[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 14, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4431-S4451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT of 1997

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report H.R. 1122.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       A bill (H.R. 1122) to amend title 18, United States Code, 
     to ban partial-birth abortions.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, as I spoke last night, we are now moving 
to consideration of the partial-birth abortion ban that has passed the 
House of Representatives with a constitutional majority, more than two-
thirds I should say, more than two-thirds majority in the House, which 
means, if there is a Presidential veto, we would be able to override it 
in the House. It now comes to the Senate where we have an assured 
majority of the votes to be able to pass this legislation. The question 
really is whether we are going to have 67 votes necessary to do it. So 
we commence the debate today. I am hopeful, now that this bill has 42 
cosponsors, we will have a spirited debate with many people 
participating, adding their thoughts on this subject.
  I have a unanimous-consent request first. I ask unanimous consent 
that Donna Joy Watts be allowed access to the Senate gallery. This is 
an exception to the Senate regulations governing access to the gallery 
because Ms. Watts is not yet 6 years of age.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I would like to ask my 
colleague for what purpose does he wish--how old is the child?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Five and a half.
  Mrs. BOXER. A 5\1/2\-year-old child to be in the gallery during this 
debate?
  Mr. SANTORUM. She is very interested in this subject. I will discuss 
her case, and she would like to hear the debate.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am going to object on the basis of my being a 
grandmother, and I think that it is rather exploitive to have a child 
present in the gallery at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I do not think we are off to a very good 
start on this debate. I was hopeful that the Senator from California 
would continue to try to assure the comity that is usually accorded 
Members when it comes to these kinds of situations. I know that that 
unfortunate incident occurred a few weeks ago with a unanimous-consent 
request. I would hate to see that this kind of occurrence becomes a 
normal course.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SANTORUM. We have coarsened the comity of this place to the point 
where someone sitting in the gallery, who is literally months away from 
the age that has been set by the Senate rules, who has a particular 
interest in this piece of legislation would not be accorded the decency 
of being able to at least observe. But I respect the Senator's right to 
do what she wants to do, and she certainly is within her rights to do 
it. I think it is unfortunate that a young girl who has had as close to 
a personal encounter with this issue as possible and still be here to 
talk about it is not able to listen to a procedure to protect others 
from what she was threatened with. And that is certainly within the 
discretion of the Senator from California.

  I will proceed with my opening statement.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I will yield for a question.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you so much. I just want the Senator to understand 
that this is nothing to do with a lack of comity. It is my deep belief, 
in my heart, that this is a very emotional debate. People can watch it 
here. They can watch it on television. I just, really, in my heart 
believe this--and I would not do it otherwise. It has nothing to do 
with comity--that given the fact that you have expressed here, I think 
I am acting in the best interests of that child.
  That is my opinion. You have a different one. It is just some 
colleagues, some moms and dads, and in my case a grandmother, who has a 
different view of it. I ask the Senator to respect that, just as I 
respect his view.
  Mr. SANTORUM. If I can, I find myself almost incredulous, to believe 
that you are--in arguing, as I know you have in the past, and other 
Members have, that we have no right here in the U.S. Senate to dictate 
what other parents should be able to do with their children with 
respect to whether they should be able to abort them or not. But when a 
mother seeks to share with her daughter, mother and father, share with 
her daughter some information that is important to her in a very 
profound way and that you are going to stand up, as a Member of the 
U.S. Senate, and suggest that you know what is better for her daughter 
than she does, I think is rather troubling. But again, it is your right 
as a Senator to object to these things. I respect that right. I just 
don't happen to agree with the characterization that allowing their 
daughter the opportunity to witness something that is very important to 
all of their lives is in any way exploiting her. But that is--your 
objection is so noted.
  Mr. President, I think it is important as we start this debate that 
we understand what we are debating, that is partial-birth abortion. So 
I am going to explain what a partial-birth abortion is, when it is 
used, who it is used on, and why it is used.
  There has been a lot of talk about this procedure and the facts 
around the procedure. We have seen in recent months how some of the 
facts in fact did not turn out to be facts, particularly things that 
were used and said by Members here on this Senate floor as to what 
partial-birth abortion was all about, when it was used, who it was used 
on, why it was used. So this debate unfortunately a year ago was 
shrouded in a cloak of inaccuracies. In this debate, as much as many of 
us tried to articulate what we knew to be the facts, we were countered 
with arguments that in fact have turned out not to be true. So I am 
hopeful that with this new information having been brought to light, 
that the facts as we now know them--and I cannot attest, because some 
of the facts have been provided by the abortion industry themselves, 
who are opposed to this bill, so I cannot verify the information we 
have been given is in fact accurate. All I can verify is that they have 
admitted to at least this. But what we do know is that those set of 
facts that they now admit to are different than what they were saying 
before, and different in a material enough way that Members who relied 
on that information last time, if they rely on the different set of 
facts this time, can come to a different conclusion.
  That happened in the House of Representatives. Several Members who 
voted against the partial-birth abortion ban based on a set of facts as 
they knew them provided by the abortion industry, when those facts were 
shown to be inaccurate, changed their position in light of those, that 
new information, and supported the legislation and supported it to such 
a degree that it passed with over 290 votes, which is the necessary 
vote to override the Presidential veto.

[[Page S4432]]

  So, let us look at what partial-birth abortion is. By the way, the 
drawings that I am going to use are drawings that were copied--derived 
from drawings that Dr. Haskell, who was the inventor of this procedure, 
had. Dr. Haskell, by the way, is not an obstetrician and gynecologist--
people whose business it is to deliver babies. Dr. Haskell is a family 
practitioner who does abortions, and he invented this procedure. This 
procedure is not in any medical textbook. This procedure is not taught 
in any medical school. This procedure has not been peer reviewed. In 
other words, no other doctors have looked at this to see whether this 
is safe and healthy and a proper procedure. It has not been recognized 
as a legitimate procedure. But he has invented this thing, this 
monstrosity, and he wrote a paper on it. From the description and from 
the pictures in that paper we reproduced this, these drawings.
  Dr. Haskell, when asked about these particular drawings, the ones you 
are going to see, said they were accurate, from a technical point of 
view. So any comments that these drawings are somewhat of a fabrication 
or whatever does not hold water.
  I also suggest when you see the drawings of the baby in these 
pictures, the drawing of the baby in these pictures is a drawing of a 
20-24 week gestation baby. It is not a big baby or has not been blown 
up to look like it is more life size than it is. It is the exact size. 
If you look at the size of the baby relative to the size of the 
doctors' hands, which is the way you can judge size, you can see a baby 
at that gestation which is when most of the partial-birth abortions are 
performed. In fact, it is at the low end of when they are performed 
because they are performed in the fifth and sixth month, and this is 
fifth month. So, it is the small end of when these abortions are 
performed.

  This is a 3-day procedure. You are going to hear about life of the 
mother, health of the mother, we need to do some things to protect the 
life and health of the mother. This is a 3-day procedure. The mother is 
given drugs the first 2 days to dilate her cervix, to open her womb so 
the doctor can then reach in as you see here to grab the baby. I would 
just ask this question, and you don't have to be a doctor to answer it. 
If a woman presents herself to a physician in a life-threatening 
situation, would anyone do a 3-day procedure? Second, if the woman 
presented herself in a health-threatening situation, would any doctor 
do a procedure that says: Take these pills, come back tomorrow; take 
these pills that are going to dilate your cervix, open your womb up to 
infection, which is in fact a risk, and call back?
  So, when you hear these, ``we have to keep this legal because there 
may be some circumstance,'' let me assure you--and I will have a quote 
that I will share with you--there is never a case, there is never a 
case where this procedure has to be performed to protect the life or 
health of the mother. Period. Having said that, the bill still provides 
for a life-of-the-mother exception. So I would just want Members to 
understand that this procedure is a 3-day procedure. It is done on an 
outpatient basis. When the mother presents herself in the third day--
and this was the reason Dr. Haskell developed this, was so he could 
bring her in, the dilation of the cervix would be done, and simply he 
would perform the procedure. He wouldn't have to wait and have her in 
the clinic and do these other procedures which are done in 1 day. So 
this is done for the convenience of the doctor, the abortionist, not 
for the health of the mother, not for the safety of the baby or anybody 
else, because you are going to kill the baby. Now you understand why it 
is done.
  Guided by an ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby with forceps 
by the feet or leg. Babies at this time, generally they move around, 
but they are generally in a head-down position. So the doctor has to 
reach around, grab the baby by the foot, turn the baby around inside 
the womb, inside the amniotic sack.
  Second, they then grab the baby's leg and pull it breach. For those 
of you who are not physicians--I think there is only one physician in 
the Senate, the Senator from Tennessee--a breach birth, as any mother 
or parents know, is a very dangerous occurrence, when a child is 
delivered breach. To deliberately turn a baby and deliver the baby 
breach is a risk unto itself. But they deliberately turn this baby and 
then they pull the baby by the leg out of the uterus, out through the 
cervix to where the baby is delivered, the entire body except for the 
head. So you have a baby, now, that is outside the uterus with the 
exception of the head and, as nurse Brenda Shafer said when she 
witnessed this procedure, the baby's arms and legs were moving.
  You might ask, why are they doing this? Why are they delivering this 
baby in this fashion? Why do they not just take the baby that is head 
down and just deliver the baby head first and then do what I am going 
to describe next to the baby? Why don't they do that?
  The reason they don't deliver the baby out and kill the baby is 
because once the head exits the mother, it is considered a live birth 
and has protection. So, if you delivered it in a normal fashion and the 
baby's head were out and the rest of the body were in, you couldn't 
kill the baby. The only reason you do this is so it is easier to kill 
the baby and it is then legal to kill the baby--at least it is if we do 
not pass this law.
  So just understand the difference here is a matter of which end comes 
out first. If the head came out first you can't touch that baby. It is 
a live birth, protected under the Constitution. Unfortunately, its feet 
are not protected by the Constitution nor its leg nor its trunk--just 
its head. At least that is what the courts have said.
  So now we have this little baby that is outside the mother and a 
doctor takes some scissors and jams it right here, right in the back of 
the base of the skull, that soft baby's skull. You know, those of you 
who have children, how soft that skill is. And they thrust the scissors 
into the base of the skull.
  Nurse Brenda Shafer described what the baby did in the partial-birth 
abortion that she saw. She said the baby's arms and legs flew out, like 
when you are holding a baby and you drop it and it goes like this. It 
just doesn't know what to do, it just sort of shoots its legs out, that 
nervous--nerve reaction. She said it shot its legs out, its arms and 
leg--for those who believe that the baby doesn't feel anything. And 
then they went limp.
  To finish the procedure the doctor takes a suction tube, a high-
pressure suction catheter, inserts it in the baby's skull, and suctions 
the brains out of the baby. That causes the head to collapse, and then 
the baby is delivered.

  This is what we are trying to ban. Nothing else; nothing else. This 
is what we are trying to ban. I cannot help but think, as I look around 
and see the statues of the Vice Presidents of the United States that 
ring the Senate Chamber, that if we had been on the Senate floor 30 
years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago and talked about this as 
something that was legal in America, we would have had 100 percent of 
the U.S. Senate saying, ``Why is this bill even here? This is obviously 
something that is so barbaric that we cannot allow to have happen.''
  But, unfortunately, we have reached the point in our country where 
this is defensible. This is defensible, treating a little baby like 
this, a fully formed little baby, not a blob of protoplasm, not a 
tissue that many would like to believe, this is a baby fully formed, 
and in many cases viable, that we treat like this, that we murder like 
this. Let's call it what it is. And we are saying in this country, it's 
OK.
  Now, if we did this procedure, if you would take these graphics out 
and leave some of the definitions out there, if we did this procedure 
of jamming scissors in the base of the skull and suctioning out the 
brains on someone who had raped and murdered 30 people, the Supreme 
Court and every Member of this Senate would say, ``You can't do that, 
you can't do that, that's cruel and inhumane punishment.'' Oh, but if 
you are a little baby, if you haven't hurt anybody, if you are nestled 
up in your mother's womb, warm and safe--supposedly safe--we can do 
that to you. In fact, it is our right, it is my right that I can do 
that.
  The thing about this debate that is probably the most important 
thing--and you will hear rights, you will hear rights, my right to do 
this, my right to do that, it's my body, I can do whatever I want, I 
can kill this baby, it's my baby. Rights. Well, in this case, we are 
having an abortion debate on the

[[Page S4433]]

floor of the U.S. Senate where you cannot miss the other side of this 
debate. You cannot miss the baby in a partial-birth abortion. It is not 
hidden from view anymore. It is not the dirty little secret we tell 
ourselves to survive, to live with ourselves that we allow this kind of 
murder to occur in this country.
  We cannot hide anymore from the truth of what is happening out there. 
We cannot lie to ourselves that this is not what we are doing. In fact, 
Ron Fitzsimmons said, the person who blew the whistle on the abortion 
industry, we have to face up to the fact that abortion is killing a 
living being. Let's face up to it. If you want to defend it, defend it, 
but defend it on what it is: It is killing a little baby who hasn't 
hurt anybody, who just wants a chance like all of us to live.
  One of the great ironies that struck me as I walked on the floor 
today--I walked on the floor and I passed the Senator from Vermont, the 
Senator from Tennessee, and the Senator from Iowa, who had been so 
instrumental in the bill that we just passed on the Senate floor. Do 
you know what bill we just passed on the Senate floor? The Individuals 
With Disabilities Education Act. Individuals with disabilities.
  The principal reason that the people who oppose this ban use for 
defending this procedure is, You know, a lot of these children have 
deformities. They might have Down's syndrome or they might not have any 
arms or legs or they might not even live long, they might have 
hydrocephaly, they might have all these maladies. And that, of course, 
is a good reason to kill them. That is the argument. That was the 
argument that was made over and over and over again, that fetal 
abnormality is a good reason --in fact, the courts, unfortunately, have 
legitimized this reason saying it is a legitimate reason to do a third-
trimester abortion.
  I just found it absolutely chilling that a Member could stand up here 
and rightfully, passionately argue that children are all God's children 
and perfect in his eyes, and while they may not be perfect, they 
deserve the dignity of being given the opportunity to maximize their 
human potential. That is what IDEA is all about, the ability to protect 
their civil rights to maximize their human potential--except to be born 
in the first place. Because some of the most passionate defenders of 
IDEA, some of the most passionate defenders of ADA, the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, say it is OK to kill a baby because it is not 
perfect, any time in a pregnancy--any time in a pregnancy--by using 
this, the most barbaric of measures.
  We are going to educate you if you make it, if you survive this. If 
you survive, if you are lucky enough that your mother loves you enough 
to give you a chance at life, then we will protect you, but you are on 
your own until then; you are on your own; we're not going to protect 
you. You don't deserve protection.
  Abraham Lincoln, quoting Scripture, said that a house divided against 
itself cannot stand. I just ask every Member who proudly stands and 
supports the disabled among us how you can then stand and allow this to 
happen to those very same children and say that you care? The ultimate 
compassion here is at least giving them a chance to live. I guarantee 
you that if you gave a lot of disabled people the choice of whether 
they would rather be educated or live, it is a pretty easy call. But 
somehow or another, that is lost here. Well, it is not lost on me, and 
I don't think it is lost on the American public. You cannot 
legitimately argue both ways. So this is the debate.

  You will hear a lot about health exceptions--and I want to address 
that issue right up front--that we need this procedure to be legal 
because there might be instances in which the life and health of a 
mother are in danger and this procedure would have to be done. I am 
going to put a quote up from a group of close to 500 physicians, almost 
all of whom are obstetricians, people in the field:

       While it may become necessary--

  This is a quote from a letter--

       While it may become necessary, in the second or third 
     trimester, to end a pregnancy in order to protect the 
     mother's life or health, abortion is never required.

  I want to repeat that:

       . . . abortion is never required--i.e., it is never 
     medically necessary, in order to preserve a woman's life, 
     health or future fertility, to deliberately kill an unborn 
     child in the second or third trimester, and certainly not by 
     mostly delivering the child before putting him or her to 
     death. What is required--

  And this is important--

       What is required in the circumstances specified by Senator 
     Daschle is separation of the child from the mother, not the 
     death of the child.

  What do they mean by that? Sometimes you might have to induce and 
deliver the baby. Sometimes you may have to do a cesarean section to 
deliver the baby. But you never have to kill the baby in order to 
protect the mother's life. You can at least give the baby a chance. 
Give him or her a chance. If it is not viable, then he will not live or 
she will not live very long, but you have at least dignified one of our 
human beings, one of us, your son, your daughter.
  I just suggest to any mother or father that if you found out that 
your child was going to die, had a particular virulent form of cancer 
and the child was 5 years old and the child, according to the doctors, 
would almost certainly not live more than a few weeks, would you, would 
any parent in America say, ``Well, my child's going to die, I might as 
well kill them now''? Would any parent deliberately kill their child 
because they may not live long? Or, worse yet, would they kill their 
child because they were in a car accident and lost a leg? Or were in a 
car accident and are going to be in a wheelchair the rest of their 
lives and maybe has brain damage and does not have a whole lot of 
mental capacity, but some, or even none, would you deliberately kill 
your child? And in doing so, would you do the procedure that I 
suggested? Would you puncture their skull and suck their brains out? 
Would you do that?
  Well, if you would not do that for a 5-year-old son or daughter, why 
would you do it to a 5-month-old son or daughter? Why? You don't have 
to.
  If there is any message, whether this bill passes or not--I say 
passes, becomes law--that is so important, but it is so important for 
people to understand that you don't have to kill the baby. You don't 
have to do that. I know. There is always a more dignified way to treat 
another human being than to deliberately kill them.
  So the debate will rage on this afternoon, but just remember these 
facts--facts: Partial-birth abortion is never necessary to protect the 
life or health of the mother. Fact: It is never medically indicated. It 
is not an accepted procedure.
  It is rare, according to the abortion industry. It is only 3,000 to 
5,000 a year, as if that's OK, only killing 3,000 to 5,000 children a 
year and that is not very many. I guess against 1.4 million or so, it 
is not many, but can you imagine what we would do in the U.S. Senate if 
we knew 3,000 children were going to die this year and we could stop 
it? What lengths would we go? What lengths would we go for 1,000? What 
lengths would we go for one? I don't know anymore. I wonder whether we 
can muster up the moral courage to stand up to the powerful lobbies out 
there and do the right thing.
  This procedure does not have to be there for any reason--no reason 
other than for the convenience of the doctor doing the abortion. This 
procedure is not done at major medical facilities. This procedure is 
done at abortion clinics, period, and, in most cases, not even by--at 
least the people who developed it were not even obstetricians.
  So I hope that we can have a debate on the facts. Because on the 
facts, if you look at the facts, there is no reason for this procedure 
to be legal--none. And if you look at the heart, what kind of message 
are we sending out to the young people all over the country?
  You know, we have debates here on the floor, and we have committee 
meetings even to talk about juvenile crime, talk about generation X and 
how they have no respect for our institutions or even each other, that 
they think everybody is in it for themselves. The cynicism is so 
rampant.
  If you want to know why that occurs, tune in to this debate. Children 
are not oblivious to what is going on in this country when it comes to 
the issue of abortion. Ask why a child should be any more concerned 
about shooting their neighbor if Members of the U.S. Senate and the 
President of the United States says we can kill a little baby.

[[Page S4434]]

What is the difference? There is no difference. We are going to have 
all sorts of problems with this future generation. I hear all the time, 
``Oh, they have no values. They don't have any direction. They don't 
have any purpose. They are so self-centered.'' Gee, I wonder why.
  What is more self-centered than what I have just described? We are 
sending a message. A message is being received. And 1.5 million 
abortions is a very loud message to everybody in our country, 
particularly the young, the impressionable. And we wonder why, we 
wonder what the problem is.
  We can begin to send a positive message today. We can begin to say, 
you know, there are rights and wrongs--not just rights--rights and 
wrongs. And this is wrong.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  When my colleague from Pennsylvania started this debate, he asked 
that a 5\1/2\-year-old be allowed in the gallery, that the Senate rules 
be waived. And then he went on--and I am quoting very much from his 
text--he went on to talk about what he believes that a medical 
procedure, which he has called a barbaric act, a procedure that doctors 
tell us is used to save the life of the woman, to spare her irreparable 
harm--and he calls that a ``murderous act''--his words. He used the 
term over and over about ``killing a baby.'' He ascribed it to the 
President of the United States. He wanted a 5\1/2\-year-old to hear 
that.
  He said, you will hear words like ``rights,'' and then he quoted 
women, and he said, ``I can kill this baby.'' Is that what he thinks 
women want to do? And he wants a 5\1/2\-year-old to hear that?
  Talk about messages that we are sending out, this is the greatest 
country in the world. We ought to approach these issues as a family, 
not turn one group against another, one gender against another.
  Mr. President, this is the third time we are having this debate. And 
every time it is more painful than the one before. And the reason it is 
so painful is because the basic assumption of the Santorum bill is that 
women do not deserve the full range of medical options available to 
them in order to have a safe and legal abortion.
  I know that every Senator in this U.S. Senate who calls himself or 
herself pro-choice believes, as the President of the United States 
believes, that abortion must be safe, legal, and rare.
  Mr. President, I truly believe--and I will explain it in the body of 
my statement--that what the Santorum bill is really about is outlawing 
one procedure, and then they will go after the next procedure, and then 
they will go after the next and the next. And that will be the way 
abortion is made illegal in this country at any stage.
  Mr. President, that is not the view of the American people. They 
believe very strongly that Government does not belong in this debate.
  Mr. President, the Santorum bill prohibits the use of a specific 
abortion procedure, the intact dilation and extraction regardless of 
the medical needs of the woman. But some doctors consider that 
procedure the safest for the women. I am not saying that every doctor 
says that; I am saying many, many doctors believe that. And yet, the 
Santorum bill would outlaw this procedure.
  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, an 
organization representing more than 37,000 physicians stated that an 
intact dilation and extraction ``may be the best or most appropriate 
procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the 
health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the 
patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this 
decision.''
  That is 37,000 doctors who are trained in obstetrics and gynecology.
  Doctor Charles Bradley, medical director of Planned Parenthood in 
Santa Barbara, CA, wrote to me and said:

       The intact dilation and extraction procedure presents 
     several advantages over the other techniques available for 
     late-term abortion. Foremost among these, the procedure is 
     short and the risk of damage to the mother's tissues and, 
     therefore, the risk to her life and health is considerably 
     reduced.

  Dr. Seymour Romney, chair of the Society for Physicians for 
Reproductive Choice and Health sent me a letter. And he wrote:

       In complicated and some potentially tragic obstetrical 
     situations, intact dilation and extraction can be the safest 
     therapeutic procedure. In competent hands, it carries the 
     least risk of bleeding, perforation, infection or trauma to 
     the birth canal.

  So this is a procedure that many doctors say is the safest, and yet 
the Santorum bill would outlaw it.
  Mr. President, this is not a perfect world. If we could make it so, 
every child would be planned, every child would be wanted, every 
pregnancy would be uncomplicated, every fetus would be viable, would be 
healthy, every father would be proud to take responsibility, every 
mother would be physically and mentally healthy, there would be no rape 
or no incest. That is the world we should strive for. That is the world 
we want.
  But, Mr. President, we are not there. This is not a perfect world. 
Families must make tough choices, and sometimes must decide, of course, 
to take, when things go tragically wrong--we must not pass reckless 
legislation which moves politicians into the hospital rooms where we do 
not belong. Mr. President, we do not belong in a hospital room.
  We have laws in this land. We have court decisions in this land. And 
the laws relating to pregnancies are set. And they say, as follows: 
Before viability in the early stages of a pregnancy, a woman gets to 
decide, with her family and her doctor and with her God, what her 
options are. It is her choice. It is not Senator Boxer's choice. It is 
not Senator Santorum's choice. It is not Senator Helms' choice. It is 
not Senator Feinstein's choice. It is her choice. She will make this 
decision with her family, with her loving family, with her doctor. She 
decides. And that is it. And that is what the law says. And it was 
decided in 1973, in a previability situation, a woman has the right to 
choose.
  There are those in this Chamber who want Government to enter this 
debate and stop that constitutionally protected right. And to do that 
they need a constitutional amendment. And for many years now they have 
not tried that because the American people do not support it. So they 
will go to procedures one at a time. They will do what it takes so in 
essence this constitutionally protected right will become meaningless 
to the women of this country.
  How does the Santorum bill, endorsed by the antichoice groups in this 
country, treat a woman in the early stages of her pregnancy where, 
under law, it is her constitutional right to decide?
  The Santorum bill says to the doctor that a particular procedure 
called intact dilation and extraction--and as Senator Santorum has 
given it a name of his own, partial-birth abortion, which is in no 
medical dictionary--that procedure is banned at any time. Any time in 
the pregnancy, before viability or after viability, it would be banned. 
And we know right off the bat that outlawing procedures in the 
previability stage of pregnancy before the fetus can live outside the 
womb, with or without life support, is a clear violation of Roe versus 
Wade, on which the constitutional right to choose is based.
  So let us be clear. The Santorum bill infringes on a woman's right to 
choose in the earliest stages of her pregnancy and is clearly 
unconstitutional and against the law of the land.
  In the late term what do the laws say? Postviability, the court 
decisions say that the Government does have a legitimate interest and 
can legislate, can legislate postviability, but with a caveat. And that 
is, that always the health of the woman and the life of the woman must 
be considered.
  Let me repeat. Postviability, the Government can act to regulate 
abortion, but always the health of the woman and her life must always 
be protected.
  What does the Santorum bill do in the late term? It outlaws the 
procedure and fails to give a health exception. My colleagues, this is 
dangerous. There is no health exception in the Santorum bill. And that 
is callous toward the women of this country.
  Court cases have always ruled that any laws passed regarding 
abortion--

[[Page S4435]]

and there are many of these in the States; and my colleague, Senator 
Feinstein, has become a real expert on studying what the States have 
done--they always make an exception for the health of the woman. And 
this U.S. Senate, under this bill, would be so radical as to not 
address the health of a woman.
  This is very troubling to me, Mr. President. And I believe it shows a 
lack of concern for the women of this country, many of whom want their 
stories told.
  In the interest of time, I am not going to go into all the stories 
that I have, but I am going to talk about one. And perhaps in the 
debate later on I will give you the other stories, because we must put 
a face on this issue.
  This is Coreen Costello with her family. She happens to be a 
registered Republican. She describes herself as very conservative. And 
she is very clear that she and her family do not believe in abortion.
  In March 1995, when she was 7 months pregnant--actually this is a 
photograph of her when she was pregnant--she was 7 months pregnant with 
her third child, and she had premature contractions and was rushed to 
the emergency room.
  She discovered through an ultrasound that there was something 
seriously wrong with her baby. The baby, named Katherine Grace--she 
named her baby Katherine Grace while she was carrying her baby--had a 
lethal neurological disorder and had been unable to move inside 
Coreen's womb for almost 2 full months. The movements Coreen had been 
feeling were not that of a healthy, kicking baby. They were nothing 
more than fluid which had puddled in Coreen's uterus. The baby had not 
moved for a long time--not her eyelids, not her tongue. The baby's 
chest cavity was unable to rise or fall. As a result of this, her lungs 
were never stretched to prepare them for air. Her lungs and chest were 
left severely underdeveloped to the point of almost nonexistence. Her 
vital organs were atrophied.
  The doctors told Coreen and her husband the baby was not going to 
survive, and they recommended termination of the pregnancy. To Coreen 
and Jim Costello, termination of the pregnancy was not an option. 
Coreen wanted to go into labor naturally. She wanted the baby born on 
God's time and did not want to interfere.
  The Costello's spent 2 weeks going from expert to expert. They 
considered many options, but every option brought severe risks. They 
considered inducing labor, but they would be told it would be 
impossible due to the baby's position and the fact that the baby's head 
was so swollen with fluid it was already larger than that of a full-
term baby. They considered a cesarean section, but the doctors were 
adamant that the risk to her health and her life were too great. Coreen 
said, ``There was no reason to risk leaving my two children motherless 
if there was no hope of saving Katherine Grace.''
  These are the women my colleague stands and talks about as wanting to 
kill their babies? I am ashamed of that. It is unnecessary to talk 
about the mothers of America, the women of America in such a fashion.
  Coreen and her husband faced a tragedy that most people, thank God, 
never have to face. In the end, they made a decision which saved 
Coreen's life. She underwent a late-term abortion.
  In December of last year, I showed you this picture of Coreen and her 
family, and I reminded you at the time of this photo, Coreen was 
pregnant with Katherine Grace. Now I want to show another picture of 
the Costello family. Here is Coreen and her family with their newest 
addition, her son, Tucker.
  Coreen writes that she is against abortion. She is a registered 
Republican. She says she is a conservative. She writes to us, ``This 
would not have been possible without this procedure. Please give other 
women and their families a chance. Let us deal with our tragedies 
without any unnecessary interference from our Government.'' She writes, 
``Leave us with our God, our families and our trusted medical 
experts.''
  Now, that is one story. To me, it just says it all, that this 
Santorum bill, if it became the law of the land, could have resulted in 
this woman dying or being impaired or losing her fertility. We stand 
here and talk as if the mothers of this country, the women of this 
country, want to end these pregnancies, when, in fact, these women--
again, I have many of these stories which I will tell tomorrow, story 
after story--the last thing they wanted was to end the pregnancy. They 
wanted these babies.
  Mr. President, I want to put the face of these women into the debate. 
I know those who wish to ban this procedure want the face of the woman 
gone. I want to show you what the New York Times quotes Ralph Reed, the 
head of the Christian Coalition, as saying in a March 23, 1997 article. 
This appeared:

       ``Mr. Reed said that by focusing on the grizzly procedure 
     itself--and on the potential viability of a fetus--abortion 
     foes undercut the primacy of the woman and made her secondary 
     to the fetus.''

  In other words, what Mr. Reed is quoted as saying, in what I consider 
to be an unguarded moment, is the reason he was so excited about this 
debate is that for the first time, the woman was made secondary to the 
fetus.
  Those who are pushing this bill want us to forget about the women. As 
Ralph Reed is quoted as having said, to forget about our daughters, our 
sisters, our nieces. They want us to forget about them.
  Why, the Senator from Pennsylvania, in his opening remarks, portrayed 
women as killers. His words: ``I have a right to kill this baby,'' as 
if that is what a woman wants to do.
  If they succeed in outlawing this procedure, they will go to the next 
and the next, as I have said. With all due respect to my colleagues on 
the other side of this debate, they are very good at getting votes and 
they are very good at winning elections. But I do not think they are 
worth a whit in the gynecological operating room. I do not want them in 
that operating room telling a doctor what procedure to use for my 
daughter or my niece or, frankly, even for their daughter or their 
niece.
  If a loved one--and I ask all Americans to think about this. Think 
about it, think of a woman in your life of child-bearing age. Think of 
that woman, be it your wife, be it your aunt, be it your sister, be it 
your niece, be it your daughter, be it your granddaughter, think of 
that woman, have that woman in front of your face, and think if that 
woman was in trouble with a pregnancy gone tragically wrong like 
Coreen's pregnancy. I will put her and her family's picture back up. 
Suppose you found out that she was carrying a fetus whose brain was 
growing outside the head, where the doctor has said to you the baby 
would live but a few moments, maybe, and in torture, and that your 
loved one, if this particular procedure were not used, because many 
have said it is, in fact, the safest, might suffer irreparable harm, 
irreparable harm, never to be able to have a child again, maybe could 
be blinded, maybe could be paralyzed. In your heart of hearts, you 
would not want Senators making that decision. You would want the 
decision to be made by the medical experts, the best in the world.
  I do not want that doctor afraid at that moment that he or she might 
be hauled off to jail if he acted to help a family to spare a woman's 
life or health. I do not want that loved one in despair, pain, and 
grief to be told that her openings were narrowed because her doctor was 
afraid to do what he or she really thought had to be done to save her 
fertility or to save her life or to save her health.
  Who decides? Senator Santorum? I hope not. Who decides? Senator 
Boxer? I hope not. I know politicians have big egos, but we are not 
doctors. We can show drawings done by a doctor, but that does not 
qualify us. Where is the humility around here? Why do we not just do 
our job? I think every woman in this country deserves a free range of 
options when she is in deep, deep trouble.
  Mr. President, Senators Feinstein, Moseley-Braun, and I have a bill 
that I believe is the most humane and the most sensible and the most 
constitutional of those that will be before the Senate. It zeros in on 
the timeframe that concerns most Americans, and that is the late term 
of a pregnancy, after viability, and is consistent with Roe versus 
Wade, which says the Government has an interest after viability. Our 
bill outlaws all post-viability abortions--all procedures, not just 
one. The Santorum bill does not do that. It zeros in on one procedure. 
We say after the

[[Page S4436]]

fetus is viable, no abortion, no procedure except to protect the 
woman's life or to spare her serious adverse health consequences.
  Life and health are constitutional requirements, and it is the right 
thing to do for the women of this country. Mr. President, if we abandon 
the principle that a woman's health and life must always be considered 
when an abortion is considered, we are harming women, plain and simple, 
women like Coreen Costello and the other women that I will talk about.
  Mr. President, the day we start passing laws that harm half of our 
population--women are more than half of our population--the day we 
start passing laws that harm more than half of our population is the 
day I will worry about the future of this, the greatest country in the 
world.
  Mr. President, I just celebrated my second Mother's Day as a 
grandmother, and my daughter celebrated her second Mother's Day as a 
mom. This is the greatest thing for our family. And everyone who always 
said to me, ``When you are a grandmother, you will see how great it 
is,'' including Senator Feinstein, who told me that years ago, I 
thought, well, maybe they are exaggerating. You know what? They are 
not. To see your baby have a baby, to get the continuity of life is an 
extraordinary feeling.
  I happen to believe as I watch my daughter be a great mother that 
America's moms deserve to be honored every day. We just celebrated 
Mother's Day. They deserve to be honored every day.
  Senator Byrd came down right before Mother's Day and talked about the 
incredible job that our moms are doing, working moms, supermoms, 
working hard so that families have the resources to educate their 
children, to give their children the American dream. It is hard for me 
to imagine why we would want to pass legislation that will harm women.
  Now, it is interesting to me, in the Santorum bill, this procedure is 
outlawed. As a matter of fact, the Senator from Pennsylvania called it 
a barbaric act, and yet in his own bill he says, ``The procedure can be 
used when it is necessary to save the life of the mother'' if you can't 
find another medical procedure.
  So, first, he says it is barbaric. And then he admits in his 
legislation that it may be necessary to save the life of the mother.
  So what is this really all about? It is about banning one procedure 
and then the next and then the next. Women as moms and future moms 
should not be put at risk because the big arm of Government wants to 
reach further into their private medical and family physician.
  We can pass a bill that respects women and their families, that is 
caring and trusting toward American moms and future moms while 
protecting a baby in the post-viability stage of pregnancy. We can pass 
a bill that is consistent with Roe.
  That is what the Feinstein-Boxer-Moseley-Braun bill is about. This 
bill should not be about what the New York Times article quotes Ralph 
Reed as saying, which reveals, I think, a real malice toward the women 
of this country--that a woman should be secondary to a fetus. This 
should not be about mothers versus fetuses. This should be about all of 
us together as a society passing laws that help our families cope with 
tragedy and urgency in a way that is moral and in a way that is 
respectful of everyone involved.
  So this is a painful debate, Mr. President, but my intent is clear. I 
will not allow the fate of the woman to be lost in this debate. I will 
tell story after story after story about the Coreen Costellos of our 
Nation who are loving, caring moms, many of whom would never have an 
abortion at any stage unless they were told they had to have one to 
spare their life or to preserve their fertility so they can be alive 
for their families, for their other children.
  I will do all I can to spare families long-lasting, horrible pain 
that I think would come about as a result of the Santorum bill putting 
Senators into a hospital room and making decisions they are not 
qualified to make. I think this bill will cause pain to innocent, 
caring, and loving families in the name of sparing pain. It is a first 
step toward making all abortions illegal.
  If you ask those who are on the floor and if you study their record, 
you will see they are on record as wanting to ban all abortions from 
the first second.
  So, Mr. President, although this is a very painful debate for all of 
us, I will be here throughout this debate. I will work with my 
colleagues to put the fate of the woman on this debate, to never let 
anyone forget what we are doing if we pass this bill, which is to hurt 
American families. That is my deep belief.
  If you are really about making sure that there is no abortion post-
viability in the late term, you have the Daschle proposal that deals 
with it, and you have the Feinstein-Boxer-Moseley-Braun proposal. If 
you really want to do something about what Americans care about, that 
is what you should do. But don't go to a procedure which you say is 
barbaric, but then you allow it in the case of a woman's life, ban that 
and tell the American people you are doing something about the late 
term which, in fact, you are not when, in fact, what you are doing is 
interfering with medical treatment of women who--all of these women--
are put in tragic circumstances where they could have lost their life 
or their health.
  Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise once again to support the ban on 
the procedure known as partial-birth abortions.
  Mr. President, we have heard a lot in the last year or two about this 
procedure. We have heard the graphic details, the details which are 
certainly not very pleasant. But we know that they are true. They are 
indisputable. We know exactly what this ``procedure'' consists of. 
Senator Santorum earlier this afternoon very graphically described it. 
It is unconscionable.
  Mr President, the public reaction to disclosure about this 
``procedure''--the disclosure of what partial-birth abortion really 
is--has been loud and convincing. There is a good reason for this. Yes, 
this procedure is barbaric. There is simply no other way to describe 
it.
  Many people have asked the question. Why? Why does it take place? Why 
is it done? Why do they do this procedure? Is it really necessary?'' 
Then the question is, ``Why do we as a people allow this to happen?''
  The opponents of this measure argue that it is medically necessary. 
Mr. President, this is simply not true. This is not a valid argument, 
when you have probably the single most respected physician in this 
country, Dr. C. Everett Koop, who says exactly the opposite. Dr. Koop 
in an interview with the American Medical News on March 3 of this year 
says: ``In no way can I twist my mind to see that the late-term 
abortion as described . . . partial birth, and then destruction of an 
unborn child before the head is born--is a medical necessity for the 
mother.''
  Mr. President, America's most respected physician is not alone in 
this view.
  Dr. Nancy Romer, chairman of OB-GYN and professor at Wright State 
University Medical School in Ohio says: ``This procedure is currently 
not an accepted medical procedure. A search of medical literature 
reveals no mention of this procedure, and there is no critically 
evaluated or peer review journal that describes this procedure. There 
is currently no peer review or accountability of this procedure. It is 
currently being performed by a physician with no obstetric training in 
an outpatient facility behind closed doors and no peer review.''
  Dr. Romer also says, Mr. President: ``There is no medical evidence 
that a partial-birth abortion procedure is safer or necessary to 
provide comprehensive health care to women.''
  Let me stress, Mr. President, what the doctor said, ``no medical 
evidence''; none.
  Just this week the American Medical Association also endorsed this 
view. This is what they say. They said there were no situations in 
which partial-birth abortion ``is the only appropriate procedure''; no 
circumstances, Mr. President, where partial-birth abortion ``is the 
only appropriate procedure.''
  I think it is often instructive to look at what those who perform the 
abortions have to say. One of the most famous or infamous abortionists 
is Martin Haskell. He has admitted--this is uncontroverted; no one 
disputes this--Dr. Haskell, who has performed hundreds of thousands of 
these probably,

[[Page S4437]]

admits that at least 80 percent of the partial-birth abortions he 
performed are elective. And the late Dr. James McMahon, a person who 
performed many abortions, says he performed nine of these partial-birth 
abortions because the baby had a cleft lip.
  Let me repeat that. Nine were performed, according to Dr. James 
McMahon, for no other reason than the baby had a cleft lip.
  Medical necessity, Mr. President? Medical necessity? So much for 
medical necessity.
  Why then is this procedure performed? Is it because some of these 
fetuses are deformed?
  Betty Friedan, in a televised debate, called such little babies 
``monsters''; ``monsters.'' She said it not once but twice.
  Are we now in the business of killing people for being defective, Mr. 
President? My colleague from Pennsylvania has pointed out very 
eloquently the irony of this argument, the fact that today--we tried 
earlier this week to protect people with handicaps, protect them in 
school to make sure they had a full education, but at the same time 
abortions are being performed, partial-birth abortions are being 
performed not for medical necessity but rather this child is somehow 
not ``perfect,'' at least as we see perfection.
  Are we now, Mr. President, in the business of killing people for 
being defective? I would submit that the world has gone down that path 
once already in this blood-soaked 20th century. Are we really willing 
to go down that road again? Are we willing to go down that road again 
in this country that is based on the sanctity of human life, the 
sanctity of human rights? I hope not.
  Mr. President, when the child which is subject to a partial-birth 
abortion exits the birth canal, once he or she is out, the child, of 
course, is protected by the U.S. Constitution. If the doctor performing 
the abortion slips, sneezes, something happens, and as a result the 
child's head exits the mother's body, then that doctor cannot legally 
kill that child.

  Mr. President, do we as a nation really believe that those few inches 
between being inside the mother and being outside the mother, do we 
really believe that defines the difference between a legitimate medical 
procedure and barbaric murder? I hope and believe that we are better 
than that, that even our jaded, contemporary public morality would 
rebel in calling this a legitimate medical procedure.
  Mr. President, the defenders of this procedure used to try to change 
the subject. They used to say that it rarely happens, so we shouldn't 
get all worked up about it.
  Well, it is funny. You do not hear much of that argument anymore. The 
reason we do not hear that argument much anymore is because of the 
shocking confession made by a leader in the abortion rights movement. 
Ron Fitzsimmons is the executive director of the National Coalition of 
Abortion Providers. In 1995, when the Senate was considering the 
partial-birth abortion bill, he was helping lead the fight against this 
very bill. He went on ``Nightline'' to argue that the procedure ought 
to remain legal. At that time, he said the procedure was rare and was 
primarily performed to save the lives or the fertility of the mothers.
  You know, a funny thing happened after that. Apparently his 
conscience starting gnawing at him. He says now that he felt physically 
ill about the lies he had told. He said to his wife the very next day, 
``I can't do this again.''
  Meanwhile, President Clinton was using Mr. Fitzsimmons' false 
statements to buttress his case for vetoing the partial-birth abortion 
bill that this Senate passed.
  But a couple of months ago Mr. Fitzsimmons admitted that, in his own 
words, he ``lied through his teeth.'' The facts, as he now publicly 
acknowledges them, are clear. Partial-birth abortion is not a rare 
procedure. It happens tragically all the time. And it is not limited to 
mothers and fetuses who are in danger. It is performed on healthy 
women, it is performed on healthy babies--all the time.
  Remember Dr. Haskell's quote that 80 percent of the abortions he 
performed are elective.
  Mr. President, it is true that everyone is entitled to his or her 
opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But people are not 
entitled to their own facts.
  Ruth Padawer of the Record newspaper in Bergen, NJ, reported last 
September 15 that 1,500 of these partial-birth abortions happened in 
one local clinic in 1 year.
  Once you confront the reality of what partial-birth abortion really 
is, you realize that from a moral perspective one of these atrocities 
is as bad as 1,500, but let nobody say this procedure is somehow de 
minimis, that it does not happen often enough to deserve legal notice.
  Let me now describe briefly some of the proposed amendments to this 
legislation. I know we will have the opportunity later during this 
debate to talk about this at length. Let me just for a moment talk 
about several of the amendments at least as I now understand them.
  Under the Boxer-Feinstein amendment, the exceptions swallow the rule. 
It is the old trick. Make it sound good, but then put an exception in 
there that, in reality, the way it really works as interpreted already 
by courts, the exception swallows up the entire rule and really makes 
the bill, in this case the amendment, meaningless. Under the Bolton 
precedent, the Bolton case, the ``health'' language clearly has 
unlimited meaning. So once the term ``health'' is in there, as 
interpreted by the Court, it swallows up the entire amendment and makes 
it useless. It is determined by the existence of health circumstances 
as decided by the very same doctor who performs the abortion. That is 
who does the decision. That is who makes the decision about the health 
under the Boxer-Feinstein amendment. Clearly that exception renders the 
bill meaningless.
  Furthermore, if this really is about maternal health, then why do we 
have to kill the baby? Senator Santorum very eloquently talked about 
this a few minutes ago. No doctor, no witness, no Senator has yet 
offered any evidence that tells us why, when the health of the mother 
is in danger, you have to kill the baby. Why? Why can't we, if it is 
threatening the mother's health, deliver the baby and, if possible, 
save it? Why does this child have to be killed?
  Senator Santorum earlier read in part from this letter, the letter 
from the Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth. I want to read one of 
the paragraphs because it addresses this very issue, and this is what 
the doctors said:

       As specialists in the care and management of high-risk 
     pregnancies complicated by maternal or fetal illness, we have 
     all treated women who during their pregnancies have faced the 
     conditions cited by Senator Daschle. We are gravely concerned 
     that the remarks by Senator Daschle and those who support the 
     continued use of partial-birth abortion may lead such women 
     to believe that they have no other choice but to abort their 
     children because of their conditions. While it may become 
     necessary, in the second or third trimester, to end a 
     pregnancy in order to protect the mother's life or health, 
     abortion is not required--i.e., it is never medically 
     necessary, in order to preserve the woman's life, health or 
     future fertility, to deliberately kill an unborn child in the 
     second or third trimester, and certainly not by mostly 
     delivering the child before putting him or her to death. What 
     is required in the circumstances specified by Senator Daschle 
     is separation of the child from the mother, not the death of 
     the child.

  Why then can't we as a society, if the child is threatening the 
mother's health, deliver the child and, if possible, to try to save it? 
Why does that child have to be killed? There is no medical answer for 
that, there is no medical reason. But let me submit a reason that I 
think is critically clear from the debate and, more importantly, from 
the evidence and, more importantly, from the words of the doctors who 
perform these abortions. Why is it done? Why does the child have to be 
killed? The child has to be killed because that is the goal. That is 
the goal. That is what the doctor wants to do.
  Now, Dr. Haskell, who has performed hundreds and hundreds and 
hundreds of these, has said as much. In an interview with the American 
Medical News, he said:

       You could dilate further and deliver the baby alive, but 
     that's really not the point. The point is you are attempting 
     to do an abortion. And that's the goal of your work, is to 
     complete an abortion. Not to see how do I manipulate the 
     situation so that I get a live birth instead.

  Dr. Haskell admits it. He admits what the goal is. He admits why it 
is done. Why can't we on the Senate floor?

[[Page S4438]]

  An abortion is legal in this country. I happen to be pro-life. But 
nothing says we have to allow this procedure simply because it allows 
the doctor to speed up the procedure and move on to the next one. These 
are done for the doctor's convenience.
  Let me specifically go back to the issue of the Daschle amendment, 
and again we will have the exact language in the Chamber, I am sure, 
and we will have the opportunity to more thoroughly debate this. Let me 
address the third trimester ban that is proposed by this amendment. The 
reality is that the exceptions are simply too numerous and the way they 
will be applied it will again swallow up the amendment.
  The facts are that the vast majority of these partial-birth abortions 
occur in the fifth and sixth months. All the abortionist has to do 
under this amendment is to certify that either the baby is not viable, 
just certify it, or that the abortion is medically necessary. The 
conditions are spelled out apparently in the amendment. In practice, 
this means there will be no limit on the will of the abortionist. The 
same person who will be certifying is the person such as Dr. Haskell 
who has described why he performs this procedure. In practice, there 
will be no limit to what the abortionist does. Our colleague, my friend 
from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, has compared it--he does it better 
than anybody I have heard--to passing an assault weapons ban and then 
entrusting gun dealers to decide what constitutes an assault weapon. 
Would anybody propose to do that? I think not.

  Viability has also been proposed as a standard. I fail to see what 
viability has to do with whether this procedure should really be 
permitted. Whether it should be permitted is a question of humaneness 
or arguably a question of health. If one can show that the fetus 
threatens maternal health and that abortion is the only way to save the 
mother's health, the opponents of the ban are still confronted with the 
insufferable difficulty of proving this specific procedure, partial-
birth abortion, is the only way to accomplish that goal.
  As Dr. Koop and Dr. Romer have testified, there is absolutely no way 
the partial-birth supporters can meet that test because this procedure 
is never medically necessary. The proponents of partial-birth cannot 
hide behind a false claim of medical necessity. There is no medical 
necessity. The evidence is abundantly clear.
  Let us again, because I think it is so instructive, hear what Dr. 
Martin Haskell says, the abortionist who has performed so many of these 
abortions and who, frankly, has been so very candid about what he does 
and why he does it. Let us hear Dr. Haskell describe this procedure, 
again a procedure that is not medically necessary. This is what he 
says, not Mike DeWine, not Senator Santorum, not Senator Boxer. This is 
what Dr. Martin Haskell, who performs these abortions, has to say.

       I just kept on doing D&Es because that is what I was 
     comfortable with up until 24 weeks. But they were very tough. 
     Sometimes it was a 45-minute operation. I noticed that some 
     of the later D&Es were very easy so I asked myself why can't 
     they all happen this way. You see the easy ones would have a 
     foot-length presentation, you'd reach up and grab the foot of 
     the fetus, pull the fetus down and the head would hang up and 
     then you would collapse the head and take it out. It was 
     easy.

  It was easy, Mr. President, it was easy for Dr. Haskell. Dr. Haskell 
does not say it was easy for the mother. I suspect that he really does 
not care. His goal is to perform abortions.
  Under these proposed amendments, is Dr. Martin Haskell, a man who has 
said--you have heard what he had to say--is he the person we are going 
to trust to decide whether abortions are necessary? He has a production 
line going. Nothing is going to stop him from meeting his quota.
  Dr. Haskell concludes, again quoting:

       I would reach around trying to identify a lower extremity 
     blindly with the tip of my instrument. I'd get it right about 
     30-50 percent of the time. Then I said, ``Well, gee, if I 
     just put the ultrasound up there I could see it all and I 
     wouldn't have to feel around for it.'' I did that and, sure 
     enough, I found it 99 percent of the time. Kind of 
     serendipity.

  Kind of serendipity, Mr. President.
  Let me conclude. I believe we need to ask ourselves, what does our 
toleration of this procedure as a country, as a people, say about us? 
What kind of a people are we? What kind of a nation are we? I think you 
judge a country not just by what it is for. I think you also judge a 
country and a people by what we are against, and we judge a country and 
the people by what we tolerate. We tolerate a lot in this country, 
unfortunately. This is one thing that we should not have to tolerate. 
Where do we draw the line? At what point do we finally stop saying, oh, 
I really don't like this, but it doesn't really matter to me so I will 
put up with it? It really doesn't affect me so I will put up with it.
  At what point do we say, unless we stop this from happening, we 
cannot justly call ourselves a civilized nation. I think it is very 
clear what justice demands. That is why I strongly support this ban. 
That is why I strongly support this bill to ban a truly barbaric 
procedure.
  I look forward to the opportunity as this debate continues to debate 
the various amendments and talking about this bill further. At this 
point I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, it has often been said that one is a product of one's 
life experiences. Because this is a bill about so-called partial-birth 
abortion, and because there is no medical definition of partial-birth 
abortion, and because most of us believe that what is being referred to 
is a procedure either called intact D&E or intact D&X--but that is not 
reflected in the bill--and because the bill affects more than just the 
third trimester of a pregnancy but also goes into the second trimester, 
and because it carries with it criminal penalties, I want to share with 
this body how I am a product of my life experiences with respect to 
abortion.
  I well remember my early days. In college during the 1950's, abortion 
was illegal, and I knew young women who were in trouble. I knew one who 
committed suicide. I knew others who passed the plate to those of us in 
a dormitory--and this was Stanford University--to go to Mexico for an 
abortion.
  Later in the 1960's, I spent 8 days a year for 5 years sentencing 
women in the State prison, and I sentenced abortionists because 
abortion was still illegal in California in the early 1960's. I 
remember these cases particularly well. I remember the crude 
instruments used. I remember women who were horribly damaged by some of 
these illegal abortions. I remember mortality as well. And I always 
thought maybe one day we will get past this and not have to go back to 
it.
  What concerns me about this debate is that I see it as the opening 
wedge of a long march to take us back 30 years, back to the passing of 
the plate at Stanford, back to the back-alley abortionists.
  I will never forget one woman because abortion carried with it a 
maximum sentence of 10 years in State prison at the time. I sentenced 
this woman--I remember her name, I am not going to say it here--to the 
maximum sentence because she had been in and out of the State 
institution. This was her third time. Every time she went out I asked 
her why she continued. She said, ``Because women were in such trouble 
and they had no other place to go, so they came to me because they knew 
I would take care of them.'' That was the reality of life from 1960 to 
at least 1966 in California. I do not want women, young women, to have 
to go back to those days again.

  So basically I am pro-choice. I am also a member of the Judiciary 
Committee of the Senate, so I have been present at all of the hearings 
on this so-called partial birth abortion bill. Essentially, I believe 
that abortion should be a matter for a woman, for her doctor, for her 
faith, for medicine, and not for politicians. One of the most 
perplexing things in my life has always been why men are so desperate 
to control a woman's reproductive system.
  Nonetheless, about 4\1/2\ years ago, I became a grandmother of a 
little girl who is the light of my life. Her birth was not 
uncomplicated. My daughter had a pregnancy-related condition. It was a 
condition that women bleed to death from. You have, essentially, about 
20 minutes from the time you begin to hemorrhage before your life is 
extinguished, and that of the child.
  This case of my daughter's is really only related to this whole 
debate in

[[Page S4439]]

that it caused me to really think. I never thought that my daughter 
would be in a situation of this type. I began to think of the ``whens'' 
and ``ifs,'' and whether one could really predict all of the exigencies 
that a woman in pregnancy is subject to. I could not with my own 
daughter, because I never would have dreamt that this would have 
happened. For her, she was a lucky one. Although at home I am a block 
and a half from the hospital, they would not let her stay with me. She 
stayed in the hospital right next to an operating theater, so that for 
2 months the baby grew in her womb, and then at 35 weeks she was able 
to have a C section. And we have a wonderful little granddaughter--
bright eyed, bushy tailed--and the story came out OK.
  But I came to a few conclusions. The conclusion is, no matter how 
all-seeing we think we are, no one can possibly know all of the 
circumstances one may find themselves in. So, if we are going to pass 
laws, laws need to be flexible enough to anticipate the circumstances 
and to provide for a worthy exception. I basically believe that this 
intact D&E, or intact D&X, whichever one chooses to call it, is a 
procedure that should not be used. That is my basic belief and I think 
the AMA is beginning to come to grips with this and set down some 
precepts, as to when one should consider a late-term abortion.
  I believe that abortions post-viability should not take place except 
in the rarest of circumstances. And that the only case for a post-
viability abortion is either to protect the life and health of the 
mother or in cases where there is such a serious, severe fetal 
abnormality that the abnormality is inconsistent with life. In other 
words, the child could not survive outside of the womb for any period 
of time.
  So, with my colleagues, Senator Boxer and Senator Moseley-Braun, we 
will offer a substitute at the appropriate time to the Santorum bill 
and one that will also be a substitute to the Daschle bill. Our bill 
will have the following provisions:
  It will prohibit all abortions after viability in a way that will 
meet the test of constitutionality. The provision for life and health 
of the mother does just that.
  The health requirement is drawn to correspond with the mandate of Roe 
versus Wade, to prevent serious adverse health consequences to the 
mother and not to restrict the judgment of the physician.
  Additionally, the goal is to provide for post-viability abortions 
only in cases of serious fetal anomalies--or abnormalities incompatible 
with life.
  The penalties of the bill will be civil but substantial. They will be 
limited to the physician. The penalty for the first violation will be 
up to $100,000, along with referral to a State licensing board for 
possible suspension of the license. For a second offense, a fine up to 
$250,000 and referral to a State licensing board for possible 
revocation of the license. Unlike the Daschle substitute, we would not 
withhold Medicaid funds. But we would allow the State to, essentially, 
register its will.

  I am very much persuaded by the fact that some 41 States have already 
passed legislation limiting late-term abortions. In Arizona, no 
abortion may be performed after viability; in Arkansas, same thing; in 
Connecticut, no abortion may be performed after viability; and on and 
on.
  So I, for one, have a very hard time understanding why it is 
necessary for the Federal Government to get involved in this area at 
this time. But, if we do, I think we ought to do it in a way that does 
not limit the doctor, that prohibits post-viability abortions, and 
contains an exception that accounts for those rare cases when the fetus 
has a severe abnormality that is not consistent with human life.
  So, we would offer this as a substitute for that offered by the 
distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, and as a substitute to the 
Daschle legislation as well.
  I would like to illustrate the ways in which this bill that the three 
of us would offer would differ from that of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. Most profoundly, our legislation would fully comport with 
the Supreme Court's landmark decision, Roe versus Wade, which affirms a 
woman's constitutional right to choose whether or not to have an 
abortion. According to Roe, in the first 12 to 15 weeks of pregnancy, 
when 95.5 percent of all abortions occur, that procedure is medically 
the safest. The Government cannot, under Roe, place an undue burden on 
a woman's right to have an abortion.
  In the second trimester, when the procedure in some situations 
provides a greater health risk, abortion may be regulated but only to 
protect the health of the mother. This might mean, for example, 
requiring that an abortion be performed in a hospital or performed by a 
licensed physician.
  In the later stages of pregnancy, at the point the fetus becomes 
viable and able to live independently from the mother, Roe recognizes 
the strong interest in protecting potential human life. On that basis, 
abortions can be prohibited, except in cases where the abortion is 
necessary to protect the life and health of the woman. The life or the 
health of the woman. Thus, Roe strikes a delicate balance in protecting 
the fetus as well as the mother.
  Our bill will fully comport with Roe. It applies only to post-
viability abortions, not pre-viability abortions. And it contains 
exceptions to protect the health as well as life of the mother.
  In my humble opinion, the bill before us now, presented by the 
distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, is unconstitutional and it 
represents a direct challenge to Roe. It provides no exception for 
cases where the banned procedure may be necessary to protect a woman's 
health. It ignores the viability line established in Roe and reaffirmed 
in Casey. Although the term ``partial-birth abortion'' is not a 
medically recognized term, the bill's focus on a particular procedure 
means that this procedure will be banned even if performed pre-
viability, during the second trimester. Roe does not permit abortions 
to be banned prior to viability. That is the constitutional framework 
here.
  I think the proponents of this bill know well the challenges to Roe 
that this legislation presents. The magnitude of this bill is enormous 
for the long-term preservation of safe and legal abortion in this 
country. The Santorum bill would have an immediate and direct effect on 
the lives of women facing tragic and health-threatening circumstances, 
even in the second trimester of pregnancy. The bill also holds a doctor 
criminally liable unless he or she can prove that the banned procedure 
was the only one that would have saved the woman's life. Not the 
woman's health, but the woman's life.
  The vagueness of the term ``partial-birth abortion'' makes the use of 
criminal penalties particularly troublesome. Doctors will not 
necessarily know when they are violating the law, since no precise 
procedure is referred to in the law.
  During last year's hearing before the Judiciary Committee, none of 
our medical experts who testified had heard of the term partial-birth 
abortion. Since then, of course, times have changed. But none could 
point to a medical text that used the term.
  Georgetown law professor, Michael Seidman, stated in hearings last 
year:
  If I were a lawyer advising a physician who performed abortions, I 
would tell him to stop because there is just no way to tell whether the 
procedure will eventuate in some portion of the fetus entering the 
birth canal before the fetus is technically dead, much less being able 
to demonstrate that after the fact.
  This is the catch-22 in the bill of the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania. It can be applied to much more than just the procedure we 
think is at hand. The use of criminal penalties in conjunction with a 
vague term such as ``partial-birth abortion'' is likely to make the 
Santorum bill unconstitutionally vague and, therefore, unenforceable.
  Our bill, instead, provides civil penalties for any post-viability 
abortion performed without sufficient medical justification. I believe 
that these civil penalties will effectively deter any physician who 
would perform a post-viability abortion for anything other than the 
most serious reasons.
  Women's health, I think, should be of great importance to this body, 
and I would also hope that every woman in the United States would want 
a Congress to legislate based on what we thought would help their 
health, rather than create situations which would

[[Page S4440]]

deny them the opportunity prevent long-term damage to their physical 
health.
  Late in certain types of highly troubled pregnancies, there are only 
limited options available to physicians, and I would like to give some 
examples of rare medical conditions that could necessitate a post-
viability procedure for which there are no other alternatives 
available.
  One example would be a fetus that has a greatly enlarged 
hydrocephalic head, three times the normal size, the cranium filled 
with fluid. The head is so large the woman physically cannot deliver 
it. Labor is impossible because the fetus cannot get through the birth 
canal. A caesarean may well be impossible for medical reasons.
  Let me give you an actual case, the case of Viki Wilson. She stated:

       Then I had a final ultrasound at 36 weeks, just 4 weeks 
     from my due date, and the world came crashing down around us. 
     Our child was diagnosed with encephalocoele. Most of her 
     brain had grown outside her head, and what did form was 
     abnormal. Abigail could not survive outside the womb, and she 
     was already suffering from seizures. At first I said, let's 
     do a C-section, let's get her out of there! My doctor said, 
     sadly, ``Viki, we do C-sections to save babies. I can't save 
     Abigail, and I can't justify the risks of a C-section to your 
     health when you are going to lose your daughter no matter 
     what.'' So even though my medical training--

  And this woman was a nurse--

     told us that there was no hope, my husband and I went to 
     several specialists in the desperate belief that there was 
     someone out there with a magic wand who would say, ``I can 
     help save your daughter.'' No one did, no one could. Finally, 
     we made a decision, based entirely on love, to end the 
     pregnancy.

  This is one of those situations that no one knows beforehand that 
they may be in.
  There is also a case of a rigid fetus caused by arthrogryposis. This 
kind of fetus cannot move through the birth canal. It risks rupturing 
the woman's cervix. With prolonged intense pushing, the mother's heart 
is placed at risk.
  Other health conditions can prevent a woman from being able to 
tolerate the stress of labor or surgery. They include cardiac problems 
like congestive heart failure, severe kidney disease, renal shutdown, 
severe hypertension, and so on.
  In fact, it is certain health-related concerns that has caused me to 
part ways with Senator Daschle's approach. In many regards, the bill 
which we are introducing is similar to Senator Daschle's in several 
respects, but in one it is different.
  We are alike in that both bills would limit all forms of post-
viability abortions. The principal difference is the health exception. 
Our bill would allow third trimester abortions only in cases where the 
life of the mother is at issue or where an abortion is necessary to 
avert serious adverse health consequences to the mother. The Daschle 
bill, as I understand it, would allow an exception only in cases where 
continuation of the pregnancy would risk grievous injury to the 
mother's physical health. Grievous injury is defined as a seriously 
debilitating disease or impairment specifically caused by the pregnancy 
or an inability to provide necessary treatment for a life-threatening 
condition.
  I believe that the Daschle substitute would not allow the abortion 
procedure for certain serious conditions that, although they are not 
caused by the pregnancy, are exacerbated by the pregnancy. I believe 
the limiting language of this bill could foreclose a doctor's option in 
certain situations that cannot be anticipated, and that is my concern. 
Who knows what situation one may be in or if the situation may not 
arise until labor or delivery?
  For example, one House witness testified that her baby had a brain 
improperly formed, pressured by a backup of fluid, a greatly enlarged 
head, a malformed and failing heart, a malfunctioning liver, and a 
dangerously low amount of amniotic fluid. A physician, we believe, 
needs the latitude to deal with these complex emergency situations as 
they are trained to do.
  I also believe it is important to understand, and I hope if I am 
wrong that the Senator will correct me, that the Daschle substitute 
makes no provision for a severely malformed fetus incompatible with 
life, if that baby can be delivered in a live condition even for a 
matter of minutes or days.
  Roe simply states if the State is interested in protecting fetal life 
after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that 
period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of 
the mother.
  I think that is a very important constitutional mandate, that any 
bill passed here in the next day or so must meet the test of 
constitutionality.
  So we will, at an appropriate time, present a bill that we hope will 
meet this test.
  Let me just end by saying that everything that I have read, 
everything that I have seen indicates that post-viability abortions are 
extremely rare, and that the vast majority, over 99 percent of 
abortions, are performed very early in pregnancy. The latest data that 
we have from the Guttmacher Institute, whose figures are relied upon by 
the Centers for Disease Control, indicates that 99 percent of all 
abortions are performed before 20 weeks of gestation; 90 percent are 
performed within the first 12 weeks; and less than 1 percent are 
performed after 20 weeks. Only four-hundredths of 1 percent performed 
after 20 weeks are performed during the third trimester. So this means 
there is a total of about 400 to 600 abortions performed annually 
during the third trimester of pregnancy.
  According to the Centers for Disease Control, 98.9 percent of all 
abortions are performed by the simple curettage procedure, which simply 
involves the scraping of the interior of the uterus.
  So any way you view it, we are looking at a very small number of 
cases. I guess my plea is for those circumstances which cannot be 
anticipated, for circumstances where the mother's life and health truly 
are at risk and--as I learned firsthand with my own daughter--nobody 
really understands or can have a looking glass to indicate what those 
circumstances may be.
  As I said, I basically believe that the intact D&E or intact D&X, 
whatever one may choose, should not be used. I am hopeful that the 
medical profession will take that view, and I believe that there are 
ongoing discussions on that subject.
  But I believe that when we pass legislation that affects every single 
woman in the United States who can possibly be at issue in this case, 
that to pass a piece of legislation which would mandate that a 
seriously abnormal fetus, unable over time to sustain life outside the 
womb, would have to be delivered regardless of the health impacts on 
the mother, is not a piece of legislation that I, in good conscience, 
can support. So, Madam President, at the appropriate time, Senators 
Boxer, Moseley-Braun, and I will present a substitute amendment.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Madam President. I will just say in response 
to the Senators from California, I just need to reiterate what we 
stated earlier, and Senator DeWine read earlier, that there is no 
health reason where this is the only option. AMA said that today. They 
came out with a report saying that today. The American College of 
Gynecologists and Obstetricians have said so.
  This is not going to limit anybody's access to abortion if that is 
what they choose to do. It eliminates a procedure, a procedure, as I 
said before, that is not medically recognized, it is not in the 
literature, it is not peer reviewed, it is not taught anywhere in any 
medical school. It eliminates a procedure which many of us believe, and 
I believe the vast majority of the American public believes, goes too 
far, is too brutal, is outside the realm of what we should allow in a 
civilized society.
  So I keep hearing the concerns that, ``Well, maybe there's something 
out there, maybe there's a case out there that this is necessary.'' I 
know that the Senator from California started with the case of Viki 
Wilson and talked about one of those instances being the case of 
hydrocephaly. I am going to talk about a case of hydrocephaly. I am 
going to talk about a case where a mother involved with a little baby 
in her womb, diagnosed with hydrocephaly, was confronted with the very 
same problems that Viki Wilson was confronted with, the very same 
challenges Viki Wilson was confronted with, the very same challenges 
that not just Viki Wilson or Laurie Watts

[[Page S4441]]

were confronted with, but, unfortunately, lots of mothers and fathers 
are confronted with.

  I suggest that there is a different way, that there are other 
options, options that are much more fulfilling, more decent, more 
human, more humane than the option of a partial-birth abortion.
  We hear so much talk about the people who came to the White House and 
stood with the President. The Senator from California, Senator Boxer, 
is very fond of putting up charts of individual families that have gone 
through this very difficult time. I have often talked about the 
millions of children who die because of abortion, and the thousands of 
abortions of partial-birth abortion. But somehow or another, that does 
not seem to lock on, at least with the media or, in some respects, even 
with the American public. It reminds me of what Joseph Stalin once 
said. He said:

       A single death is a tragedy--a million deaths is a 
     statistic.

  I think for far too often, we have been arguing statistics here, 
about the numbers of millions of children, and maybe, oddly, we can 
learn something from Joseph Stalin.
  So today I am going to talk about what could have been a single 
tragedy, what could very well have been a Viki Wilson, what could have 
been a whole host of other mothers and fathers who are confronted with 
this terrible dilemma of having a child who just might not survive.
  Let me tell you the story about Donna Joy Watts and Lori and Donny 
Watts. The Watts live in Green Castle, PA. They did not always live 
there. They lived, until just a month or so ago, in western Maryland.
  Seven months into her third pregnancy, Lori Watts learned that her 
child would not be normal, that there was a problem. A sonogram showed 
that her child had a condition known as hydrocephalus, the same 
condition that the Senator from California has just described with one 
of the cases the President points to as the reason for keeping this 
procedure legal. Hydrocephaly is an excessive amount of cerebral fluid 
in the skull, also known as water on the brain.
  Lori's obstetrician said, after the sonogram was done, that he was 
going to refer her to a genetics counselor. I could talk for a long 
time about genetics counselors. But I think this story sums up, 
unfortunately, what far too many genetics counselors do.
  Lori Watts phoned the clinic to ask directions and what they planned 
to do. The staff member told her that most hydrocephalic fetuses do not 
carry to term so that she should terminate her pregnancy. When she 
asked, how could you do an abortion so late in pregnancy at 7 months, 
she was told that the doctor could use a skull-collapsing technique 
that we refer to as partial-birth abortion.
  Donny Watts demanded to know why they had been referred to a facility 
that counsels for abortion when talking to his obstetrician, whom he 
called. And the obstetrician said, ``Well, you know, there are doctors 
there who didn't encourage abortion. I thought you would talk to them, 
and you talked to the wrong person.''
  It is amazing--but not amazing--that you can call a clinic, and 
depending on who you talk to is what kind of advice you are going to 
get as to whether to terminate your pregnancy or not. But I am, 
frankly, pleased that at least there are some counselors who will 
suggest other alternatives. Far too many do not in cases as severe as 
was confronting the Watts family.
  In that conversation with their obstetrician, he advised the Watts to 
see a specialist in high-risk obstetrics. I can say that in 
conversations with the Watts, they were amazed at the attitude of the 
people they confronted.
  The obstetrician, the original obstetrician, said that he could not 
take care of the baby anymore; it was too complicated. So they went and 
asked doctors at Johns Hopkins. They said they--well, they would not 
even see them. All they wanted to do was an abortion. They would not 
deliver the baby.
  Then she went to Union Memorial Hospital, same thing. You hear so 
much talk about, well, we cannot get availability for abortions. How 
about availability for delivery?
  She finally went to the University of Maryland Hospital in Baltimore. 
They were very quick to dismiss her also. They said the baby's chances 
for survival were nil, that she would be ``a burden, a heartache, and a 
sorrow.''
  Where have we come in this country where we have so little respect 
for the little children among us who just may not be perfect, that they 
can be disposed of, that you can look into the eyes of a mother who 
desperately wants her child and tell her, ``It would just be a burden 
to you''?
  I do not know of any child that is not at times a burden. Children 
are joys and struggles. I mean, that is just part of life. If you are 
not ready to have some burdens with your children, then you better not 
get pregnant in the first place and try to have children.
  Where have we arrived?
  She went through four separate occasions. They were discouraging her 
even from delivering her child, as desperately as she wanted to do so, 
not unlike what Viki Wilson ran into.
  Lori Watts did not give up. Lori Watts finally found somebody who 
would do it, someone who was not going to say that it was a burden, a 
heartache, or a sorrow, or as the other doctors said, ``If you didn't 
abort, you would be jeopardizing your own fertility, your own health.''
  So after all that treatment, they finally found someone who would do 
it.
  In the process of the care, prior to the delivery, they found out 
that the fetus had occipital meningo-encephalocele, which is exactly 
again what Viki Wilson had. Part of the brain was developing outside of 
the skull.
  There was an article from today's Washington Times, on page 2, about 
the Watts family. In that article, Mrs. Watts is quoted saying at this 
time in her life that ``everyone on the other side talks about choice, 
but they didn't want to give us a choice. They said they would not 
deliver her.''
  Imagine, people wonder how far we have gone. People wonder how we can 
be debating partial-birth abortion on the floor of the U.S. Senate and 
have people get up and argue that it should be legal.

  Listen to this. They would not even deliver her at four places--four 
places. They did finally find someone who would deliver the baby at the 
University of Maryland Hospital. They delivered through a cesarean 
section. The Watts' third daughter, Donna Joy--Donna, named after her 
dad, Donny; Joy, for obvious reasons--was born on November 26, 1991.
  Yes, she was born with a lot of problems, a lot of serious problems. 
But let me describe to you what they had to confront now after they 
fought and did not give up to give their daughter a chance. Donna Joy 
was born with hydrocephaly.
  That is a picture of her shortly after her birth.
  For 3 days--for 3 days--they refused to drain the water off her 
brain. They said she was going to die, and so they refused to put a 
shunt in and drain the water. For 3 days they hydrated her, gave her 
fluids, but they did not feed her because they said she was going to 
die.
  Mrs. Watts said in this article, ``The doctors wouldn't operate on 
her to save her life. I just about had to threaten one of the doctors 
physically. And I was seconds from throwing him against the wall. She 
was already born and they were still calling her a fetus.''
  But Lori and Donny Watts did not give up. They did not cave in to 
what our culture around sick babies is any more, and they fought on. 
They had the surgery performed. They began the feeding. Initially, she 
fed the baby with breast milk in a sterilized eyedropper. Then, at 2 
weeks of age, the shunt that was put in failed, and Donna Joy was 
readmitted to the hospital.
  A tray of food was delivered by mistake to her room. It had some 
cereal and bananas and some baby formula on it. And so Lori decided 
that she would mix this together to form a paste, put it in an 
eyedropper, and place a drop in the back of Donna's tongue.
  You see, Donna Joy was born with about 30 percent of her brain. Donna 
Joy was born without a functioning medulla oblongata, with a deformed 
brain stem. She had no control over her sphincter muscle, so things 
that were given to her would come straight back up. There was nothing 
to hold the food in her stomach. So Mrs. Watts came up with the idea of 
getting something that was heavy, pasty, and putting it way back. And 
it worked.

[[Page S4442]]

  You want to talk about a burden and a joy? For the next several 
months, they had to feed Donna Joy that way. It took an hour and a half 
to feed their daughter; an hour-and-a-half break and then an hour-and-
a-half feeding, 24 hours a day. She had to fight. She had to fight.
  Four months later, a CT scan revealed she also suffered from lobar-
haloprosencephaly, a condition that results in the incomplete cleavage 
of the brain.
  She also suffered from epilepsy, a sleep disorder, and continuing 
digestive complications. The neurologist suggested that ``We may have 
to consider a gastronomy tube [a gastronomic tube] in order to maintain 
her nutrition and physical growth.''
  She was suffering from apnea, a condition which spontaneously stops 
breathing.
  At 18 months, Donna Joy had another brush with death. She contracted 
encephalitis, which is the inflammation of the brain. So a little girl, 
with 30 percent of her brain, who has to take medicine so she does not 
have seizures, hit with another problem of encephalitis.
  As a result of high temperature--she had a 106 temperature--it was a 
big setback. Up until that time, she was developing along, using sign 
language. She was not talking, but she was communicating. That 
temperature wiped out, that encephalitis wiped out her memory. She 
could not walk or talk. She was laying in bed having all sorts of 
difficulty, could not focus on anybody, and had deteriorated 
substantially.

  Then a miracle. Lori would tape shows late at night and put them on 
to give some diversion for Donna Joy to direct her attention. Nothing 
seemed to work, until one day a television show came on, a tape of a 
television show called Quantum Leap. The star of the show, Scott Bakula 
sings a song ``Somewhere in the Night.''
  Upon hearing that song, she reacted as follows, according to the 
newspaper: ``The child stopped crying. Mrs. Watts rewound the piece and 
played it again. This time Donna sat up and tried crawling toward the 
television. The more she watched Quantum Leap the more Donna improved. 
She would only eat and drink when the TV character was on the screen. 
Just before she turned 2, she took her first steps toward Scott Bakula 
on the TV set.''
  At 2 years, Donna Joy had already undergone eight brain operations, 
most of which occurred at the University of Maryland hospital. Finally, 
they received news about Donna Joy's prospects. The neurologist who 
examined her after her seizure in 1996 noted that at 4\1/2\ years of 
age Donna Joy could speak, walk, and handle objects fairly well. He 
also thanked a colleague for ``the kind approval for the follow-up in 
allowing me to reassess this beautiful young child who is, remarkably, 
doing very well in spite of significant malformation of the brain.''
  Today, the story of Donna Joy Watts has inspired many, many people. 
She can do a lot in spite of her disabilities. She has cerebral palsy, 
epilepsy, tunnel vision, and Arnold-Chiari Type II malformation, which 
prevented development of her medulla oblongota. She walks, runs, plays. 
In fact, she was in my office most of the afternoon playing with my 
children. I know she has very good dexterity because we have Hershey 
kisses and Three Musketeer bars in the front of the office, and she can 
unwrap them as fast as any 5-year-old I have seen.
  Prior to Donna Joy moving to Pennsylvania, the Governor of Maryland, 
Parris Glendenning, honored her with a Certificate of Courage 
commemorating her fifth birthday. The mayor of Hagerstown, MD, Steve 
Sager, proclaimed her birthday Donna Joy Watts Day. Members of the 
Scott Bakula fan club sent donations and Christmas presents for the 
Watts children. People from all over the world who learned about Donna 
Joy on the Internet have been moved to write and send gifts. Perhaps 
the most important is that the Watts' determination has inspired a 
Denver couple to fight for their little boy who was born with similar 
circumstances.
  I asked the Watts if there are other children whom they know who have 
survived and done this well. Mrs. Watts looked back at me and said, 
``Other children with this condition are aborted. We don't know. We 
don't know.'' We don't know the power of the human brain. I hear the 
story all the time about how you do not use all your brain. Well, I 
guess you do not need it all to be a functioning human being in our 
world. She is very functional.
  There is a lot of talk that we need to have the abortions, 
particularly in the case of hydroencephaly to prevent future 
infertility. In June 1995, Lori and Donny Watts welcomed another child, 
Shaylah, into the family. Mrs. Watts looked at me very proudly and 
said, ``On the first try.''
  I had the opportunity to walk over here with Donna Joy, hold her 
hand, ride the subway with her, go up the escalator, which was a big 
treat, and come up and be in the Senate gallery for only a brief time. 
She is now back in my office. I encourage anybody who would like to 
meet her, any one of my colleagues, I encourage all of them to go and 
talk to the Watts family and to look into the eyes of this little girl, 
this little girl who could have died through a partial-birth abortion. 
You want a face on partial-birth abortions? All of the faces are not 
here to be seen. They die. Brutal. This is the little girl who was 
saved from partial-birth abortion at 5\1/2\ years of age.
  I will read the end of Tony Snow's article about this situation of 
the Watts. Lori and her husband, both children of steelworkers, had to 
overcome the contempt of snobbish doctors and social workers as they 
painstakingly built their own miracle. They never got any help from 
feminists, liberal Democrats or the President. These days, Don works 
the 4 p.m.-to-midnight shift in the local corrections facilities so he 
can spend time with his four kids. Lori educates them in the evening 
while he is gone. Unfortunately, they went bankrupt a couple years ago 
and have moved to Pennsylvania, Greencastle, a beautiful community in 
Franklin County, where they live in a 2-bedroom bungalow on a friend's 
farm.
  As for choice, here is what Lori has to say: ``Choice they didn't 
give me. I had to beg for a choice. Why did I have to go out of my way 
when they wanted to kill my baby, when they didn't want to operate or 
feed her? I didn't get to choose anything.''
  As I mentioned earlier today, I rose and asked unanimous consent to 
have little Donna Joy Watts sit up there with her mom and dad and watch 
this proceeding and watch Members debate whether we are going to allow 
a procedure that could have been used to kill her still be legal in 
this country. When I asked for that unanimous consent, the Senator from 
California, Senator Boxer, objected. Donna Joy Watts is only 5\1/2\ 
years of age, although I suggest she has lived a lot in those 5\1/2\ 
years. But you have to be 6 years of age to sit in the Senate gallery 
unless you can get unanimous consent in the Senate to do otherwise, and 
Senator Boxer rose and objected. She said, and I quote, ``I think I am 
acting in the best interests of that child.'' Oh, how many times has 
Lori Watts heard that? How many people have said to her, ``I am doing 
this for the best interests of your child.'' But she did not listen to 
them. If she had listened to them she would not be here today, sitting 
here in Washington, and Donna Joy would not be on this Earth. Thank God 
Lori did not listen to all of the voices, thank God Donny didn't listen 
to all of the voices that said, ``I think I'm acting in the best 
interests of your child.''
  There is no reason--there is no reason--for the conditions that the 
Senator from California outlined as medically necessary reasons to do 
partial-birth abortions. There is no reason. Those are not good 
reasons. Here is an example of why it is not a good reason. You do not 
have to kill the baby. You can deliver the baby. You can do a cesarean 
section. You may at times--in this case, it was not the case--you may 
at times have to separate the mother from the child, but you never have 
to kill the child in the process. You do not have to do it.
  So for all the arguments out there, for all the people who wanted to 
have a face, that is a beautiful face. It is a beautiful addition, a 
beautiful contribution to the human spirit. Does it not make you just 
feel good to know that people love their children so much, love life 
and respect it so much, that they will get up every 3 hours for an hour 
and a half every day to feed their children painstakingly one drop at a 
time? It ennobles us all. It lifts us all up.

[[Page S4443]]

  What is the alternative? Death, destruction of a little baby. I do 
not see how that elevates any of us. How does that add to the human 
condition? How does that improve the quality of life in America? How 
are we ennobling our culture by this? How are we standing as a 
civilization on righteousness with this? There are beautiful tales to 
be told. Just give these children a chance.
  That is what this bill does. It outlaws a barbaric procedure that is 
never, never, never, never, never necessary. Hold that thought. Believe 
that truth, then ask yourself why, why do we have people on the floor 
of the U.S. Senate, the greatest deliberative body on the face of the 
Earth, defending such cruelty, such barbarism, to some of the most 
vulnerable among us?
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I rise today to speak on the issue of 
partial-birth abortions. We know that public opinion on abortion is 
deeply divided, and reasoned debate too often degenerates into the 
shouted distortions of polarized parties. As elected leaders, we have a 
responsibility to resist the temptation of knee-jerk politics and 
carefully sift the facts from among the chaff of many fictions.
  Americans, pro-life and pro-choice, Democrat and Republican, have 
united in opposition to partial-birth abortions because this issue 
transcends the politics of abortion. As a society, we have been shocked 
to realize we have allowed doctors to perform a procedure that is a 
mere 3 inches from infanticide. The nature of this brutal procedure has 
so shocked us that many pro-choice Americans fear that women and their 
circumstances will be forgotten in a backlash.
  Fear has driven many activists to turn to deception for a defense. 
Understandable possibly, but unfortunate. As a physician, I know that 
women's health will never be served in the long term by myth and by 
deceit. Therefore, as we debate this procedure this afternoon, this 
evening, and tomorrow, I appeal to my colleagues to represent the facts 
accurately. Again and again, we have had to come to the floor to 
address the fallacies perpetuated by the opponents of the ban.
  As a case in point, I would like to read an excerpt to illustrate the 
first myth, the myth that we have heard again and again, and the myth 
is that partial-birth abortion is necessary to preserve the health of 
the mother.
  This myth really has been used as the primary objection, to the ban 
on partial-birth abortion. President Clinton has cited the absence of a 
health exception as his primary reason for carrying out the veto of the 
ban last year. In an Associated Press interview on December 13, 1996, 
President Clinton described a hypothetical situation where, without a 
partial-birth abortion, a woman could not ``preserve the ability to 
have further children.'' He said that he would not ``tell her that I am 
signing a law which will prevent her from having another child. I am 
not going to do it.''
  The scenario described by President Clinton is heart wrenching, and 
is something that people listen to. It grabs their attention. But his 
claim about partial-birth abortion is entirely fictional. Partial-birth 
abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman.
  The College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recently issued a 
statement admitting that their select panel on partial-birth abortion 
``could identify no circumstances under which this procedure would be 
the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the 
mother.''
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed into Record 
the entire statement of policy.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     ACOG Statement of Policy As Issued by the ACOG Executive Board


             STATEMENT ON INTACT DILATATION AND EXTRACTION

       The debate regarding legislation to prohibit a method of 
     abortion, such as the legislation banning ``partial birth 
     abortion,'' and ``brain sucking abortions,'' has prompted 
     questions regarding these procedures. It is difficult to 
     respond to these questions because the descriptions are vague 
     and do not delineate a specific procedure recognized in the 
     medical literature. Moreover, the definitions could be 
     interpreted to include elements of many recognized abortion 
     and operative obstetric techniques.
       The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 
     (ACOG) believes the intent of such legislative proposals is 
     to prohibit a procedure referred to as ``Intact Dilatation 
     and Extraction'' (Intact D & X). This procedure has been 
     described as containing all of the following four elements: 
     (1) deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a 
     sequence of days; (2) instrumental conversion of the fetus to 
     a footling breech; (3) breech extraction of the body 
     excepting the head; and (4) partial evacuation of the 
     intracranial contents of a living fetus to effect vaginal 
     delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus.
       Because these elements are part of established obstetric 
     techniques, it must be emphasized that unless all four 
     elements are present in sequence, the procedure is not an 
     intact D & X.
       Abortion intends to terminate a pregnancy while preserving 
     the life and health of the mother. When abortion is performed 
     after 16 weeks, intact D & X is one method of terminating a 
     pregnancy. The physician, in consultation with the patient, 
     must choose the most appropriate method based upon the 
     patient's individual circumstances.
       According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     (CDC), only 5.3% of abortions performed in the United States 
     in 1993, the most recent data available, were performed after 
     the 16th week of pregnancy. A prelimary figure published by 
     the CDC for 1994 is 5.6%. The CDC does not collect data on 
     the specific method of abortion, so it is unknown how many of 
     these were performed using intact D & X. Other data show that 
     second trimester transvaginal instrumental abortion is a safe 
     procedure.
       Terminating a pregnancy is performed in some circumstances 
     to save the life or preserve the health of the mother. Intact 
     D & X is one of the methods available in some of these 
     situations. A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no 
     circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, 
     would be the only option to save the life or preserve the 
     health of the woman. An intact D & X, however, may be the 
     best or most appropriate procedure in a particular 
     circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a 
     woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, 
     based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this 
     decision. The potential exists that legislation prohibiting 
     specific medical practices, such as intact D & X, may outlaw 
     techniques that are critical to the lives and health of 
     American women. The intervention of legislative bodies into 
     medical decision making is inappropriate, ill advised, and 
     dangerous.

  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, in addition, the AMA task force entitled 
``The Report of the Board of Trustees,'' convened on this very issue, 
concluded that ``There does not appear to be any identified situation 
in which intact D&X''--their attempt to coin a phrase the procedure we 
call partial birth abortion--``is the only appropriate procedure to 
induce abortion,'' and they admitted that ``ethical concerns have been 
raised about intact D&X.''
  Madam President, I will read the second myth. It comes directly from 
a Planned Parenthood press release. It says: ``The D&X abortion is a 
rare and difficult medical procedure. It is usually performed in the 
most extreme cases to save the life of the woman or in cases of severe 
fetal abnormalities.''
  That is taken from Allen Rosenfeld, dean of the Columbia School of 
Public Health, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, press release 
of June 15, 1995.
  This simply is not true. I direct my colleagues' attention to the 
recent admissions of Ronald Fitzsimmons, executive director of the 
National Coalition of Abortion Providers. Mr. Fitzsimmons has shown 
amazing integrity and courage by stepping forward and really coming 
clean on this misinformation campaign surrounding this bill. While he 
himself opposes and is very adamant when he speaks to all of us that he 
opposes the ban on philosophical reasons, he admits that he ``lied 
through his teeth'' when he said that partial-birth abortion was used 
rarely and only on women whose lives were in danger or whose fetuses 
were damaged.
  He said he just went out there to ``spout the party line.'' In a 
recent American Medical News article in March of 1997, he explained 
that he could no longer justify lying to the American people, saying, 
``You know they're primarily done on healthy women and healthy fetuses, 
and it makes you feel like a dirty little abortionist with a dirty 
little secret.''
  I admire him for his integrity in coming forth.
  Let me quote another partial-birth practitioner, Dr. James McMahon. 
He aborted nine babies simply because they had a cleft lip. Many 
others, at

[[Page S4444]]

least 39, were aborted because of the psychological and emotional 
health of the mother, despite the advanced gestational age and health 
of the child. Another practitioner, Dr. Martin Haskell claims that 80 
percent of the partial-birth abortions he performed were for ``purely 
elective'' reasons.
  So, in summary, we can categorically dismiss claims that the 
procedure is necessary for the health of the mother and that most of 
these babies are severely deformed.
  Women always have safe and effective alternatives to partial-birth 
abortion in any trimester. The Washington Post put it this way: ``It is 
possible--and maybe even likely--that the majority of these abortions 
are performed on normal fetuses, not on fetuses suffering genetic or 
developmental abnormalities. Furthermore, in most cases where the 
procedure is used, the physical health of the woman * * * is not in 
jeopardy.''
  That is from the Washington Post of September 17, 1996.
  I submit that part of the confusion on this issue is due to the 
deliberate manipulation of the collective sympathy that we all have 
when we talk about the health of the mother. When the President of the 
United States defends his veto of the partial-birth abortion ban on the 
grounds that he wants to protect women's health, most people assume 
that he is talking about women's physical health. I imagine that most 
Americans would actually be surprised to learn that babies in the late 
second and early third trimesters may be legally aborted for reasons 
other than the life and/or the physical health of the mother. What the 
President does not tell you is that under Doe versus Bolton, a 1973 
Supreme Court case, health is defined to include ``all factors--
physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and a woman's age--
relevant to the well-being of the patient.''
  A broad definition of health.
  People in the abortion industry understand that there are many late-
term abortions performed for social reasons as well as health reasons. 
A 1993 National Abortion Federation internal memorandum acknowledged, 
``There are many reasons why women have later abortions,'' and they 
include ``lack of money or health insurance, social-psychological 
crises, lack of knowledge about human reproduction, et cetera.'' So 
when you see legislation come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to allow 
late-term abortions if the mother's health is at risk, just remember 
how health is being defined--so broadly that you can drive a truck 
through it.

  Unfortunately, opponents of the bill don't stop there. You will hear 
a third carefully crafted myth that goes something like this.
  This procedure, if not wildly accepted, could possibly be the best 
procedure in a particular woman's situation.
  As a physician, I have a sworn commitment to preserve the life and 
health of every single patient. So I have taken the liberty of calling 
and checking with people around the country, checking with key 
obstetricians and abortion providers all across this Nation. From the 
outset, I will admit that it has been difficult for me to imagine how a 
procedure that is not taught in residency programs where obstetricians 
are trained--it is not taught today; it is not referenced in our peer 
review journals, which is really the substance, the literature through 
which we teach each other, and share information; it is not in peer 
review journals--it is a little bit hard for me to understand how 
people could argue that this is the best procedure available. Really 
until the recent controversy, many practitioners who you talk to had 
never heard of this particular procedure.
  On the other hand, a lot of my medical colleagues--they rightly fear 
the Government coming in and trying to control everything that they do 
in their practice--have said that this procedure could be the best 
alternative in a given situation. They have not endorsed it. They have 
not listed specific medical indications for the procedure, and they 
have not even recommended that it be used in most circumstances, but 
they have said--again, with this great fear that the Federal Government 
will come in and control everything that they do--that the physician 
should retain the right to use this procedure if a circumstance should 
hypothetically arise in which an individual might think it is the best 
option.
  But when questioned about this very specific issue, the ACOG 
president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Dr. 
Fredric Frigoletto, maintains that, ``There are no data to say that one 
of the procedures is safer than the other.'' When asked why the 
statement then said that the procedure ``may be the best'' in some 
cases, Dr. Frigoletto answered, ``or it may not be.''
  That interview is from the American Medical News, March 3, 1997.
  Moreover, Dr. Warren Hern, author of the textbook Abortion Practice, 
the Nation's really most widely used textbook on abortion procedures 
and abortion standards, said, ``I have very serious reservations about 
this procedure * * * You really can't defend it * * * I would dispute 
any statement that this is the safest procedure to use.''
  Dr. Hern specializes in late-term abortions.
  Incidentally, Madam President, I would like to note that it is 
difficult from a medical perspective to categorically describe late-
term surgical abortions as the best option. In the first place, 
medical, nonsurgical, late-term abortion methods are generally regarded 
as superior to surgical methods.
  Second, the National Abortion Federation concedes that at this point 
in time residents may not receive enough training in abortion to ``be 
truly competent.''
  Third, Dr. Haskell who, is considered to be one, if not the creator, 
of the creators of the procedure we are talking about, specifically 
acknowledged in his paper that a disadvantage of the partial-birth 
procedure was that it requires a ``high degree of surgical skill.''
  So let me just recap briefly. You have a brutal, basically repulsive 
procedure designed to kill a living infant outside of the birth canal--
except for the head. Leading providers of women's obstetrical and 
gynecological services condemn it. They recommend it not be used. They 
refuse to endorse it. They highlight its risks, and say that there are 
other safe and effective alternatives available. But for political 
reasons--and I understand the politics involved--they urge us not to 
ban it because that would be violating the sanctity of the physician-
patient relationship.

  Madam President, as a physician and as a father, I submit that any 
provider who performs a partial-birth abortion has already violated 
that sanctity of the physician-patient relationship.
  Another myth: Medical procedures should never, under any 
circumstances, be criminalized.
  It is a myth that I thought about. I would like to defer to this 
matter to the American Medical Association which concedes that there 
are circumstances where Government intervention, even in the form of 
criminalization of specific medical procedures, is appropriate.
  I am quoting now from the letter of AMA Executive Vice President P. 
John Seward, M.D., to Representative Cardin: He says:

       AMA's generic policy calls for opposition to the 
     criminalization of medical procedures and practices. 
     Therefore, on the surface, it would seem obvious for the AMA 
     to oppose this bill. However, our policy cannot be applied 
     without context. For example, the AMA has a strong ethical 
     and policy position against . . . the practice some have 
     called ``physician-assisted suicide'' and we have opposed 
     efforts to legalize such activities even though current law 
     could be considered the criminalization of a medical 
     procedure.

  The context in the case of partial-birth abortion, as in the case of 
physician-assisted suicide, is the time-honored Hippocratic principle, 
``First do no harm.'' An additional component of the context is the 
reality that this procedure is not endorsed by the medical academy, and 
is made unnecessary by other widely used, safe and effective options.
  Those of us in this room have followed this debate for 2 years now, 
some for much longer. From day one, there has been a pattern of 
manipulation, deception, misinformation, and coverup; even at the risk 
of harming women's health.
  There is one final myth that has been perpetuated, and then I will 
yield the floor.
  Those of us in opposition to the partial-birth abortion have had to 
dispel the notion--actually dangerous to women's health--that their 
babies

[[Page S4445]]

would be killed if they took anesthesia for any reason during 
pregnancy.
  Let me quote again from some pro-choice literature trying to appease 
women's fears about partial-birth abortion by asserting that the baby 
is already dead when the doctor plunges the scissors into the back of 
the baby's head.
  ``The fetus dies of an overdose of anesthesia given to the mother 
intravenously.''
  That is from a Planned Parenthood fact sheet.
  No. 2. ``Neurological fetal demise is induced, either before the 
procedure begins or early on in the procedure, by the steps taken to 
prepare the woman for surgery.''
  That is from the National Abortion Federation news release July 1995. 
It is simply not true. I will turn to the president of the American 
Society of Anesthesiologists who personally came to Capitol Hill to 
refute this argument, and he basically, in testifying before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, said that intravenous anesthesia would not kill 
the baby. He said:
  ``In my medical judgment, it would be necessary in order to achieve 
neurological demise of the fetus in a partial-birth abortion to 
anesthetize the mother to such a degree as to place her own health in 
serious jeopardy.''
  Now, in closing, we have heard many eloquent statements today, and we 
will likely hear them tomorrow, in defense of this brutal and inhumane 
procedure, but in the words of the great poet Milton, ``All is false 
and hollow.'' Despite the preponderance of evidence, we are compelled 
to again listen to arguments designed solely to ``make the worse appear 
the better reason,'' and we must continue to address deceptions 
designed to ``perplex and dash'' honest counsel. There is no excuse at 
this stage of the game for not knowing the truth, the absolute truth. 
There is no room--no room any longer to pretend that this procedure is 
necessary for the health of the mother or that it might be the best. It 
is time, as Mr. Fitzsimmons so plainly put it, for ``the [abortion] 
movement to back away from the spins and half truths.''
  Partial-birth abortions cannot and should not be categorized with 
other medical procedures or even other abortions. They should not be 
allowed in a civilized country. With the reintroduction of the partial-
birth abortion ban legislation in the Senate, we have the opportunity 
to right now to right a wrong, and now once again the American people 
are calling on us to listen not to political advisers, not to radical 
interest groups--but to our conscience. It will take moral courage to 
put a stop to the propaganda, but we all have the means at our disposal 
to do the right thing. For the sake of women, for the sake of their 
children, and for the sake of our future as a society, we must put a 
stop once and for all to partial-birth abortion.
  I yield the floor.
  (Mr. FAIRCLOTH assumed the chair.)
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, when President Clinton vetoed the Partial-
Birth Abortion Ban Act a year ago, he said there are ``rare and tragic 
situations that can occur in a woman's pregnancy in which, in a 
doctor's medical judgment, the use of this procedure may be necessary 
to save a woman's life or to protect her against serious injury to her 
health.''
  I do not doubt that the President made that statement about the 
rarity of the procedure and its utility, relying in good faith on 
information provided at the time by certain organizations involved in 
this debate. We now know, however, that the information given the 
President was of questionable value, if not downright inaccurate.
  A number of pro-abortion organizations, for example, had suggested 
that partial-birth abortions totaled only about 500 a year and that 
they were limited to very serious and tragic cases where there was no 
alternative.
  This is how the Planned Parenthood Federation of America 
characterized partial-birth abortion in a November 1, 1995, news 
release: ``The procedure, dilation and extraction (D&X), is extremely 
rare and done only in cases when the woman's life is in danger or in 
cases of extreme fetal abnormality.'' Let me quote that again, done 
only--only--in cases when the woman's life is in danger or in cases of 
extreme fetal abnormality.
  The organization repeated this several times. In a press release 
issued on March 26, 1996, Planned Parenthood said, ``The truth is that 
the D&X procedure is only used when the woman's life or health is in 
danger or in cases of extreme fetal anomaly.'' The statement is 
absolute: the procedure is only used under these conditions, said the 
organization.
  In fairness, I will point out that Planned Parenthood was not the 
only group to make such sweeping statements at that time.
  Within the last few months, however, the story has started to 
unravel. On February 26, the New York Times reported that Ron 
Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion 
Providers, admitted he ``lied in earlier statements when he said 
[partial-birth abortion] is rare and performed primarily to save the 
lives or fertility of women bearing severely malformed babies.'' 
According to the Times, ``He now says the procedure is performed far 
more often than his colleagues have acknowledged, and on healthy women 
bearing healthy fetuses.''
  Mr. Fitzsimmons told American Medical News the same thing--that is, 
the vast majority of these abortions are performed in the 20-plus week 
range on healthy fetuses and healthy mothers. He said, ``The abortion 
rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, 
probably, does everyone else.''
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the New York Times and 
the American Medical News articles be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, Ron Fitzsimmons' admission is really not all 
that surprising. Even at the time of the debate in the Senate last 
year, the preponderance of evidence suggested that the procedure was 
more common than some of its defenders wanted the public and Congress 
to believe. Consider, for example, that Dr. Martin Haskell, who 
authored a paper on the subject for the National Abortion Federation, 
said in a 1993 interview with American Medical News, ``in my particular 
case, probably 20 percent--of the instances of this procedure--are for 
genetic reasons. And the other 80 percent are purely elective.'' He 
suggested at the time that an estimate of about 4,000 partial-birth 
abortions a year was probably accurate.

  Another doctor, Dr. James McMahon, who acknowledged that he performed 
at least 2,000 of the procedures, told American Medical News before he 
died that he used the method to perform elective abortions up to 26 
weeks and nonelective abortions up to 40 weeks. His definition of 
``non-elective'' was expansive, including ``depression'' as a maternal 
indication for the procedure. More than half of the partial-birth 
abortions he performed were on healthy babies.
  The Record of Bergen County, NJ published an investigative report on 
the issue last year and reported that in New Jersey alone, at least 
1,500 partial-birth abortions are performed annually, far more than the 
450 to 500 such abortions that the National Abortion Federation said 
were occurring across the entire country.
  According to the Record, doctors it interviewed said that only a 
``minuscule'' number of these abortions are performed for medical 
reasons.
  Mr. President, evidence overwhelmingly indicates that partial-birth 
abortions are performed far more often than President Clinton suggested 
when he vetoed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act last year. But what 
about his comments about the need to protect the life and health of the 
mother?
  Here is what the former Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. C. 
Everett Koop--a man who President Clinton singled out for praise as 
someone trying ``to bring some sanity into the health policy of this 
country''--had to say on the subject. He said that ``partial-birth 
abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or 
future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a 
significant threat to both.''
  That is consistent with testimony that the Judiciary Committee 
received in late 1995 from other medical experts. Dr. Nancy Romer, a 
practicing ob-gyn

[[Page S4446]]

from Ohio, testified that in her 13 years of experience, she never felt 
compelled to recommend this procedure to save a woman's life. ``In 
fact,'' she said, ``if a woman has a serious, life threatening, medical 
condition this procedure has a significant disadvantage in that it 
takes three days.''
  Even Dr. Warren Hern, the author of the Nation's most widely used 
textbook on abortion standards and procedures, is quoted in the 
November 20, 1995 edition of American Medical News as saying that he 
would ``dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to 
use.'' He called it ``potentially dangerous'' to a woman to turn a 
fetus to a breech position, as occurs during a partial-birth abortion.
  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which, many 
will recall, supported the President's veto last year, was quoted by 
columnist Charles Krauthammer on March 14 as conceding that there are 
``no circumstances under which this procedure would be the only option 
to save the life of the mother and preserve the health of the woman.'' 
I would point out that, in the event that a doctor determined that a 
partial-birth abortion was the only procedure available to save a 
woman's life, he should or could proceed since the legislation includes 
a life-of-the-mother exception.
  Mr. President, I know that there are several other concerns that have 
been expressed about the legislation. For example, some have questioned 
its constitutionality, and that is a legitimate question. Of course, we 
all can speculate about how the U.S. Supreme Court might rule on the 
matter. But as Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Tribe noted in 
a November 6, 1995 letter to Senator Boxer, there are various reasons 
``why one cannot predict with confidence how the Supreme Court as 
currently composed would rule if confronted with [the bill].'' He noted 
that the Court has not had any such law before it. And he noted that 
``although the Court did grapple in 1986 with the question of a State's 
power to put the health and survival of a viable fetus above the 
medical needs of the mother, it has never directly addressed a law 
quite like [the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act].''

  Mr. President, neither Roe versus Wade nor any subsequent Supreme 
Court case has ever held that taking the life of a child during the 
birth process is a constitutionally protected practice. In fact, the 
Court specifically noted in Roe that a Texas statute that--making 
killing a child during the birth process a felony--had not been 
challenged. That portion of the law is still on the books in Texas 
today.
  Remember what we are talking about here: ``an abortion in which the 
person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living 
fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.'' That is 
the definition of a partial-birth abortion in the pending legislation.
  So we are talking about a child whose body, save for his or her head, 
has been delivered from the mother--that is, only the head remains 
inside. No matter what legal issues are involved, I hope no one will 
forget that we are talking about a live child who is already in the 
birth canal and indeed has been partially delivered.
  Even if the Court did somehow find that a partially delivered child 
is not constitutionally protected, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act 
could still be upheld under Roe and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern 
Pennsylvania versus Casey. Under both Roe and Casey, the Government may 
prohibit abortion after viability, except when necessary to protect the 
life or health of the mother. As I indicated earlier in my remarks, 
medical experts, including the former Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett 
Koop, have said that this procedure is never medically necessary to 
protect a mother's health or future fertility. Others have even 
questioned its safety, calling it ``potentially dangerous.''
  By contrast, in cases prior to viability, Casey allows regulation of 
abortion that is reasonably related to a legitimate State interest, 
unless the regulation places an ``undue burden'' on a woman's right to 
choose an abortion. But as I just indicated, the pending bill would 
only ban one type of procedure, involving the partial delivery of a 
child before it is killed. Other procedures would still be available if 
a woman's health were threatened. And the bill would allow a doctor to 
proceed with a partial-birth abortion if the woman's life were 
threatened.
  Mr. President, Notre Dame's Professor of Constitutional Law, Douglas 
W. Kmiec, made the point in testimony before the Judiciary Committee on 
November 17, 1995, that ``even in Roe the Court explicitly rejected the 
argument that a woman `is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at 
whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone 
chooses' [410 U.S. at 153].'' Professor Kmiec went on to note that 
under Casey, there is an elementary difference between banning all 
abortions and banning one procedure that medical testimony indicates is 
not at all necessary to save a mother's life.
  Mr. President, although I believe the law would be upheld by the 
Court, I will concede that no one can say with certainty how the 
Supreme Court will rule until it has ruled. Until then, I suggest that 
we not use that as an excuse to avoid doing what we believe is right.
  Mr. President, the other issue I want to address briefly before 
closing involves the question of when this procedure is performed. Some 
people, suggesting a way to compromise on the legislation, are now 
focusing on the third trimester, proposing that limitations on the 
procedure be restricted to that time period. Of course, all of the 
evidence suggests that the vast majority of partial-birth abortions--
some 90 percent--occur during the second trimester of pregnancy. And as 
Ron Fitzsimmons put it, they are performed for the most part on healthy 
women and healthy babies.
  A third-trimester partial-birth abortion ban would be a hollow 
gesture at best, and at worst, a cynical hoax on an American public 
that is outraged at the barbarity of this procedure.
  It seems to me that a third-trimester limitation is merely a way for 
defenders of the status quo to make it appear that they are doing 
something to end this horrifying procedure without doing anything at 
all.
  Mr. President, the spotlight is on this body. The facts are on the 
table. Let us do what is right and put a stop to what our colleague, 
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has appropriately characterized as 
infanticide. Let us pass this bill.

                               Exhibit I

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 26, 1997]

        An Abortion Rights Advocate Says He Lied About Procedure

                            (By David Stout)

       Washington.--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, called intact 
     dilation and evacuation by those who believe it should remain 
     legal and ``partial-birth abortion'' by those who believe it 
     should be outlawed, because he feared that the truth would 
     damage the cause of abortion rights.
       But he is now convinced, he said, that the issue of whether 
     the procedure remains legal, like the overall debate about 
     abortion, must be based on the truth.
       In an article in American Medical News, to be published 
     March 3, and an interview today, 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 whose 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.' ''
       Mr. Fitzsimmons said that after that interview he stayed on 
     the sidelines of the debate for a while, but with growing 
     unease. 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.
       In the procedure, a fetus is partly extracted from the 
     birth canal, feel first, and the brain is then suctioned out.
       Last fall, Congress failed to override a Presidential veto 
     of a law that would have banned the procedure, which abortion 
     opponents insist borders on infanticide and some abortion 
     rights advocates also believe should be outlawed as 
     particularly gruesome. Polls have shown that such a ban has 
     popular support.
       Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic leader, 
     has suggested a compromise that would prohibit all third-
     trimester abortions, except in cases involving

[[Page S4447]]

     the ``life of the mother and severe impairment of her 
     health.''
       The Right to Life Committee and its allies have complained 
     repeatedly that abortion-rights supporters have misled 
     politicians, journalists and the general public about the 
     frequency and the usual circumstances of the procedure.
       ``The abortion lobby manufactures disinformation,'' Douglas 
     Johnson, the committee's legislative director, said today. He 
     said Mr. Fitzsimmon's account would clarify the debate on 
     this procedure, which is expected to be renewed in Congress.
       Mr. Fitzsimmons predicted today that the controversial 
     procedure would be considered by the courts no matter what 
     lawmakers decide.
       Last April, President Clinton vetoed a bill that would have 
     outlawed the controversial procedure. There were enough 
     opponents in the House to override his veto but not in the 
     Senate. In explaining the veto, Mr. Clinton echoed the 
     argument of Mr. Fitzsimmons and his colleagues.
       ``There are a few hundred women every year who have 
     personally agonizing situations where their children are born 
     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.'' 
     A spokeswoman for Mr. Clinton said tonight that the White 
     House knew nothing of Mr. Fitzsimmons's announcement and 
     would not comment further.
       In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed 
     on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or 
     more along, Mr. Fitzsimmons said. ``The abortion-rights folks 
     know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, 
     does everyone else,'' he said in the article in the Medical 
     News, an American Medical Association publication.
       Mr. Fitzsimmons, whose Alexandria, Va., coalition 
     represents about 200 independently owned clinics, said 
     coalition members were being notified of his announcement.
       One of the facts of abortion, he said, is that women enter 
     abortion clinics to kill their fetuses. ``It is a form of 
     killing,'' he said. ``You're ending a life.''
       And while he said that troubled him, Mr. Fitzsimmons said 
     he continues to support this procedure and abortion rights in 
     general.
                                                                    ____


             [From the American Medical News, Mar. 3, 1997]

 Medicine Adds to Debate on Late-term Abortion--Abortion Rights Leader 
                      Urges End to ``Half Truths''

                         (By Diane M. Gianelli)

       Washington--Breaking ranks with his colleagues in the 
     abortion rights movement, the leader of one prominent 
     abortion provider group is calling for a more truthful debate 
     in the ongoing battle over whether to ban a controversial 
     late-term abortion procedure.
       In fact, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the 
     National Coalition of Abortion Providers, said he would 
     rather not spend his political capital defending the 
     procedure at all. There is precious little popular support 
     for it, he says, and a federal ban would have almost no real-
     world impact on the physicians who perform late-term 
     abortions or patients who seek them.
       ``The pro-choice movement has lost a lot of credibility 
     during this debate, not just with the general public, but 
     with our pro-choice friends in Congress,'' Fitzsimmons said. 
     ``Even the White House is now questioning the accuracy of 
     some of the information given to it on this issue.''
       He cited prominent abortion rights supporters such as the 
     Washington Post's Richard Cohen, who took the movement to 
     task for providing inaccurate information on the procedure. 
     Those pressing to ban the method call it ``partial birth'' 
     abortion, while those who perform it refer to it as 
     ``intact'' dilation and extraction (D&X) or dilation and 
     evacuation (D&E).
       What abortion rights supporters failed to acknowledge, 
     Fitzsimmons said, is that the vast majority of these 
     abortions are performed in the 20-plus week range on healthy 
     fetuses and healthy mothers. ``The abortion rights folks know 
     it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does 
     everyone else,'' he said.
       He knows it, he says, because when the bill to ban it came 
     down the pike, he called around until he found doctors who 
     did them.
       ``I learned right away that this was being done for the 
     most part in cases that did not involve those extreme 
     circumstances,'' he said.
       The National Abortion Federation's Vicki Saporta 
     acknowledged that ``the numbers are greater than we initially 
     estimated.''
       As for the reasons, Saporta said, ``Women have abortions 
     pre-viability for reasons that they deem appropriate. And 
     Congress should not be determining what are appropriate 
     reasons in that period of time. Those decisions can only be 
     made by women in consultation with their doctors.''


                     bill's reintroduction expected

       Rep. Charles Canady (R. Fla.) is expected to reintroduce 
     legislation this month to ban the procedure.
       Those supporting the bill, which was also introduced in the 
     Senate, inevitably evoke winces by graphically describing the 
     procedure, which usually involves the extraction of an intact 
     fetus, feet first, through the birth canal, with all but the 
     head delivered. The physician then forces a sharp instrument 
     into the base of the skull and uses suction to remove the 
     brain. The procedure is usually done in the 20- to 24-week 
     range, though some providers do them at later gestations.
       Abortion rights activists tried to combat the images with 
     those of their own, showing the faces and telling the stories 
     of particularly vulnerable women who have had the procedure. 
     They have consistently claimed it is done only when the 
     woman's life is at risk or the fetus has a condition 
     incompatible with life. And the numbers are small, they said, 
     only 500 to 600 a year.
       Furthermore, they said, the fetus doesn't die violently 
     from the trauma to the skull or the suctioning of the brain, 
     but peacefully from the anesthesia given to the mother before 
     the extraction even begins.
       The American Society of Anesthesiologists debunked the 
     latter claim, calling it ``entirely inaccurate.'' And 
     activists' claims about the numbers and reasons have been 
     discredited by the very doctors who do the procedures. In 
     published interviews with such newspapers as American Medical 
     News, The Washington Post and The Record, a Bergen County, 
     N.J., newspaper, doctors who use the technique acknowledged 
     doing thousands of such procedures a year. They also said the 
     majority are done on healthy fetuses and healthy women.
       The New Jersey paper reported last fall that physicians at 
     one facility perform an estimated 3,000 abortions a year on 
     fetuses between 20 and 24 weeks, of which at least half are 
     by intact D&E. One of the doctors was quoted as saying, ``we 
     have an occasional amnio abnormality, but it's a minuscule 
     amount. Most are Medicaid patients . . . and most are for 
     elective, not medical reasons: people who didn't realize, or 
     didn't care, how far along they were.''
       A Washington Post investigation turned up similar findings.


                        `spins and half-truths'

       Fitzsimmons says it's time for his movement to back away 
     from the ``spins'' and ``half-truths.'' He does not think 
     abortion rights advocates should ever apologize for 
     performing the procedure, which is what he thinks they are 
     doing by highlighting only the extreme cases.
       ``I think we should tell them the truth, let them vote and 
     move on,'' he said.
       Charlotte Taft, the former director of a Dallas abortion 
     clinic who provides abortion counseling near Santa Fe, N.M., 
     is one of several abortion rights activists who share many of 
     Fitzsimmons' concerns.
       ``We're in a culture where two of the most frightening 
     things for Americans are sexuality and death. And here's 
     abortion. It combines the two,'' Taft said.
       She agrees with Fitzsimmons that a debate on the issue 
     should be straight-forward. ``I think we should put it on the 
     table and say, `OK, this is what we're talking about: When is 
     it OK to end these lives? When is it not? Who's in charge? 
     How do we do it? These are hard questions, and yet if we 
     don't face them in that kind of a responsible way, then we're 
     still having the same conversations we were having 20 years 
     ago.''
       Fitzsimmons thinks his colleagues in the movement shouldn't 
     have taken on the fight in the first place. A better bet, he 
     said, would have been ``to roll over and play dead, the way 
     the right-to-lifers do with rape and incest.'' Federal 
     legislation barring Medicaid abortion funding makes 
     exceptions to save the life of the mother and in those two 
     cases.
       Fitzsimmons cites both political and practical reasons for 
     ducking the fight. ``We're fighting a bill that has the 
     support of, what, 78% of the public? That tells me that we 
     have a PR problem,'' he said, pointing out that several 
     members of Congress who normally support abortion rights 
     voted to ban the procedure the last time the measure was 
     considered.
       From a practical point of view, it also ``wasn't worth 
     going to the mat on. . . . I don't recall talking to any 
     doctor who said, `Ron you've got to save us on this one. They 
     can't outlaw this. It'd be terrible.' No one said that.''
       He added that ``the real-world impact on doctors and 
     patients is virtually nil.'' Doctors would continue to see 
     the same patients, using an alternative abortion method.
       In fact, many of them already do a variation on the intact 
     D&E that would be completely legal, even if the bill to 
     outlaw ``partial birth'' abortions passed. In that variation, 
     the physician makes sure the fetus is dead before extracting 
     it from the birth canal. The bill would ban only those 
     procedures in which a live fetus is partially vaginally 
     delivered.
       Lee Carhart, MD, a Bellevue, Neb., physician, said last 
     year that he had done about 5,000 intact D&Es, about 1,000 
     during the past two years. He induces fetal death by 
     injecting digoxin or lidocaine into the fetal sac 72 hours 
     before the fetus is extracted.


                             Damage control

       Fitzsimmons also questions whether a ban on an abortion 
     procedure would survive constitutional challenge. In any 
     event, he concludes that the way the debate was fought by his 
     side ``did serious harm'' to the image of abortion providers.
       ``When you're a doctor who does these abortions and the 
     leaders of your movement appear before Congress and go on 
     network

[[Page S4448]]

     news and say these procedures are done in only the most 
     tragic of circumstances, how do you think it makes you feel? 
     You know they're primarily done on healthy women and healthy 
     fetuses, and it makes you feel like a dirty little 
     abortionist with a dirty little secret.''
       Saporta says her group never intended to send this message 
     to doctors.
       ``We believe that abortion providers are in fact maligned 
     and we work 24 hours a day to try to make the public and 
     others understand that these are heroes who are saving 
     women's lives on a daily basis,'' she said.
       When Fitzsimmons criticizes his movement for its handling 
     of this issue, he points the finger at himself first. In 
     November 1995, he was interviewed by ``Nightline'' and, in 
     his own words, ``lied,'' telling the reporter that women had 
     these abortions only in the most extreme circumstances of 
     life endangerment or fetal anomaly.
       Although much of his interview landed on the cutting room 
     floor, ``it was not a shining moment for me personally,'' he 
     said.
       After that, he stayed out of the debate.


                 don't get ``sidetracked'' by specifics

       While Fitzsimmons is one of the few abortion rights 
     activists openly questioning how the debate played out, it is 
     clear he was not alone in knowing the facts that surround the 
     procedure.
       At a National Abortion Federation meeting held in San 
     Francisco last year, Kathryn Kohlbert, one of the chief 
     architects of the movement's opposition to the bill, 
     discussed it candidly.
       Kohlbert, vice president of the New York-based Center for 
     Reproductive Law and Policy, urged those attending the 
     session not to get ``sidetracked'' by their opponent's 
     efforts to get them to discuss the specifics of the 
     procedure.
       ``I urge incredible restraint here, to focus on your 
     message and stick to it, because otherwise we'll get 
     creamed,'' Kohlbert told the group.
       ``If the debate is whether the fetus feels pain, we lose. 
     If the debate in the public arena is what's the effect of 
     anesthesia, we'll lose. If the debate is whether or not women 
     ought to be entitled to late abortion, we probably will lose.
       ``But if the debate is on the circumstances of individual 
     women . . . and the government shouldn't be making those 
     decisions, then I think we can win these fights,'' she said.


                            public reaction

       The abortion rights movement's newest strategy in fighting 
     efforts to ban the procedure is to try to narrow the focus of 
     the debate to third-trimester abortions, which are far fewer 
     in number than those done in the late second trimester and 
     more frequently done for reasons of fetal anomaly.
       When the debate shifts back to ``elective'' abortions done 
     in the 20- to 24-week range, the movement's response has been 
     to assert that those abortions are completely legal and the 
     fetuses are considered ``pre-viable.''
       In keeping with this strategy, Sen. Thomas Daschle (D. 
     S.D.), plans to introduce a bill banning third-trimester 
     abortions. Clinton, who received an enormous amount of heat 
     for vetoing the ``partial birth'' abortion ban, has already 
     indicated he would support such a bill.
       But critics counter that Daschle's proposed ban--with its 
     ``health'' exception--would stop few, if any, abortions.
       ``The Clinton-Daschle proposal is constructed to protect 
     pro-choice politicians, not to save any babies.'' said 
     Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right 
     to Life Committee.
       Given the broad, bipartisan congressional support for the 
     bill to ban ``partial birth'' abortions last year, it's 
     unlikely Daschle's proposal would diminish support for the 
     bill this session--particularly when Republicans control both 
     houses and therefore, the agenda.
       And given the public reaction to the ``partial birth'' 
     procedure--polls indicate a large majority want to ban it--
     some questions occur: Is the public reaction really to the 
     procedure, or to late-term abortions in general? And does the 
     public really make a distinction between late second- and 
     third-trimester abortions?
       Ethicists George Annas, a health law professor at Boston 
     University, and Carol A Tauer, PhD, a philosophy professor at 
     the College of St. Catherine in St. Paul, Minn., say they 
     think the public's intense reaction to the ``partial birth'' 
     abortion issue is probably due more to the public's 
     discomfort with late abortions in general, whether they occur 
     in the second or third trimesters, rather than to just 
     discomfort with a particular technique.
       If Congress decided to pass a bill banning dismemberment or 
     saline abortions, the public would probably react the same 
     way, Dr. Tauer said. ``The idea of a second-trimester fetus 
     being dismembered in the womb sounds just about as bad.''
       Abortions don't have to occur in the third trimester to 
     make people uncomfortable, Annas said. In fact, he said, most 
     Americans see ``a distinction between first-trimester and 
     second-trimester abortions. The law doesn't, but people do. 
     And rightfully so.''
       After 20 weeks or so, he added, the American public sees a 
     baby.
       ``The American public's vision of this may be much clearer 
     than [that of] the physicians involved.'' Annas said.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes Mr. Campbell, the 
Honorable Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Chair. We in the Chamber may agree or not 
agree with our colleague from Pennsylvania, but, frankly, I know of no 
one who would ever question his commitment to his beliefs or the 
ability to take on a tough, difficult, emotional issue such as we face 
today. It is an issue to which there probably is no universal right 
answer in the eyes of our fellow Americans.
  I know that many people have very strong opinions, sometimes driven 
by religion, by culture, by their own experiences, and perhaps I am no 
different than they are, but I do wish to commend the Senator from 
Pennsylvania for bringing this to the floor.
  I wish to speak for a few moments about this extremely emotional and 
difficult issue of partial-birth abortion. As the Senators from 
California know--they are not on the floor. I had hoped they would be. 
But as they know, I have defined myself over the years as pro-choice 
and have supported their efforts in protecting the rights of women in 
almost every debate in the last 10 years which I have known Senator 
Boxer and in the last 5 that I have known Senator Feinstein. In fact, 
I, like them, have had a 100 percent voting record for NARAL.
  Last year, I voted with them in opposition to the ban, this ban. I 
have always believed that all the laws in the world will not prevent a 
woman from aborting an unwanted fetus. Efforts to prevent it I think 
simply drive it underground. In fact, I saw that in graphic results 
years ago on a couple of occasions when I was a policeman in California 
prior to Roe versus Wade.
  Last year, before the override of the President's veto of the bill 
came about, I listened very carefully to those who hold very strong 
views on both sides of the issue. I think I learned a great deal from 
conversations with the medical community about this procedure and its 
implications. I am certainly not an expert, not a doctor, as is our 
previous speaker, but I think like most Americans I respect doctors and 
listen to their views very carefully when it deals with health.
  Certainly I will never suffer the tragic decision a woman has to make 
when she decides whether to terminate or not to terminate a pregnancy. 
But it did become clear to me that the procedure which would be banned 
is inflicted on a fetus so far along in its development that it is an 
infant, not a fetus, in the eyes of a layman like me.
  We are subject, of course, to very emotional debate, charts and 
graphs that are very explicit and tragic when we look at them, but we 
have to make a decision based on conscience, and last year I thought I 
did. When the vote, however, to override came about, I found myself 
confined to a hospital bed in the little town of Cortez, CO, as a 
result of an injury I sustained in a vehicle accident. I was there for 
a week. I watched C-Span, as so many Americans do. I had a chance to 
talk to the doctors who were involved in operating on me when I was in 
the hospital. And in watching the dedicated health professionals in 
that hospital working so hard day and night to save lives, as the days 
went by, it became increasingly clear to me that a vote to override the 
veto also represented an effort to save lives and not take lives.
  I had the opportunity to speak candidly to several of the doctors in 
that hospital as well as our doctor colleague here and a number of 
others about how this procedure is done and how often it is used.
  Mr. President, each of us has to make our own decisions based on our 
own frame of reference with our own conscience as our guide, and so it 
was with me last year. And although I was in the hospital, I did send a 
statement to be read into the Record by Senator Dan Coats, our 
colleague from Indiana, that I would have, had I been here at the time, 
changed my position and voted to override the President's veto.
  In recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a key 
witness on this issue, Dr. Ron Fitzsimmons, another physician whose 
opinion I respect, stated that this procedure is performed more often 
than he had originally testified, which supports what other doctors had 
told me. In light of this evidence and the evidence indicating that 
this procedure is only one among several options that women may elect 
to protect the life and health

[[Page S4449]]

of the mother, this year I intend to support my colleague from 
Pennsylvania and support this ban.
  Now, I probably will not be alone among my colleagues in changing my 
view on this, and I am certainly aware that any time a Senator changes 
his mind, even if it is based on new evidence, he opens the door to all 
kinds of accusations of flip-flopping, being in someone's pockets, 
selling out, and all the other ludicrous charges that are immediately 
levied against him or her when he finds new evidence and does change 
his mind. I can live with that. What I cannot live with is not voting 
my conscience and will, therefore, vote in support of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the junior Senator from 
Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair. I rise in support of H.R. 1122, 
otherwise referred to as the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997.
  As we have just heard from the previous comments, there are strongly 
held views on both sides of the abortion issue. I see this every day in 
my discussions with Coloradans, and I realize that this debate will 
continue for a long time. The people of my home State of Colorado know 
that personally I am pro-life and as a State Senator I had a strong 
pro-life voting record. I maintained that strong stance in my 6 years 
in the House of Representatives, and I intend to continue to vote my 
conscience on the issue of abortion during my tenure in the Senate. But 
what we have before us today is not an issue that breaks down between 
the pro-choice camp versus the pro-life camp. Even people in the pro-
choice camp believe that there are certain reasonable restrictions that 
should be placed on abortion. A good example is the restriction that we 
place on public funding of abortions. Each year pro-life people come 
together with pro-choice individuals to include the Hyde amendment 
language in the Labor, HHS appropriations bill so that Medicaid money 
will not be used to fund abortions. Partial-birth abortions should be 
viewed in a similar light to the public funding issue.
  Mr. President, in my comments I have just used the term partial-birth 
abortion, and I refer to the bill itself to see how ``partial-birth 
abortion'' is defined in the bill. It is defined in this section, and I 
quote:

       The term ``partial-birth abortion'' means an abortion in 
     which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally 
     delivers--

  In other words, the baby is in the birth canal--

     a living fetus or baby before killing the fetus and 
     completing the delivery.

  So this is a procedure where the baby is in the birth canal and then 
whoever is doing the procedure kills the baby and then finishes the 
delivery. Many pro-choice people agree that the partial-birth abortion 
procedure should be banned, and a general consensus seems to be forming 
that this is a brutal procedure which should not be tolerated in a 
civilized society.
  The reason for this apparent consensus is that it is a medically 
unnecessary, barbaric procedure. In fact, the front page of today's 
Washington Times notes that the American Medical Association's board of 
trustees has determined that there are no situations in which a 
partial-birth abortion is the only appropriate procedure to induce 
abortion--the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion.
  It seems likely that President Clinton will bow to political 
pressures from the extremes in the pro-choice camp and veto this bill. 
The House passed this bill H.R. 1122 by a veto-proof margin of 295 to 
136. In the Senate we will likely need 67 votes in order to ban this 
procedure. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation so 
that we can ban this brutal procedure.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair.
  I am proud today to join the Senator from Pennsylvania and my other 
colleagues in voicing support for H.R. 1122, the Partial-Birth Abortion 
Ban Act of 1997. I was an original cosponsor of the Senate version of 
this bill, and I commend my friends in the other body for passing this 
legislation by such a compelling majority. I urge my colleagues in the 
Senate to take action and pass this bill by a margin that can withstand 
the President's threatened veto.
  Mr. President, we are debating an issue that has an important bearing 
on the future of this Nation. Partial-birth abortion is a pivotal issue 
because it demands that we decide whether or not we as a civilized 
people are willing to protect that most fundamental of rights--the 
right to life itself. If we rise to this challenge and safeguard the 
future of our Nation's unborn, we will be protecting those whose voices 
cannot yet be heard by the polls and those whose votes cannot yet be 
weighed in the political process. If we fail in our duty, we will 
justly earn the scorn of future generations when they ask why we stood 
idly by and did nothing in the face of this national infanticide.
  We must reaffirm our commitment to the sanctity of human life in all 
its stages. We took a positive step in that direction a few weeks ago 
by unanimously passing legislation that bans the use of Federal funds 
for physician-assisted suicide. We can take another step toward 
restoring our commitment to life by banning partial-birth abortions.
  In this barbaric procedure, the abortionist pulls a living baby feet 
first out of the womb and through the birth canal except for the head, 
which is kept lodged just inside the cervix. The abortionist then 
punctures the base of the skull with long surgical scissors and removes 
the baby's brain with a powerful suction machine. This causes the head 
to collapse, after which the abortionist completes the delivery of the 
now dead baby. I recount the grisly details of this procedure only to 
remind my colleagues of the seriousness of the issue before the Senate. 
We must help those unborn children who are unable to help themselves.
  Opponents of this legislation have relied on distortions to bolster 
their position. Just this past February, the executive director of the 
National Coalition of Abortion Providers, Ron Fitzsimmons, admitted 
that he lied through his teeth about the true number of partial-birth 
abortions performed in the United States every year. Mr. Fitzsimmons 
had originally joined Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion and 
Reproductive Rights Action League in falsely claiming that this 
abortion procedure was used only in rare cases to save the life of the 
mother. Mr. Fitzsimmons now admits that partial birth abortions are 
common and that the vast majority of them are performed in the second 
trimester--at 4 to 6 months' gestation--on healthy unborn children with 
healthy mothers. Mr. Fitzsimmons summed up the chilling truth of this 
procedure when he admitted that partial-birth abortion is ``a form of 
killing. You're ending a life.''
  Opponents have argued that this procedure is necessary in some 
circumstances to save the life of the mother or protect her future 
fertility. These arguments have no foundation in fact. First, this bill 
provides an exception if the procedure is necessary to save the life of 
the mother and no alternative procedure could be used for that purpose. 
Moreover, leaders in the medical profession including former Surgeon 
General C. Everett Koop have stated that this procedure is never 
necessary to save the life of the mother. In fact, it is more dangerous 
medically to the mother than allowing the child to be born alive. 
Finally, a coalition of over 600 obstetricians, perinatologists, and 
other medical specialists have stated categorically that there is no 
sound medical evidence to support the claim that this procedure is ever 
necessary to protect a woman's future fertility. These arguments are 
offered as a smoke-screen to obscure the fact that this procedure 
results in the taking of an innocent life. The practice of partial 
birth abortions has shocked the conscience of our nation and it must be 
stopped.
  Since I was sworn in as a Member of this distinguished body in 
January, we have had the opportunity to discuss a number of pieces of 
legislation which will have a direct impact on our families and our 
children. I have based my decision on every bill that has come before 
this body on what effect it will have on those generations still to 
come. We in the Senate have deliberated about what steps we can take to

[[Page S4450]]

make society a better place for our families and the future of our 
children. We as Senators will cast no vote that will more directly 
affect the future of our families and our children than the vote we 
cast on this bill.
  Mr. President, when I ran for office, I promised my constituents I 
would protect and defend the right to life of the unborn. The sanctity 
of human life is a fundamental issue on which we as a nation should 
find consensus. It is a right which is counted among the unalienable 
rights in our Nation's Declaration of Independence. We must rise today 
to the challenge that has been laid before us of protecting innocent 
human life. I urge my colleagues to join me in casting a vote for life 
by supporting the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.
  Now, I know there has been a big change in the approach to the whole 
situation by Mr. Fitzsimmons, who testified a year ago that this was 
not a common practice. I know now that he says it is common practice, 
and that is part of the debate that made a big difference on the House 
side, and I am convinced it will make a big difference on the Senate 
side, someone who is admitting that this is a common practice, that it 
takes lives and that he regrets what he said and what has been done as 
a result. I think that will make a difference in the vote we have over 
here, and I hope it will make a difference in the approach that the 
President takes to the bill.
  I would like to concentrate my remarks on the miracle of life. A year 
and a half ago, I had a torn heart valve and was rushed to the hospital 
for emergency surgery. I had never been in a hospital except to visit 
sick folks before. I have to tell you that I am impressed with what 
they were able to do, but I have also been impressed with what doctors 
do not know. That is not a new revelation for me.
  Over 24 years ago, a long time ago, my wife and I were expecting our 
first child. Then one day early in the sixth month of pregnancy, my 
wife starting having pains and contractions. We took her to the doctor. 
The doctor said, ``Oh, you may have a baby right now. We know it's 
early and that doesn't bode well. We will try to stop it. We can 
probably stop it.'' I had started storing up books for my wife for 3 
months waiting for the baby to come. However, the baby came that night, 
weighing just a little over 2 pounds. The doctor's advice to us was to 
wait until morning and see if she lives. They said they didn't have any 
control over it.
  I could not believe the doctors could not stop premature birth. Then 
I could not believe that they could not do something to help this 
newborn baby. Until you see one of those babies, you will not believe 
what a 6-month-old baby looks like. At the same time my wife gave birth 
to our daughter, another lady gave birth to a 10-pound baby. This was a 
small hospital in Wyoming so they were side by side in the 
nursery. Some of the people viewing the other baby said, ``Oh, look at 
that one. Looks like a piece of rope with some knots in it. Too bad.'' 
And we watched her grasp and gasp for air with every breath, and we 
watched her the whole night to see if she would live.

  Then the next day they were able to take this baby to a hospital 
which provided excellent care. She was supposed to be flown to Denver 
where the best care in the world was available, but it was a Wyoming 
blizzard and we couldn't fly. So we took a car from Gillette, WY, to 
the center of the State to Wyoming's biggest hospital, to get the best 
kind of care we could find. We ran out of oxygen on the way. We had the 
highway patrol looking for us and all along the way, we were watching 
every breath of that child.
  After receiving exceptional care the doctor said, ``Well, another 24 
hours and we will know something.'' After that 24 hours there were 
several times we went to the hospital and there was a shroud around the 
isolette. We would knock on the window, and the nurses would come over 
and say, ``It's not looking good. We had to make her breathe again.'' 
Or, ``Have you had the baby baptized?''
  We had the baby baptized in the first few minutes after birth. But 
that child worked and struggled to live. She was just a 6-month-old--3 
months premature.
  We went through 3 months of waiting to get her out of the hospital. 
Each step of the way the doctors said this isn't our doing. It gave me 
a new outlook on life. Now I want to tell you the good news. The good 
news is that the little girl is now an outstanding English teacher in 
Wyoming. She is dedicated to teaching seventh and ninth graders 
English, and she is loving every minute of every day. The only problem 
she had was that the isolette hum wiped out a range of tones for her, 
so she cannot hear the same way that you and I do. But she can lip read 
very well, which, in the classroom, is very good if the kids are trying 
to whisper. But that has given me an appreciation for all life and that 
experience continues to influence my vote now and on all issues of 
protecting human life.
  When I first came to the Senate, we talked about cloning. I thought 
cloning had been going on for a long time. Of course, we used to call 
it identical twins, and it was pretty unpredictable. But I want to tell 
you, through all of that cloning, nobody produced life. They took life 
and they changed it.
  Life is such a miracle that we have to respect it and work for it 
every single day in every way we can. I think this bill will help in 
that effort, and I ask for your support for this bill.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, first let me congratulate the Senator 
from Wyoming for that very touching story about his daughter. I 
congratulate him for his courage in standing up for her and fighting 
for her and his willingness to share that with us and his support of 
this legislation.
  I also would like to thank the junior Senator from Colorado, Senator 
Allard, for his excellent statement in support of this measure.
  I want to cite specifically the senior Senator from Colorado, Senator 
Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Last year I very vividly remember receiving a 
call from Senator Coats about Ben sitting in a hospital room in 
Colorado, watching the debate and talking to doctors and seeing so many 
people do so much to save life, and his incredibly insightful comments 
about how he could watch through his door efforts to save life and then 
look up on the television screen and see C-SPAN and see people who 
wanted to extinguish life. That conflicted him and disturbed him.
  It is a very hard thing, it is a very hard thing in politics for 
someone on the abortion issue to walk out of a camp. This issue is a 
very polarized issue. You are in one camp or the other. You are pro-
life or you are pro-choice and you don't waffle. You don't walk down 
the middle of this one or you get run over. It takes a lot of courage 
to walk out of that camp because you know they are wrong.

  A lot of folks are struggling with this issue today. They are 
fighting themselves in looking at this issue. They don't feel 
comfortable being in this camp against this bill. But it takes courage 
to step out and do the right thing for you, do the right thing 
according to your conscience, the right thing according to what you 
believe is best for America. It has political risks, tremendous 
political risks. You alienate your friends, you open yourself up to 
attack.
  But I think it just shows a tremendous amount of courage and 
commitment to your principles, to stand up to your friends. It is easy 
to stand up to your opponents. We do that all the time. But when you 
stand up and face the people that you have supported on issue after 
issue and say, ``This time you are wrong,'' do you know how hard that 
is? You know in your own lives, anybody listening here knows how 
difficult it is to talk to a friend and say, ``You know, I have been 
with you,'' and just say, on something they care about, they deeply 
care about, ``You are wrong and I cannot be with you.'' It is great 
courage, the courage of convictions. I applaud him for doing that in a 
very dramatic and sensitive way.
  Finally, I thank the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Frist, the only 
physician in the Senate who articulated, not just from a medical point 
of view but from a moral point of view, why this ban is absolutely 
necessary and why this procedure is absolutely unnecessary for any 
reason to be performed on anyone.
  So, we have just begun this debate. Unfortunately, as soon as some 
other

[[Page S4451]]

Senators come down here to start the next--I see the Senator from North 
Carolina is here. I will move on. We will have to break off the debate 
for a short period of time. I hope we will have more time to debate 
later this evening, and then, pursuant to this unanimous consent that I 
will read, we will move tomorrow at 11 o'clock to reconsideration of 
this bill, bringing this bill back up for consideration, and debate the 
Boxer amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time between 11 a.m. 
and 2 p.m. on Thursday be equally divided for debate regarding the 
Feinstein amendment to H.R. 1122, that no amendment be in order to the 
Feinstein amendment, and, further, at the hour of 2 p.m., the Senate 
proceed to a vote on or in relation to the Feinstein amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________