[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 65 (Friday, May 16, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S4661]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                ABORTION

 Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I agree with a May 10, 1997, New 
York Times editorial regarding legislation to ban so-called partial-
birth abortions and the alternatives to it which we are considering 
today in the Senate. The editorial states,

       These proposed bills, while well intentioned, still 
     interfere in judgments best left to doctors and their 
     patients. Some of the 40 states that have passed or are 
     considering bans on `partial-birth' abortions have fallen 
     into the same trap. Whether at the state or the Federal 
     level, these political intrusions into medical practice and 
     attempts to limit women's access to abortions deserve to be 
     defeated.

  I am opposed to the Government making medical decisions that should 
be handled by qualified physicians on a case-by-case basis. During my 
22 years in the Senate, I have voted to uphold the Supreme Court's 1973 
Roe versus Wade decision that a woman's right to choose whether to have 
an abortion is protected, within specified limits, under the 
constitutional right to privacy. This means that a woman can make her 
own choice, based on her moral and religious beliefs and in 
consultation with her family, her physician, her priest, rabbi, 
minister, or whomever she chooses. I respect the heartfelt views of 
those who are opposed to abortion, but I do not believe they should be 
imposed on those who hold a different but equally firm conviction.
  Having said that, I did support Senator Feinstein's amendment as a 
substitute to the partial-birth abortion ban. Senator Feinstein's 
amendment would have banned postviability abortions, but like Roe 
versus Wade, it includes exceptions for cases where the attending 
physician makes a medical decision that the abortion is necessary to 
preserve the life of the woman or to avert serious adverse health 
consequences. As you know, under the provisions of Roe, States can pass 
such laws now. If this amendment had passed, I believe late-term 
abortions would remain available to women who need them for serious 
medical reasons.
  I opposed Senator Daschle's amendment because I believe its health 
exception could provide roadblocks to a woman seeking a late-term 
abortion for serious medical reasons. I have concerns about the 
constitutionality of the health exceptions in this amendment because 
they are more restrictive than those in Roe versus Wade.
  Mr. President, the American people overwhelmingly support the right 
of a woman to choose regarding abortion. This does not mean they are 
pro-abortion, it means they are pro-choice as I am. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the partial-birth abortion ban, which is clearly 
unconstitutional, and to allow women and their physicians to make the 
best decisions based on each individual case.

                          ____________________