[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 64 (Thursday, May 15, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4582-S4586]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 1997

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of talk over the 
past several days about the issue of partial-birth abortion, about 
late-term abortion, about the need to have an option available should a 
pregnancy go awry, and in describing when a pregnancy goes awry they 
have described the need to have a health exception in cases where there 
is a fetal abnormality, where a baby is developing in the womb that is 
not perfect.
  Now we have heard all of the horrible accounts of Dr. McMahon 
performing partial-birth abortions on children because they had cleft 
palates or other very minor--Down's syndrome, and other minor, or not 
life-threatening maladies. That, in my mind, is an indefensible defense 
for a health exception.
  I found it absolutely astonishing that Members would have gotten up 
yesterday and talked about the need to have partial-birth abortion as 
an option to dispose of children who were developing in the womb with a 
defect. They did so at the same time, the same day, we passed IDEA, 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the same day that people 
passionately got up on the floor and argued for the rights of the 
disabled to be educated, to maximize their human potential, and some 30 
Senators who voted for that voted today to wipe out the ban on partial-
birth abortion.
  Now, I find that absolutely incongruous. How can you fight for the 
rights of the disabled to be educated? How can you fight for the rights 
of the disabled under the Americans With Disabilities Act, which all of 
those Members, to my knowledge, those that were here, supported, back 
in 1990, I believe it was. How can you support that stand and say you 
care about the disabled, that you want to maximize their potential, 
that you want to treat them with dignity and give them civil rights, 
when you will not give them the most basic of civil rights, the right 
to live in the first place?
  If you survive the womb, if you survive Roe versus Wade, which allows 
you to be destroyed because you are not perfect--yes, Roe versus Wade, 
Doe versus Bolton, allow you to be destroyed because you are not 
perfect. I know that may click some sort of memory of people who 
remember what happened across the Atlantic some 50 and 60 years ago, 
that just because you were not perfect, you were not deserving to live.
  We have Members, standing here, arguing that we need to be able to 
have the option of killing a little baby because it is not perfect. 
They say, oh, that history that happened 50, 60 years ago, could never 
repeat itself. It cannot happen. Oh, how history tends to repeat 
itself, even here on the Senate floor.
  I find it absolutely amazing that people are not shocked by their own 
words, that they do not understand, as the Bible says, that a house 
divided against itself, that you cannot stand up on one side and argue 
for rights of the disabled at the same time saying they do not even 
have the right to be born in the first place, they are not going to be 
protected by our Constitution, they are not going to be protected by 
our laws.
  I will share with you tonight some stories, stories of people with 
disabilities, diagnosed in the womb. I will share with you some happy 
stories, and I will share with you some sad stories. But even in the 
sad stories you will find a silver lining, a lining that would not be 
there if it were not for someone who cared enough to treat their child 
with dignity and respect, cared enough to love them as fully as they 
loved any one of their other children.
  You heard me talk earlier today, yesterday, about Donna Joy Watts. 
One of the cases cited over and over again by people who want to create 
a health exception in the partial-birth abortion bill is that there are 
times when a baby's head has excess fluid, cerebral spinal fluid, and 
it is called hydroencephaly, water on the brain. Donna Joy Watts was 
one of the babies that was diagnosed with hydroencephaly, and another 
malady where the brain was actually growing outside of the skull.
  The doctors diagnosed her condition as fatal and told her mother and 
father they would have to abort her, and her mother and father said, 
``At 7\1/2\ months we are not going to abort our child. Why not give 
her a chance to live?'' They said, ``no, no, we will not give her a 
chance to live because she will not live. It is best for you. Trust me, 
you will feel a lot less pain. You need to just get on with it.'' These 
were obstetricians, genetics counselors. She had to go four places--
four places--to get someone who would deliver her baby. Any of the four 
would have aborted her baby, but only one of the four would have 
delivered her baby.
  We are reaching the point in this country where it is almost easier 
to find an abortion than it is to find a doctor to deliver a child that 
will have complications. The fear of lawsuit, the fear of 
complications, and the stress associated with it are just creating the 
impetus to do abortions. Nobody can sue you for doing abortions. You 
sign a consent form. You give up your rights. You say, ``I won't sue. 
As long as you kill my child, I will not sue.'' So they don't get sued. 
No liability there. But if you work with the mother to deliver the 
child, then if mom believes you didn't tell her everything you should 
have, you get hit with a wrongful birth suit. In other words, ``My 
child is better off dead than alive'' kind of suit.

  What kind of society allows that? What kind of society would say we 
put in legal doctrine a suit that says my child is better off dead than 
alive? What a misunderstanding of life. Every child is perfect in the 
eyes of God; I hope in the eyes of the mother, but we have some to go 
that way. We have lots of people in the medical profession who 
certainly do not see it that way, and counsel for abortion. In fact, at 
every single turn, Donny and Lori Watts were hit with ``abort, abort, 
abort. Save yourself the trouble.'' She said no and he said no.
  They finally delivered her. This is what she looked like. It is a 
little

[[Page S4583]]

Donna Joy, named after her daddy, Donna Joy. Oh, her little head is not 
perfect, and she had problems, serious problems. But she was born 
alive.
  For 3 days Lori Watts told me the medical professional at the 
hospital referred to her little baby, who weighed about 7 pounds, as a 
``fetus.'' For 3 days after her birth, a ``fetus.'' For 3 days they 
wouldn't feed this baby because it was going to die. For 3 days they 
wouldn't drain the water from her head and put a shunt in it because 
she was going to die. And Donna Joy just wouldn't die.
  So Lori and Donny decided that they were going to threaten. Lori said 
in the paper that she would threaten the doctors if they didn't do 
something. So finally they did.
  And through a struggle, which I detailed yesterday, which I will not 
today, but through an incredible struggle of heroism her mom and her 
dad fed her. She had 30 percent of her brain.
  You often hear so much about you only use a small percentage of your 
brain. And if there is one place in the body we don't understand, we 
don't understand the brain very well. We don't understand how it really 
works and how it compensates for problems, whether it be by stroke or 
things like this. But Donna Joy had 30 percent of her brain. She had a 
deformed medulla oblongata which connects the brain to the spinal cord. 
She had no medulla oblongata. Her left and right side of the brain were 
not connected. They didn't talk to each other. She fought and she 
fought and she fought through incredible difficulties.
  Today, this is little Donna Joy Watts, who yesterday and today was in 
my office playing, talking to reporters, writing me notes, playing with 
my children, coloring books, acting like a little girl, walks with a 
little bit of a limp. She is a little bit behind for her age. But after 
eight brain operations and with 30 percent of her brain, she is an 
amazing story.
  Her parents were told to have a partial-birth abortion because her 
head was so large. They wanted to put those scissors in the base of 
this little girl's skull and kill her. And Lori and Donny said no. They 
could have taken the easy way out.
  I can tell you. When Lori told me of the times when she was a little 
baby of having to feed her, which took an hour and a half because she 
didn't have the muscles to hold the food in--it would just come right 
back up, she had no muscular control as a baby. So the food would come 
right back up. They thought she would die of malnutrition until Lori 
thought it out. She would put this paste, which was real heavy that 
would stay in her stomach, but it was drop by drop in the back of her 
mouth. It took an hour and a half to feed her. She would take an hour-
and-a-half break, and another hour and a half to feed her, 24 hours a 
day, setting the alarm in the middle of the night, getting up to feed 
her child so the child would not die of malnutrition.
  It is hard. But little Donna Joy Watts is one of the great stories 
that ennobles all of us. Had Lori and Donny decided to kill, to let 
little Donna Joy die by aborting her, our society would be diminished. 
The inspiration that this little girl and her family has provided 
ennobles us all, calls us to a greater sense of commitment and love for 
our children and those who are not so fortunate to be perfect.
  Another story: This is a story I just got the other day. It is a 
letter written to me by Sandra and Joseph Mallon from Upper Darby, PA. 
I will read the story as she writes it to me.

       Dear Senator Santorum: My name is Sandra Mallon. I live in 
     Upper Darby, PA with my husband, Joe, and our 5 month old 
     daughter, Kathleen. Both Joe and I work outside the home--but 
     Kathleen is the most important thing in our lives. I am 
     writing in reference to the H.R. 872 and S. 5 bill currently 
     being considered. This issue is very near to my heart; and I 
     feel this is a crisis issue that I must discuss.
       My daughter was diagnosed with hydrocephalus, an abnormal 
     accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid around the brain, at 23 
     weeks gestation.

  You may have heard the debate earlier about viability. At 22 weeks' 
gestation, a baby can survive. About 24 or 25 percent of babies survive 
outside the womb.

       At that time we were not given a positive outlook for our 
     little girl. We were told first to abort--but that was out of 
     the question. Then we were told the best case would be to 
     expect a shunt operation and retardation; worse case would be 
     death before or shortly after delivery. We decided to give 
     our child every chance we could. We went to many doctors for 
     the next four months--the news got a little better as the 
     pregnancy went on.
       Kathleen was born on December 6, 1996--and she is our 
     miracle baby. Though she has hydrocephalus, she is showing no 
     symptoms. One month ago she underwent an operation to place a 
     shunt, a tube which helps the fluid to pass through the brain 
     in a safe and effective way. This is the most widely used 
     treatment for hydrocephalus, and even so, most patients have 
     to have their shunt revised (replaced) several times in their 
     lifetimes. The alternative in most cases is death.
       Joe and I have many hopes and dreams for Kathleen--but 
     mostly we want her to be a healthy, happy child. We want her 
     to be given every chance in life to experience her world. 
     Right now I want her to be able to play, jump, swim and maybe 
     even ride horses. Unlike most families these every day 
     activities could cause Kathleen to need a shunt revision. 
     This scares me to death!! Right now there is technology and 
     materials to help Kathleen should there be a reason. But if 
     these bills do not pass my child could be in for pain and 
     suffering which would slowly and painfully kill her. Don't 
     let this happen to my Kathleen Marie. Silicone is the only 
     material available which the body does not see or reject to 
     make these lifesaving shunts.
       I can't stress how important this issue is to me and my 
     family. Besides our immediate need to know Kathleen can 
     continue to grow up as any other child. But the silicone is 
     also used in many other biomedical devices (i.e. ear tubes, 
     and pacemakers). So the S5 in the Senate and HR872 in the 
     House would seek to control my access to raw material for 
     shunts. I understand there are other issues wrapped up in the 
     bill, and I believe personally that Product Liability and 
     Tort Reform are important measures. If S5 and HR872 are not 
     passed, it is a certain death sentence for Kathleen and every 
     other person affected by hydrocephalus.
       I ask you to look at the picture of Kathleen. Tell me that 
     you will help her. Don't wait too long Senator, people will 
     die. I am looking forward to your response to this issue of 
     life and death importance to me and my family.

  These are two wonderful stories of children who would not be termed 
``viable,'' could be aborted late-term because it was a medical 
complication, and these children were deformed.
  This is the kind of health exception that many want to allow so we 
can kill children just like this. But we know there is another way, a 
way suggested by even people who perform abortions like the doctor at 
the Medical College of Pennsylvania who says that after 23 weeks, the 
second or third trimester, it is not necessary to kill a baby. It may 
be necessary to separate the mother from the child. But it is never 
necessary to kill a baby, even one that has an abnormality.
  In fact, doctors have told me they are not aware of any abnormality 
in and of itself that is a threat to the woman's health or life that 
cannot be remedied by a separation--not an abortion, not the deliberate 
killing of the baby, but by separation. In fact, most abnormalities 
don't require separation. You can deliver later in term, at term.
  Not all stories end as happily. I want to share some stories with you 
of people that went through very tough decisions, and some that, 
frankly, didn't have very tough decisions but went through heartaches 
when it came to a child who had a problem in the womb.
  Let me first share the story of Jeannie French. Jeannie has been very 
outspoken. I shared her story last year, but it bears repeating.

       My name is Jeannie Wallace French. I am a 34 year old 
     healthcare professional who holds a masters degree in public 
     health. I am a diplomat of the American College of Healthcare 
     Executives, and a member of the Chicago Health Executives 
     Forum.
       In the spring of 1993, my husband Paul and I were delighted 
     to learn that we would be parents of twins. The pregnancy was 
     the answer to many prayers and we excitedly prepared for our 
     babies.
       In June, five months into the pregnancy, doctors confirmed 
     that one of the twins, our daughter Mary, was suffering from 
     occipital encephalocele--a condition in which the majority of 
     the brain develops outside of the skull. As she grew, 
     sonograms revealed the progression of tissue maturing in the 
     sack protruding from Mary's head.
       We were devastated. Mary's prognosis for life was slim, and 
     her chance for normal development non-existent. Additionally, 
     if Mary died in utero, it would threaten the life of her 
     brother, Will.
       Doctors recommended aborting Mary. But my husband and I 
     felt that our baby girl was a member of our family, 
     regardless of how ``imperfect'' she might be. We felt she was 
     entitled to her God-given right to live her life, however 
     short or difficult it might be, and if she was to leave this 
     life, to leave peacefully.
       When we learned our daughter could not survive normal 
     labor, we decided to go

[[Page S4584]]

     through with a cesarean delivery. Mary and her healthy 
     brother Will were born a minute apart on December 13, 1993. 
     Little Will let out a hearty cry and was moved to the 
     nursery. Our quiet little Mary remained with us, cradled in 
     my Paul's arms. Six hours later, wrapped in her delivery 
     blanket, Mary Bernadette French slipped peacefully away.
       Blessedly, our story does not end there. Three days after 
     Mary died, on the day of her interment at the cemetery, Paul 
     and I were notified that Mary's heart valves were a match for 
     two Chicago infants in critical condition. We have learned 
     that even anacephalic and meningomyelocele children like our 
     Mary can give life, sight or strength to others. Her ability 
     to save the lives of two other children proved to others that 
     her life had value--far beyond what any of us could every 
     have imagined.
       Mary's life lasted a total of 37 weeks 3 days and 6 hours. 
     In effect, like a small percentage of children conceived in 
     our country every year, Mary was born dying. What can partial 
     birth abortion possibly do for children like Mary? This 
     procedure is intended to hasten a dying baby's death. We do 
     not need to help a dying child die. Not one moment of grief 
     is circumvented by this procedure.
       In Mary's memory, as a voice for severely disabled children 
     now growing in the comfort of their mother's wombs, and for 
     the parents whose dying children are relying on the donation 
     of organs from other babies, I make this plea: Some children 
     by their nature cannot live. If we are to call ourselves a 
     civilized culture, we must allow that their deaths be 
     natural, peaceful, and painless. And if other preborn 
     children face a life of disability, let us welcome them into 
     this society, with arms open in love. Who could possible need 
     us more?

  I will now share a more personal story. A comment was made in this 
Chamber on several occasions in the last debate and unfortunately again 
in this debate that Members who speak on this issue have no right to 
speak on this issue because they cannot experience what the women who 
stood with President Clinton when he vetoed this bill experienced.
  Well, that is not true. I will read from an article I wrote about 
what happened to me and my wife and our family.

       On September 26, 1996, the Senate voted to sustain 
     President Clinton's veto of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. I 
     led the fight to override the veto on the floor of the 
     Senate.
       Central to the debate was the assertion by opponents of the 
     ban that this procedure was necessary later in pregnancy in 
     cases when a severe fetal defect was discovered. I was told 
     that I could not understand what these women, who experienced 
     this procedure, had gone through. ``It had never touched your 
     life,'' one Senator said.
       This is a story of how just one week after that vote, it 
     did.
       We had been through the joyous routine before--the 
     technician would turn out the lights, spread gel on Karen's 
     growing mid-section, and then right there on the screen in 
     front of our eyes we would get the first glimpse of our 
     baby--a fuzzy, black and white picture that told us all was 
     well.
       This time, however, was different. Sitting in the darkened 
     room, listening to the background buzz of the machine, we saw 
     a large, dark circle on the screen, and we saw the 
     technician's demeanor change. Everything seemed fine--arms, 
     legs, head, spine--but the woman with the instrument was 
     strangely quiet, examining and re-examining the dark circle.
       We had brought along our three children, ages 5, 3, and 1--
     Elizabeth, Johnny, and Daniel--to this appointment because we 
     wanted them to be able to have a glimpse into the still, 
     perfect world of their unborn baby brother. We now feared 
     that they might get a glimpse into something else.
       The technician left, giving way to a doctor who repeated 
     the earlier routine, mumbling something about a ``bladder.'' 
     Finally, we were coldly given the verdict: ``Your child has a 
     fatal defect and is going to die.''
       It's not that the world stopped, nor that it moved in slow 
     motion, it was just that the world had changed. Suddenly, our 
     child whom we loved, prayed for, dreamed about, and longed to 
     meet was diagnosed with a life threatening condition. Through 
     our tears erupted the most basic of all parental instincts 
     and emotions--we were going to save our child.
       After the initial shock, I took the kids out into the 
     hallway to the phone and called Dr. Scott Adzick. Six months 
     earlier, I had gone to Children's Hospital of Philadelphia 
     and seen a world I never knew existed--a world of Dr. 
     Adzick's creation--a world of surgery and care for children 
     still in their mother's womb. I remembered his amazing skill 
     and how I sensed an aura of peace and a certainty of purpose 
     surrounding his mission.
       I frantically described what had transpired and asked if he 
     could help. Before he peppered me with questions, he calmly 
     reassured me that all was not lost. He had seen cases like 
     this before and knew immediately that it had to be post-
     urethral valve syndrome.
       Scott's principal concern had to do with the absence of 
     fluid in the amniotic sac. What he told us failed to lift our 
     hopes. The absence of fluid meant that the baby likely had a 
     complete obstruction of the urinary tract--in short, a very 
     rare, severe, and extremely problematic condition.
       Not typically understood is that the element comprising the 
     amniotic fluid encompassing the baby during development is 
     the baby's urine. The fluid not only provides a barrier of 
     protection from outside trauma, but it is necessary in the 
     development of the baby's lungs. Without it its lungs would 
     not develop enough for him to survive outside the womb.
       In addition, the baby's enlarged bladder would so compress 
     the internal organs--particularly the kidneys--that they 
     would cease to function. Kidney failure would mean near-
     certain death shortly after birth.
       Dr. Adzick arranged for tests to be done the next day in 
     Philadelphia at Pennsylvania Hospital. The initial results 
     did not look good. Seated in front of our second sonogram 
     machine in as many days, Dr. Adzick and Dr. Alan Donnefeld 
     described our son's kidneys as not positive. Dr. Adzick told 
     us that though he, too, was discouraged, there were one or 
     two occasions where he had seen bad kidneys have sufficient 
     levels of function, enabling a baby to survive until a 
     transplant soon after birth.
       We adjourned to a supply room next to the treatment area. 
     The purpose of the meeting was to discuss options. Dr. 
     Donnenfeld took the lead, saying that things were grave, and 
     presenting us with three options. ``Your first option is to 
     terminate the pregnancy.'' As the word pregnancy left his 
     lips the room instantly went dark. The doctor quickly reached 
     up and turned on the light that was on a timer. Through 
     nervous and awkward laughter I said, ``I guess that answers 
     your question.''
       We knew that abortion was a legal option, it just wasn't a 
     sane one. It was inconceivable to us as parents to kill our 
     baby because he wasn't perfect or because he might not live a 
     long life. While we couldn't look into his eyes or hold him 
     in our arms, he was no less our child than our other three 
     children. And we loved him every bit as much. He was our gift 
     from God from the moment we found out Karen was pregnant. In 
     our mind, from that time on our job as parents of this tiny 
     life was to do everything we could to nurture him through 
     life. Karen and I have this saying, ``life is about being 
     there,'' and this was our chance to be there for our baby.
       The second option was to do nothing. In this case our son 
     would live only as long as he was in the womb. While in the 
     womb our baby's lungs and kidneys were not necessary for him 
     to survive--Karen was performing those functions for him. 
     There was no increased threat to Karen as a result of his 
     defect.
       The third option would entail several tests and testaments 
     that could put Karen at risk. Karen's immediate response was 
     to do whatever it took to save our son, no matter what the 
     risk to her.
       Our son went through two days of tests to determine kidney 
     function. If there was very poor or no kidney function there 
     would be no point in proceeding further--he would not develop 
     enough in the womb to survive outside. The first day the 
     results were so bad that we discussed whether it was worth 
     going through a second painful day of tests for Karen. Dr. 
     Adzick said we needed a miracle to get those kidneys to work 
     better.
       We prayed more than I can remember for our son, who we 
     named that day Gabriel Michael, after the great archangels. 
     The next day our prayers were answered with a miraculous 
     improvement; the chances for success were not just okay, but 
     kidney function very good. We could now do the surgery that 
     would save his life.
       For both of us, this crisis was not so much a ``faith 
     check'' as it was a time of reassurance. No matter what 
     happened, we knew that God held us--and held Gabriel 
     Michael--in his hands. What that knowledge there is a peace 
     beyond human understanding.
       The bladder shunt procedure, to drain the urine into the 
     amniotic sac in an effort to create the proper fluid 
     environment for Gabriel, was scheduled for Tuesday with Dr. 
     Bud Wiener at Pennsylvania Hospital. Dr. Wiener had done more 
     of these procedures than anyone else on the east coast and 
     had pioneered the plastic tube that would be used to drain 
     the urine.
       Next came the surgery. The idea that surgery on a child in 
     only its 20th week of life inside the womb could work boggles 
     the mind. And watching Dr. Weiner at work was something to 
     behold. He guided the shunt into place, though more slowly 
     than he would have liked, but it was a success. As we left 
     the hospital, we worried about whether the shunt had worked, 
     and whether the longer than usual procedure might have put 
     Karen more at risk.
       Two days later, Karen began feeling both chills and 
     cramping--the cramping was the beginning of labor and the 
     chills were a sign of an infection in her womb. Our worst 
     fears had become a reality.
       Hoping desperately that it was food poisoning or the flu, 
     Karen fought desperately to hold it all together. A call to 
     the doctor was met with an order to rush to the hospital. We 
     were in Pittsburgh at home. There another doctor performed 
     another sonogram. What we saw was perhaps the single worst 
     and single best things of our lives. The fuzzy picture on the 
     screen showed an active baby--arms and legs moving freely in 
     a sac of amniotic fluid. But the infection persisted.
       Karen was seized with horrible chills. Huddled under nearly 
     a dozen blankets her body temperature soared to 105. By this

[[Page S4585]]

     point there was little that could be done. Intra-uterine 
     infections are untreatable as long as the source of the 
     infection--the amniotic sac--is in place. Unless the sac and 
     thereby the baby were delivered, Karen would eventually die, 
     and Gabriel Michael with her. Here again the doctors told us 
     that abortion was a legal option, but we knew there was 
     another way. This way gave our son the love and respect he 
     deserved and to Karen and me the gift of a precious few hours 
     with our son.
       Karen was given an antibiotic which reduced the fever and 
     made her comfortable. She clung to the baby with all her 
     might, but nature was relentless. Soon the labor 
     intensified--the body had identified the source of the 
     infection. She did everything she could to delay the 
     inevitable. I tried calling everyone I knew to see if there 
     was something else that could be done. There was no answer to 
     be found. I thanked God for the presence of Karen's father, 
     Dr. Ken Garver, a physician whose specialty is in genetics 
     counseling, prenatal diagnosis of birth defects, and 
     Monsignor Bill Kerr who helped guide us through this time.
       We knew the end was near so we tried to pack a lifetime of 
     love into those few hours. I put my hands on Karen's 
     abdomen--we prayed and we cried. We also talked to Gabriel to 
     let him know how much we loved him--how much we will miss 
     him, how much we will miss mothering and fathering him and 
     how his brothers and sister will miss his presence.

  Within hours of 12:45, our son was born. He was a beautiful 
creation--a small, pink, package of joy and sorrow, hope and questions. 
We bundled him up, put a little hat on his head, we held him, sang to 
him, cried for him. He was too small to make a sound but he spoke so 
powerfully to our hearts. His eyes never opened to see his mommy and 
daddy, but he allowed us to see, in him, the face of God. Two hours 
later, he died in my arms.
  We tried to make Gabriel's short life, short time on Earth, filled 
with love, only love. And we told him that soon he would be 
experiencing something that we are striving for. God would be bringing 
him to be with Him in heaven. Finally, we pledged to him that we would 
rededicate ourselves to joining him someday.
  The next days were no less of a blur than the ones that led up to 
them. We buried our son later that day, next to other members of our 
family, and we prayed to God to give us understanding.
  This is our story, the irony finding ourselves confronted with a baby 
with a fetal defect when only the few days before, the absence of such 
had disqualified me from the debate on partial-birth abortion. It was 
in the eyes of many truly overwhelming. On two occasions we, too, could 
have chosen the option to abort. We knew that Gabriel's life would 
probably be measured in minutes and hours, not in years and decades. We 
chose to let Gabriel live and die in the fullness of time--being held 
and loved and nurtured by two parents who loved him dearly.
  We wouldn't have traded those 2 hours with our son for anything in 
the world. And we know he wouldn't have either.
  In the midst of the debate that fall, disgusted by and worried about 
the gruesome descriptions of abortion, one of the Senators said that a 
medical procedure was bloody and that it was just the nature of the 
event. The Washington Post described what happened next:

       Republican Senator Rick Santorum turned to face the 
     opposition and, in a high, pleading voice, cried out, ``Where 
     do we draw the line? Some people have likened this procedure 
     to an appendectomy. That's not an appendix,'' he shouted, 
     pointing to a drawing of a fetus. ``This is not a blob of 
     tissue. It's a baby. It's a baby.''
       And then, impossibly, in an already hushed gallery, in one 
     of those moments when the floor of the Senate looks like a 
     stage set, with its small wooden desks somehow too small for 
     the matters at hand, the cry of a baby pierced the room, 
     echoing across the chamber from an outside hallway.
       No one mentioned the cry. But for a few seconds no one 
     spoke at all.

  Maybe it was a freak occurrence. It was a baby, a visitor's baby that 
was crying in the hallway as the door to the floor opened and a few 
seconds later closed. A freak occurrence, perhaps, or maybe a cry from 
a son whose voice we never heard but whose life has changed ours 
forever.
  Mr. President, I am using the words of my wife:

       Accepting partial-birth abortion as our only alternative to 
     a difficult birth or a potentially disabled infant is to 
     thwart two of our strongest human impulses: the impulse of 
     love and the impulse of memory. All of us are united by our 
     need to love and by our need to remember and be remembered. 
     Giving life to and caring for a sick infant--for however 
     brief a period--allows us to express these uniquely human 
     impulses. Rick and I were blessed with the time to offer the 
     fullness of our love to our baby, and we have the peace of 
     knowing that he felt that love. Gabriel Michael joined our 
     family forever. He has not been obliterated. Gabriel was 
     known and will always be remembered. His memory will live 
     with us forever. I believe that every human being should be 
     remembered by somebody. Memory helps to anchor us to each 
     other; it locates us not only within a certain time and 
     place, but within a family and within a community. It is one 
     of the measures of the value we place on each other. And the 
     tragedy of infants who are destroyed and forgotten should 
     haunt us all.

  There is another way. You heard me quoting doctors all day about the 
other way, that there is no need to kill a baby. You may need to 
separate the mother from the baby, but there is no need to kill the 
baby. I do know that. I have experienced that. And I, as I said, would 
not trade one moment, one second.
  What we are debating here is infanticide, not abortion. We should 
have the moral courage to stop infanticide in the U.S. Senate. We 
should be able to muster up enough support out around America to send a 
message, loud and clear, to every Member in this Senate, that we will 
not stand for it any longer.
  The children who are victims of partial-birth abortion are not here 
to speak for themselves. So we must do that. And so I ask you on their 
behalf that you don't subject anyone else in America to this procedure. 
I plead with you on their behalf to stop the murder. I ask the 
President to look into his heart and see if he can't understand and 
feel the disruption that this procedure is causing to our culture and 
to our civilization. I ask every Member of the Senate to do the same. I 
think, if you do, the decision will be easy.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I congratulate and thank my colleague from 
Pennsylvania, not only for bringing this bill to the floor, for working 
on it for so many months, but also for that very eloquent statement 
about the tragedy that occurred in his family.
  I think his statement was the statement about the value of life and 
how precious human life really is. Each one of us, at different times 
in our lives, are reminded of the value of life, and sometimes how 
brief that life can be. As I look around the Chamber of the Senate this 
evening, I see three of my colleagues who have lost children, three of 
us who have lost children, who understand maybe more than we did before 
how precious human life is.
  Really, that is what this debate is about tonight, what it has been 
about today. One of the things that we do in this Senate, as we have 
the luxury, if you want to use the term, of unlimited debate, is to 
thoroughly discuss issues. And as we do that, this tradition that is 
over 200 years in this body, as we do that, many times we do, in fact, 
educate ourselves and understand things better. Maybe, as we try to 
educate ourselves, we help educate the American people.
  We have been at this debate for a long time because we had this 
debate last session of Congress. I would like, tonight, to talk about 
some of the things we have learned. I entered this Chamber, as my 
colleague from Texas, Phil Gramm, said earlier this evening, entered 
the Chamber a few months ago--I say now over a year ago--with not a 
whole lot of knowledge about partial-birth abortion. I think we all 
have become educated, not just from the debate here on the floor, but 
also we have been educated by the hearings. We have learned what 
partial-birth abortion is.
  I think the most telling description was given by Brenda Pratt 
Shafer, of Franklin, OH, when she testified in front of the Judiciary 
Committee. Let me, if I could, share with my colleagues in part what 
she said:

       Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Judiciary 
     Committee, I am Brenda Pratt Shafer. I am a registered nurse, 
     licensed in the State of Ohio, with 13 years of experience. 
     In 1993, I was employed by Kimberly Quality Care, a nursing 
     agency in Dayton, OH. In September 1993, Kimberly Quality 
     Care asked me to accept an assignment at the Women's Medical 
     Center, which is operated by Dr. Martin Haskell. I readily 
     accepted this assignment because I was at that time very pro-
     choice.


[[Page S4586]]


  She continues:

       So, because of the strong pro-choice views I held at that 
     time, I thought this assignment would be no problem for me.
       But I was wrong. I stood at the doctor's side as he 
     performed the partial-birth abortion procedure--and what I 
     saw is branded on my mind forever.
       I worked as an assistant nurse at Dr. Haskell's clinic for 
     3 days--September 28, 29, 30, 1993.

  She continues:

       On the third day, Dr. Haskell asked me to observe as he 
     performed several of these procedures that are the subject of 
     this hearing. Although I was in the clinic on the assignment 
     of the agency, Dr. Haskell was interested in hiring me full-
     time, and I was being oriented in the entire range of 
     procedures provided by that facility.
       I was present for three of these partial-birth procedures. 
     It is the first one that I will describe to you in detail.
       The mother was 6 months pregnant, 26\1/2\ weeks. A doctor 
     told her that the baby had Down Syndrome, and she had to have 
     an abortion. She decided to have this abortion. She came in 
     the first 2 days and have the laminaria inserted and changed, 
     and she cried the whole time she was there. On the third day, 
     she came in to have the partial-birth abortion procedure.
       Dr. Haskell brought the ultrasound in and hooked it up so 
     that he could see the baby. On the ultrasound screen, I could 
     see the heart beat. As Dr. Haskell watched the baby on the 
     ultrasound screen, the baby's heartbeat was clearly visible 
     on the ultrasound screen.
       Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's 
     legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he 
     delivered the baby's body and arms--everything but the head. 
     The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus.
       Senators this is a baby that was a little bit smaller than 
     the baby that I actually saw that day.

  She held something up.

       This is a mechanical model of a baby.
       The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and 
     his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the 
     scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked 
     out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does 
     when he thinks he is going to fall.
       The doctor opened up the scissors, and stuck a high-powered 
     suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains 
     out. Now the baby went completely limp.
       I was really completely unprepared for what I was seeing. I 
     almost threw up as I watched Dr. Haskell doing these things.
       Next, Dr. Haskell delivered the baby's head. He cut the 
     umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby 
     in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had 
     just used. I saw the baby move in the pan. I asked another 
     nurse, and she said it was just reflexes.
       I have been a nurse for a long time, and I have seen a lot 
     of death--people maimed in auto accidents, gunshot wounds, 
     you name it. I have seen surgical procedures of every sort. 
     But in all my professional years, I had never witnessed 
     anything like this.
       The woman wanted to see her baby, so they cleaned up the 
     baby and put it into a blanket and handed it to her. She 
     cried the whole time. She kept saying, ``I am so sorry, 
     please forgive me.'' I was crying, too. I couldn't take it. 
     That baby boy had the most perfect angelic face I think I 
     have ever seen in my life.
       I was present in the room during two more such procedures 
     that day, but I was really in shock. I tried to pretend I was 
     somewhere else, to not think about what was happening. I just 
     couldn't wait to get out of there. After I left that day, I 
     never went back. The last two procedures, by the way, 
     involved healthy mothers with healthy babies.

  That was the testimony of the nurse, testimony that has never been 
controverted. In fact, I will not take the Senate's time to read this 
in its entirety, but this is the actual paper that Dr. Haskell prepared 
that has been quoted before in this procedure. It is a paper delivered 
by Martin Haskell, presented at the National Abortion Federation, Risk 
Management Seminar, September 13, 1992. You can track in Dr. Haskell's 
own words exactly what nurse Shafer said.
  The doctor uses medical terminology. Part of this has already been 
read today by Dr. Frist, Senator Frist, when he gave his very eloquent 
comments in opposing the Daschle amendment. I will point out one thing 
that is very evident when you look at this description by Dr. Haskell 
of what this partial-birth abortion procedure is, that it takes 3 days, 
day 1, day 2, day 3. That was confirmed by what Nurse Shafer said. The 
dilation occurs in the first 2 days. They go in, go back home or go to 
a motel, and then come back the third day for the procedure itself. But 
actually the whole procedure takes 3 days.
  We have also learned not only what the procedure is, we have learned 
a lot about why it is done.
  Again, maybe the best evidence is to listen to the people who perform 
the abortions.
  Dr. McMahon has told us, he has said that a number of these were done 
for nothing more serious than cleft palates. Seven, eight, possibly 
nine, for cleft palates, the life was snuffed out.
  Dr. Haskell has told us that 80 percent--80 percent--of the abortions 
he performs are elective. The evidence is overwhelming of why these are 
done and under what circumstances.
  Mr. President, during the just concluded debate, a number of my 
colleagues spoke of how this issue has deeply divided this country. One 
even said that nothing really has divided this country as much as the 
abortion debate has since the debate over slavery prior to and leading 
up to and including the Civil War.
  I think that is correct. Few issues in our whole country's history 
have been so divisive. I would argue, Mr. President, this debate over 
abortion has been so protracted and intense because in a sense in a 
government of ``we the people,'' we are still trying to figure out who 
``we''--what that means, who is included.
  I say, Mr. President, that the vulnerable babies that we have heard 
about are us. And whether or not we are willing to speak out, whether 
or not we are willing to say enough is enough, not only will determine 
whether some of these babies will live or die, but it also will 
determine what kind of a people we are, what kind of a society we want 
to live in, who we really are, who we are as a people, what do we value 
and what do we not value, what do we become indignant about, and what 
do we walk away from.
  How bad do things have to be before we speak up and say enough is 
enough? This is something we simply, even in 1997, this is something we 
will not tolerate. It is wrong. We will not put up with it. We will not 
allow it to occur in a civilized society. So, in a sense, not only is 
this a debate about the babies, not only a debate about who will live, 
it is also a debate about who all of us are and what kind of a country 
we have, what kind of a country we want.
  I think we have an obligation to speak up. I think that many times 
the sins that we commit as a people, as individuals, are sins of 
omission, what we do not do when we do not speak up.
  I would like to quote from my friend, Henry Hyde, from a book that he 
wrote that I think summarizes what I believe. This is what Congressman 
Henry Hyde said:

       I believe . . . that when the final judgment comes--as it 
     will surely--when that moment comes that you face Almighty 
     God--the individual judgment, the particular judgment--I 
     believe that a terror will grip your soul like none other 
     than you can imagine. The sins of omission will be what weigh 
     you down; not the things you've done wrong, the chances 
     you've taken, but the things you failed to do, the times that 
     you stepped back, the times you didn't speak out.
       Not only for every idle word but for every idle silence 
     must man render an account. I think that you will be 
     overwhelmed with remorse for the things you failed to do.

  Mr. President, let us move to pass this bill. Let us speak out for 
what is right. And let us hope that the power of the arguments that 
have been heard on the floor--no, rather the facts that have been 
clearly disclosed on the floor--will then persuade the President of the 
United States to rectify a mistake that he made last year when he 
vetoed this bill. We know more today. Many of the statements that were 
made by the President in his veto message are clearly, clearly not 
true. It was clear to many of us at the time they were not true, but 
now that we have had the opportunity for more debate, more evidence, it 
is clear that the reasons he gave, the rationales he gave, are simply 
not there.
  So let us pass this bill. Let us send it again to the President. And 
let us pray that the power of the facts will convince our President to 
sign the bill.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

                          ____________________