Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 67 (Tuesday, May 20, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 20, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4694-S4714]
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 resumed consideration of the bill.

Amendment No. 290

(Purpose: To provide a procedure for determining whether a
physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the
mother)

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum) proposes an
amendment numbered 290.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 2, line 16, strike the semicolon and all that
follows through ``purpose'' on line 17.
On page 3, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
``(3) As used in this section, the term `vaginally delivers
a living fetus before killing the fetus' means deliberately
and intentionally delivers into the vagina a living fetus, or
a substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing
a procedure the physician knows will kill the fetus, and
kills the fetus.''
On page 3, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
``(d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this
section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on
whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the
life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical
disorder, illness or injury.
``(2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that
issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the
defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial
for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take
place.''
On page 3, line 22, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this is an amendment that I took the
floor yesterday to talk about. It is an amendment that I worked out,
along with Senator Frist and Representative Canady in the House, and
with the American Medical Association to tighten up some of the
language to address some of the concerns that the physician community
had about the definition of what is partial-birth abortion.

[[Page S4695]]

I believe it is a good amendment, whether it would have gotten the
AMA endorsement or not. I think it is a good amendment because I think
it is language that is much tighter, and puts in the requisite mens
rea, or thought processes that the physician must have been going
through at the time of doing the procedure. I think that is important
for a criminal statute.
I think it would be a sad state if, in fact, we passed this
legislation and overrode the President's veto, or if the President
would see otherwise and decide to sign the bill, that, in fact, this
bill would be thrown out for vagueness of criminality, the criminal
statute itself would be considered too vague, and it would be OK on the
abortion ground but not OK on the criminal statute ground. But I think
what we have done is tighten up the language and have taken care of the
concerns mentioned here, both on the House and Senate floors, about the
vagueness of the statute.
I don't think anyone will now look at this as a vague statute. It is
a very precise statute. It is a complete criminal statute now.
I am very happy that we were able to work it out, and in working with
the AMA I believe we have improved the bill and improved its chances
when we reach the stage of the courts which I am very hopeful that we
will do because that means that we will have passed the bill and it
would have been signed into law, and the President's veto would have
been overridden.
Of the other two provisions in the bill, one clarifies the life of
the mother exception and takes out some surplus language which we
agreed to which didn't add anything, and we agreed that it was, in
fact, surplus language.
The third element of the amendment deals with the issue of a medical
review panel; if a medical review panel was asked by the AMA for the
reason of an intermediary step between the indictment of the physician
under the statute and a trial. This would be an opportunity for State
medical boards to put together a panel of physicians to look at what
happened in the case, to do a peer review determination of the
procedures that was done by the physician being charged, and to come up
with findings. Those findings would then be admissible in court.
I think that is an appropriate step. It gives the professionals in
the field who license, in fact, the physician, an opportunity to make a
review of what happened in the context of that as well as add medical
expertise to be considered at trial. I think that is only helpful. The
fact of the matter is that we are all aware that, if someone is charged
under this statute, they are going to have their medical experts
testify as to one set of circumstances and the prosecution will have
their medical experts.
So, with having some neutral party, if you will, come up with a more
objective standard of review I think helps and provides a professional
review of what took place in a case.
So I think we are making a step forward.
I am not aware of any objections to this amendment. Whether you are
for, or against this amendment, it is a technical amendment in most
respects. It is one that hopefully will be supported by everyone.
I yield the floor at this point to determine whether anyone wants to
speak against the amendment.
I understand now there is no one to speak against the amendment. So I
ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement,
the pending amendment is considered agreed to. The motion to reconsider
is laid on the table.
The amendment (No. 290) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the
amendment and third reading of the bill.
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read a third time.
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I now understand that we are commencing
the final 3 hours of debate, that the time is going to be equally
divided between the Members who are for the bill and Members who are
against. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me first start out by indicating how important I believe the
endorsement of the AMA is here as we approach final passage of this
legislation. We have heard over and over and over again that the
principal reason this procedure needs to be made legal is to protect
the health of the mother. We have in the case of the AMA an
organization that is on record as being for abortion rights. This is
not the Christian Coalition. This is not the Catholic Conference of
Bishops. This is an organization of physicians that is on record as
being for a woman's right to choose, if you will, that has come out and
said this procedure is not good medicine, this procedure is not
necessary to protect the life or health of a mother. So for all of the
arguments that we have heard that there is a split of opinion out there
as to whether this is an appropriate procedure, I have put forward
letter after letter after letter from obstetricians, from
perinatologists, experts in maternal fetal medicine who have said that
this procedure is never medically indicated, that in fact this
procedure is more dangerous to the mother. I will discuss those things
today.
Now I believe the charade is over. We have the preeminent medical
authority, organization in the country saying that this procedure
should be outlawed; there is no medical reason to keep this procedure
legal.
That is a very powerful statement which debunks all of the arguments
people might want to hide behind in saying that, yes, they agree this
procedure is brutal; yes, they agree this is barbaric and should never
be used, but we want to leave open the possibility that in the case of,
and then they go on with the health concerns.
What we know for a fact is that 90 percent of partial-birth abortions
are not done for any health-related reasons. Let me clarify that. Ron
Fitzsimmons, who heads up an abortion provider organization of some 200
abortion clinics, said that 90 percent of partial-birth abortions occur
in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy on healthy mothers with
healthy babies. They are for birth control purposes. This is fifth- and
sixth-month abortions for birth control purposes where you take a baby
out, deliver it all but the head and then take a pair of scissors and
stab the baby in the base of the skull, suction its brains out and kill
it for birth control purposes, not for health reasons.
Those are what we know as the facts, that information provided to us
by people who oppose the bill. These are not facts people who oppose
abortion are putting forward. These are people who are adamantly pro-
choice who run the clinics where some of these abortions take place,
providing us with the information contrary to what you have heard,
statements in the Chamber that these are done for the health of the
mother, that 90 percent of them are done for birth control purposes,
late in pregnancy. The other percentage is done later in pregnancy, and
they argue, most of the reasons you hear, because of a fetal
abnormality. All of the cases that you hear described with the pictures
of the family are the baby was going to die anyway or the baby had a
severe defect and that we should allow abortions in those situations,
this kind of brutal abortion in those situations because the baby is
not perfect or may not live long.
That takes us off into another area that I think has very, very
severe consequences for this country, when we start to say that we
should be able to kill children because they are not perfect or that
abortions should be legal up until the time of delivery; that we should
be able to do this brutal procedure because the little baby may not
live long or may have medical complications.
I found it absolutely ironic that the day the partial-birth abortion
ban came to the floor of the Senate, minutes before we passed the
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. What is that? That is an
act to guarantee civil rights, the right for disabled children to be
educated so they can maximize their human potential. The very

[[Page S4696]]

same day 30-some Senators who voted for that legislation and advocated
giving rights to the disabled, those same 30-some Senators who are
against the partial-birth abortion ban said we are willing to give you
rights if you survive the womb, but we are not going to give you any
rights as a disabled child up until the time you are born. You are
eligible to be killed just because of your disability. You are
different than any other child. If you are a child that is normal, then
they do not believe you have a right to be killed. In fact, that is
what these amendments are that we heard about. Well, if the baby is
healthy and the mother is healthy, we need a health exception. If the
baby is fine and the mom is fine, then we do not believe the baby
should be killed. If the baby is abnormal, we can kill it.

These are the same people who believe in special civil rights for the
disabled. I do not know how you legitimately can stand and argue those
two points. I do not know how you draw the line there with any sense of
consistency of care for the disabled. I support IDEA. I support civil
rights for the disabled because I know that there are challenges out
there, but there is no greater challenge to the disabled in this
country today than the challenge of getting born in the first place.
And I will discuss, as I have before, Donna Joy Watts and her family
and how they had to overcome incredible odds and adversity beyond what
you would imagine in this country just to have this little girl born
and be treated because she was seen as disabled, not viable, not
important to our society.
I want to talk in specific about the health issue because I think it
is important, it is the remaining barrier that many Members hide behind
in not supporting the partial-birth abortion bill because it does not
have a ``health exception.'' Let me explain, No. 1, we have the
American Medical Association on record now supporting this bill, saying
there need not be a health exception to this bill, this bill takes care
of all the problems that we as physicians see and that there is no
health reason to do this procedure.
Let me share with you a statement from Dr. Camilla C. Hersh, who is a
member of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. She says,
and I quote from her statement:

I think it is obvious that for the baby this is a horrible
way to die, brutally and painfully killed by having one's
head stabbed open and one's brains suctioned out.
But for the woman, this is a mortally dangerous and life
threatening act.
Partial-birth abortion is a partially blind procedure, done
by feel, thereby risking direct scissor injury to the
mother's uterus and laceration of the cervix or lower uterine
segment. Either the scissors or the bony shards or spickules
of the baby's perforated and disrupted skull bones can
roughly rip into the large blood vessels which supply the
lower part of the lush pregnant uterus, resulting in
immediate and massive bleeding and the threat of shock,
immediate hysterectomy, blood transfusion and even death to
the mother.
Portions of the baby's sharp bony skull pieces can remain
embedded in the mother's cervix, setting up a complicated
infection as the bony fragments decompose.
Think of the emotional agony for the woman, both
immediately and for years afterward, who endures this process
over a period of several days.
None of this nauseating risk is ever necessary for any
reason. Obstetrician-gynecologists like myself across the
U.S. regularly treat women whose unborn children suffer the
same conditions as those cited by the proponents of the
procedure.
Never--

I underline the word--

is the partial-birth abortion procedure necessary:
Not for polyhydramnios (an excess of amniotic fluid
collecting around the baby), . . .
Not for anencephaly (an abnormality characterized by the
absence of the top portion of the baby's brain and skull),
Not for hydrocephaly (excessive cerebrospinal fluid in the
head).

In the case of Donna Joy Watts, I would parenthetically say she had
hydrocephaly. Her parents were counseled to have an abortion. They
chose not to. They had the baby delivered and she is now 5\1/2\ years
old.

Sometimes, as in the case of hydrocephaly, it is first
necessary to drain some of the fluid from the baby's head
with a special long needle, to allow safe vaginal delivery.
In some cases, when vaginal delivery is not possible, a
doctor performs a Cesarean section. But in no case is it
necessary or medically advisable to partially deliver an
infant through the vagina and then to cruelly kill the
infant.
The legislation proposed clearly distinguishes the
procedure being banned from recognized standard obstetric
techniques. I must point out, even for those who support
abortion for elective or medical reasons at any point in
pregnancy, current recognized abortion techniques would be
unaffected by the proposed ban.
Any proponent of such a dangerous procedure is at the least
seriously misinformed about medical reality or at worst so
consumed by narrow minded ``abortion-at-any-cost''
activism to be criminally negligent.

This procedure is blatant and cruel infanticide and must be
against the law.

Again, this is a statement by Camilla C. Hersh, an obstetrician-
gynecologist practicing here in northern Virginia.
And other statements by other medical doctors in cases that were
mentioned here on this floor as reasons that partial-birth abortion
must continue to be legal. And I have this as a note. Senator Feinstein
brought up the case of preeclampsia, and I have a letter here from Dr.
Steve Calvin, MD, who is a specialist in maternal fetal medicine.
What does that mean? A specialist in high-risk pregnancies. These are
people who deal with the very difficult cases that come up in pregnancy
where the mother's life and health and the baby's life and health are
in jeopardy during pregnancy.
Dr. Calvin responds to Senator Feinstein's claim that preeclampsia is
a reason to do a partial-birth abortion.

Preeclampsia (with any number of its complications,
including renal failure), cardiomyopathy, breast cancer, and
lymphoma are all potential maternal medical disorders that
may complicate pregnancy. In some situations the pregnancy
must be ended to save the life of the mother.
The proposed ban on this destructive procedure already
includes an exemption for the so far theoretical instance
when it may be necessary to save a pregnant woman's life. The
opponents of the ban realize that they cannot prevail on the
merits of their arguments and are therefore resorting to
blowing a virtual blizzard of medical terms during the
debate. They hope to overwhelm the media and the public so
that the fundamental points are missed. I will not try to
answer them point by point on each medical condition. The
importance of protecting nearly born fetal life is
crucial.

Especially in light of Lori Watts' and Donna Joy Watts' story.
The fact of the matter is that it is never medically necessary, under
any of these conditions, according to Dr. Calvin and dozens of others
who are specialists in maternal fetal medicine. As Dr. Calvin said in
another letter, none of these procedures are done by groups that
specialize in high-risk pregnancies. They are not done in universities.
They are not done in hospitals that specialize in these kinds of
problems. They are done in abortion clinics. They are not done by
experts in maternal fetal medicine, perinatologists; they are done by
abortionists at abortion clinics who are not experts in high-risk
pregnancies.
In fact, this procedure was developed not by an obstetrician/
gynecologist, not by someone who is an expert in maternal fetal
medicine who is concerned about the life and health of the mother; this
was developed by a family practitioner who does abortions at an
abortion clinic for the convenience of the abortionist.
So all of these claims about health are just simply a smokescreen.
There is no health reason to do this procedure. In fact, as Dr. Hersh
says, and hundreds of other physicians have said, obstetricians and
gynecologists, including--he is not an obstetrician; that is, C.
Everett Koop, the former Surgeon General of the United States, is not
an obstetrician. But what is he? A pediatric surgeon who has done
surgery on all these little babies who have had these disabilities and
saw high-risk pregnancies firsthand, dealt with the consequences of
these pregnancies, so he knows the issue well. He said, as well as
hundreds of other doctors, that it is never medically necessary. I
would like to read the entire quote signed by, I believe, at least a
dozen experts in maternal fetal medicine, a group of almost 500
physicians, including Dr. Koop, and obstetricians who oppose partial-
birth abortion:

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.e., it
is never medically necessary, in order to preserve a women's
life, health or future fertility, to deliberately kill an
unborn child in the second and 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--

[[Page S4697]]

Senator Daschle, Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein and others--

is separation of the child from the mother, not the death of
the child.

Let me just put it simply, for purposes of this particular debate,
while a mother may present herself in a condition that may require
separation of the child from the mother, it is not necessary to kill
the child in that process, to use partial-birth abortion. I don't know
why any doctor who is practicing good, solid medicine would
deliberately reach in and pull the baby out in the breech position to
deliver the child while the mother's life is in danger, while you go
through a 3-day process of dilating the cervix over 2 days, risking
infection because the cervix is now dilated and the womb is exposed to
infection, risking infection, No. 1; No. 2, risking an incompetent
cervix, which means the inability to carry future children.
Unfortunately, one of the reasons cited by President Clinton as
needing this procedure to save her health and future fertility was a
woman who has had five miscarriages since that procedure was done to
her. To make the argument this is necessary for that is just not true.
But a woman presents herself with a health problem, and for 2 days, to
say, ``Here are some pills, we're going to dilate your cervix, go home,
present yourself back after 2 days,'' where you risk increased
infection and increased complications, ``come back to the abortion
clinic''--not a hospital, because these are not done at hospitals--
``come back to the abortion clinic to have this procedure done.'' And
then what happens? The baby is pulled out feet first, delivered all but
the head.
Why would you, even if you decided to go through that procedure for
the health of the mother, why would you, as Dr. Hersh suggests, why
would you take a blunt instrument in a blind procedure and stab the
baby blindly in the base of the skull, causing all of the damage that
could occur, as Dr. Hersh has set forth? Why would you do that? Why
wouldn't you just deliver the head and give the baby a chance to live?
It may not live. But at least give it the dignity of being born and
accepted into our human community without this brutality, this
unwarranted, unnecessary, unhealthful, dangerous, brutal stabbing and
killing of a baby who is this far away, 3 inches away, from its first
breath. Yes, its first breath. Even at 20 weeks, babies live. It is
considered a live birth even at 20 weeks. Babies will not be able to
survive long because they don't have sufficient lung development, but
that baby will be alive when it is born unless you kill it.

Why kill the baby when it is more dangerous to the mother to do that,
when it presents more complications to do it? Why does that option have
to be necessary that is more dangerous to her health? Why would we want
to keep a procedure legal that threatens a woman's health, that is an
absolutely rogue procedure, not done by specialists, not done in
hospitals, developed by a nonobstetrician? Why do we want to keep this
legal? What possible reason do we want to say that we need to endanger
a woman's health to allow this procedure to be legal? The only reason I
can think of is what Dr. Hersh said, and I will quote from her again
because I think she said it very, very well:

Any proponent of such a dangerous procedure is at the least
seriously misinformed about medical reality or at worst--

And I daresay that we may be looking, certainly in the case of the
abortion rights advocates, we are looking at our ``at worst'' here--

at worst, so consumed by narrow minded ``abortion-at-any-
cost'' activism, to be criminally negligent.

There is no health reason to do this. Anybody who stands up on the
floor in the face of now the AMA, hundreds of obstetricians and
gynecologists, specialists in maternal fetal medicine, who stand up in
the face of overwhelming evidence that this procedure is necessary,
given the characteristics of the procedure, a rogue procedure, not done
in hospitals, not done by specialists, done by family practitioners or
people who have no speciality at all in delivering children, just doing
abortions, you are defending not the health of the mother when you
argue that, you are not defending the life of the mother, you are
defending, as Dr. Hersh says, abortion at any cost, any time, anywhere
for any reason; that the child, no matter how late, no matter how
healthy, is not to be considered.
That is not where America is. I know where the majority of the Senate
is. We will find out today whether it is where 67 Senators are, because
that is the magic number, 67. We need 67 votes to override the
President's veto.
I want to have additional items printed in the Record. I know this
has been printed in the Record before, but I want to put it in.
This is a letter from C. Everett Koop to Bill Frist, May 13, 1997--
Bill Frist, the only doctor in the U.S. Senate, who has spoken
eloquently, and will again today, on this issue.

Dear Bill: It is never necessary to destroy a viable fetus
in order to preserve the health of the mother. Although I
can't think of an example, if it were deemed beneficial for
the mother to be without the fetus, it would be delivered by
induction--

Vaginal delivery--

or C-section. Abortion is truly more traumatic than either
and exposes the mother to future problems with an incompetent
cervix, miscarriage and infertility.

Let me get away from the specifics of the partial-birth issue and
give you another reason why this is not healthy, and I want to share
with you some statistics from the Alan Guttmacher Institute. What is
that organization? This is an organization that signed letters last
year with NARAL and Planned Parenthood and a whole lot of other
groups--NOW, National Organization for Women--in opposition to partial-
birth abortion legislation for allowing this procedure to be legal.
They are an abortion advocacy group. I guess they are considered a
think tank or some short of data collection folks, but they are
advocates for abortion. Here is what they say, again, to the extent I
can--I am using the other side's information, taking what those who
oppose the bill say as fact, and even with their information, you can't
defend this procedure. This is what the Guttmacher Institute says:

The risk of death associated with abortion increases with
the length of pregnancy, from 1 death in every 600,000
abortions at 8 or fewer weeks to 1 per 17,000 at 16-20 weeks,
and 1 per 6,000 at 21 weeks or more.

When, I might add, partial-birth abortions occur. They occur after 20
weeks, sometimes at 20 weeks.
So you are 10 times more likely, according to their numbers, to die
as a result of an abortion than in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy.
You say, ``Well, OK, that's interesting, a 1-in-6,000 chance of a
mother dying as the result of an abortion. But what are the chances of
her dying as a result of delivering the baby by inducing or cesarean
section, which would be a `normal' delivery?'' We happen to have those
numbers:

It should be noted that at 21 weeks and after, abortion is
twice as risky for the woman as childbirth: The risk of
maternal death is 1 in 6,000--

As you saw before--

for abortion and 1 in 13,000 for childbirth.

So let me lay it out again. Set the arguments aside for partial-birth
abortion as to why that is more dangerous, and it is. Abortion, period,
is more dangerous to a mother. Abortion, period, is more dangerous to a
mother than delivery by inducement or by cesarean section. Now why
would you get up here on the floor and say we need to keep the more
dangerous option generally available, compound that with a procedure
that is even more dangerous than other abortion techniques, that we
need to keep that legal also? If you are truly concerned about the life
and the health of the mother, you don't come to the Senate floor and
argue for dangerous procedures to continue to be used that threaten
health, future fertility, life and, at the same time, kill a baby that
would otherwise be born alive. There is no argument here.
You will hear and see pictures of people: ``Oh, well, they needed
this.'' As Dr. Hersh said and said eloquently, these people were
misinformed. Look, not every doctor is a great doctor. Not every doctor
knows everything, but you don't see those doctors on the record here.
Where are the doctors who did all the procedures in all these cases,
where have they testified that that was the only thing they could have
done. They couldn't stand the light of day here. They couldn't stand
the cross-examination here. They would never, never come up here and
try to defend that position.

[[Page S4698]]

It is a sad fact that in thousands of instances every year, women are
counseled, encouraged, told they have no choice but to have an abortion
and do so only to find out later that some doctor either misinformed
them or, frankly, was so afraid of malpractice that the doctor took the
easy way out. That should never be a reason. Using bad medicine should
never be a reason to keep the procedure legal. The fact that there are
some doctors out there who practice bad medicine should not be a reason
to keep this procedure legal.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from Pennsylvania has
60 minutes remaining.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I do not want to use up all my time. I
do not see anyone from the other side. I ask unanimous consent that
when I ask to go into a quorum call the time be deducted from the other
side's time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I now yield 10 minutes to the Senator
from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise briefly to make several comments and
to review a little bit some of the myth that has surrounded the debate
on our attempts to ban a brutal procedure, a procedure called the
partial-birth abortion.
It has been fascinating to watch where we started really about 2
years ago in the evolution of learning about this procedure,
recognizing that it is performed, recognizing that it is as close to
infanticide as one can possibly get in our civilization today, and to
track the misinformation, the organized misinformation campaigns that
have been carried out, instigated by a number of parties that have made
it all the way to the Presidency of the United States of America--a
misinformation campaign that I think and I hope was the reason he
vetoed this ban that is so supportive in a bipartisan way by Congress,
and that is clearly supported by the American people.
I give the President the benefit of the doubt because I had the
opportunity--I will refer back to it shortly, some of the statements he
made in his press conference and the people he brought forward. But
since that time--I guess that is what I am excited about--people have
come forward and said, even the people who are providing this
information, it was a misinformation campaign. People said they lied
through their teeth in giving that information to the American people.
But, in spite of all that, the truth has finally bubbled to the
surface. It has bubbled to the surface on the floor of the U.S. Senate
and in the House of Representatives, but also throughout the media.
Discussions have taken place in hospitals. Discussions have taken place
among the organized medical groups. We all recognize that whether it is
ACOG, the group of obstetricians and gynecologists, or the American
Medical Association, which represents all physicians, that none of
these organizations really speak for everybody. But when you put it
altogether--and it has been put together, mixed up, dissected and
looked at--gradually it is beginning to crystallize in a very clear
way. And I think it is worth talking about a little bit on the floor of
the U.S. Senate once again.
On a momentous occasion yesterday, after 2 years of looking at the
issue, the American Medical Association essentially said that
restricting this procedure is something that should be done by the
American people and by the U.S. Congress. Again, this is after a lot of
debate, a lot of discussion, and a lot of examination of the facts
within the medical community, with the American people, by ethicists
and by religious communities. There is a mass movement to ban this
brutal procedure which offends the sensibilities of every American,
everybody in our civilization today. This procedure, when described,
offends their sensibilities.
I mentioned the American Medical Association. Again, the American
Medical Association, the largest physician group in the country, issued
a letter yesterday that said really--let me refer to the letter. This
is the letter in its entirety. It was written to Senator Santorum, who,
obviously, has done a wonderful job, an outstanding job, in helping
America understand what the significance of this ban is.
I will go through the letter. The key sentence is the last sentence.
It basically says, ``Thank you, for the opportunity''--remember, this
is from John Seward, from the American Medical Association,
representing their conclusions.
It says: ``Thank you for the opportunity to work with you towards
restricting a procedure we all agree is not good medicine.''
I guess a sentence like that does lead me to question how the
President of the United States could continually, every day, hide
behind a threat of a veto talking about the health of women, because
for health of women we have to look at the American Medical
Association, which represents obstetricians, gynecologists, family
practitioners, internists, cancer specialists, heart disease--all of
these groups of people focus on their No. 1 goal, which is to promote
the health of this Nation, the health of individuals.
Then to have the President stand up and hide behind this veiled
threat of a veto having to do with health is a juxtaposition which I
don't understand. I hope the President, after we deliver this bill to
him, will recognize what health of individuals really is. I am talking
about health, not just of the infant, who, in fact, is being sacrificed
in this procedure, but also the health of the mother. It requires
support of this ban.
The letter says:

Dear Senator Santorum: The American Medical Association is
writing to support H.R. 1122, ``The Partial-Birth Abortion
Ban Act of 1997,'' as amended * * * the AMA has
supported such legislation * * *

They go on in the first paragraph to say:

Although our general policy is to oppose legislation
criminalizing medical practice or procedure, the AMA has
supported such legislation where the procedure was narrowly
defined and not medically indicated.

Narrowly defined, which this ban is.
There was an attempt last week to take this very narrow ban,
carefully proscribed--protections for the mother, protections clearly
for the child, protections for the medical profession. An attempt was
made last week to push that aside with a much broader issue that needs
to be continually debated. But now we are back on the narrow
definition.
The AMA says it is not medically indicated, not medically indicated,
not just for the baby but for the mother. It is not medically
indicated, according to the American Medical Association, the largest
organization representing more physicians than anyone in the United
States of America.
The second paragraph outlines the three principles that, after much
discussion and much debate within the AMA, were agreed to:

First, the bill would allow a legitimate exception where
the life of the mother was endangered, thereby preserving the
physician's judgment to take any medically necessary steps to
save the life of the mother.

For the life of the mother, any steps can be taken, spelled out very
clearly in the bill:

Second, the bill would clearly define the prohibited
procedure so that it is clear on the face of the legislation
what act is to be banned.

The attempt was made last week to ban all abortions, and that needs
to be debated. But this bans a very specific procedure--a procedure, I
might add, that is performed quite frequently around the country but
tends to be performed in abortion clinics, many times outside of peer
review of other physicians, very rarely in the hospital where you have
nurses around to ask questions, and when you have other physicians
around or hospital administrators asking, ``What is the ethics of a
procedure that so brutally sacrifices an infant upon three-fourths
completion of delivery?''
No, these are performed with relatively high frequency, when you are

[[Page S4699]]

talking about hundreds or thousands of infants that are, in fact,
murdered. But they are being performed outside the peer review and, I
would say, the ethics of the medical profession.
In the letter from the American Medical Association endorsing the
bill, supporting the ban, it said:

Finally, the bill would give any accused physician the
right to have his or her conduct reviewed by the State
Medical Board before a criminal trial commenced. In this
manner, the bill would provide a formal role for valuable
medical peer determination in any enforcement proceeding.

I think this is important to say because as a physician I have to
admit before coming to the Senate the idea that this body or the
Congress would pass a law to tell me what I could or could not do in
terms of what I thought was in the best interest of my patient bothered
me, not this particular ban but just the idea of having somebody in
Washington, DC, inside the beltway telling me how to practice medicine
and then making something a criminal procedure.
It is easier as a physician to say, no, I don't want any part of
anything like that, and I think that is what we were hearing from some
of the medical community, a fear that they would be thrown in jail for
doing what they think is right for the patient, and they didn't want
this to be set as a precedent. I think this letter and the bill shows
that, no, that is not what is being done. Basically, we are banning a
very specific procedure that is on the fringe, and you are going to
have the opportunity for peer review to know what is accepted medical
practice even in the event you are accused in this manner.
Then the letter goes on.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have another 5 minutes.
Mr. SANTORUM. I yield the Senator another 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for another 5
minutes.
Mr. FRIST. Then the final sentence, again which really summarizes it,
and that is why I started with it: ``Thank you for the opportunity of
working with you toward restricting a procedure we all agree is not
good medicine.''
I am proud that as Americans we have not lost our ability to discern
what is right from what is wrong, and despite the vim of the well-worn
rhetoric that we have heard broadly in the media and on the floor in
the past, we now have listened to our hearts and we know that nothing
can justify a procedure such as this one that is a mere 3 inches--a
mere 3 inches--from criminal infanticide.
Several myths. Myth No. 1. Partial-birth abortion is necessary to
preserve the health of the mother. It has been used again and again.
The President of the United States continued to use it yesterday; I am
sure he will say something about it today until this bill is delivered
to him.
December 13, 1996. President Clinton described a hypothetical
situation where without a partial-birth abortion a woman could not--and
I use quotations here--``preserve the ability to have further
children.'' He said that he would not, using his words again, ``tell
her that I am signing a law which will prevent her from having another
child. I am not going to do it,'' said the President.
That is heart wrenching. When you see just that clip, we tend to
empathsize with what the President is saying. But the bottom line is
partial-birth abortion is never ever necessary to preserve the health
of a woman. The College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has issued a
statement that said they ``could identify no circumstance under which
this procedure would be the only option to save the life or preserve
the health of the mother.'' There are always--always--other procedures
that will preserve the health of the mother.
The AMA task force convened on this issue also concluded, ``There
does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is
the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion.''
Thus, even if there are health reasons--and health is defined very,
very broadly--even if there are health reasons, there are other safer
procedures for the mother.
Myth No. 2. It goes like this. The D&X procedure, partial-birth
abortion, is a rare and difficult medical procedure. It is usually
performed only in extreme cases to save the life of the woman or in
cases of severe fetal abnormalities.
Well, again, it is just not true. If we look to what Ronald
Fitzsimmons said, executive director of the National Coalition of
Abortion Providers, Mr. Fitzsimmons, I think, has shown amazing
integrity in coming forward when he said that he admits he--I am using
his words--lied through his teeth when he said partial-birth abortion
was rarely used or only on women whose lives were in danger.
In a recent American Medical News article he explained that he could
not justify lying to the American people any longer saying--and
remember, he was an advocate; he opposed the ban initially. He said,
``They are primarily done on healthy women and healthy fetuses, and it
makes you feel like a dirty little abortionist with a dirty little
secret.''
It is no longer a secret. It is no longer a secret. We have talked
about it in the Chamber. The media understands it. The American people
understand it. It is time to ban this procedure.
Dr. James McMahon, another partial-birth abortion practitioner,
testified before Congress that 80 percent of the partial-birth
abortions he performed were for purely elective reasons--purely
elective reasons. The examples he gave: nine babies because they had a
little cleft lip, which can be easily repaired today. Many others, at
least 39, he said, were aborted because of the psychological and
emotional health of the mother, despite the advanced gestational age
and health of the child.

So we can see that if you use a health exception, you have a huge
door through which you can drive a truck and continue to perform this
procedure. If you throw in a so-called health exception, as good as it
sounds, it really goes back to what Doe versus Bolton in 1973, the
Supreme Court case defined as health. They defined health to include
``all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the
woman's age--relative to the well-being of the patient.''
That is the big door through which, if you are an abortionist, if you
do not follow the ethics of the American Medical Association or the
medical profession today, you can continue to do this brutal, inhumane
procedure by saying, oh, it is for the health of the mother. The mother
is a bit down in the dumps because she feels like this baby must be
sacrificed, and therefore I can certify and say that is the health of
the mother.
Again, in Doe versus Bolton, the law of the land, the Supreme Court
case in 1973 included ``all factors--physical, emotional,
psychological, familial, and the woman's age--relative to the well-
being of the patient.'' People in the abortion industry understand that
there are many late-term abortions for social reasons as well as health
reasons. It is recognized; people know it.
A 1993 National Abortion Federation internal memorandum said, ``There
are many reasons why women have later abortions,'' and they include,
``Lack of money or health insurance, social psychological crisis, lack
of knowledge about human reproduction.''
So when you see legislation in the Chamber allowing this procedure or
even putting in amendments or supposing it should be allowed for health
of the mother, just recognize, if that is the case, that anybody--
anybody--can continue doing this procedure at the same rate as they do
today by providing this huge loophole, which again sounds like it is
not a loophole but in practice is a huge loophole. One last myth.
Mr. President, can I ask for another 5 minutes?
Mr. SANTORUM. Five additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is asking for another 5. The
Senator is recognized for another 5 minutes.
Mr. FRIST. One last myth goes like this. This procedure could
possibly be the best procedure in a woman's situation for her health.
In other words, now people realize and they didn't really a month ago
or 6 months ago, and the President may not realize it today, there are
a range of procedures when, for example, it is life of the mother. But
there are some people who would say this is the best procedure.
Let me just say that as a physician, as one who has taken an oath to
take

[[Page S4700]]

care of that individual who comes into the office, who comes into the
room, to preserve the life and the health of every patient, I find this
very discomforting. I have talked to obstetricians. We have had the
quotations in the Chamber. We have consulted many. They have basically
told us that this is not the best procedure, that there are other
alternative procedures if there is the indication, for example, of life
of the mother. Many practitioners had never heard of it. The people in
Tennessee, the high-risk obstetricians whom I have talked to across the
State of Tennessee, they have not performed this procedure and many
have not heard of this procedure.
Remember, this procedure was fashioned, described--in fact, the only
article in the literature that we can really find describing it so it
can be presented among other people is from Dr. Haskell, who is not an
obstetrician. He is not a board certified obstetrician but, rather, a
family-practice medical doctor. These procedures are being performed
but not endorsed, not the procedure. Nothing from the obstetrics and
gynecologic association has come out and said we support this
procedure.
Now, when people say, well, it could be the best or it could not be
the best, that is that noncommittal approach that some physicians have
taken. And why? Because there is this great fear that big brother
Government, the Federal Government is going to come down and jump into
that doctor-patient relationship and tell us what we can or cannot do.
That is the fear physicians have. Remember, this bill takes one brutal,
unaccepted procedure in the medical profession and bans it.
Let me just recap and then I will close, Mr. President. We have a
brutal, basically repulsive procedure that is specifically designed to
kill a living infant outside the birth canal except for the head,
specifically designed to kill a living infant outside of the birth
canal with only the head remaining inside. The leading providers of
women's obstetrical and gynecological services condemn it. They
recommend that it not be used. They refuse to endorse it. They
highlight its risks for the mother and say that there are other safe
and equally effective alternatives available.
I guess I can understand some of the reasons why those practitioners,
or a few of them, urge us not to ban it. They say it would be violating
the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Mr. President, as a
physician, as one who has taken the same oath to preserve the health
and the life of others, and I also say as a father, I submit that any
provider who performs this partial-birth abortion procedure has already
violated that sanctity, that sanctity of the physician-patient
relationship. The AMA, in essence, has said that when they say they
appreciate the opportunity to work with us toward restricting a
procedure which all agree is not good medicine. Partial-birth abortions
cannot and should not be categorized with other medical procedures.
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 right now to right a wrong. Now,
once again, the American people are calling upon us to listen not to
our political advisers, not to listen to the various interest groups
that come forward but to listen to our conscience. It is going to take
moral courage to stop propaganda which is going to continue to come
forward. It is going to take moral courage to make sure that good
information makes it all the way to the President of the United States
when he has to decide whether or not to veto this piece of good
legislation. But we all, including the President, have at our disposal
today the information with which to do the right thing.
So for the sake of women, and I think women especially, for the sake
of their children, and really for the sake of our society, our society
as a future civilization, we must put a stop once and for all to
partial-birth abortion. I support the ban and urge all of my colleagues
today, when we vote in several hours, to support the ban, and I urge
the President not to veto this very good piece of legislation.
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Tennessee for
his terrific statement, as always. He has been on the floor for the
past several days debating this issue from a position of authority, I
might add, as the only physician in the Senate. But I also thank him
for his tremendous work in working with me and Representative Canady
and the AMA to come up with the language changes that were necessary to
secure this very important endorsement of the medical community. He was
right on the front-lines working to make sure that happened, and he
made a great contribution to the debate on this whole issue, whether or
not we get enough votes in the Senate today, of consciousness of the
American public, and I thank him for that.
Mr. President, I do not have a speaker here at this point, so I ask
unanimous consent again that when I suggest the absence of a quorum,
the time be deducted from the Democratic side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor
of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. As the recent debate on this
issue illustrates, this is not simply an issue of a woman's ``right to
choose'' whether or not to have a child. It is also an issue of
protecting the life of an unborn child. However much we may disagree
about whether life begins at conception, when it comes to late term
abortions, we are clearly talking about a baby. And therefore, it is
entirely reasonable to place restrictions on such abortions, especially
when the procedure in question is as barbaric--and as unnecessary--as
this one.
Last September 26, when the Senate was debating whether or not to
override President Clinton's veto of this measure, the Wall Street
Journal made the same point in this way:

Up till now the abortion debate, if you'll pardon the
metaphor, has managed to ignore the 800-pound gorilla in the
room. For the first time, people are also talking about the
fetus, not about women alone. A fetus may or may not be
human, but on the other hand, it's not nothing. At 20 weeks
of gestation, when the partial-birth abortion debate begins,
a fetus is about nine inches long and is clearly becoming
human.

Opponents of the effort to ban this procedure based their argument
largely on claims about the relative safety and medical necessity of
this procedure which we now know to be false. We all know by now about
the admission by Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National
Coalition of Abortion Providers, that he lied through [his] teeth about
the frequency of and justification for this procedure. And even the
doctor who invented the procedure has admitted that 80 percent of these
procedures he has performed were purely elective. In other words, they
were not performed to preserve either the life or the health of the
mother.
Mr. President, the majority of Americans agree that abortion on
demand--at any time during pregnancy, for any reason--is wrong. Even a
majority of people who describe themselves as pro-choice believe it is
reasonable to restrict abortion under some circumstances. It is time we
decided where to draw that line. This is certainly a good place to draw
it.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, H.R. 1122 would seek to ban a particular
medical procedure, the intact D&X procedure. I believe we cross a
dangerous threshold when we seek to legislate which particular medical
procedures may be used, and which may not be used, by physicians.
Dedicated doctors and nurses, through official statements of their
associations, urge us not to adopt H.R. 1122, and not to politicize
this issue.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, an
organization representing 38,000 physicians whose lives are dedicated
to bringing babies into the world and keeping them and their mothers
safe, issued a policy statement on January 12, 1997, relative to the
bill before us which states that:

An intact D&X 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

[[Page S4701]]

consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's
particular circumstances can make this decision. The
potential exists that legislation prohibiting specified
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.

Their position was reiterated yesterday. I ask unanimous consent that
their letter dated May 19, 1997, be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. LEVIN. The president of the American Medical Women's Association,
Inc., in a March 10, 1997, letter, wrote the following on behalf of
more than 10,000 women physicians and medical students nationwide,

I would like to register our strong opposition to . . . [S.
6], which seek(s) to outlaw intact D&E. . . .We do not
believe that the federal government should dictate the
decisions of physicians and feel that passage of this
legislation would in effect prescribe the medical procedures
to be used by physicians rather than allow physicians to use
their medical judgment in determining the most appropriate
treatment for their patients. The passage of this legislation
would set a dangerous precedent--undermining the ability of
physicians to make medical decisions. It is medical
professionals, not the President or Congress, who should
determine appropriate medical options.

Their position was reiterated today. I ask unanimous consent that
their letter dated May 20, 1997, be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. LEVIN. The Executive Director of the American Nurses Association,
wrote to me in November, 1995, and stated:

It is the view of the American Nurses Association that this
proposal would involve an inappropriate intrusion of the
federal government into a therapeutic decision that should be
left in the hands of a pregnant woman and her health care
provider. ANA has long supported freedom of choice and
equitable access of all women to basic health services,
including services related to reproductive health. This
legislation would impose a significant barrier to those
principles.
It is inappropriate for Congress to mandate a course of
action for a woman who is already faced with an intensely
personal and difficult decision. This procedure can mean the
difference between life and death for a woman.

The American Nurses Association is the only full-service professional
organization representing the nation's 2.2 million Registered Nurses
through its 53 constituent associations. ANA advances the nursing
profession by fostering high standards of nursing practice, promoting
the economic and general welfare of nurses in the workplace, projecting
a positive and realistic view of nursing, and by lobbying the Congress
and regulatory agencies on health care issues affecting nurses and the
public.
Their position was reiterated today. I ask unanimous consent that
their letter dated May 20, 1997, be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 3.)
Mr. LEVIN. I have other concerns with this bill as well. For example,
while banning one abortion procedure, this bill leaves legal other
abortion procedures which can be used, procedures which are just as
destructive to the fetus but which could be less safe for the mother.
The Supreme Court has held that States may not ban pre-viability
abortions but may ban post-viability abortions except when necessary to
protect a woman's life or health. The bill under consideration would
ban certain pre-viability abortions, and it does not allow for an
exception required by the Supreme Court to preserve a woman's health
relative to post-viability abortions.
Mr. President, in summary, the bill before us ignores the strong
advice of the specialists and nurses acting officially through their
associations. The bill before us violates Supreme Court opinions. The
bill would risk the health of a mother while not preventing one
abortion. We are usurping in this bill medical judgments relative to
individual women, in perhaps the most dire and tragic circumstances
they will ever face. This is not the way legislators should create
crimes.

Exhibit 1

The American College of

Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

Washington, DC, May 19, 1997.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Senate Majority Leader
Washington, DC
Dear Senator Lott: In light of the slight modifications
being proposed to HR 1122, the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act of 1997,'' we wanted to take this opportunity to
reiterate our opposition to this legislation. Our statement
on this issue is attached.
Sincerely,
Ralph W. Hale, MD,
Executive Director.

Exhibit 2

American Medical Women's

Association, Inc.,

Alexandria, VA, May 20, 1997.
Hon. Rick Santorum,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Santorum: On behalf of the American Medical
Women's Association (AMWA), I would like to reiterate our
opposition to H.R. 1122, the so-called ``Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act of 1997,'' as amended. AMWA does not endorse
legislation which interferes with medical decisionmaking,
particularly when it fails to consider the health of the
woman patient.
Our opposition to this legislation is based on the
following issues. First, we are gravely concerned that this
legislation does not protect a women's physical and mental
health, including future fertility, or consider other
pertinent issues such as fetal abnormalities. Second, this
legislation would further erode physician-patient autonomy
forcing physicians to always avoid legislatively prohibited
procedures in medical decisionmaking, including in emergency
situations when physicians and patients must base their
decisions on the best available information available to
them. Third, medical care decisions must be left to the
judgment of a woman and her physician without fear of civil
action or criminal prosecution. We do not support the levying
of civil and criminal penalties for care provided in the best
interest of the women patient.
AMWA remains committed to ensuring that physicians retain
authority to make medical and surgical care decisions that
are in the best interest of their patients given the
information available to them.
Sincerely,
Debra R. Judelson, MD,
President.

Exhibit 3

American Nurses Association,

* * * * *

Sincerely,
Geri Marullo, MSN, RN,
Executive Director.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Santorum
bill. I oppose this bill for three reasons. First of all, it will not
stop a single abortion from occurring. Second, it is unconstitutional.
Finally, it does not provide any protection for a woman whose health is
grievously threatened by the pregnancy.
I want to ban all post-viability abortions, not a particular
procedure. I believe the only time an abortion should be allowed after
the point of viability is when the woman's life is threatened or her
health is at serious risk of substantial impairment.
I supported the Daschle alternative. The Daschle alternative would
have meant fewer abortions. It banned all abortions once a fetus had
achieved viability. In other words, once a fetus could survive outside
the womb--with or without life support--a woman could not obtain an
abortion.
It provided only two exceptions: first, when the woman's life was
threatened by continuing the pregnancy, and second, when she was at
risk of grievous injury to her health. If the Daschle alternative had
been adopted there would be fewer abortions.
The bill before us bans one procedure. It does not ban one single
abortion. It bans a method of abortion. It enables a doctor to choose
any other abortion procedure--even ones that might cause a greater
health risk to the woman. So no abortions would be stopped by this
bill.
I want to support a bill that is constitutionally acceptable. The
bill before us fails the test of constitutionality. The Supreme Court
has always insisted that prior to the point of viability, the woman's
right to abortion is constitutionally protected. This bill infringes on
that right by banning a procedure even before viability.

[[Page S4702]]

The Supreme Court has also held that in any legislation restricting
abortion, the woman's life and health must be protected. A physician
must place the woman's health as the paramount concern. There can be no
trade off of the woman's life and health for that of the fetus.
By refusing to include any exception for instances where the woman's
health is at risk, H.R. 1122 is constitutionally unacceptable. The
Daschle alternative, on the other hand, was respectful of the
requirements of the Constitution. It focused only on abortion
procedures after the point of viability. And it ensured that a woman's
health could be protected.
I want to support legislation that provides for the health of the
woman. I know that health of the woman is viewed by some as merely a
loophole. But even those who hold that view must acknowledge that there
are medical crises that arise during pregnancy that could cause
profound harm to a woman's health.
Conditions like severe hypertension or peripartal cardiomyopathy are
caused by the pregnancy itself. These can lead to organ failure or put
a woman at risk of cardiac failure. Other conditions, like leukemia or
breast cancer, cannot receive the aggressive treatment they require so
long as the pregnancy continues.
I don't believe that anyone would argue that these are minor health
problems. Yet the Santorum bill does not allow any health exception for
women facing these major health threats.
The Daschle alternative, on the other hand, did provide a carefully
crafted exception for the woman's health. It said that a physician
could abort a viable fetus when the pregnancy would ``threaten the
mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health.''
Grievous injury was narrowly defined to include only the most
debilitating problems caused by the pregnancy itself and cases where
the pregnancy caused an inability to treat a life-threatening
condition. It required that such conditions be medically diagnosable,
and ruled out any condition for which termination of the pregnancy was
not medically indicated.
This was not loophole shopping. This was a serious, careful,
intellectually rigorous effort to deal with the realities of women's
health and women's lives.
I was proud to support the Daschle alternative. I was disappointed
that it did not receive broader support. It would have prevented
abortions. It was respectful of the Constitution. It safeguarded
women's health.
I am disappointed that the American Medical Association has chosen to
endorse this bill. I am particularly troubled that their decision seems
to be based not on what is best for women's health but on what is best
for doctors. The changes they sought in the bill were designed only to
protect a physician from legal endangerment.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, on the other
hand, endorsed the Daschle alternative. They represent 38,000
physicians who are experts in women's health and issues related to
pregnancy. They endorsed the Daschle alternative because it would have
provided a meaningful ban while assuring women's health is protected.
Let me say that I do not for one moment question the sincerity of
those who have called and written me in support of H.R. 1122. They want
to stop abortions, and I respect the depth of their convictions.
But let me also say that if this bill is enacted, it will be a hollow
victory. I believe the Supreme Court will reject this bill as
unconstitutional. In the end, even if it were somehow to pass
constitutional muster, it will not stop a single abortion. It will
merely divert physicians to other abortion procedures.
So this bill will not save lives. It will not save the lives and
health of women. And it will not save the lives of fetuses. It is a
hollow victory indeed.
I will oppose this measure.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today we will vote on the legislation
offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] to ban the
dilation and extraction, or D&X, procedure used by doctors. I will be
voting against this ban for the third time in as many years.
My reasons for opposing this legislation are many. Most have been
discussed on the floor since the debate began last week. First, and
most importantly I believe that this bill undermines the Supreme
Court's decision in Roe versus Wade to leave these critical matters in
the hands of a woman, her family, and their doctor. The pending
legislation is an effort to chip away at these reproductive rights
established in that 1973 decision and upheld by court cases since 1973.
I understand many people disagree with my position. This issue has been
contentious since I came to Congress in 1975.
Second, with the Roe decision, the Supreme Court wisely gave States
the responsibility to restrict third-trimester abortions, so long as
the life or health of the mother were not jeopardized. As of 1997, all
but nine States have done so. To me, the rights of States to regulate
abortions, when the life or health of the mother are not in danger, is
an adequate safeguard. In the event the States pass unconstitutional
regulations on this point, the appropriate remedy is with the courts. I
realize that this policy leads to differences in law from State to
State, but just as families differ, so too do States. As I said during
debate on this topic in 1995:

When the Roe versus Wade decision acknowledged a state
interest in fetuses after viability, the Court wisely left
restrictions on post-viability abortions up to states. There
are expert professional licensing boards, accreditation
councils and medical associations that guide doctors'
decision-making in the complicated and difficult matters of
life and death.

Nothing has changed since then. My reasons for voting against Senator
Daschle's substitute amendment last week included this very principle:
That Congress should not restrict those reproductive health decisions
made by a woman and her doctor.
Third, the legislation before us would prevent doctors from using the
D&X procedure where it is necessary to save the life of the mother.
This clearly goes against the holding of the Supreme Court in Roe, as
it required the health of the mother be safeguarded when States
regulate late-term abortions. I will not vote for a bill that is
neither constitutional, nor takes into account those situations where
carrying a fetus to term would cause serious health risk for the
mother. This is simply unacceptable. My vote in favor of the Feinstein
substitute amendment underscored my commitment to safeguarding a
doctor's options to protect the health of the mother in cases where a
late-term procedure is necessary.
Finally, I believe that women who choose to undergo a D&X procedure
do so for grave reasons. If there are women who abort to fit into their
prom dress, I trust the States to regulate these incidents--if they do,
in fact, occur. We have established a delicate legal framework in which
to address late-term abortions and we should not shift the
decisionmaking to the Federal Government.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise in strong support
of H.R. 1122, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997.
Mr. President, it has been nearly 2 years since I first introduced
the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in the Senate. At that time, only my
distinguished colleague, Senator Gramm of Texas, joined me as an
original cosponsor. We have come a long, long way since that time. We
are not there yet, but we have made tremendous progress.
When the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act first passed the Senate on
December 7, 1995, it did so with the support of 54 Senators. When the
Senate voted on whether to override President Clinton's veto of the
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act on September 26, 1996, 57 Senators voted
in favor of the bill.
Today, we believe that we have at least 62 Senators who are prepared
to vote for this legislation. We remain several votes short of the 67
votes that we will need to override President Clinton's promised veto
of this bill, but we are getting closer. I am hopeful that in the wake
of yesterday's dramatic announcement that the American Medical
Association has endorsed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, we
will get there.
Mr. President, one of the principal reasons why we are making so much
progress in the Senate toward our goal of outlawing partial-birth
abortion is

[[Page S4703]]

that more and more Senators are realizing that the opposition to this
bill in the last Congress was built on a foundation of lies. When I use
the word ``lies,'' Mr. President, I am using the very word that one of
the Nation's leading abortion industry lobbyists--Ron Fitzsimmons--used
when he publicly admitted earlier this year that he ``lied through
[his] teeth'' when he helped orchestrate the campaign against the
partial-birth abortion ban legislation in the last Congress.
In an interview published in the New York Times on February 27, 1997,
and in an article published in the American Medical News on March 3,
1997, Mr. Fitzsimmons made the surprisingly candid admission that he
had ``lied'' when he claimed that partial-birth abortions are rare. In
those same interviews, Mr. Fitzsimmons also conceded that he ``lied''
when he claimed that partial-birth abortions are performed only on
women whose lives are endangered or whose unborn children are severely
disabled. ``It made me physically ill,'' Mr. Fitzsimmons told his
interviewer. ``I told my wife the next day, `I can't do this again.'''
In seeking to justify his veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
last year, the New York Times points out, ``President Clinton echoed
the argument of Mr. Fitzsimmons.'' In other words, in justifying his
veto, Mr. Clinton relied on the same statements of ``fact'' that have
now been conceded by a key leader of the abortion industry to be
``lies.''
The truth, Mr. Fitzsimmons told the New York Times, is that ``[i]n
the vast majority of cases, the [partial-birth abortion] procedure is
performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 or more
weeks along.'' And, as Mr. Fitzsimmons told the American Medical News,
``[t]he abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it,
and so, probably, does everybody else.'' Except, Mr. Fitzsimmons might
have added, for President Clinton, who still promises to veto this bill
even though the reasons he gave to justify his previous veto have
turned out to be ``lies.''
Mr. President, following Mr. Fitzsimmons's startling revelations, on
March 4, 1997, the Washington Post ran an unusually blunt editorial
entitled ``Lies and Late-Term Abortions.'' After recounting Mr.
Fitzsimmons' lies and his candid admissions that he lied, the Post
editorial drew the following conclusion:

Mr. Fitzsimmons's revelation is a sharp blow to the
credibility of his allies. These late-term abortions are
extremely difficult to justify, if they can be justified at
all. Usually pro-choice legislators such as Sen. Daniel
Patrick Moynihan and Representatives Richard Gephardt and
Susan Molinari voted for the ban last year. Opponents of the
ban fought hard, even demanding a roll call vote on their
motion to ban charts describing the procedure from the House
floor. They lost. And they lost by wide margins when the
House and Senate voted for the ban. They probably will lose
again this year when the ban is reconsidered. And this time,
Mr. Clinton will be hard-pressed to justify a veto on the
basis of the misinformation on which he rested his case last
time.

There you have it, Mr. President. One of the abortion industry's most
prominent leaders has admitted that the case against the partial-birth
abortion ban was based on ``lies.'' Not my word, his word--``lies.''
The New York Times points out that in attempting to justify his veto of
the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, President Clinton ``echoed'' those
lies. And the Washington Post points out, in a great understatement,
that President Clinton will be ``hard-pressed'' to base another veto on
Mr. Fitzsimmons's and his friends' ``misinformation.''
Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist George Will drew the following
conclusion in an opinion article published on April 24, 1997, in the
Washington Post:

The accusation that President Clinton cares deeply about
nothing is refuted by his tenacious and guileful battle to
prevent any meaningful limits on the form of infanticide
known as partial-birth abortion. However, that battle proves
that his professed desire to make abortion ``rare'' applies
only to the fourth trimester of pregnancies.

Mr. President, even though President Clinton seems bound and
determined not to take another look at his stand on partial-birth
abortion even in the face of Mr. Fitzsimmons's stunning admissions, I
urge my colleagues who voted against this bill in the last Congress to
do just that--take another look. Many, if not most, of you voted
against this bill because you believed Mr. Fitzsimmons and his friends
when they told you that partial-birth abortions are rare and they are
only done on women facing grave physical threats or whose unborn
children are hopelessly deformed. I urge you to take another look,
reconsider your position, and on reconsideration, support us. Partial-
birth abortions aren't ``rare''--they're common--and they are done, in
the overwhelming majority of cases, on perfectly healthy women with
perfectly healthy unborn children.

Mr. President, aside from the Fitzsimmons revelations, I believe that
another reason why the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act continues to
attract greater and greater support in the Senate is that Senators are
coming to realize that this issue really transcends abortion. Indeed,
as one Senator who did not vote for this bill the first time, but
supported us on the veto override last year, Senator Moynihan, put it,
partial-birth abortion is ``too close to infanticide.'' That was a
starkly truthful way to put it, Mr. President, and it took courage for
Senator Moynihan to say it. I commend him for it.
Mr. President, another Senator who did not support this bill the
first time around, but who also joined us on the veto override vote,
Senator Specter, also believes that partial-birth abortion is more like
infanticide than it is abortion. Listen to what Senator Specter had to
say on the Senate floor on September 26, 1996. ``In my legal
judgment,'' Senator Specter said, ``the medical act or acts of
commission or omission in interfering with, or not facilitating the
completion of a live birth after a child is partially out of the
mother's womb constitute infanticide.'' ``The line of the law is drawn,
in my legal judgment,'' Senator Specter concluded, ``when the child is
partially out of the womb of the mother. It is no longer abortion; it
is infanticide.''
Once again, Mr. President, those are strong words and they are
truthful words. Senator Specter is a pro-choice Senator, and it took
courage for him to support this bill. But he did so, again, Mr.
President, because he recognized that partial-birth abortion is more
like infanticide than it is abortion.
So, Mr. President, we are steadily picking up more and more support
in the Senate because, as I have argued here today, more and more
Senators are realizing that the case against this bill was built on a
foundation of what are now conceded to have been ``lies.'' We are also
picking up greater and greater support because more and more Senators
are realizing that this issue transcends abortion--that the tiny little
human being whom we are talking about is a partially born baby who is
just inches from drawing her first breath.
To those Senators who are still considering joining the ever-
increasing majority of Senators who support the Partial-Birth Abortion
Ban Act, let me address a few more comments to you. Perhaps the
Nation's most respected and revered doctor--``America's Doctor''--is
the former Surgeon General of the United States, C. Everett Koop. I am
particularly proud of Dr. Koop because he is a part-time resident of my
home State of New Hampshire.
This is what Dr. Koop has to say: ``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
her immediate health and future fertility.'' We all know that Dr. Koop
is not a man who uses words lightly. On the contrary, Dr. Koop is a
doctor who chooses his words with care and precision. Listen to those
words again: ``Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to
protect a mother's health or future fertility.''
Now, of course, Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, even the
American Medical Association, which is pro-choice on abortion, has
endorsed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. So, my colleagues, if you
are worried about protecting women, listen to the words of Dr. Koop and
listen to the American Medical Association. They are for the Partial-
Birth Abortion Ban Act because partial-birth abortion is never
necessary to protect a woman's health.
Finally, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues who are still undecided
about this bill to look at it in light of our beloved Nation's history.
We all know those beautiful and majestic words

[[Page S4704]]

that Thomas Jefferson wrote for our Declaration of Independence: ``We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.''
Mr. President, one does not have to agree with my view that human
life begins at conception to see that a living baby who is in the
process of being born has, in Jefferson's words, been endowed by her
creator with the unalienable right to life. Can anyone seriously doubt
where that great American, Thomas Jefferson, would stand on that
question?
Mr. President, another of America's greatest leaders, Abraham
Lincoln, made one of the most dramatic and prophetic statements of his
life in a speech that he delivered on June 16, 1858. In that speech,
Abraham Lincoln said ``I believe this government cannot endure
permanently, half slave and half free.'' Today, Mr. President, as we
debate this Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in this great Capitol of the
Union that Lincoln saved, I would say this: The moral foundation of
this Government cannot endure permanently when even the half born are
not free to live. Can anyone, Mr. President, really doubt where that
moral giant, Abraham Lincoln, would have stood on the question before
us here today?
Mr. President, let us rise to the moral level to which our Nation's
history calls us. Let us recognize the unalienable, God-given right to
life of the partially born. Let us protect the partially born from a
brutal death. Let us be worthy of the Nation that Jefferson helped
create and that Lincoln surely saved. Let us pass the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act with a two-thirds' majority in the Senate and then
dare President Clinton to turn his back on the moral legacy of
Jefferson and Lincoln.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, from the time that I first became involved
in national politics, it has seemed to me that, for mature adults,
under most circumstances, the law was not an appropriate method of
determining what are ultimately moral choices for the people most
intimately involved with those choices. I believe that my views
probably reflect those of a majority of the American people who believe
that this should be a matter of an individual woman's choice and that
of close family--under most cases.
But, Mr. President, when we talk about late-term abortion and when we
speak specifically about partial-birth abortion, we are not dealing
with most cases. I think it is clear that the majority of the American
people, as they have come increasingly to understand exactly what this
procedure is, are horrified by it.
I have been disturbed by the nature of this debate, by the
intentional deceit and misinformation about the frequency and necessity
of this practice. Only recently, have the opponents of this ban have
admitted ``lying through their teeth'' about the facts on the number of
partial-birth abortions performed and grounds for this horrific
procedure.
It is clear, Mr. President that this practice is not necessary. Just
last week, the American Medical Association Board of Trustees said
there is ``no identified situation'' that requires the use of this
procedure and as of yesterday, endorsed this bill. The American College
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state that there are ``no
circumstances under which this procedure would be the only option to
save the life of the mother''.
This is a practice that is not compassionate, nor is it within the
bounds of civilized or humane behavior. My colleagues have described it
in detail, and I don't need to repeat that detail. But I do think that
it is significant that those who oppose this bill generally speaking,
talk in circumlocution, disguise the language, resist and object not
only to a description of the procedure itself, but even to the title-
partial-birth abortion. They speak about slippery slopes rather than
the procedure itself and attempt to avoid the true brutality and
extreme nature of the procedure.
It is simple, this procedure is brutal, inhumane and clearly
unnecessary. This vote will be a defining issue about our own society,
about our feelings for indifference to brutality, about violence, about
uncivilized, inhumane behavior. For all of those reasons, Mr.
President, I am convinced that we should pass the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act, and I deeply hope that a sufficient majority of my
colleagues will vote to do that.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, once again we find ourselves addressing the
very difficult and emotional issue of partial-birth abortion. The bill
the Senate is considering today would criminalize the performance of
the partial-birth abortion procedure, unless it is necessary to save
the life of the mother. I still have many unanswered questions about
this matter, and, as I have indicated in the past, I am extremely
hesitant to thrust the Congress into the role of the physician. I am
concerned that this measure seemingly ignores the Supreme Court's
determinations regarding the role of the state in banning abortions
pre- and post-viability and with regard to the health of the mother. I
have also noted concerns that this might be the first step in a process
which may lead Congress to play the role of doctor again and again and
again on specific medical procedures.
As in the past, I have given this issue a great deal of thought and I
have particularly considered the new information brought to light by
Ron Fitzsimmons of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers. His
remarks made clear that this particular procedure is performed far more
often than originally thought and not just under certain extreme
circumstances which severely threaten the life and the health of the
mother. In addition, an endorsement of the ban by the American Medical
Association (AMA), which represents a large number of our Nation's
doctors, certainly allays some of my earlier concerns about this
measure. In previous votes, I had opposed banning this specific
procedure; however, in light of the fact that it is not as rare as some
claimed and that there appear to be other alternatives, I cannot, in
good conscience, continue to oppose a ban on this specific procedure.
Due to my concern about the serious health risk to the mother that
can, unfortunately, occur during pregnancy, I voted in support of the
alternative measure offered by Senator Daschle. I believe that the
Daschle amendment would have been more effective in addressing
warranted concerns about post-viability abortions while ensuring that
severe, serious health risks to the mother are taken into account.
However, that amendment was rejected by the Senate.
Like so many West Virginians and Americans who have heard about this
specific procedure, I find it extremely disturbing. Mr. President, I
will cast my vote in support of H.R. 1122 to ban the partial-birth
abortion procedure that is done in too many questionable circumstances.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act of 1997. Let me first begin by stating that an
abundance of misinformation has characterized the debate on the
partial-birth abortion procedure. I am deeply troubled at how abortion
activists have misled the American public, Members of Congress, and
especially the President, on the number of partial-birth abortions
performed each year and the reasons for them.
The debate on this issue reminds me of a variation of the old
courtroom saying: If you have the facts, then argue the facts. If you
have the law, then argue the law. If you have neither the law or the
facts, then don't tell the truth.
The proponents of the partial-birth abortion have neither the facts
nor the law, so they argue with lies.
Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of
Abortion Providers, which represents approximately 200 independently
owned abortion clinics across the country, recently admitted in
February of this year, that he ``lied'' through his teeth when he said
that the procedure was used rarely and only on women whose lives were
in danger or whose fetuses were damaged. According to Mr. Fitzsimmons,
he ``spouted the party line'' about the procedure--even though he
believed his statements were wrong.
In debating a procedure as grotesque as the partial-birth abortion,
the facts regarding its use and necessity are important. Because the
facts about this

[[Page S4705]]

procedure are so damaging, pro-abortionists like Mr. Fitzsimmons, have
tried to distort or withhold facts from the American people. Let me
highlight some of the mistruths that have surrounded this issue.
Proponents of the partial-birth abortion claim that the procedure is
rare--only occurring about 500 to 600 times a year. However this is not
true. The number of partial-birth abortions is closer to 4,000 to 5,000
a year. In New Jersey alone, at least 1,500 procedures are done each
year.
Proponents of the partial-birth abortion also claim that the
procedure is necessary to save the life or health of the mother. This
is not true. According to the more than 600 doctors nationwide who make
up the Physicians' Ad-hoc Coalition for Truth, it is never medically
necessary to kill an unborn child in the second or third trimester of
pregnancy in order to protect the life, health, or future fertility of
the mother. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has stated that the
``partial-birth abortion is never necessary to protect a mother's
health or her future fertility.'' Even the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists has admitted 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.''
The fact is that partial-birth abortions are elective and not
performed for medical reasons. As one abortion doctor stated most of
the abortions were performed on women who didn't realize, or didn't
care how far along they were.
Proponents of partial-birth abortion fail to mention that the 3-day-
long procedure actually increases the risk of harm to the mother. After
21 weeks, an abortion is two times as risky for the mother as
childbirth.
Finally, proponents of the partial-birth abortion claim it is used
only in extreme cases of fetal abnormality. This is not true. Mr.
Fitzsimmons admitted that the majority of these procedures are
performed on healthy fetuses and healthy mothers. In a March 3, 1997,
article in American Medical News, Mr. Fitzsimmons admitted that he
called around to doctors who performed the procedure. According to Mr.
Fitzsimmons, ``I learned right away that this was being done for the
most part in cases that did not involve those extreme circumstances.''
It is disheartening that the debate on this issue has been so clouded
by misinformation. The simple truth is that partial-birth abortions are
common and the majority of the procedures are performed on healthy
mothers and babies.
On an issue as emotionally charged and divisive as abortion, elected
officials have a heightened responsibility to carefully gather the
facts and to vote their consciences.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote against H.R. 1122, the so-
called partial-birth abortion bill that would outlaw a particular
abortion procedure, the intact dilation and extraction, sometimes
called intact D&E. I do support a ban on post-viability abortions, if
it contains important and constitutionally required exceptions to
protect the life and health of the woman. I am disappointed that the
proponents of H.R. 1122 have steadfastly refused to accept any
amendment, no matter how tightly crafted, which would include
provisions to protect women's health.
I have said repeatedly here on the floor of the Senate, during
hearings in the Judiciary Committee, and at listening sessions held
across the State of Wisconsin that I believe that a law to ban this
controversial procedure could have been enacted last year with one
simple addition--an exception that would allow physicians to perform
the procedure on women whose health is at risk. Such an exception, in
combination with the bill's existing exception to save the life of the
woman, is an important and necessary provision. I am sensitive to the
fears of the bill's proponents that such an exception could prove to be
a major loophole, and I agree that the health exception should be
narrow. But it needs to be there.
Let me remind my colleagues that the Supreme Court has clearly ruled
that, although States have the right to restrict post-viability
abortions, exceptions must always be made to protect the life and
health of the mother. Women cannot be required to trade off their well-
being in order to increase the likelihood of fetal survival.
Last Thursday, I voted for the bipartisan alternative amendment to
H.R. 1122 introduced by Senator Daschle and others. I voted for this
amendment because it took a comprehensive approach to banning abortions
on viable fetuses, rather than merely banning a single procedure. In
addition, Mr. President, this amendment contained the critical,
constitutionally necessary exception to protect the life and health of
the woman.
I believe that the health exception in the Daschle amendment was
sufficiently narrow to satisfy most reasonable people's concerns about
creating a loophole in the law. It would have required a physician to
certify that continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the woman's
life or risk grievous injury to her physical health. Grievous injury
was defined in the amendment as a severely debilitating disease or
impairment specifically caused by the pregnancy, or an inability to
provide necessary treatment for a life threatening condition.
The other side claims that abortion is never necessary to protect a
woman's health. But Mr. President, I have met women whose doctors
believed differently. The American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists supports them, and has stated that although the intact
D&E procedure is never the only option to save a woman's life or
preserve her health, it sometimes may be the best or most appropriate
procedure, depending on the woman's particular circumstances.

Members on both sides of this debate can cite respected physicians
who will support their positions. But precisely because I am not a
doctor, I say again that it is essential to include a health exception
in any bill we pass. The point is, Mr. President, that there is a
dispute within the medical community about the necessity for and the
risk associated with intact D&E. And that is where it should be
resolved. It should be women and their doctors, not politicians, who
decide which medical procedure is appropriate in those circumstances
where an abortion is performed.
If some doctors believe that it is never necessary to perform an
intact D & E on a viable fetus to protect a woman's health, then they
would not recommend such an intervention. But for those physicians who
disagree, I do not think it is the place for this Senator or any other
government entity to override that judgment. A decision regarding which
medical intervention is necessary is best decided on by individual
women and their physicians, in light of their individual circumstances.
Another equally important aspect of the Daschle alternative amendment
was its comprehensive ban on post-viability abortions. Rather than
taking the approach of H.R. 1122, which would prohibit a single
procedure, regardless of the stage of pregnancy, this amendment took a
broader approach. It would have protected women's constitutional right
to choose an abortion before the fetus is viable. But once the fetus is
determined by a physician to be viable, usually around the 24th week of
pregnancy, this amendment would have outlawed abortion, except in the
situations I have already addressed, in which the woman's life is
threatened or her health is at risk of grievous injury.
This bipartisan alternative amendment struck the right balance
between protecting women's constitutional right to choose abortion and
the right of the State to protect future life. It would have protected
a woman's physical health throughout her pregnancy, while insisting
that only grievous, medically diagnoseable conditions could justify
aborting a viable fetus. Both fetal viability and women's health would
have been determined by the physician's best medical judgment, as they
must be. It was a sensible and responsible amendment.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, the Daschle amendment was rejected.
This is particularly disappointing, because if the underlying bill were
to become law, it would not prevent a single abortion. It would merely
deny physicians the right to exercise their best medical judgment, and
it would force women in critical health situations who would have opted
to have an intact D&E to use different, and perhaps less safe, options.

Finally, Mr. President, let me address a related topic. We all know
that

[[Page S4706]]

this debate has unfortunately been characterized by a great deal of
misinformation and distortion of the facts. One particular piece of
misinformation has been widely circulated by the proponents of this
legislation, and I frankly don't think it is helpful to a truthful
debate. It involves the deliberate misinterpretation of a conversation
that I had with the junior Senator from Pennsylvania last year.
During last year's floor debate over the veto override, Senator
Santorum and I had a brief exchange on the Senate floor which
proponents of this legislation have used to suggest that I support
infanticide--that is, killing an infant after it has been fully
delivered. Obviously, that is untrue. I was answering the question I
thought I had been asked. I was addressing the issue of who should
decide whether the life or health of a woman was at risk.
Let me be clear, for the record. Once a child has been born, there is
no conceivable argument that would suggest a woman's life or health
would be at risk any longer. The distortion of our exchange by the
National Right to Life Committee and others is the kind of tactic which
undermines efforts to reach an agreement that would ban late term
abortions except in the most narrow of circumstances where a woman's
life or health is at stake.
We are near the end of Senate debate on this issue for the time
being, but I suspect that this issue will arise again when this body
attempts to override another Presidential veto. As we continue to
engage in this volatile and emotional debate, both on the Senate floor
and in the media, I hope we will make an effort to recognize that there
are strong feelings about this issue on all sides. We should respect
these differences, avoid efforts to confuse or trick each other and the
public, and maintain a level of debate that reflects the importance of
ascertaining the truth about this issue and finding responses that are
sensitive and constitutionally sound.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, we are now down to 36 minutes of debate
on both sides. And I agreed with the other side that I would take up
some of the time to bring down some of our time.
I want to bring up a point, discuss a point that I believe is very
important for two reasons: No. 1, I think it is important that Members
understand the issues of constitutionality that have been raised by
some about this legislation and whether it is constitutional in light
of Roe versus Wade and Doe versus Bolton and other decisions on the
subject of abortion; and, No. 2, I want to put down a marker for this
piece of legislation when it does, if it does, any time in the near
future go before the courts.
I hope that by the actions of the Senate today, and hopefully the
actions of the President later on, that he will now decide to sign this
legislation in light of all the new evidence that has been presented
since his initial veto.
I wanted to discuss some of the elements of constitutionality, and in
so discussing, I would like to read a letter that was sent to Senator
Orrin Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, by 62 law
professors from universities all over the country, to state to Senator
Hatch their opinion on the constitutionality of the statute.
I will remark that this letter was written May 8, prior to the
amendment that we adopted here on the bill today which I believe
tightens the language up even more and makes it more impregnable to
constitutional overruling by the courts.
I will read the letter sent to Senator Hatch:
Dear Senator: We write to you as law professors in support
of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. S 6. We do not write
as partisans. We are both Democrats and Republicans, and we
are of different minds of various aspects of the abortion
issue. We are concerned, however, that baseless legal
arguments are being offered to oppose a ban on partial-birth
abortions, and we are unanimous in concluding that such a ban
is constitutional.
We have learned that some Senators are concerned about
claims that a ban on second trimester partial-birth
abortions, or a ban on third trimester procedures without a
``health'' exception, would be unconstitutional under Roe v.
Wade and later abortion decisions.
The destruction of human beings who are partially born is,
in our judgment, entirely, outside the legal framework
established in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
No Supreme Court decision, including these, ever addressed
the constitutionally of forbidding the killing of partially
born children. In fact. Roe noted explicitly that it did not
decide the constitutionality of that part of the Texas law
which forbade--and still forbids--killing a child in the
process of delivery.

Continuing on.

Even should a court in the future decide that a law banning
the partial-birth procedure is to be evaluated within the Roe
Casey ``abortion'' framework, we believe such a ban would
survive legal scrutiny thereunder. The partial-birth
procedure entails mechanical cervical dilation, forcing a
breech delivery, and exposing a mother to severe bleeding
from exposure to shards of her child's crushed skill. Before
viability, an abortion restriction is unconstitutional only
if it creates a ``undue burden'' on the judicially
established right to have an abortion. A targeted ban of a
single, maternal-health-endangering procedure cannot
constitute such a burden.
To the extent of its constitutionally delegated authority,
Congress may also ban all forms of abortion after viability,
subject to the health and life interests of the mother. Under
the most recent Supreme Court decision concerning abortion.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, there is no reason to assume
that the Supreme Court would interpret a post-viability
health exception to require the government to tolerate a
procedure which gives zero weight to the life of a partially-
born child an which itself poses severe maternal health
risks. Furthermore, according to published medical testimony,
including that of former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop
``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 her immediate health and future fertility.'' Even the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists--which
opposes the bill--acknolwedges that partial-birth abortion is
never the ``only option to save the life or preserve the
health of the woman.'' Banning this procedure does not
compromise a mother's health interests. It protects those
interests.
In short, while individuals may have ideological or
political reasons to oppose banning the partial-birth
procedure, those objections should not, in good conscience,
be disguised as legal or constitutional in nature.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

May 8, 1997.
Dear Senator: We write to you as law professors in support
of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, S. 6. We do not write
as partisans. We are both Democrats and Republicans, and we
are of different minds on various aspects of the abortion
issue. We are concerned, however, that baseless legal
arguments are being offered to oppose a ban on partial-birth
abortions, and we are unanimous in concluding that such a ban
is constitutional.
We have learned that some Senators are concerned about
claims that a ban on second trimester partial-birth
abortions, or a ban on third trimester procedures without a
``health'' exception, would be unconstitutional under Roe v.
Wade and later abortion decisions.
The destruction of human beings who are partially born is,
in our judgment, entirely outside the legal framework
established in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
No Supreme Court decision, including these, ever addressed
the constitutionality of forbidding the killing of partially
born children. In fact, Roe noted explicitly that it did not
decide the constitutionality of that part of the Texas law
which forbade--and still forbids--killing a child in the
process of delivery.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 410 U.S. 113, fn. 1 (1973), citing Art. 1195, of Title
15, Chapter 9. (Presently, this law is codified at Vernon's
Ann. Texas Civ. St. Art. 4512.5.) A similar ban remains in
effect in Louisiana (LA. Revised Statutes 14.87.1). The Texas
and Louisiana statutes are also consistent with existing case
law in California. See People v. Chavez, 77 Cal. App. 2d 621
(1947) (``It should equally be held that a viable child in
the process of being born is a human being within the meaning
of the homicide statutes, whether or not the process has been
fully completed.''); accord Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.
3d 619 (1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even should a court in the future decide that a law banning
the partial-birth procedure is to be evaluated within the
Roe/Casey ``abortion'' framework, we believe such a ban would
survive legal scrutiny thereunder. The partial-birth
procedure entails mechanical cervical dilation, forcing a
breech delivery, and exposing a mother to severe bleeding
from exposure to shards of her child's crushed skull. Before
viability, an abortion restriction is unconstitutional only
if it creates an ``undue burden'' on the judicially
established right to have an abortion. A targeted ban of a
single, maternal-health-endangering procedure cannot
constitute such a burden.
To the extent of its constitutionally delegated authority,
Congress may also ban all forms of abortion after viability,
subject to the health and life interests of the mother. Under
the most recent Supreme Court decision concerning abortion,
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, there is no reason to assume
that the Supreme Court would interpret a post-viability
health exception to require the government to tolerate a
procedure

[[Page S4707]]

which gives zero weight to the life of a partially-born child
and which itself poses severe maternal health risks.
Furthermore, according to published medical testimony,
including that of former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop:
``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 her immediate health and future fertility.'' Even the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists--which
opposes the bill--acknowledges that partial-birth abortion is
never the ``only option to save the life or preserve the
health of the woman.'' Banning this procedure does not
compromise a mother's health interests. It protects those
interests.
In short, while individuals may have ideological or
political reasons to oppose banning the partial-birth
procedure, those objections should not, in good conscience,
be disguised as legal or constitutional in nature.
Respectfully submitted,
Rev. Robert J. Araujo, S.J., Gonzaga Law School; Thomas
F. Bergin, University of Virginia School of Law; G.
Robert Blakey, University of Notre Dame Law School;
Gerard V. Bradley, University of Notre Dame Law School;
Jay Bybee, Louisiana State University Law Center;
Steven Calabresi, Northwestern University School of
Law; Paolo G. Carozza, University of Notre Dame Law
School; Carol Chase, Pepperdine University School of
Law; Robert Cochran, Pepperdine University School of
Law; Teresa Collett, South Texas College of Law.
John E. Coons, University of California, Berkeley; Byron
Cooper, Associate Dean, University of Detroit Mercy
School of Law; Richard Cupp, Pepperdine University
School of Law; Joseph Daoust, S.J., University of
Detroit Mercy School of Law; Paul R. Dean, Georgetown
University Law Center; Robert A Destro, The Catholic
University of America; David K. DeWolf, Gonzaga Law
School; Bernard Dobranski, Dean, The Catholic
University of America; Joseph Falvey, Jr., Assistant
Dean, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law; Lois
Fielding, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law.
David Forte, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland
State University; Steven P. Frankino, Dean, Villanova
University School of Law; Edward McGlynn Gaffney, Jr.,
Dean, Valparaiso University School of Law; George E.
Garvey, Associate Dean, The Catholic University of
America; John H. Garvey, University of Notre Dame Law
School; Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard University Law
School; James Gordley, University of California,
Berkeley; Richard Alan Gordon, Georgetown University
Law Center; Alan Gunn, University of Notre Dame Law
School; Jimmy Gurule, University of Notre Dame Law
School.
Jacqueline Nolan-Haley, Fordham University School of Law;
Laura Hirschfeld, University of Detroit Mercy School of
Law; Harry Hutchison, University of Detroit Mercy
School of Law; Phillip E. Johnson, University of
California, Berkeley; Patrick Keenan, University of
Detroit Mercy School of Law; William K. Kelley,
University of Notre Dame Law School; Douglas W. Kmiec,
University of Notre Dame Law School; David Thomas Link,
Dean, University of Notre Dame Law School; Leon
Lysaght, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law;
Raymond B. Marcin, The Catholic University of America.
Michael W. McConnell, University of Utah College of Law;
Mollie Murphy, University of Detroit Mercy School of
Law; Richard Myers, University of Detroit Mercy School
of Law; Charles Nelson, Pepperdine University School of
Law; Leonard J. Nelson, Associate Dean, Cumberland
School of Law, Samford University; Michael F. Noone,
The Catholic University of America; Gregory Ogden,
Pepperdine University School of Law; John J. Potts,
Valparaiso University School of Law; Stephen Presser,
Northwestern University School of Law; Charles E. Rice,
University of Notre Dame Law School.
Robert E. Rodes, Jr., University of Notre Dame Law
School; Victor Rosenblum, Northwestern University
School of Law; Stephen Safranek, University of Detroit
Mercy School of Law; Mark Scarberry, Pepperdine
University School of Law; Elizabeth R. Schiltz,
University of Notre Dame Law School; Patrick J.
Schiltz, University of Notre Dame Law School; Thomas L.
Shaffer, University of Notre Dame Law School; Michael
E. Smith, University of California, Berkeley; David
Smolin, Cumberland School of Law, Samford University;
Richard Stith, Valparaiso University School of Law;
William J. Wagner, The Catholic University of America;
Lynn D. Wardle, Brigham Young University; Fr. Reginald
Whitt, O.P, University of Notre Dame School of Law.

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President.
Does the Senator from Michigan seek some time?
Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes, I do.
Mr. SANTORUM. I yield the Senator from Michigan 3 minutes.
Mr. ABRAHAM. That would be fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I thank, again, the Senator from Pennsylvania who is doing an
outstanding job to try to work with all sides on this issue. I believe
the approach which he has taken has been very constructive. And now the
endorsement of the American Medical Association, I think, is a further
indication that this legislation is on the right course.
I just want to basically reiterate some points I made the other day
when I spoke on this issue. At that time I responded to some of the
arguments on the other side. Those arguments were that because Members
of Congress were not themselves physicians somehow we were not the
appropriate people to be addressing issues with respect to partial-
birth abortion that fall within the area of medical procedures.
As I said at that time, Members of Congress--many of us are not
farmers, yet we deal with agriculture issues here on this Senate floor.
Virtually none of us are nuclear physicists, and yet we deal with
nuclear issues pertaining to nuclear weapons and issues pertaining to
the disposal of nuclear waste, a variety of other highly scientific
issues. Only a few of us, such as the Presiding Officer, have served in
the military in combat, and yet we are asked to be experts with regard
to issues pertaining to national security.
So with this issue as well we are called upon to get the best
information possible and seek to make the best decisions as a result.
However, now we actually have some additional information that comes
from the experts who have been referenced in previous debates. The
endorsement of the American Medical Association of the partial-birth
abortion bill, combined with the endorsement and strong support of that
legislation by the one Member among us who is a physician, I think
buttresses better than virtually anything else said during this debate
the case that this procedure is never needed for the medical reasons
that its advocates have claimed to protect the health of the mother.
So in my judgment, Mr. President, we now have an overwhelming case in
favor of the passage of this legislation, legislation which will I
think help us move in the right direction as we consider a variety of
other issues that pertain to abortion in the months and years ahead.
So I just wanted to once again come to the floor to express my
support for the bill, and to thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for
his many efforts in furtherance of its passage.
I thank the Senator and I yield the floor.
Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Michigan for his statement and
being here on the floor to add to the debate and for his terrific work
that he has done on this issue in the past now 2 years. I thank the
Senator very much.
Mr. President, I do not have a speaker at this point.
I ask unanimous consent that when I suggest the absence of a quorum
the time come off the other side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask what the time situation is between
Senator Santorum's side and this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania controls 27
minutes, 13 seconds, and the Senator on the other side of this argument
controls 27 minutes and 25 seconds.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield myself up to 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, throughout this debate we have heard both

[[Page S4708]]

sides accuse each other of misstatement and worse. We have heard
charges and countercharges. Today, as we close down this argument, I am
not going to engage in any of those charges and countercharges. I am
going to talk about what both sides know to be fact.
Fact: This Santorum bill will outlaw a procedure known as an intact
dilation and extraction.
Fact: This procedure is used by obstetricians and gynecologists in
circumstances where they believe it is in the best interests of the
woman, to save her life or to save her health.
Fact: Those very same physicians who use this procedure oppose this
bill. The American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians confirmed
today that they oppose this bill.
Fact: This bill is opposed by the California Medical Association.
Fact: This bill is opposed by the American Medical Women's
Association, an organization of women physicians.
Fact: This bill is opposed by the American Nurses Association.
Fact: This bill is opposed by the Society of Physicians for
Reproductive Health.
Fact: The American Medical Association endorsed this bill in a 4-day
reversal of opinion. Having done that, they have taken a position
against the very doctors who handle these procedures.
Fact: We have a series of women who have come forward to testify,
about their pain, their grief, that this procedure--that would be
outlawed in the pending Santorum bill saved their lives and their
health, retained their fertility in many cases, and in the opinion of
their doctors was the humane procedure to use for all concerned.
Fact: Most of these women, whose photographs I have behind me, most
of these women who came forward to share their stories are very
religious, and many say they are opposed to all abortions, but they
decided after all the facts were on the table and after consulting
their families and many doctors--many went to several doctors, in many
cases five or six, to try and come up with another solution to a
tragedy--they decided this was their only choice after they consulted
with these many doctors, with their families, with their clergy, and
with their God.
Several went on to have healthy pregnancies. Coreen Costello was
among them. You can see little Tucker in this photograph, who was born
after Coreen underwent the procedure.
I will quote from some of the letters we have received from doctors
organizations against the Santorum bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have all these letters
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The American College of

Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

Washington, DC, May 19, 1997.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Senate Majority Leader,
Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lott: In light of the slight modifications
being proposed to HR 1122, the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act of 1997,'' we wanted to take this opportunity to
reiterate our opposition to this legislation. Our statement
on this issue is attached.
Sincerely,
Ralph W. Hale, MD,
Executive Director.
____

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.
Becuse 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 preliminary 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.
Approved by the Executive Board, January 12, 1997.
____

American Medical

Women's Association, Inc.,

Alexandria, VA, May 20, 1997.
Hon. Rick Santorum,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Santorum: On behalf of the American Medical
Women's Association (AMWA), I would like to reiterate our
opposition to H.R. 1122, the so-called ``Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act of 1997,'' as amended. AMWA does not endorse
legislation which interferes with medical decisionmaking,
particularly when it fails to consider the health of the
woman patient.
Our opposition to this legislation is based on the
following issues. First, we are gravely concerned that this
legislation does not protect a woman's physical and mental
health, including future fertility, or consider other
pertinent issues such as fetal abnormalities. Second, this
legislation would further erode physician-patient autonomy
forcing physicians to always avoid legislatively prohibited
procedures in medical decisionmaking, including in emergency
situations when physicians and patients must base their
decisions on the best available information available to
them. Third, medical care decisions must be left to the
judgment of a woman and her physician without fear of civil
action or criminal prosecution. We do not support the levying
of civil and criminal penalties for care provided in the best
interest of the woman patient.
AMWA remains committed to ensuring that physicians retain
authority to make medical and surgical care decisions that
are in the best interest of their patients given the
information available to them.
Sincerely,
Debra R. Judelson, MD,
President.
____

American Nurses Association,

Washington, DC, May 20, 1997.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Boxer: I am writing to reiterate the
opposition of the American Nurses Association to H.R. 1122,
the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997'', which is
being considered by the Senate this week. This legislation
would impose Federal criminal penalties and provide for civil
actions against health care providers who perform certain
late-term abortions.
It is the view of the American Nurses Association that this
proposal would involve an inappropriate intrusion of the
federal government into a therapeutic decision that should be
left in the hands of a pregnant woman and her health care
provider. ANA has long supported freedom of choice and
equitable access of all women to basic health services,
including services related to reproductive health. This
legislation would impose a significant barrier to those
principles. It is inappropriate for Congress to mandate a
course of action for a woman who is already faced with an
intensely personal and difficult decision.
The American Nurses Association is the only full-service
professional organization representing the nation's 2.2
million Registered Nurses through its 53 constituent
associations. ANA advances the nursing profession by
fostering high standards of nursing

[[Page S4709]]

practice, promoting the economic and general welfare of
nurses in the workplace, projecting a positive and realistic
view of nursing, and by lobbying the Congress and regulatory
agencies on health care issues affecting nurses and the
public.
The American Nurses Association appreciates your work in
safeguarding women's access to reproductive health care and
respectfully urges members of the Senate to vote against H.R.
1122.
Sincerely,
Geri Marullo, MSN, RN,
Executive Director.

Mrs. BOXER. The American Medical Women's Association says, in part,
in a letter to Senator Santorum, ``On behalf of the American Medical
Women's Association, I would like to reiterate our opposition to H.R.
1122.'' This letter is dated today.
The organization does not endorse legislation which interferes with
medical decisionmaking, particularly when it fails to consider the
health of the woman patient.

Our opposition is based on the following issues. First, we
are gravely concerned that this legislation does not protect
a woman's physical and mental health, including future
fertility, or consider other pertinent issues such as fetal
abnormalities. Second, this legislation would further erode
physician-patient autonomy forcing physicians to always avoid
legislatively prohibited procedures in medical
decisionmaking, including in emergency situations when
physicians and patients must base their decisions on the best
available information * * *

That is the American Medical Women's Association letter, in part.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, after
learning of the opposition of the AMA, wrote a letter to Senator Lott
dated yesterday.

In light of the slight modifications being proposed to H.R.
1122, we wanted to take this opportunity to reiterate our
opposition to this legislation.

They attach their statement in which they say:

Terminating a pregnancy is performed in such 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 * * * and only the doctor, in consultation with
the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances
can make this decision.

Is it not interesting, an organization of obstetricians and
gynecologists oppose this bill and have to plead the case that they are
the ones who should make this decision--not Senator Santorum, not
Senator Boxer, not Senator Coats, not Senator Feinstein, not Senator
Helms. This is not our job. Our job is tough enough. We do not come
close to being doctors. We have one physician in this body, but he is
not an obstetrician and gynecologist.
A letter dated today from the American Nurses Association:

I am writing to reiterate the opposition of the American
Nurses Association to H.R. 1122 * * *
It is the view of the American Nurses Association that this
proposal would involve an inappropriate intrusion of the
federal Government into a therapeutic decision that should be
left in the hands of a pregnant woman and her health-care
provider * * *

The American Nurses Association is the only full-service professional
organization representing the Nation's 2.2 million registered nurses
throughout its 53 constituent associations.
Now I want to tell you some of the real life stories that have been
presented to us by some of the women who have undergone the procedure
that this bill would ban. Many have heard these stories before, but
they are worth repeating because not every woman who has had this
procedure has come forward. These stories are representative of those
women.
I talked to you about Coreen Costello pictured here with her newborn
son, Tucker. She was able to have Tucker because it saved her fertility
to undergo the procedure that is banned in the Santorum bill. She is a
registered Republican, describes herself as very religious. She is
clear that she and her family do not believe in abortion. When she was
pregnant, she was rushed to the emergency room because her baby was
having seizures, and found out something was seriously wrong with her
baby.
She named the baby Katherine Grace. This is a woman and family who
wanted that child desperately. And to hear women like this referred to
as women who kill their babies to me is an absolute disgrace.
The baby had not been able to move for months--not her eyelids,
tongue, nor her lips. Her chest cavity was unable to rise and fall for
air, and her lungs and chest were left severely undeveloped almost to
the point of nonexisting. Her vital organs were atrophied. The doctor
told Coreen and her husband that the baby would not survive, and they
recommended terminating the pregnancy. To Coreen and to Jim, this was
not an option. Coreen wanted to go into labor naturally. She wanted her
baby born on God's time and did not want to interfere. The family spent
2 weeks going from expert to expert.
Again, I have heard my colleagues on more than one occasion demean
these women, saying, ``Well, if only they had checked, they would have
found another option.'' There are always other options, say my
colleagues who don't know anything about medicine.
Coreen and her family were told they couldn't consider inducing
labor. They considered a caesarean section. But the doctors were
adamant that the risks to her health and her life were too great.
Then Coreen finally said, ``There was no reason to risk leaving my
two children motherless if there was no hope of saving Katherine
Grace.''
My colleagues, women like Coreen Costello deserve our love and
deserve our support. They don't deserve the kind of treatment they
would get if this bill becomes law. They have come forward. They were
saved. But they are coming forward to spare other families the tragedy
they went through.
Coreen writes to us, ``The birth of Tucker would not have been
possible without this procedure. Please give other women and their
families this chance.
``Let us deal with our tragedies without any unnecessary interference
from our Government. Leave us with our God. Leave us with our families
and our trusted medical experts.''
I could go on. I will show you a picture of Vikki Stella, a mother of
two. She went through a very similar case. She tried in every way to
save her baby, but was told that her life was at risk if she didn't use
this procedure. The surgery preserved her fertility.
Here she is shown with her son Nicholas. She calls him our darling
son, Nicholas, who was born in 1995. This was after she had undergone
the procedure that the Santorum bill seeks to outlaw.
So the procedure saved Vikki's life. It preserved her family. Vikki's
situation was heart-wrenching.
Mothers and fathers need to be able to make medical decisions like
that with their God and with their doctors, not with Senators. We don't
belong in that room.
We have offered alternatives, alternatives that go to the heart of
another matter, which is the decision Roe v. Wade that is the law of
the land, which basically says in the early stages of a pregnancy a
woman has the right to choose and the State does not have a right to
interfere. But after viability, Roe says the State does have a right to
interfere. And I agree with that.
Senator Feinstein and I offered an alternative that would have said
no abortion after viability. But we make two exceptions, consistent
with compassion, consistent with caring, consistent with Roe and the
Court cases. We say no abortion after viability except to preserve the
life of the mother or to spare her serious adverse health consequences.
My colleagues on the other side have said, ``Senator Boxer and
Senator Feinstein believe in abortion on demand.'' They have misstated
our position day in and day out. What we are saying is there should be
absolutely no abortion after viability except to save the life and the
health of the woman. That is the option that would be endorsed, I
think, by the majority of the American people. The bill that is before
us doesn't do anything about late-term abortion. It deals with one
procedure, a procedure that in fact doctors say is necessary to save
the life and the health of a woman.
I would like to read parts of an opinion piece that appeared in the
Los Angeles Times written by Ellen Goodman.
I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S4710]]

[From the Los Angeles Times]

Congress Can't Legislate Maternal Heroism

(By Ellen Goodman)

You cannot hear it in the cacophony of outraged voices
arguing about the so-called partial-birth abortion ban. But
it is there. The theme song of the abortion controversy is
being repeated, the soundtrack replayed:
Just how much are we willing to require of a woman for the
sake of having a baby? Just how much can the government force
a woman to sacrifice for a fetus?
The Senate debate has not really been about banning an
abortion method. It's been about permitting exceptions to
that ban. Senators led by Pennsylvania's Rick Santorum have
refused to allow an exception even to protect the woman from
serious harm to her health. President Clinton has refused to
sign a bill without it.
So the push for a veto-proof majority to ban this rare
procedure has drawn a line as clear as possible in this
unrelenting and murky struggle. A line around a woman's
health.
From the beginning abortion opponents have said that
``health'' is nothing but a loophole for women who would
abort a pregnancy to fit into a prom dress. But pro-choice
supporters have countered with real women whose bodies were
at serious risk. Underlying it all has been the issue of
women and sacrifice.
Last week, pro-lifer Kristi S. Hamrick argued against any
exception, saying, ``Any woman who has ever been pregnant can
tell you that every pregnancy carries potential risk.''
Indeed, women once died in pregnancy and childbirth with
appalling frequency.
But while the focus is on health, is it fair to ask whether
the law can force pregnant women to sacrifice more for
``unborn children'' than it can force parents to sacrifice
for those who are born?
Imagine a different bill going through Congress. This one
requires mothers and fathers to give up a kidney for their
child. Or maybe it just allows the government to extract bone
marrow against their will for an ailing son or daughter.
If such a bill got to the Senate floor, would Santorum
decry ``the selfishness, the individual self-centeredness''
of its opponents? Surely, we expect a parent to eagerly
exchange bone marrow for a child's life. But we would not
assume the state's right to go in and take it.
``No case has ever been upheld that says you can intrude on
the body of a genetic parent to protect a born child,'' says
Eileen McDonagh, who raises such matters in a provocative
book, ``Breaking the Abortion Deadlock.'' Indeed, in
Illinois, a court ruled that the law could not even require a
blood test to see if a relative could be a potential donor.
Can the law then require a woman to suffer ``serious health
effects.'' for the sake of a fetus? A central question in the
abortion debate, says McDonagh, is: ``What are the means the
state can use to protect the fetus? One benchmark is to ask
what the means are the state can use to protect a born
child.''
The issue is government intrusion: who decides. How much
more serious is this decision when we are talking, not about
extracting bone marrow, but about losing a uterus or a
kidney? Is it up to Congress to overrule the doctor? To
overrule the ``selfish'' woman defending her health?
An outraged Santorum screamed that this procedure ``is
killing a little baby that hasn't hurt anybody!'' But the
whole point of a vote about a health exception is that this
fetus--however unintentionally, well or deformed--is hurting
someone: the pregnant woman.
This is a tough-minded argument about those few pregnancies
that have gone most tragically awry. Pregnancy is risky. Many
women embrace heroic procedures to have children.
But the bill is not really about banning one procedure. If
dilation and extraction is the first method banned without
exceptions, it won't be the last. The goals of abortion
opponents are unequivocal.
Not was the losing bill by Democrat Tom Daschle a true
``compromise.'' Allowing late abortions for physical,
``real'' health reasons but not mental health? What would
that distinction mean to a woman forced to carry an
anencephalic (brainless) baby to term?
We already have compromises. The Supreme Court decisions
weigh the interests of the woman with those of the developing
fetus. The law allows states to severely limit abortion after
viability. But at no point does it give the government the
right to seriously damage a woman's health to protect a
fetus.
This is at the primal heart of the matter. No Congress can
be allowed to legislate a new flock of sacrificial women.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Ellen Goodman writes:

The Senate debate has not really been about banning an
abortion method. It's been about permitting exception to that
ban. Senators led by Pennsylvania's Rick Santorum have
refused to allow an exception even to protect the woman from
serious harm to her health. * * *
Is it up to Congress to overrule the doctor? To overrule
the ``selfish'' woman defending her health?

The bill is not really about banning a procedure. If dilation and
extraction is the first method banned, without exception it won't be
the last. The goals of abortion opponents are unequivocal. And, indeed,
in, I thought, a good debate that the Senator from Pennsylvania and I
had on Sunday, I think he was very straightforward about that. The
Senators who have been speaking on the other side of the aisle on this
subject all would tell you they are against all abortions from the
first moment of a pregnancy.
Ellen Goodman writes:

We already have compromises. The Supreme Court decisions
weigh the interests of the woman with those of the developing
fetus. The law allows states to severely limit abortion after
viability. But at no point does it give the government the
right to seriously damage a woman's health to protect a
fetus.
This is at the primal heart of the matter.

She concludes:

No Congress can be allowed to legislate a new flock of
sacrificial women.

What does she mean, sacrificial women? That is, women who will be
sacrificed because of politics, because of laws that are made right
here. And when abortion was illegal, women died.
There are those of us who will stand here as long as it takes to make
sure we don't go back to those dark days. This bill should not be about
politics, though, sadly, it might turn out to be. This bill should not
be about 30-second misleading commercials, though, sadly, it might turn
out to be. This bill should not be about fear, fear of doing the right
thing, though, sadly, it might turn out to be.
What this should be about is at least the basic bottom line that we
should keep in mind when we pass any legislation. And that bottom line
should always be do no harm. Do no harm. Yet, we are told by physicians
that this bill does harm. It has no exception for physicians who
believe the banned procedure is in the best interests of the woman for
her very survival and for her very health.
My colleagues, please do not relegate women to a status that says
their life and their health do not matter. Please look inside your
hearts. Ask yourself how you would feel if your daughter was told that
the safest procedure in a pregnancy turned tragically wrong was an
intact D&E, and, yet, the doctor fearing jail refused to use it. Look
in your heart. Think about how you would feel. You would drop to your
knees. You would pray to God that the doctor could use the option that
was safe, that would save the life and the health of your daughter. And
then, if this bill was the law, you would go to court to defend that
doctor. But the rules would be stacked against him or her.
Just read this bill.
My colleagues, that is the wrong way to go. These women have been
saved because this Congress didn't outlaw the procedure that was
necessary to save their lives and their health.
There will be other women who look like this, who have families like
this, who might be, as Ellen Goodman said, sacrificed because of
politics. I say that we should save these women who are relying on us
to protect them.
This isn't about them versus their babies. They wanted their babies.
They desperately wanted their babies. But in circumstances that no one
seemed able to predict, in rare circumstances, in tragic circumstances,
they needed an intact D&E.
We are not doctors--not even close. Every speaker I have heard--I may
be wrong on this--on the side of the Santorum bill has been a man.
Again, I may be wrong on this. But I am 99 percent sure that every one
of them would support outlawing all abortions. They do not know what it
is like to find yourself in a desperate situation as a woman--as a
woman. Situations like Vikki's or Coreen's or Eileen's, or any of the
women who were told they needed an intact D&E to save their lives or
their health.

Mr. President, I have a letter dated today from these women I have
been talking about. They have listened to this debate. This is what
they say:

Please don't forget us, and the stories that brought us to
Washington to meet with so many of you over the last two
years. We are just a sampling of the women and families who
have had very wanted pregnancies go wrong, and whose doctors
have wept with us as they explained the options that could
help us maintain our health and our fertility. We know the
truth about the so-called ``partial-birth abortions'' that
you debate in Washington, because we needed the surgery that
doctors call intact dilation and evacuation. * * *
The AMA endorsement of this legislation, and the
superficial changes added today do

[[Page S4711]]

not change the fact that this ban still contains no provision
to protect the health of women like us.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter in its
entirety be printed in the Record, along with the following letter from
the California Medical Association, which says, in part, ``The
California Medical Association is opposed to this bill and is saddened
that the debate appeals to the emotive, rather than the reasoning,
segment of America.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

May 20, 1997.
Dear Senators: Please don't forget us, and the stories that
brought us to Washington to meet with so many of you over the
last two years. We are just a sampling of the women and
families who have had very wanted pregnancies go wrong, and
whose doctors have wept with us as they explained the options
that could help us maintain our health and our fertility. We
know the truth about the so-called ``partial birth
abortions'' that you debate in Washington, because we needed
the surgery that doctors call intact dilation and evacuation.
We and our families stood with President Clinton last year
when he vetoed similar legislation that would have banned the
surgery that we needed. This ban would have torn families
apart, robbing us of the ability to make the most private and
personal decisions about our own well-being. It would have
subjected women like us to unwarranted medical risks and even
greater heartbreak than the loss of our precious babies had
already caused. President Clinton did the right thing when he
courageously vetoed this legislation and protected our health
and that of the women who come after us. These are decisions
that can only be made by a woman in consultation with her
family and her doctor. Congress can't begin to know what's
best for us as we face our own personal tragedies.
As you consider your vote on HR1122, we hope that you will
take a few moments to remember us, and to recall that this is
a bill that affects real people--American women and their
families. Please don't compound the tragedies of families
like ours. The AMA endorsement of this legislation, and the
superficial changes added today do not change the fact that
this ban still contains no provision to protect the health of
the women like us.
Please vote ``no'' on HR1122.
Sincerely,
Claudia Crown Ades,
Coreen Costello,
Mary-Dorothy Line,
Vikki Stella,
Tammy Watts.
____

California Medical Association,

Sacramento, CA, May 20, 1997.
Senator Barbara Boxer,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Boxer: We have reviewed the amendments to HR
1122 and believe that they make no substantive changes to the
legislation. While the debate over late-term abortion is
painful, both within the medical community and the general
citizenry, we believe these decisions must be left to
physicians and patients . . . acting together.
While late-term abortions may have occurred inappropriately
in some instances, they have also saved women's lives and the
health and well-being of many American families. In a society
where values are assaulted on every side . . . and technology
often seems to replace human relationship . . . the bond
between healer and patient is ever more important. Passage of
HR 1122 would be one more step in eroding that relationship.
The California Medical Association is opposed to this bill
and is saddened the debate appeals to the emotive, rather
than the reasoning, segment of America.
Sincerely,
Rolland C. Lowe, M.D.,
President.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I say that we need to listen to these
women. I say that we need to listen to these doctors. I say that the
doctors who work with this every day of their lives know best. And I
hope we will vote against the Santorum bill.
I reserve the remainder of our time on this side.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Indiana, who
has done terrific work on this issue which deals with protecting
children. He has been an outstanding spokesperson for a long time in
the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for his
kind words. The real credit goes to the Senator from Pennsylvania for
his effective and unrelenting advocacy on behalf of life. The Senator
has expressed in many, many ways and provided us with many, many facts
that I think gives all of us pause and that has given us a reason to
give great deliberation and consideration to this most fundamental of
issues.
I also think it is appropriate to mention the efforts of Senator
Smith of New Hampshire who had the courage to come to this floor some
time ago and introduce the Senate to a procedure none of us had ever
heard of. He was vilified on this floor and in the press. He had the
courage to raise an issue that many didn't want to talk about. We have
come a long way since that day when Senator Smith walked onto this
floor.
We are close. And we clearly have a majority in both the House and
the Senate now in favor of banning partial-birth abortion. We have more
than a two-thirds majority necessary to override a Presidential veto in
the House, and we are hopeful that we can achieve that level today. We
will know at 2:15 this afternoon.
Mr. President, I think it is most appropriate that we are debating
this issue on the Senate floor because we are talking about one of the
most fundamental, if not the most fundamental, of all issues that we
debate on this floor. That is the meaning of life itself. It is a right
that is guaranteed or enunciated in our Declaration of Independence. It
is labeled an inalienable right, meaning it is not created by
government; it is not taken away by government; it is not the purview
of government. It is an inalienable right, according to our Founding
Fathers, the right to life being the very first enunciated, written--
inalienable right, part of the very fabric of the foundation of this
society, not endowed by government but endowed by the Creator. Over the
200-years-plus history of this country and of this Congress, we have
had monumental civil rights debates, appropriate debates on the meaning
of inclusion in the American experiment of what it means to be part of
this greatest in all experiments in human history, of democracy, of
being part of a system which allows each individual the dignity of
being part, an equal part, of this democracy.
Great civil rights debates have taken place in this Chamber, the
debates about allowing women equal opportunities, equal rights to vote,
equal rights to participate in society, the rights of handicapped,
reaching out and providing within the American experiment to include
them, the weakest of our society, the most disadvantaged of our
society. And now we come to the weakest of all, now we come to the most
disadvantaged of all, those who have no voice of their own, those who
have no political action committee, no caucus, no ability to march, to
speak for themselves, but those who have every right to be included in
this great experiment in democracy.
I do not know what the vote count is going to be this afternoon. I am
obviously hoping it will exceed the 67 votes needed to overcome the
President's intransigence on this issue, the President who pledged to
the American people and to the Congress that he wanted abortion to be
safe, legal and rare, the President who is confronted with the
information that this is not a rare procedure, that this is a procedure
that is done thousands and thousands of times mostly for the
convenience not of the woman but of the abortionist, a procedure that
is more convenient for the abortionist than it is recognizing concerns
of women and certainly the rights of the child to live.
I do not know what that vote count is going to be, but win or lose,
we have fundamentally altered the nature of this debate. Win or lose,
we are now debating the meaning of life and the right to life in this
society, and that is where the debate should have been centered and
where the debate needs to be centered.
I am pleased that we have finally arrived at this point. I do not
question the motives of other Members, those who vote for or those who
vote against. That is why I did not question the motives of the
minority leader when he stated that he thought we ought to engage in
the debate on the viability of the child. It advances the debate one
way or another. Some are skeptical about his efforts, about his
amendment. I do not think it is an appropriate amendment because I
thought the exceptions allowing the decision to be in the hands of the
abortionist himself or herself was not appropriate to defining the
right to life. But by placing in the Chamber the question of viability,
we will now center the debate on

[[Page S4712]]

what is the meaning of life. When does life begin? What are the rights
of that life as well as the rights of the woman? So I am pleased that
we have arrived at this point. As I said, win or lose, we are now
focusing the debate where it ought to be.
Several years ago, Justice O'Connor made the statement that Roe
versus Wade, the decision of the Court in Roe versus Wade, was on a
collision course with medical science because medical science was
demonstrating to us the viability of life at earlier and earlier ages.
Sonograms, listening to heart beats, and the ability to perform fetal
research, the protection of the infant in the mother's womb, and the
rights of that infant in cases of negligence, in cases of attempted
murder, in a whole number of areas of the law have demonstrated to us
that there is a life with a heart beating within the womb of that
mother, and that life deserves our consideration in terms of the
protections that we give it.
Recently there has been a lot of talk about new discoveries of brain
activity and a lot of focus on that, focus brought to this floor by
those who say we must make sure we give children ages zero to 3 the
right opportunities so that their brain can develop in ways that
medical science tells us it needs to develop to a fully competent human
being. We need to ensure that that takes place.
What medical science is also telling us and what we have not
discussed on this floor is that we now know that brain activity exists
much earlier than we thought. Never has the conflict between science
and abortion been more dramatic than in the recent discoveries about
the science of the brain. We know that a human embryo at 10 or 12 weeks
after conception has astonishing brain activity. We know that by the
fifth month of gestation the brain is fully wired, as the scientists
say, with the connections between neurons largely complete. Astounding
evidence. We know that these neurons are firing with impressive
complexity once a minute, shaping the brain itself, and we know that
when this process is interrupted by malnutrition or drug abuse or a
virus, the results can follow a child its entire life, and we know that
a child may be born knowing the distinctive sound of its mother's and
father's voices. In short, our mental development, not just our
physical development, the mental development, the process of learning
begins well before birth.

If we look at the evidence--not the rhetoric, not the anecdotes, but
the evidence, the facts--it is increasingly evident that human life is
a continuum in which birth is really not a particularly decisive
moment. An essential part of who each of us is, who we are, including
the shape of our minds, is determined even before we are born. Even
those who do not call themselves pro-life have to find this a troubling
experience and troubling knowledge. They have to because abortion not
only destroys the body; it extinguishes a complex, developed mind. This
point, I think, has particular relevance in this debate on partial-
birth abortion because the very procedure itself destroys the brain.
Yes, it kills the body, but when we understand the complexity of that
brain, when we understand the development of that brain, mostly fully
wired at the point of termination, we have to understand that plunging
a scissors into the back of that skull and sucking out the brain has
enormous implications.
Mr. President, I ask for just 2 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COATS. So here we are on this floor debating something that is
very much in the role of the Senate. If it is not in the role of a
Senator to make moral judgments, then we might as well close the place
up because there is very little else to do. Most of what we do here has
moral implications. There are some things that do not, but most things
do. If that is the case, then I think a lot of people are going to have
to remove their names from sponsorship of legislation that mandates
mammograms for women under a certain age. Some Senators are going to
have to remove their names from support for laws that require 48-hour
hospital stays after birth. Some Senators are going to have to remove
their support for laws and legislation that condemns genital
mutilation. Are those not medical procedures? So if we are going to
leave all that to the world outside of this Chamber, I think a lot of
Senators are going to have to rethink their positions on a lot of
issues.
I also think it is inappropriate to suggest that this is some kind of
male conspiracy against women. I think when the vote is taken today, we
will see women voting to terminate this procedure. I think when the
polls are taken and women are addressed throughout our society, we will
find there are as many women in opposition to this procedure and in
abhorrence of this procedure as there are men.
It is also wrong to say that this is only some kind of a pro-life
Senate movement. There are a number of people here who have openly
stated they are pro-choice Senators but are voting to ban this
procedure. So let us tone down the accusations and let us deal with the
facts.
I think the facts and medical science that have been presented to us
so outstandingly by the Senator from Pennsylvania need to be carefully
considered by each and every one of us. A civil right to the weakest
among us, the inalienable right to life as enunciated in the most
fundamental of all the documents of democracy, our Declaration of
Independence, can be honored here today by our vote to ban this
procedure.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania particularly for
his outstanding work and yield back whatever time I have remaining.
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, if you will notify me when I have 4
minutes remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14 minutes and will be
notified by the Chair when 4 minutes are remaining.
Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Indiana for
his excellent work. I want to address a couple issues the Senator from
California raised.
One, she mentioned support of the American College of Gynecologists.
I have 50 letters here from fellows of that organization who are
outraged at the organization for the position they have taken. We have
a group of over 500 obstetricians and gynecologists who have signed on
saying they are supporting the ban on partial-birth abortions and are
also outraged at the position taken by the board here in Washington
that was not voted on by the general membership.
So I just suggest that this, as the Senator from California noted but
I want to reemphasize, is not speaking for all physicians, certainly
not all obstetricians and gynecologists, because we have read plenty of
statements from them as to why this procedure is never medically
necessary.

She went through her facts. Let me tell you the first fact. This is
not about abortion. This is about infanticide. This is about taking a
baby that is born, in the process of being born, four-fifths outside of
the mother, moving outside of the mother and killing that baby. We can
talk about abortion. I know the Senator likes to get it back to the
issue of abortion. The reason we believe, as I just read a letter from
62 law professors, it is not governed by Roe versus Wade is because the
baby now has rights. It is being born. So do not keep focusing back on
this issue of abortion. This is about infanticide.
If the Senate today does not muster up the moral courage for 67
votes, it will be validating infanticide--not the woman's right to
choose, infanticide.
As one of the listed facts, the Senator from California said the fact
is this procedure is done by obstetricians and gynecologists acting in
the best interests of the mother to save her life or health. That is
not a fact, and we all know that. Even people who support the position
of the Senator from California know that is not a fact, admit it is not
a fact. It is very difficult to get engaged in a real debate when the
other side keeps using misinformation about what is going on here.
Ron Fitzsimmons, the director of an association of 200 clinics, said
that 90 percent of the abortions done, partial-birth abortions done,
are done on healthy mothers and healthy babies in the 5th and 6th
months of pregnancy for birth control reasons.

[[Page S4713]]

Now, that is not, as the Senator from California suggested, a
procedure done by obstetricians and gynecologists.
Let me make a parenthetical remark there. This procedure was not
invented by an obstetrician or gynecologist. It was invented by a
family practitioner who does abortions. Obstetricians and gynecologists
do not do this procedure. This is not done in hospitals. It is done in
clinics, not by, in many cases, obstetricians and gynecologists. So to
suggest that this procedure is done by obstetricians and gynecologists
acting in the best interests of the mother and that's the fact is not
in fact the case.
This is done by abortionists--some of whom are obstetricians, many of
whom are not--who perform in clinics, not in hospitals, who do it on
healthy mothers and healthy babies. Those are the facts. That is why
this is such a troubling debate today. That is why we have seen the
movement across this country and in the Senate today, because the
alleged facts that the Senator from California was offering again as
the truth muddy the waters a little bit. But now we know what the real
truth is from people who support her position. But yet we keep hearing
these repeated allegations that have no basis in reality anymore, but
they still find themselves on the Senate floor as a defense for an
indefensible procedure, and this procedure is indefensible.
Mr. President, we have heard comments about women who suffered with a
pregnancy that had gone tragic. Let me first say that my heart goes out
to each and every one of the people whose picture we have seen
displayed on the floor of the Senate. I know, I know personally the
difficulty that these families face with a child that you hoped for and
dreamed for and had something go wrong; that a life that you had hoped
to be with and to mother and father would be cut short. I know what
they went through.
I am just suggesting that the fact that the women came to testify,
not the doctors, tells you something about the medical reality of what
occurred. You have not seen any of these doctors who did these
procedures come to the U.S. Senate, the House, or anyplace in a public
arena and talk about what they did, because they know that they would
not stand the light of day in front of any peer review. In fact, none
of these procedures is peer reviewed. None of them is peer reviewed.
None of these cases has been peer reviewed, none of them. They would
not open up to any discussion by other experts in the field as to
whether they acted correctly.
That is the problem, you see. We hide behind the emotion, and it is
real, tragic, and I empathize, but we are hiding behind emotion when we
are talking about the life and death of little babies. We owe it to
them, we owe it to these mothers who are dealing with these tragic
situations today to talk about the facts, to let the light shine in as
to what are really the options, what is really necessary, not to hide
behind pictures and emotional pleas that have no basis in medical fact,
in medical practice.
I will give you a counterexample. This is a little baby girl, named
Donna Joy Watts, who was born with hydrocephaly, the same condition
that some of the children of the people Senator Boxer shared had. Her
mother and father, Lori and Donny Watts, refused to abort this child.
The genetics counselor and the obstetrician suggested a partial-birth
abortion for this little baby. They said she couldn't survive, she
wouldn't live. She had to go to four hospitals--four places--just to
get this baby delivered. They wouldn't deliver her baby.
We worry so much about the right to choose. How about the right to
choose life, to give your baby a chance? Well, Donny and Lori fought
for this chance. This baby was born finally by cesarean section. And,
by the way, the issue of future fertility, we hear that a lot, Lori and
Donny now have another little baby. But this little baby was born and
hooked up to IV's to give hydration to, water to, and for 3 days. These
doctors, who will never come to testify before the Congress, all these
doctors who recommend abortion, who never come to justify before a peer
review panel what they do, called this little baby lying there
breathing a fetus for 3 days. Do you want to know what some of the
obstetricians and gynecologists think about little babies who are just
not perfect? They called this baby a fetus 3 days after it was born. It
is not a fetus, it is a baby. What they wanted to do was kill this baby
by stabbing her in the base of her skull and suctioning her brains out,
and Lori and Donny said no.

Through a lot of hard work, a lot of pain, a lot of suffering, a lot
of forcing them to treat her daughter because they wouldn't treat her
for 3 days, 5\1/2\ years later, this is little Donna Joy Watts, who is
in my office right now. She would have been up in the gallery of the
Senate were it not for the objection of the Senator from California
prohibiting her from being there. She is in my office and watching this
debate. She is watching to see whether the U.S. Senate is going to
allow other doctors to misinform their mommies and daddies so we won't
have other little Donna Joy Wattses to be with us, to ennoble us, to
give us pride in our culture and in our civilization, that we care even
for those who are like little Donna Joy--who runs around and plays in
my office, who colors with my kids--but just didn't have the chance.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes are reserved. Who seeks time?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask that I be allotted such time as
I may consume in the remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes is remaining.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I myself find this a sad day. In a sense, it is a
watershed debate, and I very much fear it is the first major
legislative thrust to set this Nation back 30 years with respect to
freedom of choice.
I am going to speak about what freedom of choice really means.
Essentially, to me it means that Government will not become involved in
these most intimate decisions that a woman has to make, not become
involved in legislating a woman's reproductive system, what she must
do, when she must do it, and how she must do it, but that government
will essentially leave those intimate decisions to the physician, to a
woman, to her faith, and to medicine. And here we have the Congress of
the United States essentially saying that every woman in this country
who may find out in her third trimester that she has a horribly,
severely deformed child with anomalies incompatible with life, and if
that child can be born, even if it is a major threat to her health, she
must deliver that child.
Unfortunately, no Member of this body is going to be present, no
Member of this body is going to hold that mother's hand and tell her
that it is OK if she jeopardizes her health perhaps for the rest of her
life. No Member of this Congress is going to be present in that
delivery room and see a child who is incompatible with life, a baby
that may not have a brain, a baby that may have a brain outside the
head or other major physical anomalies. No Member of this Congress will
be there to see that child delivered to live an hour, 6 hours, a day, 4
days and then die, and the woman's health may be seriously, adversely
harmed in a major way for the rest of her life. No one will be there.
No one will say, ``I'm so sorry, I didn't know about you when I cast
this vote.''
We are all accustomed to legislating, and when we legislate, we
legislate for a majority, not for the exception. We legislate with some
knowledge, or should, of what we are doing. But I think in this case,
it is a very skewed knowledge. It is based on a case that the
distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania put forward of a young woman
who I believe could have and would have been born in any event and
saying that this one case typifies all mothers that we are talking
about. In fact, it doesn't.
I must express my profound dismay. My father was chief of surgery at
the University of California Medical Center. My husband, Bert
Feinstein, was a distinguished neurosurgeon. And all my life, I have
lived in a medical family. As I read the AMA's letter, essentially what
they are doing is providing some protection for doctors, but they are
doing nothing to see that a woman's health is protected, and I feel
very badly about that. Both my husband and my father were members of
the American Medical Association.

[[Page S4714]]

I take some heart in letters from the California Medical Association
which indicate their opposition to this legislation and clearly state
that they believe the amended legislation before us today falls very
short of the mark. They indicate their strong opposition to this bill.
I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record two letters I received
from the California Medical Association.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

California Medical Association,

San Francisco, CA, May 20, 1997.
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: We have reviewed the amendments to
HR 1122 and believe that they make no substantive changes to
the legislation. While the debate over late-term abortion is
painful, both within the medical community and the general
citizenry, we believe these decisions must be left to
physicians and patients . . . acting together.
While late-term abortions may have occurred inappropriately
in some instances, they have also saved women's lives and the
health and well-being of many American families. In a society
where values are assaulted on every side . . . the bond
between healer and patient is ever more important. Passages
of HR 1122 would be one more step in eroding that
relationship. The California Medical Association is opposed
to this bill and is saddened the debate appeals to the
emotive, rather than the reasoning, segment of America.
Sincerely,
Roland C. Lowe, M.D.,
President.
____

California Medical Association,

San Francisco, CA, May 14, 1997.

Re opposition to H.R. 1122.
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: The California Medical Association
is writing to express its strong opposition to Congressional
intrusion into the physician-patient relationship, as
exemplified by the above-referenced bill, which would ban
``partial-birth abortions.'' We believe that it is wholly
inappropriate for a legislature to make decisions which
prevent physicians from providing appropriate medical care to
their patients. Physicians must be allowed to exercise their
professional judgment when determining which treatment or
procedure will best serve their patients' medical needs.
The obstetricians and gynecologists have already eloquently
expressed the medical justifications for this procedure in
rare but very real circumstances. CMA certainly does not
advocate the performance of elective abortions in the last
stage of pregnancy. However, when serious fetal anomalies are
discovered late in a pregnancy, or the pregnant woman
develops a life-threatening medical condition that is
inconsistent with continuation of the pregnancy, abortion--
however heart-wrenching--may be medically necessary.
CMA respects the concern that performing this type of
abortion procedure late in a pregnancy is a very serious
matter. However, political concerns and religious beliefs
should not be permitted to take precedence over the health
and safety of patients. CMA opposes any legislation, state or
federal, that denies a pregnant woman and her physician the
ability to make medically appropriate decisions about the
course of her medical care. The determination of the medical
need for, and effectiveness of, particular medical procedures
must be left to the medical profession, to be reflected in
the standard of care. It would set a very undesirable
precedent if Congress were by legislative fiat to decide such
matters. The legislative process is ill-suited to evaluate
complex medical procedures whose importance may vary with a
particular patient's case and with the state of scientific
knowledge.
CMA urges you to defeat this bill. Many of the patients who
would seek the procedure are already in great personal
turmoil. Their physical and emotional trauma should not be
compounded by an oppressive law that is devoid of scientific
justification.
Sincerely,
Rolland C. Lowe,
President.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I believe the California Medical
Association still represents the largest group of physicians anywhere
in this Nation. No one seems to care about the Constitution, that this
bill constitutes a direct challenge to the Roe versus Wade Supreme
Court decision. The Supreme Court held that in Roe, a woman has a
constitutional right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. It
set for the different trimesters, some specific limitations on that
right, that before viability, abortion cannot be banned; after
viability, the Government can prohibit abortion, except when necessary
to protect a woman's life or health.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This bill, the bill before us, says the woman's
health doesn't matter, it is of no consideration. I must tell you, to
me a woman's health matters. It should be of direct consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. So I will vote no on this bill, and I really regret
that this day is upon us. I thank the Chair.
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I just suggest the American Medical
Association and the other hundreds of doctors understand the point that
seems to elude the Members of this Chamber. By outlawing this procedure
they are, in fact, protecting the health of the mother, because this is
an unhealthy procedure, this is a dangerous procedure. This procedure,
as said by over 500 physicians ``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 and third trimester, and certainly
not by mostly delivering the child before putting him or her to
death.''
I will quote another obstetrician/gynecologist, Dr. Camilla Hersh:

Any proponent of such a dangerous procedure is at least
seriously misinformed about medical reality or at worst so
consumed by narrow minded ``abortion-at-any-cost'' activism
to be criminally negligent.

What we are doing here is, in fact, advocating for the life health of
the mother by banning a procedure which is a rogue procedure, not
performed at hospitals, performed at abortion clinics, not even
performed by obstetricians, invented by someone who is not an
obstetrician. That is why the AMA wrote to me yesterday supporting H.R.
1122 as it now appears on the floor of the U.S. Senate saying:

Thank you for the opportunity to work with you toward
restriction of a procedure we all agree is not good medicine.

In other words, it is not in the interest of the health or life of
the mother to do this procedure. It is wrong to do this procedure. It
is immoral to do this procedure because you are killing a little baby.
You are killing a baby that is fourth-fifths born, that is moving
outside of its mother. How can we accept that when there are other
options available?
As I suggested before, here is living proof of other options
available: a little girl who is here today on Capitol Hill, who will be
right out here by the elevators during that vote. I ask Members to go
over and to look into her eyes, to talk to her, because if her parents
would have listened to all the expert doctors who knew what was best
for their child, she wouldn't be here today.
She would have had this brutality, this violence, this vile procedure
done on this innocent little girl who now walks and talks and writes
notes--``Donna'' with a hand there, reaching out asking that this
procedure not be made available, so little girls like her, little boys
like her, be given a chance at life.
The Senator from California said, these kids who are not well enough
to make it. Who are we to decide whether they are well enough to make
it? Who are we to say they should die because they are not perfect?
Give them a chance. Give them the dignity of being born and brought
into this world with love, not violence and brutality. Give them a
chance. Give them a chance.
I yield the floor.

____________________