[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 20, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4715-S4716]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   THE PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I supported passage of the Partial-Birth 
Abortion Ban Act when it was considered during the 104th Congress and I 
supported overriding the President's veto of that measure. Today, I 
again voted in favor of this legislation.
  My position on abortion issues is clear. I have consistently stated 
that I would not support overturning the Supreme Court's decision in 
Roe versus Wade. I support a women's right to have an abortion. I do 
not think we should turn back the clock and make abortion illegal, but 
we should work in every way to reduce the number of abortions that are 
performed.
  I have also cast votes in Congress in opposition to using Federal 
funds to pay for abortions except in cases of life endangerment, rape, 
or incest.
  Today, the Senate again voted on legislation which would prohibit a 
physician from performing partial-birth

[[Page S4716]]

abortions, a procedure in which a fetus is delivered into the birth 
canal before its skull is collapsed and delivery is completed. This 
legislation contains a provision which would make an exception for 
partial-birth abortions that are necessary to save the life of the 
mother in cases in which no other medical procedure would suffice.
  After careful thought about this issue, I have concluded that I 
simply cannot justify the use of this specific procedure to terminate 
pregnancies in which the mother's life is not at stake. For this 
reason, I voted to support the ban on partial-birth abortions, and I 
hope that the President will reconsider his decision to veto this 
measure and sign it into law.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express deep regret at 
the passage of H.R. 1122, the so-called partial birth abortion bill. I 
find it appalling that the U.S. Senate will enact legislation that is 
not just an attack on choice, but more importantly an assault on a 
woman's reproductive health.
  I had hoped that the Daschle amendment, which I cosponsored, would 
address the alleged concerns about unnecessary abortions being 
performed after viability. This amendment was a reasonable approach and 
would have met the State objective of preventing late-term abortions on 
healthy fetuses when there was no serious threat to the life or health 
of the mother. However, it has become obvious what the real agenda is; 
to chip away at the guarantees and protections afforded to all women by 
the Supreme Court. Those on the other side have now solicited the 
American Medical Association [AMA] in their efforts to undermine Roe 
versus Wade and to jeopardize the health of women.
  The AMA has simply cut a deal which unfortunately does not include 
women's reproductive health. They have acted in such a way to protect 
their interests and not the interest of their patients. Their 
announcement does not in any way change the intent of this legislation 
nor does it do anything to address the concerns about women's health. 
It is simply a political, calculated decision.

  During the 104th Congress, there were 53 floor votes attacking 
reproductive health. Today's vote is simply a continuation of this 
attack. In the 104th Congress we witnessed attacks on title X, 
international family planning, and access to save and legal abortion 
coverage for Federal employees and military personnel. This is not 
about preventing late-term abortions, this is about preventing a 
women's and physician's right to determine their own health care needs. 
They will not stop here. This attack will continue until all abortions, 
regardless of viability or the life and health of the mother are 
illegal. Today, we have taken a huge step backward.
  Since joining the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, I have 
heard from numerous groups representing physicians and from numerous 
doctors from Washington State. I have been told repeatedly that 
Congress must act to prevent the further eroding of the patient-doctor 
relationship currently taking place in the managed care delivery 
system. I have heard numerous stories about physicians who are unable 
to prescribe the appropriate treatment for their patients because 
insurance companies have determined this treatment too costly or not 
necessary. I have always agreed that doctors should be making health 
care decisions, not insurance companies. I now am baffled as to why the 
AMA would want the U.S. Congress to dictate what treatment options 
physicians can use to save the life and health of their female 
patients. Today's action invites the U.S. Congress into the operating 
room and appears to have the blessing of the AMA.
  I am grateful that there is one last line of defense; the President's 
veto. I am hopeful that the President will act swiftly to veto this 
offensive and threatening legislation and that we will do the right 
thing and sustain this veto.
  Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Enzi pertaining to the introduction of S. 765 are 
located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and 
Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. ENZI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________