I would like to address that subject 
for a few minutes. I have practiced obstetrics and gynecology for more 
than 30 years and have delivered thousands of babies. I have never 
needed to, nor have I known of any circumstance where the partial birth 
abortion procedure was necessary for the health of the mother. Quite to 
the contrary, it is my most sincere conviction that the procedure 
itself is quite dangerous to the mother.
  When it was first said by the right-to-life advocates that this 
procedure was being done frequently, I was reluctant to believe this 
possible, considering its danger and its grotesque nature. It was only 
after the admission by the proponents of abortion that, indeed, it was 
done frequently, and on healthy babies, that I was willing to consider 
that we had slipped to the point where this operation is promoted as an 
acceptable medical procedure.
  The notion that this procedure should be available for the protection 
of the health of the mother is disingenuous to say the least. As a 
physician who encountered inter-uterine fetal death in the second and 
third trimester, I have never entertained the thought of performing 
this procedure because of the risk to the mother.
  Using the mother's health as an excuse for abortion reminds me of 
what I witnessed in the 1960's as an obstetrical resident. Physicians 
defying the law were using an illegal loophole, saying that if an 
individual threatened suicide it was a justification for abortion. It 
was a matter of course to make a phone call and get a commitment from a 
sympathetic psychiatrist to say yes, he would sign the papers, and that 
is all it took.
  It is one thing to defend abortion because one sincerely believes it 
should be legal, but it is another thing to distort the truth, fudge 
the statistics, and pretend that it is done for the health of the 
pregnant woman. This should be exposed for the falsehood that it is.
  I am convinced that abortion is the most important issue of the 20th 
century. Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or 
contempt will determine the outcome of that civilization. Supporters 
for legalization of abortion in the 1960's never dreamed it would come 
to the debate that we face today over this grotesque procedure, the 
partial birth abortion.
  In determining whether or not this country endorses this procedure, 
we make a moral statement of the utmost importance regarding the value 
of human life.
  The legislative approach for abortion is of lesser consequence than 
the issue itself. Abortion regulation, like all acts of violence, 
traditionally and under the Constitution were dealt with locally until 
1973 when the courts chose to legalize nationally the procedure. 
Removing the issue from the jurisdiction of the Federal courts so 
States could deal with all of the problems surrounding abortion would 
be more in line with the traditional constitutional approach to 
government. Obviously, all funding by any government ought to be 
prohibited in a society that pretends to protect human life and defend 
individual liberty.
  It is now a worn-out cliche that abortion is defended in the name of 
women's rights and freedom of choice. But claiming to protect the 
freedom of one individual can never be an excuse to take the life of 
another. Life and liberty are never in conflict. Life and convenience 
may well be. The inconvenience and responsibility of caring for a 
hungry, crying baby at 3 a.m. never justifies baby killing, nor is an 
inconvenient baby in the womb a justification for its elimination.
  For those who cry out for choice, let me point out that someone must 
speak out for the small, the weak, and the disenfranchised so their 
choice for life is heard.
  No one in this body can challenge me on my defense of personal choice 
in all social, personal, and economic matters, but I do not accept the 
notion that choice means the right to take the life of a human being. 
That is a mockery of the English language and truth.
  Those so bold who today would argue that choice means not only the 
killing of the unborn but the partially born as well, I say to you, 
where are you when it comes to real choice in economic transactions, 
hiring practices, gun ownership, use of private property, confiscatory 
taxing policy, taking personal risks, picking schools for our children, 
medications and medical procedures not yet approved by the FDA? Let me 
hear no more about choice as the excuse to kill. Please, with due 
respect, pick another less offensive word.
  This great debate over life has lasted now for over 30 years, and it 
took the partial birth abortion procedure to crystallize vividly 
exactly what this debate is all about. The deliberate killing of a 
half-born infant, with heart beating, arms and legs flailing, and a 
chest struggling for a first breath by aspirating the infant's brain 
is, to many of us, an uncivilized, abhorrent and unacceptable 
procedure.
  Yet, we as a nation, now without a moral bearing, appear frozen as to 
what to do. The debate has boiled down to this: Should the police be 
called, or should the abortionist be paid a handsome fee?
  For now, the best we can do is make a statement that there is a 
limit, and we have reached it. Hopefully some day there will be enough 
respect for local governments to handle problems like this, but we must 
forcefully acknowledge that the defense of all liberty requires the 
respect for all life.

                          ____________________