[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 124 (Thursday, September 17, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10474-S10499]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 1997--VETO
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous unanimous consent
agreement, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration of the veto
message on H.R. 1122.
The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate a message from the House
of Representatives, which was read as follows:
The House of Representatives having proceeded to reconsider
the bill veto message to accompany H.R. 1122 entitled ``An
Act to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-
birth abortions'', returned by the President of the United
States with his objections, to the House of Representatives,
in which it originated, it was
Resolved, That the said bill pass, two-thirds of the House
of Representatives agreeing to pass the same.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill pass, the
objections of the President of the United States to the contrary
notwithstanding?
The time for debate will be limited to 4 hours, to be equally divided
between and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader
or their designees.
Who yields time?
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today we begin debate on the issue of
partial-birth abortion, the override of the President's veto, which he
vetoed last year.
I believe this is one of the most important issues, if not the most
important issue, we will face in this session of Congress because it
deals really at the core with who we are as a country and to what
degree we respect life in this country and recognize life, recognize an
individual's inclusion into our family and our society. In many cases,
just as we did in voting with respect to banking laws, we have to draw
lines. Part of the legislative process is, in fact, drawing lines.
Sometimes those lines are not clear. Sometimes the votes are very
difficult, and it is hard to understand in the area of gray where
exactly you do draw the line.
I have always felt, with respect to the issue of partial-birth
abortion, that it was a very good place to at least draw the first
line, in a very emotional and confrontational issue, because we are not
really talking about abortion at that point, we are talking about
infanticide. I think if you took a poll in this Senate and asked
whether Members of the Senate were in favor of infanticide, I hope and
pray that the answer would be 100 percent ``no,'' that they are not in
favor of infanticide. Well, I believe, as many Senators have said, that
this is infanticide. This is a baby that is just 3 inches from being
delivered and is brutally killed.
Let's do a little rundown of how we got to the point where we are
today. In the last session of Congress, Congress passed a bill to ban
this procedure, sent it to the President, and he vetoed it. We had a
vote to override in September of 1996. We had 59 votes on the floor of
the Senate. They overrode in the House. Last year, the Senate and House
passed the bill. The House, in July of this year, overrode the
President's veto with a vote of 296-132, I believe. So now it comes to
the Senate.
Earlier this year, we had 64 votes on the floor of the U.S. Senate to
ban this procedure. Unfortunately, as overwhelming a vote as that is,
it is three short of the votes necessary to override a Presidential
veto. So that is the state of play; three votes in the U.S. Senate
separate us from what I believe is a clarion call to the world that we
are a civilized country that respects life which is born in this
country, or nearly born in this country, and a signal to the country
that we are just not quite ready to open our arms as a society and
welcome every member to it.
Let's first go through the particulars of what this procedure is,
because I think it is important to define the procedure so everybody
knows exactly what we are talking about. These charts that I am going
to show you, while they are not particularly easy to look at, they do
accurately describe, according to several doctors who perform them,
what a partial-birth abortion is. It is performed on babies that are at
20 weeks of gestation, roughly halfway through the gestational process.
Between 20, 24, 26, and longer, it can be performed. One of the
reasons, in fact, that this procedure was developed was to perform it
on solely late-term and very-late-term babies. So at 20 weeks, and
thereafter, this procedure is used. The baby, as you see, in the
mother's womb is usually in a head-down position at that age. The
doctor, over a 3-day period, will begin to dilate the cervix, open up
the cervix, so the doctor can reach in with forceps and grab the baby's
foot and turn the baby around and pull the baby out in a breach
position.
I want to state that again. This is a 3-day procedure. It starts with
the dilation of the cervix over a 2-day period. On the third day, when
the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor goes in with these
forceps, grabs one of the baby's limbs --usually the foot--pulls the
baby, turns the baby around into a breach position, and begins to pull
the baby out of the birth canal in the breach position. As most people
understand, that is a very dangerous position for a normal delivery.
You try to avoid breach births because of the danger to the mother, as
well as the baby. In this situation, they deliberately turn the baby
around and deliver the baby in a breach position. The baby is then
pulled out feet-first until all of the baby is outside of the mother,
with the exception of the head. The reason for that is, the head being
a hard part of the body, even at that age--certainly a harder part of
the body at that age--and it is the biggest single part of the body, it
is left inside of the mother.
The third thing that happens is, the physician reaches in with one
hand and finds the back of the baby's skull. You can't see the back of
the baby's skull because the skull and neck are still inside of the
mother. So they probe and find the soft part here, right at the base of
the skull. Then they take what is called a Metzenbaum scissors and
thrust it into the back of the baby's skull, open up a hole in the
baby's skull, introduce a suction catheter, which is a high-powered
suction device, and suck the baby's brains out, which causes the
collapse of the skull, and then a dead baby is delivered.
This is the brutal procedure that the President of the United States
has said must remain legal. This is the brutal procedure that we have
the opportunity here in the U.S. Senate to say has no place in a
civilized society.
I would think that would be enough reason--that simply its brutality,
its shocking, barbaric, horrific nature would be enough reason to ban
this procedure. But there is much more. There are so many reasons to
ban this procedure beyond its horrific and barbaric nature.
In a few minutes, I will detail exactly all of those reasons. I will
detail all of the lies that have been put out by the other side to
protect this rogue procedure, which is not done in any hospital, not
taught in any medical school, has not been peer-reviewed and studied by
others to make sure that this was a proper, safe procedure. This is a
rogue procedure done only in abortion clinics, when no one else is
watching.
Mr. President, I will yield the floor, as I know the Senator from
Missouri is here and has other time commitments.
[[Page S10475]]
I will yield and turn it over to the Senator from Missouri, Senator
Bond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from
Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the courtesy of my
distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania. I congratulate him on his
leadership on this issue. These are very, very difficult procedures to
describe and I know that no one here on the floor enjoys hearing them.
But the fact that they are so horrendous I think is one of the reasons
we are here today.
Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on whether to override the
President's veto of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. This
legislation would ban a particularly hideous form of late term abortion
known as ``partial birth'' abortion. Unfortunately, while a majority of
Senators supported the ban last year, the vote count was not enough at
that time to override the subsequent veto by President Clinton.
I hope that some Senators will have had a change of heart since then
and will vote to override the veto.
This is a horrible procedure. The Senator from New York, Mr.
Moynihan, has likened it to infanticide. Remember that these are
``late-term'' abortions, meaning they take place during or after the
5th month of pregnancy. A fully developed fetus is brought down the
birth canal, feet first, and then delivered, all but the head. Then the
abortionist takes a pair of scissors, inserts them in the back of the
baby's neck, and collapses the brain, and the baby is delivered: dead.
I would note the American Medical Association, representing thousands
of doctors, believes the ban is justified and that there is no room in
medicine for this procedure.
The overwhelming majority of the American people and Missourians are
rightly revolted by this. Some states have banned the procedure, and
the state of Missouri has come very close to banning it. Few other
issues have generated so much mail and so many phone calls to my
office. People feel very very strongly about banning this procedure.
And it is easy to see why.
And, the partial birth abortion ban has passed in both the House and
the Senate by large majorities. In fact, the issue would be settled if
President Clinton hadn't vetoed the bill last year, against the wishes
of an overwhelming number of Americans.
Rarely have I seen a President, like this one, who is willing to
ignore the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the American people.
The overwhelming majority is opposed to this hideous procedure.
I have been asked why we are holding this vote in the Senate, when we
are likely to fall short of what is needed to override the veto? We are
holding this vote today because the President made a terrible mistake
in vetoing the bill. It is up to Congress--it is up to Congress on this
issue to listen to the people, to try to reverse it.
Tomorrow we will have the opportunity to correct the President's
mistake. We are going to work on it. I ask our constituents and the
constituents of other Senators who may be undecided to let them know
how important overriding this veto is. I hope--I sincerely, honestly,
and devoutly hope--that we will muster the necessary votes to override
the veto tomorrow.
I thank the Chair. I particularly thank my colleague from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for
his excellent comments and for his strong support for this legislation.
Mr. President, I think it is important to understand a little bit
more about this procedure and what has been said about this procedure
over time by those who defend its use. I think it is very instructive
to understand the history of what has been said so we can better
understand what really is the final thread that those who oppose this
ban hold onto in order to justify their vote against banning this
procedure.
The first, I guess, almost incredible thing was when this bill was
first introduced in the House--and in the Senate, by Bob Smith here in
the Senate--the original response by those who were opposed to this
bill was that--this is the National Abortion Federation that called the
``. . . illustrations of partial birth abortions highly imaginative,
artistically designed but with little relationship to truth or to
medicine.''
Myriad other reports denied that this even occurred; that there is no
such thing as partial-birth abortion; or, as they like to call it,
intact D&X. The truth is that Dr. Haskell, who was one of the
originators of this procedure, described this procedure at a National
Abortion Federation meeting in 1992--by the way, the original quote
that I quoted from was in 1995--3 years later. Yet, 3 years prior, a
doctor spoke before the group and described this very procedure using
the very drawings that you saw earlier. Yet, 3 years later, that same
federation that Dr. Haskell spoke before denied it exists and denied
those pictures and depictions of the procedure had anything to do with
reality. Lie No. 1.
Lie No. 2: This was used by several of the people you may hear from.
Those who will defend this procedure on the floor today cite several
women who have come forward to say that this procedure was necessary to
preserve their health and future fertility, or life. One of the women
who has been used--in fact, the President called her up to the White
House and brought her before the American public in testimony that she
has given. She said she was told by her anesthesiologist that the fetus
would endure no pain. This is because the mother is given a narcotic,
analgesia, at a dose based upon her weight. The narcotic is passed via
the placenta directly into the fetal bloodstream. Due to the enormous
weight difference, a medical coma is induced in the fetus and there is
a neurological fetal demise. There is never a live birth. The baby
dies.
This was the testimony of a doctor who does this procedure before the
House Judiciary Committee. Obviously, lots of anesthesiologists who
provide anesthesia to women who are going through labor and delivery
become incensed that someone would make such a statement--that by
giving a woman anesthesia, enough would pass into the baby to kill the
baby. In fact, they came up here to the House and Senate pleading to
testify to set the record straight, because there were women who were
not taking anesthesia because of what they had heard.
This is Norig Ellison, president of the American Society of
Anesthesiologists, 4 years ago:
In my medical judgment it would be necessary--in order to
achieve ``neurological demise'' of fetus in a ``partial
birth'' abortion--to anesthetize the mother to such a degree
as to place her own health in serious jeopardy.
In other words, it wouldn't happen. Another lie.
Third lie, again, about anesthesia, that:
The fetus dies from an overdose of anesthesia given to the
mother intravenously.
Again, Planned Parenthood said the first one.
Dr. Haskell, who, again, is one of the abortionists who does this
procedure, said to the American Medical News:
``Let's talk about whether or not the fetus is dead
beforehand. . . .'' Haskell: ``No, it's not. No, it's really
not.''
Lie No. 3, being perpetrated on the American public and the Congress,
in almost all cases rebuffed by their own people.
Lie No. 4--this was a doozy:
Partial-birth abortion is ``rare.''
Once they got past the point of accepting the fact that it happened,
that they admitted that it happened, they then went out and said that
this was ``rare''; it only happened a few hundred times a year:
This surgical procedure is used only in ``rare'' cases,
fewer than 500 per year. It is most often performed in the
cases of wanted pregnancies gone tragically wrong, when a
family learns late in pregnancy of severe fetal anomalies, or
medical condition that threatens the pregnant woman's life or
health.
This was signed by a slew of abortion rights organizations: The
Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood, National Organization of
Women, Zero Population Growth, Population Action International,
National Abortion Federation, and others. They all signed this. They
all signed this letter to Congress. They testified in a letter to
Congress that this was the fact, that it was only tragic cases and
there were only a few. But according to the Bergen County Record--and I
have to tip my cap to them because, unfortunately, the entire press
corps in Washington, DC, read this letter and accepted it as fact
[[Page S10475]]
and reported consistently that that was the fact. I asked many of the
press corps did they bother to check, did they bother to check to see
whether, in fact, the number and the circumstances were accurate? Did
anyone bother to call a local abortion clinic in their city and ask?
The answer was a resounding--that's right--nothing. The Bergen County
Record was one newspaper that did. September 15, 1996, just 10 days
before the vote to override the President's veto in 1996:
But interviews with physicians who use the method reveal
that in New Jersey alone, at least 1500 partial-birth
abortions are performed each year--three times the supposed
national rate.
Several months later we find out what really was going on.
Ron Fitzsimmons has suggested that between 3,000 and 5,000
partial-birth abortions could be performed annually.
Now, how do we know that he is right? We have absolutely no way of
knowing he is right. I will quote from the American Medical
Association, Journal of the American Medical Association just last
month with respect to how we know how many of these are done.
First of all, States do not provide abortion-related
information to the CDC.
Second, data gathered varies widely from State to State
with some States lacking information on as many as 40 to 50
percent of abortions performed within their jurisdiction.
Third, the category the CDC uses to report the method of
abortion does not differentiate between what is called
dilation and evacuation, D&E, and intact D&X, or partial
birth abortion.
We have no way of knowing, and even if they accurately reported it,
some States don't collect the data and those that do, don't report 40
to 50 percent of the data. So how do we know? Those of us who are here
trying to argue that this procedure should be banned have to rely upon
Ron Fitzsimmons for the information. And who is Ron Fitzsimmons? He is
the chief lobbyist for all the abortion clinics in this country that
oppose this bill. So we have to use the information given to us by
those who, by the way, have consistently lied, who also don't want the
procedure to be banned. We have to accept their numbers as fact because
there is no other way to independently check them. So I would just
allow you to use your imagination as to what the number really is in
this country. If they admit to 3,000 to 5,000, what is the real number?
Lie No. 5. ``Partial-birth abortion is only used to save a woman's
life or health or when the fetus is deformed.''
This is Ron Fitzsimmons 2 years previous. Let's rewind 2 years back
to 1995.
The procedure was used rarely or only on women whose lives
were in danger or whose fetuses were damaged.
And I can give you lots of other quotes, by the way, from the Senate
floor and from the House floor that maintained this position, as well
as all the other organizations that you just saw on the last chart,
that that was the reason this procedure was created for those who it is
used on, and that is why it needs to remain legal.
The truth: New York Times February 26, 1997:
Ron Fitzsimmons admitted he ``lied through my teeth'' when
he said the procedure was used rarely and only on women whose
lives were in danger or whose fetuses were damaged.
Ron Fitzsimmons, again quoted in the American Medical News March 3,
1997:
What the abortion rights supporters failed to acknowledge,
Fitzsimmons said, is that the vast majority of these
abortions are performed in the 20-plus week range on healthy
fetuses and healthy mothers. ``The abortion rights folks know
it, the antiabortion folks know it and so probably does
everyone else,'' he said.
Well, of course, we knew it. We knew it because Dr. James T. McMahon,
who is now deceased, about 6 years ago said that he performed most of
the abortions, partial-birth abortions on healthy mothers with healthy
babies late in pregnancy, in his case up to the eighth and ninth month
of pregnancy. He classified only 9 percent of that total of the 2,000
partial-birth abortion procedures he alone did, he classified only 9
percent of that total as involving maternal health indications of which
the most common maternal health indication that he gave as a reason for
doing the abortion was depression; 56 percent were for ``fetal flaws,''
and those are his words, that included many nonlethal disorders, a
sizable number as minor as cleft palate.
Yes, we knew. We came to the floor and we said here are the facts.
And the other side stood behind the lies. They parroted them knowing
that they weren't true. They parroted them either knowing they weren't
true or praying that they could hide behind others who would try to
fool the American public.
The sixth untruth and the final one, at least to date the final one.
This is the last untruth that those who continue to oppose banning this
procedure hold on to, this last thread of deception. And that is that
``partial-birth abortion protects women's health.''
President Clinton, in his veto message, April 10, 1996, when he
vetoed the first ban:
I understand the desire to eliminate the use of a procedure
that appears inhumane. But to eliminate it without taking
into consideration the rare and tragic circumstances in which
its use may be necessary would be even more inhumane.
Fast forward to October 10, 1997, a year ago, when he vetoed this
bill.
H.R. 1122 does not contain an exception to the measure's
ban that will adequately protect the lives and health of the
small group of women in tragic circumstances who need a an
abortion performed at a late stage of pregnancy to avert
death or serious injury.
One comment first. This bill clearly has a life-of-the-mother
provision. If this procedure is in any way necessary to prevent the
death of the mother, it can be used.
The President says ``to avert the death or serious injury.'' To try
to convince the American public that we do not have a life-of-the-
mother exception, again, is disingenuous at best.
``Serious Injury,'' let's go to the American Medical Association. Who
is the American Medical Association? Most people know it is the largest
association of doctors in this country. What is the American Medical
Association position on abortion? They are in favor of abortion rights;
very strongly in favor of abortion rights.
What is the American Medical Association's position on banning
medical procedures? They abhor banning medical procedures. They believe
that medical procedures should be left to physicians to determine what
is good medicine and bad medicine. So, on two counts we should have a
tough time getting the American Medical Association to endorse a ban on
a medical procedure having to do with abortion. But the American
Medical Association last year endorsed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act. They stated that it was ``not medically indicated.''
Let me quote from a group of obstetricians, several hundred across
the country, most of them board certified:
The partial-birth abortion procedure, as described by Dr.
Martin Haskell, the Nation's leading practitioner of the
procedure, and defined in the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act,
is never medically indicated and can itself pose serious
risks to the health and future fertility of women.
Four female OB/GYNs were here today to have a press conference, here
on Capitol Hill, to talk about partial-birth abortion, and all of them
indicated that not only is this not medically necessary, but this
procedure, this rogue procedure, is incredibly dangerous to women and
to women's health.
So, I go back to the point that I made before. There is enough
grounds on its sheer barbarism and the fact that it is an affront to
our sensibilities and to our culture that we would allow this kind of
horrific procedure to occur. When you compound that with the fact that
it is not medically necessary, ever, to protect a woman's health, when
you compound that with the fact that it is medically dangerous to women
to have this procedure done, and it is always done at an abortion
clinic, where there are inadequate facilities to deal with these
circumstances promptly if something should go wrong, if you combine
just those facts it appears obvious that this procedure should be
banned.
So, what I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do is to
do something that is very, very difficult to do here on the issue of
abortion. When you mention the word ``abortion'' on the floor of the
U.S. Senate or the U.S. House of Representatives, people dive into
their trenches. They dive into their trenches that they feel
comfortable with because the last thing
[[Page S10477]]
you want to do is, during this battle, jump from trench to trench, to
try to get to both sides. That is because you end up getting shot at a
lot, if you go from what would be considered the pro-life side and try
to run the battlefield over to the pro-choice side, or vice versa. So
what all the political consultants say is, ``Stay in your trenches when
you hear the word `abortion'.'' That is both sides. ``Do not lift your
head up because you either get shot by those who you are trying to join
or your folks will shoot you in the back.''
So let me say, first, to the Members of the Congress, the House and
the Senate, for those Members who are ``traditionally on the other side
of this issue,'' who are in the other trench, for them to climb out of
that trench to face the fire and to stand with us, as they will
tomorrow and vote for what they know in their heart is morally,
ethically, and medically right, I salute them and I thank them. That is
political courage.
You hear a lot of talk these days about political courage. Will we
have the political courage to do the right thing with respect to the
President? Just let me suggest that there are many Members of this
Senate who tomorrow will show political courage and do the right thing.
It is political courage to follow your heart, to follow what you know
inside you is right, not just right for the children or for the
mothers, but what is right for our society and the message we send to
all the people listening and watching what goes on here.
For those who have yet to climb out of the trench, I will tell you a
couple of things. No. 1, the fire is not that intense once you climb
out. The American public overwhelmingly supports banning this
procedure. All of the medical evidence that has been out there to
support keeping this procedure legal has been debunked and discarded.
There is nothing left except zealotry, except this concept that we
cannot infringe on this right of abortion--even if, as I would argue,
this is not even abortion, as others have argued this is not even
abortion once the baby is outside the mother's womb. But we cannot even
touch limiting that right.
I would say there is not a right in America that does not have a
limit on it. There is not one. Certainly, when it comes to taking the
life of a little baby, we in Congress should be able to muster the
courage to put some limit, to draw some line that says ``enough.''
I would also say that for those to whom I have talked, who have run
that gauntlet and come over and voted on this issue to support this
ban, there has been communicated to me a great sense of relief and
satisfaction that they could break those chains and stand up and do
what in their heart they knew was right; what in their conscience they
knew was right. So I appeal to your conscience, I appeal to your heart.
And I appeal to your reason--I appeal to facts. On every score, on
every score, we must override the President's veto.
I see the Senator from New Hampshire is here--I am sorry, I turned my
back and he is gone. Let me just say something about the Senator from
New Hampshire. The Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Smith, was the
first person to introduce this bill in the last session of Congress. He
did so when there was not a whole lot of popular support in the polls
for this because the knowledge of the American public was minimal at
best. He stood here when the votes were a lot closer than they were
today and the public was a lot less informed, and all these lies that I
showed to you were all out there being accepted by the press as truth.
But the Senator from New Hampshire stood here in the well, armed with
what he knew was truth. He stood here and argued and tried to focus the
American public's attention for the first time on this gruesome,
gristly procedure. He is one of the heroes in trying to bring the
consciousness of the people to this Chamber. So I salute him for that.
I suspect he will be back in a minute. It gives me the opportunity to
talk about a couple of other things.
I want to get back to the moral issue at hand. What we are talking
about are babies who are in the 20th week of gestation and later. Now,
for most Americans, they have a hard time understanding, ``Well, what's
the 20th week? What does the baby look like? What are its chances of
survival? What are we talking about here?''
At 20 weeks gestation, a normal baby, ``healthy'' baby, most normal
healthy babies delivered at 20 weeks of gestation will be born alive.
That doesn't necessarily mean that they will survive. In fact, very
few, if any, babies born at 20 weeks will survive. But they will be
born alive.
Let me give you some of the statistics we have, if we can get that
chart, about survival rates of babies who are subject to partial-birth
abortion.
When the Supreme Court came down with the decision on Roe v. Wade,
back in the--actually early seventies, but in the late seventies, the
information I have, the viability, the time of viability was considered
to be around 28 weeks. Babies born before 28 weeks gestation were not
considered to be able to be saved. They were not considered to be
viable. So much has happened with medical science since that time, and
the numbers have changed and changed dramatically.
Let me share with you some numbers from The Journal of American
Medical Association. It is an article I referred to earlier, and I will
give the citation. It is called ``Rationale for Banning Abortions Late
in Pregnancy,'' by Leroy Sprang, M.D., and Mark Neerhof, D.O.,
Northwestern University Medical School, Evanston Northwestern
Healthcare.
Here are some of the numbers that we have used in past debates.
According to a 1987-1988 NIH study of seven hospitals, you can see at
23 weeks, about a quarter of the babies survive; 24 weeks, 34 percent;
25 weeks, 54 percent.
From 1986 to 1994 at Minneapolis Children's Medical Center, 45
percent at 23 weeks; 53 percent at 24 weeks; 77 percent at 25 weeks;
and 83 percent at 26 weeks. Remember, these weeks gestation during Roe
v. Wade when the decision was decided, all of these were considered
zero.
In a Michigan study from 1994 to 1996, you see the numbers--27, 57,
77 and 82 percent.
Let me give you some updated numbers from this report that was
published last month:
Recent data from our institution [at Northwest]. . .
indicate a survival rate at 24 weeks--
The second line. A survival rate of 24 weeks of 83 percent--83
percent and at 25 weeks at 89 percent.
Remember, these are all children born at that hospital, some of whom
had abnormalities, some of whom had severe problems. They are not all
healthy babies being born, and even at that, the survival rate is in
the eighties. If you filtered out those who had fetal anomalies who
would have died irrespective of when they were born, I suspect this
number is substantially higher. So we are performing partial-birth
abortions most commonly on babies who would be almost certain to be
able to live.
Some people suggest I shouldn't draw that distinction. A baby at 20
weeks, whether the baby can survive or not, is still a baby. I happen
to subscribe to that. We draw lines that don't exist in our society
about what is life and what isn't. There is no doubt in my mind that
when my wife became pregnant with a child, I knew that was going to be
a little boy or little girl and there wasn't much doubt that it was
going to be a dog or a cat. But we draw lines here as to what is life
and what isn't.
Some people feel comfortable drawing lines here. It comes to
viability, whether they can live outside the womb. The Supreme Court
was one of those entities that did decide that was the place they had
to draw the lines, where the rights of the child would increase and the
rights of a woman to kill her child would diminish. By not banning this
procedure, we allow little children--imagine, most of them, the vast
majority, according to the people who perform it, healthy babies,
healthy mothers, with very high probability of surviving, who for just
one small period of time in the life of that child it is unwanted. For
but a moment in the life of a child, that baby is temporarily unwanted
by the one person who has absolute control over its destiny.
We read in the paper so much about parents who are seeking to adopt
children. There probably isn't a person here in the room who doesn't
know someone who has gone to extraordinary lengths, who has waited an
extraordinary long period of time to
[[Page S10478]]
adopt a baby, to love a baby, to accept it, that little gift from God
as their own. And yet because for just a moment in time of what could
be a long and beautiful life, that baby is unwanted, and because it is
not wanted at that very moment in time, its life is taken away.
We are talking about if the mother didn't want to carry the pregnancy
to term, if the feeling was, ``Well, I just don't want to be burdened
with this pregnancy anymore,'' deliver the baby, give the baby a
chance. There is no medical need to kill the baby. There may be medical
needs to terminate pregnancy. The doctors today talked about that at
their press conference. There may be the need for the health or life of
the mother to terminate a pregnancy, but there is never a need to kill
a baby in the process of terminating the pregnancy. There is never a
need to drag this baby out--a baby that feels pain. In fact, in Great
Britain right now the Parliament is considering requiring doctors who
perform abortions after 19 weeks to anesthetize the baby because of
conclusive research that shows that these babies feel pain. In fact,
there are articles that have been written by physicians who say they
feel pain more intensely than we do.
I quote again from this Northwestern study that says:
When infants of similar gestational ages are delivered,
pain management is an important part of the care rendered to
them in the intensive care nursery. However, with intact
D&X--
Partial-birth abortion--
pain management is not provided for the fetus who is
literally within inches of being delivered. Forcibly incising
the cranium with scissors and then suctioning out the
intercranial contents is certainly excruciatingly painful. It
is beyond ironic that the pain management practice for an
intact D&X on a human fetus would not meet Federal standards
for the humane care of animals used in medical research.
We have laws in this country--imagine--we have laws in this country
that require us to treat animals--animals--better than we treat these
little gifts from God. What is to become of us when we simply cannot
see what we do?
I see the Senator from Illinois is here. I have used a lot of time on
our side. I would be happy to yield the floor to Senator Durbin.
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, thank you for the recognition.
I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania. Let me say at the outset that
my colleague from Pennsylvania comes to this floor to discuss this
issue with heartfelt emotion. I am convinced of his commitment to this
cause. I have served with him in both the House and the Senate. I would
never question his motives. And I know a little bit about his family
situation. I am sure that they are sincere.
I also say to you that this may be the most difficult issue for any
politician to deal with in America today. I have been in and around
public life for 32 years. It has not gotten any easier in 32 years, at
least not since the Roe v. Wade decision, because the American people
are basically conflicted internally about this issue of abortion.
There are some who would argue no abortions under virtually any
circumstances and others who would argue that the State--Government--
should not restrict abortions under any circumstances. But the vast
majority of Americans, I think personally, fall into some middle ground
where they understand that a woman's right to make this decision, in
concert with her doctor, her family and her conscience, is something
that should be protected under law--it is currently protected under
law--but they want to see us do everything we can as a Government and
as a people to reduce the likelihood of abortion in this country. The
number of abortions have diminished some over the past few years, but
it is still a very widespread practice and medical procedure in
America.
My own personal views on it--I personally oppose abortion but I
believe that we should take care where we draw the line about the
Government's involvement in that decision. You would think after
serving on Capitol Hill for 16 years, and facing literally hundreds of
votes on the issue, that this would become rote, that it would be an
easy, automatic, reflexive vote. It has never been that for me. It
never will be. I pause and think and worry over every vote on this
subject because I know what is at stake is very serious.
Today, the Senator from Pennsylvania comes to the floor and asks us
to vote to override President Clinton's veto of his bill banning what
is known as the partial-birth abortion procedure. I will be voting to
sustain the President's veto. I will be voting in opposition to the
Senator from Pennsylvania, but I want to make it clear why I am doing
so.
It is my belief that this bill, as far as it goes, addresses one
challenge before us. This bill addresses one abortion procedure. But
there are many different kinds of procedures. As terrifying and
troubling as this procedure is, there are others. And the Senator from
Pennsylvania would ban this one procedure, if I am not mistaken, at any
stage in the pregnancy. Many of us believe that this issue should be
addressed in a different manner.
When it comes to the issue of late-term abortions, allow me to try to
explain what I mean when I use that term. In the Roe v. Wade decision--
I believe in 1972, if I am not mistaken--the Court, the Supreme Court
across the street, divided a pregnancy into three sections, three
different trimesters, three different periods of 3 months and basically
said in the first two trimesters, the first 6 months of the pregnancy,
that they would give the paramount right to the woman to make the
decision whether she continued the pregnancy. They made it clear that
in the third trimester, the end of the pregnancy, that the State would
be able to impose restrictions.
They drew a distinction between that time when the fetus could
survive outside the mother's womb and that time when it could not. And
if it could not--the previability phase--then they felt that this was
more a decision for the woman to make. After viability, that is, the
ability of the fetus to survive outside the womb, then the State--the
Government--could step in and say, ``We will limit the circumstances
under which a woman can seek an abortion.''
Unfortunately, the bill before us today does not make that
distinction. It does not draw that line. I fear it is fatally flawed
from a constitutional viewpoint, from the viewpoint of the case of Roe
v. Wade which guides us in this debate. As a result, I am not certain
that this bill, even if it were enacted over the President's veto,
would survive a Court test. I believe the Court has said repeatedly,
``We are serious about drawing that line.'' This particular bill does
not draw that line.
Having said that, though, let me tell you that I am not going to
engage this debate just on pure legalisms and interpretations of Roe v.
Wade. Let me go to the real question before us. Let me try to address
some of the points which the Senator from Pennsylvania has made.
I am not a medical doctor. Some Members of Congress are; I am not.
When I hear medical doctors say that this procedure, this partial-birth
abortion procedure, is never medically necessary, I take that very
seriously.
Recently, in the Chicago Tribune, in my home State of Illinois, a
professor from, I believe, Notre Dame University, Douglas Kmiec--I hope
I am pronouncing it correctly--wrote an article on July 27 in which he
quoted a man whom I respect very much, C. Everett Koop, a medical
doctor who served as our Surgeon General and who I have worked with
closely on the tobacco issue. He quoted Dr. Koop as saying that this
medical procedure, this ``Partial-birth abortion is never medically
necessary to protect a mother's health or future fertility.''
As I said, such a statement from a medical doctor, and someone of Dr.
Koop's reputation, I take very seriously. As a result, I came back to
my office and wrote a letter the following day, on July 28, 1998, to a
group which I respect, the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists here in Washington, DC. I did not try to color this
letter or to influence their reply in any way. I wrote to them and
said, ``Tell me, is Dr. Koop right? Is this abortion procedure never
medically necessary?''
A few days later I received a reply from Dr. Ralph Hale, executive
vice president of the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists. I ask
[[Page S10479]]
unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists,
Washington, DC, August 13, 1998.
Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
364 Senate Russell Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Durbin: I am writing in response to your July
28th letter in which you asked for the College's response to
Dr. Koop's statement that ``Partial-birth abortion is never
medically necessary to protect a mother's health or future
fertility.''
The College's position on this is contained in the
statement of policy entitled Statement on Intact Dilation and
Extraction. In that statement we say, ``Terminating a
pregnancy is performed in some circumstances to save the life
or preserve the health of the mother.'' It continues, ``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.'' Our statement goes on to say, ``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.'' For this reason, we have
consistently opposed ``partial-birth abortion'' legislation.
Please find enclosed ACOG's statement on intact D & X.
Thank you for seeking the views of the College. As always, we
are pleased to work with you.
Sincerely,
Ralph W. Hale, MD,
Executive Vice President.
Enclosure.
____
ACOG Statement of Policy on Intact Dilation and Extraction
The debate regarding legislation to prohibit as method of
abortion, such as the legislation banning ``partial birth
abortion,'' and ``brain sucking abortions,'' has promoted
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 that 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 dilation of the cervix, usually over a
sequence of days;
2. instrumental conversion of the fetus to a footling
breech;
3. breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and
4. partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of a
living fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but
otherwise intact fetus.
Because these elements are part of established obstetric
techniques, it must be emphasized that unless all four
elements are present in sequence, the procedure is not an
intact D & X.
Abortion intends to terminate a pregnancy while preserving
the life and health of the mother. When abortion is performed
after 16 weeks, intact D & X is one method of terminating a
pregnancy. The physician, in consultation with the patient,
must choose the most appropriate method based upon the
patient's individual circumstances.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), only 5.3% of abortions performed in the United States
in 1993, the most recent data available, were performed after
the 16th week of pregnancy. A preliminary figure published by
the CDC for 1994 is 5.6%. The CDC does not collect data on
the specified 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.
Mr. DURBIN. Let me speak to the contents of this letter, because I
think it is an important letter when we consider the medical debate
here--not the legal or political debate but the medical debate.
Dr. Hale wrote to me:
Dear Senator Durbin: I am writing in response to your July
28th letter in which you asked for the College's response to
Dr. Koop's statement that ``Partial-birth abortion is never
medically necessary to protect a mother's health or future
fertility.''
Dr. Hale goes on to say:
The College's position on this is contained in a statement
of policy entitled ``Statement on Intact Dilation and
Extraction.''
That term, ``intact dilation and extraction,'' is the technical
medical term for what we term ``partial-birth abortion.''
Dr. Hale goes on to say:
In that statement we say, ``Terminating a pregnancy is
performed in some circumstances to save the life or preserve
the health of the mother.'' It continues, ``A select panel
convened by [the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists] 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.''
The statement goes on to say,
An intact D&X, [partial-birth abortion] 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 listen closely,
. . . and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient
based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this
decision.
For this reason, we have consistently opposed the partial-
birth abortion ban legislation.
He encloses the statement in full.
So what are we to do? Members of the Senate have conflicting medical
opinions here. Some medical associations in my home State, some doctors
whom I respect, like Dr. Koop, feel that it is never necessary; and the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says it may be the
best or most appropriate procedure and only the doctor can decide.
It puts us in a dilemma. Some think it is an easy call--never will we
need it; never should we use it. Then you read from the doctors who
work with these women who have come upon complications in their
pregnancy that they never expected.
When this matter was first debated, I met a woman from a suburb of
Chicago, from the Naperville area, who has been kind enough or brave
enough to come forward and explain what happened to her. Her situation
opened my eyes to the fact that this debate is not as easy as it
sounds. She was the mother of a child, pregnant with another child, and
had determined through ultrasound that she was about to have a little
baby boy. She and her husband had picked out a name. She had painted
the nursery. They had bought the furniture. They were ready and
expecting parents, only to learn late in the pregnancy that the child
suffered from a serious deformity which precluded the possibility that
it would survive after birth, and that the continued pregnancy could
jeopardize her health or her ability to ever have another child.
I spoke to her about what happened after the doctor made that
diagnosis. She spoke of sitting up all night crying with her husband
over what they were to do. They did not believe in abortion. Yet what a
terrible dilemma they faced. Continue the pregnancy at the risk to her
health, at the risk of never having another baby, or terminate the
pregnancy of a fetus, a baby--whatever term you use--that could not
survive. They made the decision to go ahead with the procedure that
would be banned by this legislation.
She told me that story. Then she introduced me to her new baby in the
stroller she was pushing. They made the decision to go forward and look
to the future with another baby.
I won't presume that everyone listening to this debate would have
made that same decision. Others might have seen it quite differently.
In her case, she thought she and her husband, with their doctor, did
the right thing, and their decision resulted in another baby boy that
they are very proud of and happy to have brought on this Earth.
So the belief that many people engage in this procedure for casual
reasons--at least in this case--did not apply. We have to take care in
this debate that when we ban certain procedures and say doctors can
never use them, we apply them to all situations,
[[Page S10480]]
including the one that I have just described.
Here is what I think we should do. I will vote to sustain the
President's veto. I don't know if I will prevail or whether the Senator
from Pennsylvania will prevail. But I hope that we can leave this
debate without saying that they have had another wild debate in
Washington, the issue went unresolved, and they will probably return to
that same debate next year--we have done that year after year after
year.
A number of us, today, came forward and said that we hoped that we
could take this debate to another position, another level, a more
constructive level, I hope, after we consider this legislation. I
joined Senators in the press gallery today who have agreed to be
original cosponsors of legislation which I have introduced. This is
legislation that is supported by Democrats and Republicans: Senators
Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Republicans of Maine; Democrats
Torricelli, Mikulski, Robert Graham, Landrieu, and Lieberman are my
cosponsors on this legislation. I hope that in introducing this bill we
can move this debate to another level, a different level, and one that
is not inconsistent with the philosophy of my friend from Pennsylvania.
What we attempt to do in this bill is say the following: Let us
restrict all late-term abortions, regardless of the procedure--whether
it uses this procedure or some other procedure--to two specific
examples: Situations where the life of the mother is at stake--in other
words, if she learned in the seventh, eighth, or ninth month of
pregnancy that if she continued the pregnancy she would die; or
situations where that same mother learns late in the pregnancy that if
she continues the pregnancy she runs the risk of grievous injury to her
physical health, like the case that I just described. Those are the
only exceptions. No other reasons.
It is not a question of being depressed or changing your mind--as if
anybody would make a decision on an abortion for that matter. I don't
know that they ever would, but it is specifically prohibited under this
law.
And we say that not only the doctor who performs the abortion must
certify these medical circumstances, but in addition, a second
nontreating doctor must be brought in. He or she must certify in
writing that these medical conditions exist. Then and only then could
there be any abortion procedure, including this one, in a late-term
pregnancy.
We believe this is a constructive and, I hope, promising approach. It
builds on an amendment offered last year by Senator Tom Daschle, the
Democratic minority leader, one that I supported. We have added the
second doctor's opinion because criticisms were raised--I didn't agree
with them--that the doctor who performed the abortion might make a
certification that was dishonest. We think the second doctor's opinion
will argue against that.
The penalties involved in this are very serious. A doctor who would
ignore the law which we seek to have enacted in the bill which we will
introduce today faces a fine of $100,000 for the first instance, and a
possible loss of his medical license. In the second case, a fine of
$250,000 and the loss of his medical license.
I don't know how you can be more serious than the approach we have
taken, to say we want to make certain that late-term abortions are
limited to these situations.
Some people have asked, Why don't you just vote for the bill that is
before the Senate as well as your own? I cannot do that. The reason I
cannot do it is because there is no provision made in the bill offered
before the Senate for cases where a woman discovers late in her
pregnancy that to continue the pregnancy would present the risk of
grievous injury to her physical health. There is a life-of-the-mother
exception, but no exception for grievous injury to physical health.
That is the reason I will vote to sustain the President's veto. Later
today, at the appropriate time, I will introduce the legislation which
I have coauthored and described.
Let me say in closing that I respect the Senator from Pennsylvania
and his views and I respect those who disagree with him. I believe this
debate is a debate over an issue of conscience and one that many of us
struggle with on a regular basis. I hope that what we have tried to do
today on a bipartisan basis, to suggest an alternative approach, could
lead us away from this long-term debate, to a resolution in a fair and
humane manner.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, if I can take a moment to specifically
respond to a couple of things from the Senator from Illinois. I commend
him for coming forward and expressing his views. We don't agree, but as
is appropriate here in the U.S. Senate, we can disagree without being
disagreeable. I respect his right to articulate his viewpoints.
With respect to the letter from the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists that the Senator from Illinois read, they did say
they:
. . . could identify no circumstances under which this
procedure would be the only option to save the life or
preserve the health of a woman.
And they do go on to say:
. . . however, [it] may be the best or most appropriate
procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or
preserve the health of the woman.
However, no specific examples or circumstances under which an intact
D&X would be the most appropriate procedure are given. In fact, they
have never been given. They have never put forward any procedure, any
circumstance in which they say it may be, but they have never given any
hypothetical where it says it would be. That is somewhat troubling, to
sort of hang your hat on a possibility when the very organization you
are hanging your hat on refuses to give a possibility of whether it
meets their definition.
With respect to the constituent in the Senator's State, I can't tell
you how sorry I feel for her and for what she had to go through. But,
unfortunately, many people in this country do not get the best medical
information. One of the things I hope we can accomplish with this
discussion--and I think to some degree we have--is to improve the
quality of information women get in this country with respect to
decisions about pregnancy, particularly late-term, and particularly
when it comes to disabled children or children who maybe just aren't
perfect.
I just know from all of the information we have been provided from
the AMA, from the physicians--and Senator Frist is going to talk about
it from the point of view of a physician --in every case the President
cited, including the case the Senator referred to in Illinois, there
were other, better alternatives available to her that would have been
safer for her to have as opposed to this. It doesn't mean her doctor
didn't want to perform this. The doctor may well have. But the fact is,
we don't always get the best doctors who give us the best advice. We
went to the experts, and what the experts have told us is that this
procedure is not the safest.
With that, I yield to the Senator from Tennessee, the only physician
in the U.S. Senate, to talk about that very subject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to really cut through a lot of the
emotion and a lot of the rhetoric and really bring together how I view
this particular issue. And really I will take very few minutes because,
to me, it becomes very clear once the facts are put on the table.
I speak as a U.S. Senator, as someone who understands an obligation
to his fellow man, as being a trustee in the U.S. Senate to the
American people; but I also want to speak as a physician, one who has
spent his entire adult life in the practice of medicine, reaching out
to people, being trained at hospitals across this country, exposed to
accepted therapeutic procedures, understanding what peer review is
about, and to let you know how I assess where we are today.
It really comes down to a single statement, which is as follows:
Partial-birth abortion should never--should never--be performed,
because it is needlessly risky to the woman, because it is an
unnecessary procedure, because it is inhumane to the fetus, and because
it is medically unacceptable and offends the very basic civil
sensibilities of people all across this country.
[[Page S10481]]
Several points. No. 1, there has been this whole myth of how common
this procedure is. Let me just say that the procedure is being done
today as we speak. Initially, it was billed as being a very rare
procedure, that really just a handful are being done, and therefore we
don't need Federal legislation. Well, one of the byproducts of this
ongoing debate over the last 2\1/2\ to 3 years has been that we know
this procedure is being performed every day. In fact, we looked at
information that has come out and we know that one facility has
reported almost 1,500 of these in 1 year. One physician reported doing
more than 700 of these procedures, and another, over 2,000 of these
procedures. Remember, these are brutal procedures.
A second point. This procedure has been defined on the floor, and it
will be defined again, because it is important for people to understand
what a brutal procedure this is. But an equally important point is that
this procedure poses substantial risk for the mother, for the woman. It
is a dangerous procedure being performed every day on the fringe,
outside of mainstream medicine.
It is important for people to understand that this procedure is not
taught in any medical school in the United States of America. It is
important for the American people to understand that generally accepted
textbooks do not even mention this procedure. It is not defined. It is
important for America to understand that there are no peer-reviewed,
credible studies on partial-birth abortion that evaluate in any way its
safety. It is important for the American people to know that our OB/
GYN, obstetrics/gynecologic, residencies who train residents to deliver
babies in the future do not have this procedure as a part of their
curriculum. Why? Because it is dangerous, it is fringe, outside of the
mainstream. It has not been evaluated. Yet, it goes on every day,
hurting women all across this country.
What are the complications? Well, there are a number of standard
complications that occur during a third-trimester abortion. That
includes perforation of that organ, the uterus, which contains the
fetus. There is a second risk of infection when an abortion is
performed in that third trimester. There is a third, and that is of
bleeding. But, in addition, because the way this procedure--this
fringe, brutal procedure--is performed--and remember, it is performed
in a blind way, with the hand inserted into the uterus with scissors
thrust up underneath that head and into the base of the skull. That is
all done blindly, in a uterus which is large, containing the fetus,
which is engorged, has huge blood vessels within a centimeter of where
these scissors are blindly being thrust into the base of the skull.
I describe it that way because that is the reality, and the risk is
there for this procedure, and it is not for other types of procedures,
of laceration, of hemorrhage, of bleeding, of having those scissors
nick one of those blood vessels and have the patient suffer. One of the
problems is because these procedures are not performed at the
Massachusetts General Hospital where I practiced, or Vanderbilt Medical
Center where I practiced, or Stanford Medical Center where I practiced,
where there is peer review, where people are looking in. And because
these procedures are performed in clinics not subjected to peer review,
we never hear about those complications. But the complications are
there, and hospitals see these patients admitted after this procedure.
It is a dangerous procedure. The risks are there to women. Yet, we as
an American people have allowed that to occur all across this country.
A third point. This really applies, I think, and enters the field of
ethical considerations, which is what we do to the fetus. Remember, the
fetus is very far along. This is just prior to delivery of that infant.
I want to make this point, and I don't want to dwell on the point, but
that taking of scissors and thrusting it into the base of the skull,
the expansion of those scissors and the ultimate evacuation of the
brain, those contents, is painful to that infant. That infant feels
that pain. Thus, it is an inhumane procedure in which no specific pain
management is given, and that forcible incising of the cranium, or
head, is painful.
Fourth point. This procedure is unnecessary. It is never --never--the
only option. According to the Society of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, who will be referred to again and again, ``We could
identify no circumstance under which this procedure would be the only
option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.'' That
statement is a very important one because it basically says this is an
unnecessary procedure.
There will be colleagues to follow--and there will be comments by
many of my colleagues--saying, ``Yes, that is right. We can't identify
any particular circumstance where there is not a safer accepted
mainstream procedure that could be used.'' But I don't like the Federal
Government doing anything and saying it is against the law to do any
particular procedure, even if you could find it in detail like you
have. I don't want them coming in just in the event something will come
up.
Again, let me go back. This is a fringe procedure. It is out of the
mainstream, not subjected to peer review. We know it is dangerous.
There are always alternative procedures available.
It is a common procedure performed frequently. It is a dangerous
procedure--dangerous to the woman. It is an inhumane procedure
thrusting those scissors into that fetus' head. It is an unnecessary
procedure. Never is it the only option. Alternative procedures are
always available.
Over the last couple of years as I have studied this issue, a lot of
things have been made apparent to me. We need data collection. We need
peer review of these sort of fringe procedures that are performed
outside of the mainstream.
There has been, I believe, extraordinary medical consensus that has
come forward. It was difficult 2\1/2\ or 3 years ago, because
physicians who are trained in our 125 academic and medical centers and
medical schools have never been exposed to this procedure. It is only
the fringe physicians in clinics outside of the major hospitals doing
the procedure. Most people didn't know what a partial-birth abortion
was. We have educated physicians. We have educated people in the health
care arena. And, as a product of that, there has been this
extraordinary medical consensus that has emerged.
Yes, on the floor you can always hear people who stand up and say,
``We are against the Federal legislation because it infringes on our
right to make decisions about our patients.'' They don't come out and
defend the procedure.
We need to come back again and again and recognize that this is not a
debate about pro-life, or pro-choice, or abortion to me in any way.
Because of the way the bill is written, it focuses very narrowly on a
specific procedure that is unnecessary.
Mr. President, I look forward to coming back and continuing our
discussion. I know we have a number of people on the floor who want to
speak on this particular issue.
But let me just close with one final comment before turning back to
the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from New Hampshire, who
have done an outstanding job in terms of leadership, and say once again
that partial-birth abortion should never be performed because it is
needless risk, it is inhumane, it is ethically unacceptable, and it is
totally unnecessary.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for
his expert witness testimony here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. We
are fortunate to have an expert in the area of medicine to provide us
with this kind of information. I, very much, appreciate his willingness
to come forward and speak so intelligently and forcefully on this
issue.
I also thank the Senator from New Hampshire, who has been very
patient letting the Senator from Tennessee and now the Senator from
North Carolina, Senator Faircloth, be recognized for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, it saddens me that we are here again debating partial-
birth abortion. I feel inadequate at this point after hearing Dr. Frist
give a thorough, methodical, and definitive reason why it is such a
cruel and brutal procedure that it never even should be considered. How
anybody could vote to sustain a veto after hearing Dr. Frist,
[[Page S10482]]
Senator Frist, explain the brutality and the fringe element that is
doing this procedure is more than I can imagine.
There are 125 medical centers and schools in this Nation, and not one
of them teaches the procedure as a method of medicine. It is totally a
fringe element, as he well says.
I feel so inadequate here following him, who is an authority, and
spent his life in medicine, and understands the medical reasons why we
should not be doing it.
But the very idea of just taking a pair of scissors and driving them
into the skull of a child that is practically ready to be born, to me
is horrible beyond anything we can think of--the pain to the child, and
the danger to the mother. It is absolutely incomprehensible to me how
anyone could vote to continue this procedure.
It was said by Dr. Frist that it is done by a fringe element, but
they are doing a lot of them. They are not even taught by medical
doctors in medical schools. Yet, we are here authorizing it.
Again, how many times will President Clinton stand in the way of the
Congress and to overwhelming feelings of the people of America and veto
our attempt at outlawing this horrible procedure?
For me, this is about values, our values. It is one of the great
moral questions of our time. It is a moral question. We know that late-
term abortions are wrong. We know it from everything we are taught--
from our religious beliefs, to our medical authorities, which we just
heard. We need to summon the moral courage to draw a clear line of
conscience by saying simply flat and straight out, ``no more partial-
birth abortions,'' not just from the facts that we heard from Senator
Frist, but just the overall facts. The American Medical Association
says that partial-birth abortions are medically unnecessary. That one
statement is true is enough to outlaw this procedure. But it actually
is not even done in the medical profession. It is a fringe procedure
that goes far outside the normal circles of medicine.
Former Surgeon General Everett Koop said partial-birth abortions may
harm a mother's fertility. We hear from other segments of the American
medical society that it probably will harm a mother's fertility.
Spiritual leaders from every segment of religion in the country--
religious leaders such as Billy Graham, Pope John Paul--have spoken out
on the horrible procedure that this is and how it should be eliminated
from our society forever and outlawed forever.
We are talking about taking the life of a child who can survive
outside the mother's womb. We just heard Senator Frist describe it can
survive, and how that life is taken by the cruel process of pushing a
pair of scissors into it and expanding it and removing the brain.
It is a horrible procedure. Both pro-life and pro-choice should be
able to agree that those children deserve our law and protection.
I am asking my colleagues--and, most importantly, President Clinton--
to put values ahead of votes and end the tragedy of partial-birth
abortion.
Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I yield any time I may have.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Senator from California is here, and
she said she is not quite ready so we will proceed with another
speaker. The Senator from New Hampshire has been very patient. I yield
to him such time as he needs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator
for his leadership.
I wish to start my remarks by saying what an honor and privilege it
is for me to stand here on the Senate floor with such distinguished
colleagues as Senator Frist, Senator Faircloth, Senator Santorum and
others who have spoken out so eloquently against this terrible practice
that takes place, unfortunately, too many times in the United States of
America.
I was particularly impressed with the remarks from our distinguished
colleague, Senator Frist, who today I think is more important as a
doctor than as a Senator perhaps, listening to his very impressive and
technical remarks about just exactly what this procedure is and how it
is not necessary for the health or the life of the mother, to save the
life or to enhance the health of the mother, and he noted, as has been
said, the fringe element who perform these horrible procedures.
In addition to that, I would just mention that here in this
notebook--Senator Frist you heard from. He had a press conference this
morning with four distinguished physicians, obstetricians and
gynecologists, who spoke out saying the exact same thing that Senator
Frist said. Here in this book are 180 letters. These are just the ones
I have received in my office. These are from all the doctors who say
that it is unnecessary to save the life of the mother or to enhance the
health of the mother--180. I am sure there are many other Senators who
have received similar correspondence saying exactly the same thing.
But having been involved for almost 4 years now in this debate,
coming to the floor, fighting your heart out, losing, it is pretty
tough, and it is very emotional. And I know it has been the same for my
dear friend and colleague, Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania, who has
poured his heart and soul into this issue.
I remember very clearly, and I am sure the Senator does as well, in
1995, when I was pretty much alone on the floor of the Senate--and I
want to get into that a little bit in a moment as to why I was here--
there was a newly elected Senator, fairly newly elected Senator from
Pennsylvania named Santorum who was not saying anything but listening
to the debate. There was a very emotional exchange privately between
the Senator and myself. He just indicated to me that he had to get
involved in this because of the horror of it, and he has. He has been a
great leader, and I certainly appreciate another horse in the harness,
so to speak.
This is beyond, I should say, the in-your-face politics that we have
endured on the floor in the past. I know I have gotten beyond it. I
don't want to get into anybody's face on abortion or partial-birth
abortion. I want to get in your heart. I want to get in your hearts
because that is what this is about. I know that as we debate on the
floor you don't see a huge crowd here. Hopefully, somebody is watching
on the monitor. Of that 36 out there who have yet to see our way, maybe
somehow, some way, some will see that it is wrong to continue to
tolerate this in America and their votes will change, at least enough
votes will change to end this horror.
This is America, supposedly the moral leader of the world. What does
it say to our children when we kill children, their colleagues, with a
pair of scissors and a suction hose as they exit the birth canal? What
does that tell them? How do you say to your children, ``Be good today;
do your homework; mind your parents; do what's right; live a good life;
be a good Christian; do unto others; be good''--how can you say that
and support this? What message are you giving them?
No one should be surprised about the immorality that we see in our
country today because we are not setting the example. We have an
awesome responsibility as leaders in this country, whether we are in
the Senate or whether we are just ordinary parents every day setting an
example for our children. It is an awesome responsibility.
I remember when I spoke in the Chamber 3 years ago, I was chastised
by a colleague for showing those same medical charts that Senator
Santorum has shown in front of young pages sitting in the well. Well, I
think they had to see that. I think they needed to know what we as
adults are doing to their younger colleagues, the unborn children who
have done nothing against anybody. This is the execution of a child as
it enters the world. You cannot color it up. You cannot make it any
nicer.
You can talk about all the legalities. I heard my colleague, Senator
Durbin from Illinois, a few minutes ago say we had to follow the
guidance of Roe v. Wade. I might change that slightly and say the
misguidance of Roe v. Wade. This is not about technicalities. It is not
about legal definitions. It is not about falsely creating definitions
of what threats to health or threats to life are. This is about real
children really dying every day as we speak. As this debate occurs,
more will die, and we are letting it happen. And three
[[Page S10483]]
votes in this Chamber tomorrow morning, three more than we had the last
time, will end it all, will stop it. So when you think about whether
your vote counts, whether it matters, my colleagues, it matters. It
matters.
I stood in the Chamber 3 years ago. Initially, I didn't know what
this was. I could not believe that anything that would even resemble a
so-called partial-birth abortion would occur in this country. I didn't
believe it. So I checked it out. I talked to people who actually
assisted and performed them. I took the charts. I came down in the
Chamber. I held up the same medical doll that four doctors held up in a
press conference today. I showed exactly what happened with a medical
doll--not a plastic fetus, as the critics in the press like to call it,
but a medical doll. I simply showed the same size as a real child, the
same size as that child who is being held by the abortionist, to simply
show what happens.
I said then and I will say now, in any community in America--you pick
it, you name it, your hometown, wherever it is--if you picked up your
hometown paper tomorrow and in that hometown paper it said all the
puppies and cats in your local humane society were going to be killed
with no anesthetic, with a scissors to the back of the skull, open the
skull and insert a tube to suck the brains out, I think you would
probably be pretty upset. And you know what? It would probably be
stopped. It probably wouldn't happen. But it is happening to children
and we are letting it happen right here, tomorrow, on the floor of the
U.S. Senate unless three Senators have the courage to put the politics
aside and change their vote.
When I came down here in 1995, I had one cosponsor because, frankly,
people didn't know what this was. Senator Phil Gramm of Texas was an
original. We have come a long way since then, and we are not there yet.
When the partial-birth abortion ban first passed the Senate on December
7, 1995, it did so with the support of 54 Senators. When the Senate
voted whether to override President Clinton's veto on September 26,
1996, 57 Senators voted, and when the Senate passed H.R. 1122, on May
20, 1997, 64 Senators voted in favor.
You see, in here it is a numbers game. It is a game of numbers. But
out there every day in those abortion clinics, it is a life game. It is
a little child that is being killed for no other reason, other than it
is not wanted. That is the reason.
I, as I total up those thousands, and I think about it, I ask myself
how many times have I said this, night after night, as I thought about
the horrors of this--how many of these children may have grown up to be
a physician? Maybe a chaplain? Maybe a President? Maybe a scientist, to
cure cancer?
Jefferson wrote so eloquently the Declaration of Independence that we
have ``the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' You
cannot have liberty, you cannot pursue your dreams, if you are killed
before you are born. I do not often quote from the Bible, but you reap
what you sow, and we will reap what we sow if we do not end this
practice in America.
When the historians write about this age and this era--and I am
standing right now at the desk of Daniel Webster. I think about it
every time I speak. It is the only original desk in the Senate. There
was a resolution passed in the 1960s that said for now and ever more,
this desk belongs to the senior Senator from New Hampshire. Nobody else
will ever get it. That is one of the highest honors that anybody could
ever have.
But the point I am making is we are here for only a short time.
Webster occupied this desk. It did not belong to Webster, and it does
not belong to me. It belongs to the people of New Hampshire and the
people of America. The years will go by and the historians will look
back, just like they look back on Lincoln and the Civil War, and they
are going to write about this era. I know one thing, Senator Santorum,
we are on the right side. History is going to judge us as being on the
right side, I promise you that. Don't worry about it. It is a done
deal. We are on the right side, for the same reason that Abraham
Lincoln was on the right side.
Can you imagine Abraham Lincoln taking a poll on whether or not we
should end slavery? Putting his finger to the wind and trying to decide
what the politically expedient thing to do is, to end slavery? Could
you imagine Patrick Henry taking the floor of the Virginia Assembly and
saying I wonder if these folks want liberty or whether they want death?
Maybe I ought to poll them before I make this speech.
Those were men of principle. Those were men of principle. They were
not afraid of the political ramifications. When Patrick Henry said
``Give me liberty or give me death,'' he meant it. He was prepared for
death if he could not have liberty. He meant every word of it. And
Lincoln meant every word of it when he said slavery was wrong and it
was immoral. And I mean every word of it when I say that this is wrong
and this is immoral, and we will be judged on the basis of this vote.
We have the chance to override the veto and send a powerful message.
Today, 3 votes short, 67 votes. There have been a lot of facts
presented here today and there will be more, probably, before the day
is over. Take a fresh look, I ask my colleagues. I beg you. Examine
your consciences. This is a huge conscience issue.
I believe the reason we have made so much progress towards our goal
of outlawing partial-birth abortion is that more and more Senators are
realizing that the opposition to this bill was built on a foundation of
lies--lies. I do not use that word lightly. I am using the very word
that one of the Nation's leading abortion industry lobbyists used, Ron
Fitzsimmons. He has been quoted here earlier, but he publicly admitted
last year that he ``lied through [his] teeth'' when he helped
orchestrate the campaign against partial-birth abortion.
When I stood on the floor here, I was told that there were just a few
dozen a year, that I was some kind of an extremist, a radical.
President Clinton, Vice President Gore, Mrs. Clinton, came to New
Hampshire in 1996 and campaigned against me in the last week of the
election on this issue.
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, Fitzsimmons made the surprisingly candid admission that he had
``lied'' when he claimed that partial-birth abortions are rare.
In those same interviews Fitzsimmons also conceded that he ``lied''
when he claimed that partial-birth abortions are performed only on
women whose lives are in danger or whose unborn children are severely
disabled. ``It made be physically ill,'' he told his interviewer. ``I
told my wife the next day, `I can't do this again.' '' A man of
conscience. 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''--or wrong facts--that have now been conceded by a key leader
of the abortion industry to be ``lies.''
In summary, the President used Fitzsimmons' argument; Fitzsimmons was
lying, and the President should change his position. If the President
of the United States, tonight, would say to his colleagues in the
Senate, ``I was wrong, override me,'' imagine the impact that would
have on this Nation.
Regarding the President, I called upon the President a couple of
years ago with a personal, handwritten note, to meet with me, to meet
with my colleagues privately, publicly, any way he wanted to; on the
record, off the record, with doctors, with his doctors, with my
doctors--any way he wanted, any location, any way, any how, any shape
or form, to discuss this issue so I could present, in 5 or 10 minutes--
that's all I asked for--what I believe to be the truth and to show
where he was being told things that were wrong. He never answered my
letter. Never answered my letter.
Let me repeat it tonight, Mr. President, and I think I speak for
Senator Santorum. We would love to come over and talk to you tonight
about this. We will bring our doctors. You can have all of yours. I
appeal to you to take me up on this. What have you got to lose? Maybe
you will agree with us. If you do, you can ask your colleagues in the
Senate to change their votes.
The truth, Mr. Fitzsimmons told the New York Times, is that ``[i]n
the vast
[[Page S10484]]
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.'' Five months. 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 vetoed this
bill, even though the reasons he gave to justify his previous veto had
turned out to be lies.
Mr. President, following Mr. Fitzsimmons' startling revelations, on
March 4 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 final conclusion:
Mr. Fitzsimmons' 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 Senator Daniel
Patrick Moynihan and Representatives Richard Gephardt and
Susan Molinari voted for the ban. . . . Opponents of the ban
fought hard, even demanding a rollcall 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
misinformation on which he rested his case last time.
Please listen, Mr. President. Please listen to those words.
When the President vetoed H.R. 1122, he did so on the same
discredited basis that he used before. Partial-birth abortions, he
said, are ``sometimes necessary to preserve the woman's health.''
That is a false statement. We have had doctor after doctor say it. We
had Dr. Frist say it on the floor, and we have had other testimony,
and, as I said, 180 letters from other physicians saying it as well.
Mr. President, President Clinton's assertion that partial-birth
abortions are sometimes needed to protect a woman's health, again, is
not true. Even the AMA, who has been quoted today, has said that. The
American Medical Association said in the New York Times, May 26, 1997:
The partial delivery of a living fetus for the purpose of
killing it outside the womb is ethically offensive to most
Americans and physicians. Our panel could not find any
identified circumstances in which the procedure was the only
safe and effective abortive method.
In other words, as Senator Frist has said on the floor, it is a
fringe element that performs that.
There you have it, Mr. President. My colleagues can take a look at
these choices: On the one hand, the claim by the President that
partial-birth abortions should remain legal because it is needed to
protect a woman's health; on the other hand, the American Medical
Association, which is, by the way, pro-choice, saying that partial-
birth abortions should be banned because it never was needed to protect
a woman's health. I will take the American Medical Association on this
one.
Aside from the Fitzsimmons revelations and the AMA's dramatic
decision to support H.R. 1122, I believe another reason why the
partial-birth abortion ban continues to attract greater and greater
support in the Senate is that Senators are coming to realize that this
issue really does transcend abortion. I never made any secret about my
position on abortion. All abortions are wrong. I am speaking for
myself. They all are a taking of a human life, and they are all wrong,
which is why I have introduced a human life amendment to the
constitution of the amendment. I am proud of it. I don't care if I only
get five cosponsors. I am proud of it. I stand on that record, and I
think I will be judged correctly for having introduced it, whether I
get any cosponsors or not.
Indeed, as one Senator, Senator Moynihan, who supported us on the
veto override in the last Congress, put it, partial-birth abortion is
``too close to infanticide.'' Let me go one step further, and it has
been said here, it is infanticide. All abortion is wrong, but this is
not abortion. This is infanticide. This is taking a child in your hands
and executing it.
We need to move away from the partisan rhetoric--not partisan, but
the rhetoric on the pros and cons whether the pro-life community or the
pro-choice community supports this; get away from that and look into
your hearts. It is never too late to change your position on something.
I have done it, and others have in here, I am sure. This was a pretty
stark, truthful way to put it by Senator Moynihan, Mr. President. It
took courage for him to say it, and I commend him for it. It takes a
real person with a lot of courage and a lot of guts to say he was wrong
and change his vote.
Another Senator who didn't support the bill the first time around
also joined us on that override, Senator Arlen Specter, who believes,
he says, that partial-birth abortion is more like infanticide than it
is abortion. Senator Specter said it on the Senate floor September 26,
1996:
In my legal judgment, the medical act or acts of commission
or omission interfering with, or not facilitating the
completion of a live birth after a child is partially out of
a mother's womb constitute infanticide.
I stood on that Senate floor in 1995 with Senator Specter arguing
with me heatedly and differing with me. To Senator Specter's credit, he
studied it, he looked at it, and he had a change of heart. Again, that
takes courage. The line of the law is drawn, Senator Specter said:
When the child is partially out of the womb of a mother, it
is not an abortion, it is infanticide.
When you hear about this being an abortion to protect the health of
the mother or the life of the mother, how does it help the health or
life of the mother to restrain a child from being born, holding it in
the birth canal, head only, until it is killed? No doctor has told me
yet how that enhances the health or the life of the mother.
Those are strong words from Senator Specter, a pro-choice Senator. It
took a lot of guts for him to say it, but he said it.
We are picking up support in the Senate. As I have argued today, more
and more Senators are realizing that the case against this bill is on a
foundation of what have 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.
In addition, 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 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.''
[[Page S10485]]
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?
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
really doubt where that moral giant, Abraham Lincoln, would have stood
on the question before us here today?
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 and thus override President Clinton's
unconscionable, immoral, and dishonest veto of this bill.
I was honored when, in 1996, the National Right to Life Committee
recognized my work in the Senate on behalf of the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act by presenting me with its ``Proudly Pro-Life Award''
at a banquet at the historic Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City.
The most memorable moment of the evening, however, was not when I
received the award. Rather, it was when I heard Gianna Jessen sing.
Gianna Jessen is a beautiful young woman whose life was nearly ended
before she was born. Gianna's teenage biological mother had her aborted
in the final three months of pregnancy by the so-called saline solution
abortion procedure, but Gianna miraculously survived.
Though she survived the abortion attempt, Gianna weighed just two
pounds at birth and was afflicted with cerebral palsy. She spent the
first few months of her life in a Southern California hospital. Though
her doctors doubted that she would ever be able to sit up, to crawl, or
to walk, after years of physical therapy and surgeries, Gianna, now 21
years old, today enjoys an active, productive, and happy life.
As Gianna Jessen stood before the crowd at the Waldorf-Astoria that
night and sang ``Amazing Grace,'' there was not a dry eye in the
house--including mine.
In July of this year, a media report reached my office about the
first known survivor of an attempted partial-birth abortion. According
to the Associated Press and other media accounts, personnel at the A-Z
Women's Center in Phoenix, Arizona, told a 17-year old mother that her
unborn baby was between 23 and 24 weeks' gestational age (in other
words, between 5 and 5\1/2\ months).
Reportedly, after beginning the partial-birth abortion procedure,
abortionist John Biskind found himself dealing with a 6-pound, 2-ounce
baby girl of about 37 weeks (near full term), and he delivered her
alive. She was kept in the hospital with a fractured skull and ``two
deep lacerations'' on her face, but no brain damage.
When I learned about this baby, who pro-life activists call ``Baby
Phoenix,'' I immediately thought of Gianna Jessen. How wonderful it is
that Baby Phoenix will now be able to grow up in this great country of
ours. She may some day stand in front of a pro-life dinner and sing
``Amazing Grace.'' She may become a scientist and help find a cure for
cancer. She may become a United States Senator. She may become the
first woman President of the United States. She may become a Supreme
Court Justice and vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. With life, anything is
possible. I praise God that Baby Phoenix lives.
The case of Baby Phoenix, the first known survivor of an attempted
partial-birth abortion, illustrates that we are dealing with real human
beings here. For Baby Phoenix, once that partial-birth abortion
procedure was started, all that stood between her and a full life was
an abortionist. In his hands, he held the power of life and death.
Thankfully, Mr. President, the abortionist in Baby Phoenix's case,
John Biskind, had a conscience. He saw that he was dealing with a
little human being--all 6 pounds and 2 ounces of her. And he didn't
brutally punch a hole in her skull. He didn't take a suction device and
remove her brain. He didn't kill her. He let her live.
Unfortunately, Baby Phoenix is the only known survivor of an
attempted partial-birth abortion. All the other abortionists who
perform the partial-birth abortion procedure don't have the conscience
of John Biskind. They, too, know that they are dealing with little
human beings. They manipulate their little living bodies. They feel
those tiny babies move. Then, with unspeakable brutality, they forcibly
restrain those little babies from being born, brutally poke scissors
into their little skulls, and then literally suck the lives out of
them.
Today, we can put a stop to the unspeakable brutality of partial-
birth abortion. Two-thirds of the United States House of
Representatives has said ``Yes, stop partial-birth abortion.'' The
American Medical Association has said ``Yes, stop partial-birth
abortion.'' President Clinton has said, ``No, I want partial-birth
abortion on demand to be legal.'' Today, the United States Senate can
say to President Clinton, ``You are wrong.''
I plead with my colleagues. Listen to two-thirds of the House of
Representatives. Think about Baby Phoenix. Listen to the American
Medical Association. Don't listen to the cravenly political deceptions
of President Clinton.
Vote your conscience. Vote your heart. Vote to stop partial-birth
abortion. Vote to override the President's veto and let the Partial-
Birth Abortion Ban Act become the law of this land. We will be a better
country for it.
I can go on, Mr. President. I know there are lots of other things
that I can say, but I will close at this point in the debate by again
reminding my colleagues to separate yourself from the heated exchanges
that we have all had. I see the Senator from Nebraska on the floor. We
have had a couple of exchanges in the past on this issue. But try to
look into your hearts and see if we can't get out of each other's faces
and into each other's hearts and see if we can't get three more votes
to change this horrible procedure.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from California.
Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I yield such time----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California controls time.
Does the Senator yield to the Senator from Nebraska?
Mrs. BOXER. I do, as much time as he may consume.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, first of all, in the spirit of the
suggestion made by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire and
earlier, as well, by the Senator from Pennsylvania, I reached my
conclusion as to what our law ought to be. This is unquestionably a
decision that required not just a considerable amount of research about
what our laws and our Constitution permit us to do, but also a
considerable amount of soul-searching.
In Nebraska, there are many people--friends, family and people whom I
do not know--who have offered their prayers for me during this
deliberation. Before I offer my own words as to why I believe the law
as proposed is both unconstitutional and incorrect, let me say that I
very much appreciate those prayers. I have offered them myself on this
particular issue. I have had a career now of some 14 years serving the
people of Nebraska and have told them almost from day one that though I
may sound from time to time as if I am absolutely convinced on an
issue, I have never, if the evidence proves otherwise, been unwilling
to change my position.
I say to my colleagues, I nearly did so in this case, on account of
very good friends who were urging me otherwise, on account of the
prayers and concerns and the good wishes that were extended to me by
people in Nebraska.
[[Page S10486]]
Mr. President, abortion is a choice a woman makes and, at least in my
limited conversations with women who have had to make that choice, is a
decision that produces a considerable amount of grief, a feeling that
something has been ended no matter at what stage, whether it is done in
the first week or whether it is done in the 15th week. No matter when
it occurs, it produces a considerable amount of grief. Even when the
termination is spontaneous, when it is a spontaneous abortion, a
miscarriage, there is a sense of loss. Something has happened that was
unanticipated. The idea of something good happening has been
interrupted by something that is, to the woman's mind anyway, bad.
It is very important, it seems to me, to begin with that
understanding. I was very moved, I must say--in fact, I told the
distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania--by an article not long ago
about the struggles he and his wife endured. It was a very moving
piece. It does, I think, something that very often is missed by the
public--this comment is unrelated to this particular debate--it shows
the human side of our Members. It is unfortunately true that people
often see us through our positions, through the positions we have
taken, our identity as a Democrat, a Republican and they form an
impression. Sometimes we love you, sometimes we hate you, just based
upon that position. I appreciate very much the willingness of the
Senator from Pennsylvania to allow that story to be told because it
shows the human dimension of this issue, and the grieving and the
terror and the soul-searching that does occur.
I say that, Mr. President, because one of the things that needs to be
understood is, the law does not direct women to make this choice. It
merely gives them the choice, the opportunity to make this decision. It
does not make the decision any easier, it does not make the decision
free of soul-searching and prayer, and, again, from my experience in
talking with women who have made this decision, it does not produce a
feeling that they have just done something wonderful. Indeed, some of
the most powerful people in opposition to a woman's right to choose, to
the current law, are people who have gone through this procedure. So
people need to understand that we begin by extending our prayers, not
just to us lawmakers, but to people who are going through this
decisionmaking process.
What we have attempted to do over the course of this debate is to
balance the rights of the woman who is carrying the fetus and the fetus
itself--not an easy debate. The Senator from New Hampshire again makes
a case, I believe, that abortion in all circumstances should be
illegal. It is very moving, and I am impressed by his passion and the
commitment to this issue.
But in the process of trying to settle this debate, Mr. President, we
have been given guidance by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the guidance of
the Supreme Court in both the decision known as Roe v. Wade and the
decision known as the Casey decision in Pennsylvania. The language of
these decisions needs to guide this Congress and needs to guide the
American people in drafting legislation, drafting laws that determine
how we are going to balance those rights. Otherwise, you should come
as, again, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire has said he
would like to come, and change our Constitution. He wants to change the
Constitution so the Supreme Court can reach a different decision than
they did in either the Roe v. Wade decision or the Casey decision.
Again, Mr. President, I am coming to the floor very mindful of the
wishes and prayers of many people in Nebraska who have listened and
heard this procedure described. And they say, ``It's awful. How can you
allow it to go on under the law?'' And I am going to describe how I
reached the conclusion that this piece of legislation would be, I
believe, both unwise and, I believe, unconstitutional.
First of all, listen to the language--first the language of the
decision in 1973:
For the period of pregnancy prior to this compelling point
[that is the moment of viability; approximately 24 weeks into
pregnancy], the attending physician, in consultation with his
patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the
State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy
should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the
judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of
interference by the State.
That is us. That is what we do with our laws; we determine whether
additional laws need to regulate this decision.
Again, going on:
With respect to the State's important and legitimate
interest in potential life, the ``compelling'' point is at
viability . . .
I emphasize that. Very often I will hear people who are pro-choice
advocates say, ``Well, why are you doing this at all?'' The Court did
say there is a legitimate interest. The Court did provide us guidance
as to how we can pass laws and restrict this type of health service.
There are instructions that enable us to, if we wanted to. We could
write legislation that followed this guidance. I will get to that point
later:
This is so because the fetus then presumably has the
capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb.
State regulation protective of fetal life after viability
thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the
State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability,
it may go so far as to proscribe [prevent] abortion during
that period, except where it is necessary to preserve the
life or health of the mother.
Those are the instructions. And I am willing to vote, and have in the
past, to place restrictions, to proscribe, and say that abortions
cannot be done if the life or the health of the mother is not at stake.
That is what the Court has said. And in many instances there have been
challenges brought by people who have different views and say the
Constitution does not provide that right.
Again, most recently, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court
confirms:
Roe's essential holding, the holding we reaffirm, has three
parts. First is a recognition of the right of the woman to
choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it
without undue interference from the State. Before viability,
the State's interests are not strong enough to support a
prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial
obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the
procedure. Second is a confirmation of the State's power to
restrict abortion after fetal viability, if the law contains
exceptions for pregnancies which endanger a woman's health.
So again, Mr. President, the Court has held--they have heard the
arguments, and they have come back and said yes, to those who say that
Government should not be engaged at all in writing laws, the State does
have a legitimate right to proscribe abortions after viability. Again,
I emphasize, I have voted for such restrictions.
But the Court has held that there must be a protection for the
woman's right to choose if either life or health are at stake. That is
the language of the Court. That is what the Court has said under
challenge from those who believe that the Court erred in its judgment
in 1973.
Thus, when the AMA comes and argues that this procedure should be
banned, I give them heavy weight, substantial weight. But I have as
well to give substantial weight to the Constitution and those who are
interpreting that Constitution on our behalf, the U.S. Supreme Court.
We should attempt, when we write laws governing abortion--for those
of us who believe that a woman should have the right to make a largely
unburdened decision, burdened only by her own conscience, which is
substantial; I say it again for emphasis, I am troubled very often in
this debate that an insufficient amount of attention is paid to the
grieving, to the suffering, to the difficulty that a woman faces at
this particular moment and afterwards--to balance the rights of the
woman against the right of the fetus. That is what we should do. We
should write a piece of legislation that keeps a constitutional balance
in place.
Mr. President, I believe this particular piece of legislation fails
that test. It might, indeed, be a useful exercise, but it is going to
be thrown out. It is going to be thrown out, Mr. President, because it
does two things that the Court has said repeatedly are
unconstitutional.
First of all, let me just read the language, Mr. President. It is a
fairly short and clear description of what the proponents would like
the law to be. It says that:
Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign
commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and
thereby
[[Page S10487]]
kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
That brings the State into it, obviously. The doctor could be fined
or placed in prison as a consequence of doing this procedure in all
States. It gives a right of legal action to the father. It gives a
right of legal action to, I believe, the woman s parents as well. It
gives the State the right to come in and bring a case against that
doctor--but not, Mr. President, only post-viability.
The language of this law does not reference either Roe or Casey. It
does not say that this would apply only post-viability; it applies in
all cases. And though it is quite true that many, as I understand it,
of these procedures are done post-viability--and, by the way, there are
many other procedures that are done, most of which, as they have been
described to me, are equally grizzly and therefore difficult, on a
personal basis, to sustain the argument that this is a good thing to
do--many are done before viability. But the Constitution says that we
are to provide that woman with an uninhibited choice in that
previability stage. And this law makes no distinction between pre- and
post-viability.
Indeed, one of the reasons I supported Senator Daschle's proposal
last year, which was sharply criticized as a way to provide political
cover, is because it did address the legitimate interests of the State
in the post-viability period.
I have no idea whether or not there will be additional bills, or
whether or not the President's veto will be overridden, but my guess
is, even if the veto is overridden--assume for the moment that it will
be--this will not be the last time that we address the question of the
State role to regulate abortion, particularly post-viability.
I say to my colleagues here, and to the people of Nebraska who have
offered their prayers, that I am willing to enter into earnest
negotiations with the goal of placing additional restrictions around
abortions late in pregnancy. And this will probably involve some
careful definitions around the issue of a health exception, and
therefore the circumstances under which a woman can legally choose
abortion.
This bill would create an unspecified prohibition on a particular
procedure--a prohibition that would result in the State putting
restrictions on pre-viability choices and decisions that a woman and
her doctor make. Thus, I believe strongly that the Court would find
this legislation, this law, unconstitutional and that it would strike
it down.
Even more compelling--and I know we have had this debate before, and
I don't want to drag it out because I want to merely offer my thoughts
not so much to my colleagues, who I suspect have mostly made up their
minds on this particular piece of legislation, but to the people in
Nebraska--the Court over and over has used the words ``life or
health.''
I heard the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire say he did not
find any doctor who could justify this procedure. I don't remember his
exact language. However, our reference in this case can't be only
physicians. Our reference has to be the Constitution. The Court has
given us instructions. They told us what we can do and what we can't
do. Unless we change the Constitution, we are not going to be able to
simply ignore the Court's repeated opinion that post-viability
restrictions must include both life and health exceptions.
Again, I come to the floor, having heard the prayers of thousands of
Nebraska friends and people who I don't know quite so well, who have
hoped that I would cast a vote to override this veto. I cannot. Not
because I do not believe that the government has a legitimate interest
to restrict abortions after viability. In fact, I believe it is in all
of our interests to do so.
This legislation does not do that. This legislation deals with a
single procedure across the span of pregnancy. As a consequence of
that, I cannot in either good conscience, or in faith to this
Constitution, cast my vote to override the President's veto.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from
Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I
begin by thanking the Senator for the work he has done on this
legislation. This is, obviously, an issue of great importance, one of
the most important issues we have dealt with in this Congress. His
leadership on this issue has, I think, been a great motivation to many
people here. He has had a great deal of influence in the national
debate on this issue. I compliment him for what he has done and what I
know he will continue to do between now and the vote on this tomorrow
morning.
I am here to urge my colleagues to override the President's veto of
the ban on partial-birth abortion. The abortion issue has been a
difficult and a divisive one for this country. The unfortunate
procedure of partial-birth abortion need not be. The vast majority of
Americans--even those who call themselves pro-choice--oppose partial-
birth abortion.
This overwhelming opposition helped produce legislation to ban that
procedure. Unfortunately, the legislation was vetoed by President
Clinton. Now is the time for the Members of this body to stand up and
to say no to the unnecessary, dangerous and morally troubling procedure
of partial-birth abortion.
We now know that this practice is not rare and that it is not
undertaken only in cases of severe fetal deformity. Literally thousands
of partial-birth abortions are performed in this country every year.
Abortion lobbyist Ron Fitzsimmons has said at least 3,000 to 5,000
partial-birth abortions are performed nationwide each year. According
to the prominent abortion doctor, W. Martin Haskell, over 80 percent of
the partial-birth abortions he performs are purely elective. Ron
Fitzsimmons reports that in the vast majority of cases the procedure is
performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus.
I know that not everyone shares the pro-life position. But in my
view, it is clear that any reservations about restricting abortion need
not, and should not, apply to partial-birth abortion. Regardless of
where one stands on the broader abortion debate, all of us should be
able to see partial-birth abortion for what it is--an unjustifiable and
wholly unnecessary tragedy.
People on the other side of the pro-life debate often say that the
decision of whether or not to undergo an abortion should be left to a
woman and to her doctor. Shouldn't we then listen to the official
position of the American Medical Association, the official professional
association of doctors in America? The AMA has come out unequivocally
against partial-birth abortion in endorsing this legislation. Dr. John
Seward, executive vice president of the AMA, referred to partial-birth
abortion as a procedure ``we all agree is not good medicine.'' The AMA
has made a professional judgment based on the medical expertise of its
members that partial-birth abortion is simply not good medicine.
Further, our former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, has observed
that:
. . . partial-birth abortion is never [and that is his
emphasis] never medically indicated to protect a woman's
health or her fertility. In fact, the opposite is true. The
procedure can pose a significant and immediate threat to both
the pregnant woman's health and fertility.
Those are quotes from Dr. Koop.
Earlier today, we heard from the Senate's only physician Member, Dr.
Frist, who spoke, I thought, both eloquently and with great insight
based on his own scientific knowledge and his background as a
physician, essentially reaching the same conclusions as the American
Medical Association and Surgeon General Koop:
There is simply no valid reason for this procedure to
exist. It saves no lives. It puts mothers at increased risk
for sterility and other complications, and it is in and of
itself, in my judgment, morally unacceptable.
I reference a recent story from the Associated Press that shows just
how dangerous this procedure can be. According to the AP, on June 30 of
this year, Dr. John Biskind delivered a full-term baby girl.
Unfortunately, this little girl was almost killed. She suffered cuts to
her face and a skull fracture. Luckily, this little girl survived and
was adopted by a loving couple. But she literally came within a hair's
breadth of being killed on the threshold of life. This little girl has
survived, but we should not lose track of the cause of her injuries.
[[Page S10488]]
Dr. Biskind attempted to perform a partial-birth abortion. The 17-
year-old mother had come to Dr. Biskind's A to Z Women's Center seeking
an abortion. The clinic performed an ultrasound, determining what they
had was a 23\1/2\-week fetus, and decided to perform a partial-birth
abortion. Dr. Biskind thought he was performing this procedure on a
fetus two-thirds of the way to term; that would be bad enough. But, in
fact, the clinic had made a mistake in the ultrasound. The girl
actually was approaching full term and Dr. Biskind did not realize this
fact until he had already begun aborting her.
This is astounding. According to Dr. Gerster, a Phoenix physician, a
24-week-old fetus weighs an average of 2 pounds, whereas a 36-week-old
fetus weighs, on the average, about 6\1/2\ pounds. As Dr. Gerster
commented:
I don't know how such a grave error could be made in
estimating the size. There shouldn't be that kind of
discrepancy in an ultrasound. It is horrendous.
Horrendous, indeed, Mr. President. Yet, this is the kind of situation
we are attempting to address with this legislation. I think cases like
this are why it is time for us to override the President's veto and
pass this bill.
As I have said throughout my discussion here today, there are
reasonable differences--we understand that--in this Chamber and across
this country over the substantive issue of abortion rights. Even those
who advocate abortion rights are frequently saying--including the
President of the United States--that abortion should be safe and legal
and rare. It is hard for me to believe that these types of abortions,
partial-birth abortions, don't fit outside that definition.
Mr. President, we all have to come to these decisions in our own way,
and I am not here today to tell people who have reached different
conclusions that they are in any way going about it in the wrong
fashion. But I think that this issue is one that is so important, an
issue that I think the country is so united behind, that it is time for
us to take ourselves out of the context of the debate on abortion
rights and look at this from the perspective of what is morally right.
In my judgment, Mr. President--and I know not what decisions others are
going to make tomorrow--it is just not morally right to allow this kind
of procedure to continue.
Each of us here has our own stories, and I respect the stories of my
colleagues on both sides. In our own family, we have had several
instances of children born very early. In my own case, we have twins
who were born several weeks early. We were fortunate; they did not have
serious complications, but they were in a neonatal unit of a hospital
for about 3 weeks. While we were there, we saw less fortunate
situations around us. We saw children that were much smaller, born much
earlier than our babies, clinging to life, children that were born
weighing less than 2 pounds, children that were born 10 and sometimes
12 weeks early. The fight those children all made to survive left me
with an indelible impression about life that I really hadn't had before
that experience.
Yes, I was pro-life, but I had never touched or felt or seen in that
fashion exactly what is at stake. The notion that some of those babies
we saw fighting for life, who had been born in the very timeframe that
partial-birth abortions are occurring, the knowledge that these tiny
infants were real people, the realization of that, left me with a
memory that I will never forget and left me committed to support the
efforts Senator Santorum has led here today, which I hope will finally
result in the end of this practice.
Mr. President, I intend to vote to override tomorrow. I hope that
enough of my colleagues will join in that effort so we are successful.
I recognize that this is an issue that people have different views on.
I hope that finally, at the end of this debate, we can come together
and move forward with something that I think is in the best interest of
our country, and more importantly, in the best interest of our
children.
I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, and I yield the floor.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. President, I was touched by the remarks of the Senator from
Michigan about having premature babies of his own. I stand here today
as a mother, a grandmother, and a Senator. When my babies were born,
one was born 2 months early and one was 6 weeks early. There wasn't one
prayer that I didn't say, there wasn't one emotion I didn't feel. And I
feel that same emotion toward any child born in that circumstance. My
babies grew up healthy and they are now in their thirties, and one has
made me a grandmother.
But that is not what this debate is about. This debate is about
whether we are going to protect the lives of women and whether we are
going to protect the health of women. I say here today that, as long as
I am here, I will work to do that. These are women who find themselves
in tragic situations, traumatic situations, with a pregnancy that has
gone terribly wrong. With a pregnancy which could endanger their
health, their life, their fertility, and their ability to have a family
in the future.
This bill is extreme. It is dangerous for women. Why do I say that?
It has no exception to protect women's health. The exception for a
woman's life is very narrowly drawn. It is not the true life exception
that we have used in other bills. So this bill is extreme, the bill is
dangerous, and the bill turns its back on the health of women. As
Senator Kerrey from Nebraska has said, clearly, it is unconstitutional.
I am not just standing here because the bill is unconstitutional. Very
clearly, the constitutional law that governs is Roe v. Wade, which says
you must always consider the life or the health of a mother.
I am standing here because I care about the health of women and their
lives. I don't want to see this bill become the law of the land. I hope
my colleagues will stand for the health and the life of women and
support the President's veto.
Roe v. Wade guarantees American women the right to choose. In the
early stages of a woman's pregnancy, a State may not interfere with her
right to end the pregnancy. In the midterm of a pregnancy, a State may
regulate abortion procedures, but only to protect the woman's health.
That is what Roe says. After viability of the fetus, when the fetus
could live outside the woman either with or without life support, a
State can regulate and, yes, even prohibit abortions under Roe. States
can prohibit abortions after viability, except--except--for the life of
the woman or the health of the woman.
The life and the health of women must always be protected. That is
the law. If we chip away at those exceptions, we endanger women
because, make no mistake, this isn't the first attempt to stop a
procedure and walk away from the life or health exception. There will
be many attempts. There will be other procedures. There will be other
ways to stop them. My colleagues on the other side are very honest
about it, they want to criminalize abortion. They are honest about it
and I appreciate that. I know this is just one way they are going to
try to get to their ultimate goal. If we don't hold the line here on
life or health, we will lose this right.
Mr. President, the bill we are debating directly contradicts Roe. As
I said, and as the Senator from Nebraska before me said, it is
unconstitutional because it doesn't protect the health of the woman. It
is silent. It doesn't use the words ``health of the woman.'' Again, it
doesn't contain a true life exception. It is a very narrow life
exception. So even her life would be threatened if we allow this bill
to become law.
My colleagues have quoted the fine Senator from Tennessee, Senator
Frist, who is a doctor. They have quoted Surgeon General Koop. They are
not OB/GYNs. They are not obstetrician-gynecologists. The American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists--those are the doctors who
bring babies into the world. Those are the doctors who deal with these
emergency abortions--39,000 strong. They are specialists in women's
reproductive health. What do they say about this legislation? They
oppose it. The organization says that this bill is--and I am quoting--
``dangerous.'' Who is it a danger to? It is dangerous to women. It is
dangerous to the women.
[[Page S10489]]
The American Medical Women's Association also firmly opposes this
legislation.
This bill, if it becomes law, will force doctors to make medical
decisions that jeopardize women's health. Doctors will be afraid. They
will be fearful because, if they can't meet the very narrowly drawn
exception for life, but they use the procedure because they are afraid
the woman would die, the doctor can go to jail for 2 years and be
fined. If the woman made this decision, let's say after she learned
that the baby's brain is developing outside the head, and she didn't
want to carry the pregnancy to term--maybe because she was afraid that
her husband might disapprove, or maybe he was an alcoholic, or maybe he
was a drug addict, maybe he was estranged--the husband can also sue the
doctor. He can sue, very interestingly, for psychological distress.
When we talk to our colleagues on the other side, they don't want to
include any psychological reason whatsoever when a woman has to choose.
But, yes, if the man is suffering psychological distress, he can sue.
No woman, in my opinion, wants to visit her doctor about her
pregnancy--and I have done it in my own life--and see her Senator
lurking over the doctor's shoulder. People often don't like us lurking
over any parts of their life, let alone, let alone, when they have a
medical procedure.
I find it interesting that some Senators who come here and say there
is too much government--``get government off our backs, there is too
much government''--believe that they know more than physicians, OB/
GYNs, who deal with real life in the real world. These Senators believe
that they know better than a family about what to do in such a
situation.
No woman wants to walk into her doctor's office and see a sign that
says, ``Warning, Senate interference in your doctor's decisions may be
hazardous to your health.'' Or, ``Warning, your doctor's hands are
tied, he or she may not choose the best procedure for you because your
Senator has decided what procedure is allowed and what procedure is not
allowed.'' Forget what you learned in medical school; forget about what
you think is best for women; the Senator is telling you what procedure
to use.
My colleagues in the Senate say it is dangerous. Whether you have
cancer, Alzheimer's, AIDS, diabetes, Parkinson's, heart disease, or any
condition--all the diseases we fear--Senators should not be making
decisions about what procedures should be used. Senators should not
prevent a doctor from using a procedure that he or she determined was
needed to protect the patient's health, to protect her from
infertility, to protect her from paralysis, or worse. Government should
not be in the business of eliminating safe, medical options for
patients.
We all want to know, I say to my colleagues who are loving parents,
what would you do if your physician called you and said, ``I just
examined your daughter, and I believe her life is threatened,'' or ``I
believe she might never have a child again, and I believe the only
procedure to use is the one that Senators here want to ban.'' I believe
in your heart of hearts you would get down on your knees, pray to God,
and say, ``Save my daughter's life. Help her be able to have a child
again.'' I believe that.
If you didn't, if you chose another way, that is fine for you. But
don't force everyone into that situation where they don't have the
option that they need. If it is all right for you to narrow your
options for your daughter, for your granddaughter, I bless you for it.
No one is forcing you to do that. But I think it is important that
women have the option to save their lives, to save their health. And,
yet, there is not one word in this about an exception for health, and
it is a very narrowly drawn exception for life.
Doctors should make medical decisions in consultation with their
patients. Doctors should be free to make decisions that are best for
their patients' health. When doctors take their Hippocratic oath, they
say, ``Do no harm.'' ``Do no harm.'' But if in their heart they believe
they are going to do harm, and it is because Senators tied their hands,
they find themselves in an unacceptable situation. They can't look at
the woman or her husband; they can't look in the eyes of the parents of
that woman and say, ``I am doing everything I can,'' when they know
they are afraid to use a procedure because they cannot understand the
vague language that Senators put into a bill.
If enacted, this bill could threaten the health of women across the
country--our sisters, our daughters, our mothers, our nieces, our
coworkers, our friends, our granddaughters.
I want to talk about the life exception. It is very narrow.
A woman's life would be protected only if her life is in danger by a
``physical disorder, illness, or injury.'' That is a quote from the
bill. But if her life is in danger for any other reason, the life
exception does not apply. In other words, if the pregnancy itself
endangers a woman's life, the exception does not apply. Even the new
Hyde language, which narrows the exception for life of a woman,
acknowledges that the pregnancy itself may endanger a woman's life.
But, yet, the language in this bill includes an exception only if she
has a physical disorder, illness, or injury, and not any condition that
arises from the pregnancy itself.
So today I think we need to face the fact that this bill has crafted
a unacceptable life exception. And for those who are voting for it who
think that they are protecting the life of the woman, read it again.
Read again the Henry Hyde language which we have used for many years.
Even the narrow version is different than this. This is dangerous.
Let me say again: this bill, as it is currently written, is
dangerous.
We have some people in the galleries today who have had procedures
that would be banned by this bill. They are loving mothers. They are
loving, loving mothers. Tiffany Benjamin is from California--this is
her picture. This is her beautiful 3-year-old baby. He is now 3. He is
a little younger here. She had this child after undergoing a procedure
which her doctors recommended and which this bill would ban. And now
she has this beautiful child.
Also up in the gallery is Maureen Britell from the District of
Columbia area, who had also had a procedure which would be banned by
this bill. Maureen is a devoted mother.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will withhold.
The Senator is reminded of rule 19, section 7, which reads: ``No
Senator shall introduce or bring to the attention of the Senate during
the session any occupant of the Gallery of the Senate. No motion to
suspend this rule shall be in order, nor may the Presiding Officer
entertain any request to suspend it by unanimous consent.''
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, very much, Mr. President. I was unaware of the
rule.
I will say, then, that there are women who are here today in Congress
walking the Halls. And they are looking into the eyes of Senators. They
are asking them, please don't do anything. Don't do anything to
jeopardize the health and the life of any woman.
These are women who have had procedures that would be banned by this
bill. These are women who are loving mothers. These are women who are
begging us, begging us, to protect the lives and the health of women.
I am going to tell you some stories.
As I understand it, it is all right to show photographs of women. Is
that correct, Mr. President? Am I permitted to show photographs of
people from the State?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is so permitted.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
This is Coreen Costello. She is a registered Republican. She
describes herself as very conservative. The reason I mention that is
because what we are debating here today is not a partisan issue. Coreen
is clear that she and her family are strongly opposed to abortion, and
yet she wants us to stand with the President on this veto.
In March of 1995, when she was 7 months pregnant with her third
child, Coreen had premature contractions and was rushed to the
emergency room. She discovered through an ultrasound that there was
something seriously wrong with her baby. The baby, named Katherine
Grace, had a deadly neurological disorder and had been unable to move
inside Coreen's womb for almost 2 months. The movements Coreen had been
feeling were not the healthy kicking of a baby, they were actually
nothing more than bubbles and amniotic
[[Page S10490]]
fluid which had puddled in Coreen's uterus.
The baby had not been able to move for months. The chest cavity was
unable to rise and fall. Her lungs and chest were left severely
underdeveloped, almost to the point of nonexistence. Her vital organs
were atrophying. The doctors told Coreen and her husband the baby was
not going to survive, and they recommended terminating the pregnancy.
Coreen said, ``This is not an option. I will not have an abortion. I
want to go into labor naturally.'' She wanted the baby born on God's
time. She did not want to interfere.
The Costellos spent 2 weeks going from expert to expert. They
considered many options, but they all brought severe risks. They
considered inducing labor. They were told it would be impossible due to
the baby's position. Also, the baby's head was so swollen with fluid,
it was already larger than that of a full-term baby, so labor--let me
repeat, labor--was not an option.
They considered a cesarean section, but the doctors were adamant that
the risks to her health were too great. In the end, they followed their
doctor's recommendation and Coreen had an abortion procedure that my
colleagues want to outlaw today.
You just heard a story, a real story. Coreen and her husband faced a
tragedy that most people never have to face. But because Coreen had
access to the medical procedure her doctor felt was the safest and most
appropriate, she and her husband were able to keep their dream of
having a large family, and you see them here in this picture. They now
have three happy, healthy children, and Coreen is due to deliver
another child any day now.
Coreen writes to us, to every Member of the Senate, I could not have
had this family without this procedure. ``Please, please, give other
women and their families this chance,'' she says. ``Let us deal with
our tragedies without any unnecessary interference from our Government.
Leave us with our God,'' she writes to us, ``our families, and our
trusted medical experts.''
Now, I want to say to my colleagues this story is what happens to
real people. This is real. This is a woman who says she is very
conservative and she is very against abortion. But she is asking us to
not do away with the procedure she had, so that other women will have
the opportunity she had to bear children in the future.
In the spring of 1994, Viki Wilson, a registered nurse, and her
husband Bill, a physician, were expecting their third child. Viki was
in 36th week of her pregnancy, and the nursery was ready. Her family
was anticipating the arrival of their new ``little one.''
Her doctor ordered an ultrasound which detected something that all
her prenatal testing had failed to detect. Approximately two-thirds of
her daughter's brain had formed on the outside of her skull.
This deformity was causing Viki's daughter to have seizures. Over
time, these seizures became more and more severe. They threatened to
puncture Viki's uterus. Even if Viki could carry her daughter to term,
the doctors feared that her uterus would rupture in the birthing
process.
Viki could not give birth to her child without seriously jeopardizing
her own health--or even her life.
After consulting with other doctors and their clergy, Viki and her
husband made the painful choice to have an abortion in order to protect
Viki's health.
In December 1996, Viki and Bill were thrilled to welcome a baby boy
named Christopher into their family.
Viki Stella was in the third trimester of her pregnancy when her son
was diagnosed with nine major anomalies, including a fluid-filled
cranium with no brain tissue at all, compacted flattened vertebrae, and
skeletal dysplasia. Her doctors told her that the baby would never live
outside of her womb.
Viki writes ``My options were extremely limited because I am diabetic
and don't heal as well as other people. Waiting for normal labor to
occur, inducing labor early, or having a C-section would have put my
health at risk.'' She continues ``My only option . . . was a highly
specialized, surgical abortion procedure developed for women with
similar difficult conditions.''
Though she was distraught over losing her son, Viki knew the
procedure was the right option. As promised, the surgery preserved her
fertility. In December 1995, she gave birth to a darling son, Nicholas.
Viki's situation was heart wrenching. She was told her son was dying
inside her. Her diabetes severely limited her medical options. Congress
has no business interfering with these difficult and personal medical
decisions.
The point is, we must not go back to the days before Roe v. Wade when
women died or women were maimed. We can not go back to the days when
women's health was not considered important, when women's lives were
not considered important. Any restrictions on women's access to
abortion must always make an exception for the life and health of the
woman. If we do not, as sure as I am standing here, women will die,
because we know what happened before Roe. They did die.
In response to arguments that proponents of this bill make that it
bans one specific abortion procedure, I respond that we are not asking
anyone to undergo any abortion procedure who has a moral problem with
it. For those who think abortion is wrong, who would rather their
daughters have a cesarean and believe that God would take care of it,
that is what they should do. That is what is important about being pro-
choice; we give people the choice. No one has to undergo any abortion
procedure if they do not want to. All we are saying is, do not outlaw a
procedure for every woman, because there will be women like this who
will choose that procedure because they want to make sure that they can
have children again.
Now, I want to point something out. In the last debate we had on
this, Senator Feinstein and I offered an amendment. It was a substitute
for the bill we are debating today. And do you know what it said? It
said that we oppose all late-term abortions except for life and health
of the woman. We went to our Republican colleagues, and we said, ``Why
don't you join hands with us on this? Roe says you can restrict in the
late term. We are willing to do that. Of course, we are in favor of
Roe. And we will walk down this middle aisle here, hold hands across
party lines here, and say no more abortion late term except for life
and health.''
They did not want to do it. And when I asked them why, they were
honest. They said, ``We don't believe women will tell the truth about
the health exception. We believe they will say it is about health but
in their heart it is not about that.''
I want to challenge that today. I know that a woman in this
circumstance, who has carried a child into the late term, desperately
wants that baby. I have been there myself. When my babies were born
prematurely, I can't even tell you the feeling that I had, that I might
lose them, because in those years it was very difficult. But they made
it. They hung on.
So I know that a woman who gets to the late term is not going to lie
about her health and say, ``Oh, give me this abortion; it's the
seventh, eighth month. I have decided against this.'' That is not what
a woman will do.
The health exception is only for circumstances when there is
something seriously wrong.
So I think suggesting that a woman in the late term will not tell the
truth about her health and why she is seeking an abortion is more than
insulting to women. It is dispiriting. I know my colleagues could never
think that of their children, their daughters, their nieces. I know
they could not. Then why would they leap to that conclusion of other
women?
I strongly support passing legislation that says no late-term
abortion whatsoever except to protect the life and the health of a
woman.
But I say to you that I will not support this legislation, with
absolutely no health exception, and with a life exception that is very
narrowly drawn. If this legislation becomes law, women like Coreen, who
are pro-life and anti-abortion, but who want to protect their ability
to have children in the future, may not have the chance to become
pregnant again. Women who are pro-life, who are anti-abortion, may not
have the chance to have a family just like Coreen Costello pictured
here, yet again pregnant with her fourth child. Coreen, very
conservative, writes to us: Please, please support the President's
veto.
[[Page S10491]]
So, I say to my friends, I know what a difficult debate this is. I
know the heartfelt emotions on both sides, and I respect the heartfelt
emotions on both sides. I am going to close here with a letter that
each member of the Senate received from 729 rabbis. I think this is
appropriate since we are going into the most holy time of the Jewish
people. This is what the rabbis conclude:
Abortion is a deeply personal issue. Women are capable of
making moral decisions, often in consultation with their
clergy, families and physicians, on whether or not to have an
abortion. We believe that religious matters are best left to
religious communities, not politicians. . . . We urge you to
vote to sustain President Clinton's veto.
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:
September 10, 1998.
Dear Senator: We are writing to urge you to vote to sustain
President Clinton's veto of H.R. 1122, the so-called
``Partial-Birth Abortion'' Act of 1997.
As rabbis, we are often called upon to counsel families
facing difficult decisions concerning reproductive health
choices, including abortion. Like other members of the
clergy, we turn to religious law and teachings for guidance
in providing such counsel. Judaism has laws governing the
issue of abortion, but each case is considered individually.
As in other religions, in Judaism, there are different
interpretations of these laws and teachings, and we respect
and welcome debate on these issues. However, this debate
should remain among those who practice our faith, not on the
floor of Congress.
The debate surrounding reproductive choice speaks to one of
the basic foundations upon which our country was
established--the freedom of religion. It speaks to the right
of individuals to be respected as moral decision makers,
making choices based on their religious beliefs and
traditions as well their consciences.
In addition, we are concerned about the language of the
bill itself. Given the fact that the ``Partial Birth
Abortion'' Act uses vague and non-medical language to
describe the prohibited procedures, it would be very
difficult for anyone, whether clergy or physician, to be
certain about which medical procedures would be banned. Given
the bill's nebulous language and the importance of the issue,
we find it difficult to engage in a theological debate on
this matter.
Abortion is a deeply personal issue. Women are capable of
making moral decisions, often in consultation with their
clergy, families and physicians, on whether or not to have an
abortion. We believe that religious matters are best left to
religious communities, not politicians.
Once again, we urge you to vote to sustain President
Clinton's veto.
Sincerely,
Signed by 729 rabbis.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this letter is signed by rabbis from
Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington State, West Virginia
and Wisconsin.
I thank my colleagues who have participated in this debate. I see
Senator Robb is here. I know this is a tough one. I know this is hard.
I just appreciate his being here.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask if the Senator will yield for a
question about some of the things that she stated in her testimony?
Mrs. BOXER. I will come back onto the floor shortly. At the moment I
have a meeting, and people waiting for me.
Mr. SANTORUM. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of overriding
President Clinton's veto of the partial birth abortion ban. I would
like to begin by thanking the manager of the bill, the Senator from
Pennsylvania, for his continuing and outstanding work on this important
issue.
No issue cuts to the core of our values like the issue of abortion.
It challenges us to define our notion of liberty and calls into
question our most fundamental assumptions about life. Today, we do not
debate whether enactment of a measure will positively or negatively
affect the welfare of some Americans. Today, we debate life and death.
Last Congress and again last year, we voted to end the barbaric
method of infanticide known as partial birth abortion. Both times, the
President vetoed the ban. In so doing, he ignored the testimony of
medical experts who assured us that this procedure is never necessary
to preserve the life or health of the mother. He also dismissed
evidence showing that thousands of partially-born children are
routinely and electively killed across the country each year.
The President not only accepted, but helped disseminate the lies and
false testimony of pro-abortion advocates. Though the lies were finally
exposed, the President demonstrated that his support for this procedure
did not depend on the truth. The distortion reached a point where even
his allies in the media could no longer defend the President's veto.
Richard Cohen, an avowed liberal and pro-choice columnist with the
Washington Post, concluded,
President Clinton, apparently as misinformed as I was about
late-term abortions, now ought to look at the new data. So
should the Senate. . . . Late-term abortions once seemed to
be the choice of women who, really, had no other choice. The
facts are now different. If that's the case, then so should
be the law. (Wash. Post, 9/17/96.)
And yet, once again, the President's apologists have taken to the
floor to defend the indefensible.
This procedure is never necessary to save the life and preserve the
health of the unborn child's mother. Four specialists in OB/GYN and
fetal medicine representing the Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth
have written:
Contrary to what abortion activists would have us believe,
partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to
protect a woman's health or her fertility. In fact, the
opposite is true: The procedure can pose a significant and
immediate threat to both the pregnant woman's health and
fertility. (Wall St. Journal, 9/19/96).
Indeed, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop stated,
I believe that Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical
advisors on what is fact and what is fiction in reference to
late-term abortions. Because in no way can I twist my mind to
see that the late-term abortion as described--you know,
partial birth, and then the destruction of the unborn child
before the head is born--is a medical necessity for the
mother.
Nor should we accept the myth that this procedure is rarely utilized.
According to interviews conducted by the Record of Bergen County, New
Jersey, physicians in New Jersey alone claim to perform at least 1,500
partial birth abortions each year--three times the number which the
National Abortion Federation has claimed occur in the entire country.
Mr. President, a legislative ban on partial birth abortions is
constitutional. Indeed, allowing this life-taking procedure to continue
would be inconsistent with our obligation under section 5 of the 14th
Amendment to protect life.
Although opponents will point to decisions in which activist federal
judges invalidated state-passed bans, language nearly identical to that
which is in this bill has been upheld in a number of courts. The ban's
requirement that the abortionist deliberately and intentionally deliver
a living fetus that is then killed implicate the partial birth
procedure and no other. Judges who deemed the ban unconstitutionally
vague ignored the text, and instead, saw fit to substitute their views
in place of the views clearly expressed by the various state
legislatures.
Mr. President, I want to share a word of caution with those claiming
that a ban on partial birth abortions is unconstitutional. If they
truly believe that outlawing this procedure is impermissibly vague, the
inevitable conclusion people will draw is that infanticide and abortion
are indistinguishable. I do not see how this argument provides any
solace to the defenders of this gruesome procedure.
Finally, before this debate is through, I expect those defending the
President's veto will say that opponents of partial birth abortion are
really against all abortions. Well, Mr. President, I cannot speak for
other Senators, but on that charge, I plead guilty. I believe abortion
is the taking of innocent human life and has no place in a culture that
values human life. I believe that precious human life
[[Page S10492]]
should be nurtured in love and protected in law. For this reason, I
support a constitutional amendment to protect human life.
On January 20th of this year, I chaired a hearing in the Constitution
Subcommittee on the 25th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. We looked at how
the Supreme Court's decision failed to provide a framework for sound
constitutional interpretation or to reflect the reality of modern
medical practice. This latter failure is not surprising since the Court
had neither the capacity to evaluate the accuracy of the medical data,
nor a way to foresee the remarkable advances that would make the then-
current data obsolete.
From Dr. Jean Wright of the Egleston Children's Hospital at Emory
University, we learned that the age of viability has been pushed back
five weeks, from 28 to 23 weeks, since Roe was decided. We learned that
surgical advances now allow surgeons to partially remove an unborn
child through an incision in the womb, fix a congenital defect, and
slip the ``pre-viable'' infant back into the womb. However, I think the
most interesting thing we learned at the hearing is that unborn babies
can sense pain in just the 7th week of gestation.
Mr. President, these facts should help inform this debate. For
instance: If we know the unborn can feel pain at seven weeks, why is it
such a struggle to convince Senators that stabbing a six month, fully-
developed and partially-delivered baby with forceps and extracting its
brain is wrong?
I realize, however, that not everyone agrees with my view on
abortion. Indeed, I recognize that the American people remain deeply
divided on this issue. But where there is common ground, we need to
move forward and protect life.
One issue on which there is consensus is parental consent. Most
Americans agree that parents should be involved in helping their young
daughters to make the critically important decision of whether or not
to have an abortion. A recent CNN/USA Today survey found that 74
percent of Americans support parental consent before an abortion is
performed on a girl under age 18.
Last month, I introduced the Putting Parents First Act, which would
require parental consent before a minor could obtain an abortion.
Enactment of this legislation would allow Congress to protect the
guiding role of parents as it protects human life.
Today's vote--to end the cruel practice of partial birth abortion--
presents another opportunity for Americans on both sides of the
underlying abortion issue to find common ground. The American people
agree that a procedure which takes an unborn child, one able to be
sustained outside the womb, removes it partially and then kills it is
so cruel, so inhumane, so barbaric as to be intolerable. Indeed, after
the procedure was described for them, fully 84 percent of the American
people said Congress should outlaw it.
Mr. President, legislatures in more than 20 states have followed
Congress's lead and passed laws outlawing this procedure. Two-thirds of
the House of Representatives already has voted to overturn the
President's veto. And when this chamber voted, more than a dozen
Democrat Senators joined us in attempting to override the veto.
Mr. President, a consensus has formed. The American people and a
substantial majority of their elected representatives in Congress want
to eliminate this gruesome procedure from our nation's hospitals and
clinics. The will of the American people should not be thwarted by the
twisted science and moral confusion that has engulfed this
Administration.
Mr. President, let me close by saying that if we are not successful
today in overriding the President's veto, this will not be the end of
the debate. We will come back next year and we will vote again. We will
continue to vote on this issue of life and death until the voice of the
American people is heard.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, one of the most tragic and saddest days in
our nation's history was the day the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade
that unborn babies can legally be killed by their mothers. Each of us
who has fought, heart and soul, to undo that damaging decision,
understood so well on January 22, 1973, that we had yet to see what
devastation would come of such a horrendous rule.
Indeed, when a nation condones instead of condemns the inhumane
procedure known as partial birth abortion, it is clear our worst fears
have come true.
I am grateful to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Santorum) for his strength and conviction in standing up in defense of
countless unborn babies. Rick Santorum's willingness to lead the fight
on behalf of passage of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is a
demonstration of courage.
Our hearts and prayers go out to him and Karen, for their loss of
their precious baby son, Michael Gabriel.
Mr. President, since May 20, 1997, when the Senate voted 64-36 to
outlaw the partial birth abortion procedure, a six-pound baby girl was
born in the state of Arizona. Of course, there have been countless
other precious little lives who have graced this world with their
presence since that time.
What is exceptional about this baby girl, is that she is the first
known survivor of the partial birth abortion procedure. Amazingly
enough, while the abortionist was in the process of performing the
partial birth abortion, this little one's life was spared when it was
realized that she was further along in her gestational development than
thought.
Incidentally, it is due to this type of unawareness regarding the
developing stages of a baby growing inside a mother's womb, that has
led to the senseless murder of millions of the most innocent human
beings.
Thankfully, this baby girl is no longer faceless. Although, her head
has been marred by the instruments of the abortionist, and she may
carry this scar as a reminder of her close encounter with death, she
has been given a name and a home. Not surprisingly, one of the millions
of couples who are anxiously waiting to adopt, has taken her into their
loving family. Proving once more, there is no such thing as an unwanted
baby, just unwanted by some.
I sincerely pray, Mr. President, that this country has not grown
completely stone-cold in its response to the sanctity of human life.
But, that Americans would be moved to reevaluate their views on the
troublesome issue of abortion when they hear of the baby girl in
Arizona, who was just minutes away from having her life cruelly and
painfully ended. More specifically, I pray one individual in particular
will not for a third time, turn a deaf ear to the countless cries of
the other unborn babies who may not be as fortunate to have their lives
miraculously spared. I am of course referring to the President of the
United States, who has signed the death sentence of the most innocent
and helpless human beings imaginable by twice vetoing the underlying
legislation.
President Clinton, and his cadre of extreme pro-abortion allies, have
sought to explain the necessity of a procedure that allows a doctor to
deliver a baby partially, feet-first from the womb, only to have his or
her brains brutally removed.
However, well-known medical doctors, obstetricians and gynecologist
have repeatedly rejected the assertion that a partial birth abortion is
needed to protect the health of a women in a late-term complicated
pregnancy. Even the American Medical Association wrote a letter
endorsing the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.
Mr. President, there is much to be said about the facts surrounding
the number of partial-birth abortions performed annually and the reason
they are performed--or at least the given, stated reason. It is hard to
overlook the confession of Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the
National Coalition of Abortion Providers, who admitted that he,
himself, had deceived the American people on national television about
the number and the nature of partial-birth abortions.
Mr. Fitzsimmons now estimates that up to 5,000 partial-birth
abortions are conducted annually on healthy women carrying healthy
babies. This is a far cry from the rhetoric espoused by Washington's
pro-abortion groups who maintain that only 500 partial-birth abortion
are performed every year, and only in extreme medical circumstances.
Mr. President, it is time for the Senate to once and for all settle
this matter and pass the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act with a veto-
proof vote and affirm the need to rid America of this
[[Page S10493]]
senseless, brutal form of killing. It is also important to note that
the American people recognize the moral significant of this
legislation. The majority of Americans agree that the government must
out-law the partial birth abortion. A poll conducted by CNN/Time in
January of this year, shows that 74 percent of Americans want the
partial birth procedure banned. In fact, more than two dozen states
have passed legislation similar to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
Mr. President, regardless of the outcome, when the Senate votes on
the question of whether to override President Clinton's veto of the
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the impact will have grave
consequences. For those who care deeply about the most innocent and
helpless human life imaginable, failure to override the Clinton veto
will border on calamitous.
The President of the United States should have to explain to the
American people why he will not sign this ban over and over again. The
spotlight will no longer shine on the much-proclaimed right to choose.
Senators have been required to consider whether innocent, tiny baby-
partially-born, just 3 inches from the protection of the law-deserves
the right to live, and to love and to be loved. The baby is the center
of debate in this matter.
I remember so vividly the day in January 1973, when the Supreme Court
handed down the decision to legalize abortion. It was hard to find many
people to speak up, certainly on the floor of the Senate, on behalf of
unborn babies.
But it is time, once again, for Members of the Senate to stand up and
be counted for or against the most helpless human beings imaginable,
for or against the destruction of innocent human life in such a
repugnant way. The Senate simply must pass the Partial Birth Abortion
Ban Act, and I pray that it will do it by a margin of at least 67 votes
in favor of the ban.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this is the eve of the second Senate vote
to override the President's veto of the Partial Abortion Ban Act. I am
proud to be a co-sponsor of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to
listen to their consciences and vote to override the veto and enact the
ban.
Contray to the assertions of some, this bill is not about a woman's
right to choose to have an abortion. It's not about Roe v. Wade.
Regardless of one's views on abortion in general, the partial birth
abortion procedures should be abhorrent in a civilized society. It is a
gruesome procedure, performed late in the term, which most physicians
believe is never medically necessary. Most Americans agree it should be
banned.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban has passed the Congress twice now with
my support, first in 1996 and again last year. However, the President
has twice vetoed this legislation against the will of the American
people. I hope the Senate does the right thing by overriding the veto.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
chargeable to the Democratic manager.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Senator is recognized.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to urge colleagues who had the
courage to oppose this legislation when it was considered by the Senate
last year to demonstrate again that same courage by voting to sustain
the President's veto of the so-called partial-birth abortion bill.
There is no question that this is a gut-wrenching issue. I know how
passionately most of those feel who gather at the Capitol today and
tomorrow to support a ban on this medical procedure and want us to
override the President's veto. Those who have been telephoning,
writing, and e-mailing us in such overwhelming numbers are equally
emotional in expressing the depth of their feeling in opposition to
abortion generally and to this procedure in particular.
This will be a very tough vote. But, as a matter of sound public
policy, it is the right vote, and it is consistent with our
Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. If this legislation
were to become law, the Congress would be telling physicians how to
practice medicine, and Senators, with one exception, are not trained or
certified to do that. In fact, the only Member of this body who is a
physician made a comment during an interview on HMO reform recently
about who should, and, more important, who should not be practicing
medicine. He said that ``[Congress] should not be practicing medicine.
. . . Doctors should be practicing medicine. That's very clear.''
Mr. President, it is important that everyone understand what is
really at issue here. This debate is not about whether or when to
terminate a pregnancy, because this bill will prevent not a single
abortion; it is only about how to terminate a pregnancy. If it is
otherwise lawful for a woman to terminate a pregnancy, this bill will
only require that she and her doctor choose another medical procedure,
even though her doctor may believe that procedure is less protective of
her health.
In some States, it is legal for a woman to terminate a pregnancy in
the third trimester, even when the life or health of the mother are not
at issue. This bill does not address that situation at all.
It is appropriate to note, however, that some of us supported a tough
ban on third-trimester abortions when this bill was considered last
year, but our efforts were defeated by proponents of this bill in an
effort to keep a very politically potent issue alive. But I ask those
who want to keep abortions safe, legal, and rare, as I do, and who are
disturbed by this procedure, as I am, to stop for a moment and think:
What specific abortion procedure would you prefer? Because this
legislation will necessarily encourage the use of some other procedure
that I believe, if we focus on the specific details of the alternative
procedure, we would find equally disturbing.
In truth, this debate is really about how an abortion is performed
and, more essentially, about who chooses. It is about whether Congress
chooses or whether American women and their doctors choose. I believe
American women and their doctors should choose. I am troubled that at
the heart of this legislation is an incredible presumption, the
presumption that this Congress is more concerned or better qualified to
judge than expectant parents about what is best for their families.
In matters this personal, what is best for American families should
be decided by American families based on their individual beliefs and
faith. Most opponents of this ban have very strong convictions about
when life begins. But ultimately, Mr. President, the very question of
when life begins is also a matter of belief, a matter of faith, a
matter between individuals and their God. Some denominations believe
life begins at conception. Others believe life begins at birth. Still
another believes life begins 120 days after conception, at the time the
soul enters the fetus.
My point here is that we must be very careful when legislating
matters of faith, ours or someone else's. And in the absence of
knowing, rather than believing, when life begins, we are forced to draw
some very difficult lines. That is what the Supreme Court did in Roe v.
Wade. The Court said that in the first trimester, the decision to
continue a pregnancy is solely within the discretion of the mother; in
the second trimester, the Government may impose reasonable regulations
designed to protect the health of the mother; and in the third
trimester, the rights of the unborn child are recognized, with the
rights of the child weighed against the rights of the mother to escape
harm or death.
The Court has been clear in protecting a woman's life and health,
both before and after viability, even striking down a method-of-choice
case because it failed to require that maternal health be the
physician's paramount consideration.
Proponents of this bill frequently cite the American Medical
Association's support for this legislation, but not the College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists' opposition to it. In fact, the ACOG
has told us ``the intervention of legislative bodies into medical
decisionmaking is inappropriate, ill-advised and dangerous.''
Again, Mr. President, we are a Congress of legislators, not a
Congress of physicians. There are places we should
[[Page S10494]]
not go and decisions we should not make. A respect for the judgment of
physicians, a respect for the rights and needs of families in often
excruciatingly difficult circumstances, and a respect for our
Constitution ought to lead us to conclude that this bill should not
pass.
Let me conclude by saying that I am pro-choice, I am not pro-
abortion. I respect those who believe that abortions should never be
performed, for religious or moral or personal reasons, and I believe
that those individuals should follow their faith and choose not to have
one. I particularly admire the convictions of those who choose life,
even in the most difficult circumstances. But in choosing life, they
choose. They choose life, just as families that make different and
sometimes agonizing choices should also be allowed to choose.
I believe that, as legislators, we have an obligation to protect the
rights of all those who live in our States. We all believe in freedom.
We all understand that with freedom comes responsibility. Yet, at its
heart, this legislation says to the women of America: We don't trust
you with the freedom to choose; we don't trust you to do what we think
is right; so we will take away your freedom to search your hearts, to
follow your conscience, to rely on your faith and the judgment of your
physicians and to make a very personal decision that affects your lives
and your families.
That is why I will vote to sustain the President's veto, and I hope
at least those who opposed the bill last year will do so again.
With that, Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I will respond in one quick way to the
comments of the Senator from Virginia. What has been sort of taken as a
matter of record is that 80 to 90 percent of the partial-birth
abortions performed in this country are on healthy women with healthy
babies and that these are done for truly elective reasons. The idea
that somehow we are holding on to this myth that we are doing this to
save unhealthy women or because a baby is so severely deformed that
they cannot live just isn't what the facts dictate. And that is from
admissions from folks who perform the procedures, not our side coming
up with these numbers.
I hope we can stick with the facts as to what we are really talking
about.
I have no speakers on my side, so I will be happy to yield.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I want to talk about the facts and
share with listeners a letter from Kate Hlava, from Oak Park, IL. These
are her words:
My pregnancy had been complicated from the beginning, but
doctors kept assuring us that everything was fine. We went in
for a routine ultrasound at 20 weeks, and our world came
crashing down. The results of that ultrasound were an
expecting parent's worst nightmare. The baby had a serious
heart condition known as tetrology of fallot with absent
pulmonary valve and overriding aorta.
We saw numerous experts across the Midwest, resulting in
just as many prognoses. At that time, we were given the
option of terminating the pregnancy. We chose not to because
we so desperately wanted the baby. We hoped and prayed every
day that the baby would make it to term. If he was born
prematurely, he would not have been able to have the
operation he needed to survive, a surgery he would have
needed every few years as he grew.
Unfortunately, he was not strong enough to make it to term.
He began showing signs of heart failure during the 27th week
of my pregnancy. His liver was huge, his heart was enlarging,
and I was retaining too much amniotic fluid. I had started to
dilate and was going to go into labor soon. There was nothing
the doctors in Illinois would do.
I couldn't leave my house. I was contemplating suicide. As
my baby was dying, so were pieces of myself, and no one here
would help me stop it. In Illinois, had my baby been born,
even prematurely and with no real chance of survival, the
doctors would have been legally obligated to try to keep
him alive. They would have performed fruitless and painful
procedures on him, making his few moments on this earth a
living hell. I didn't want that for my son. No parent
would.
It was then that my obstetrician suggested that we go to
Kansas for a therapeutic abortion because of fetal anomaly. I
have lived my entire life believing that abortion may be
right for other people but that I never wanted to make the
decision. I absolutely do not believe that a woman should be
able to choose to terminate her pregnancy at 27 weeks because
she is tried of being pregnant or because she was told the
baby had brown eyes instead of blue.
I have met other women who have undergone a similar
procedure. Not one did so because she didn't want the baby.
These women, like myself, wanted their babies and still miss
them, but the prospect of bringing an extremely sick baby
into the world, who would suffer a short life full of painful
medical procedures, felt inhumane. Medical science is
sophisticated enough to diagnose such anomalies at the fifth
month of pregnancy.
I am not sure where Bryne [The Editorial writer to whom Ms.
Hlava is Responding] got his description of the procedure,
but it is not the procedure I had. He described it as ``all
but the head of a living fetus is pulled from the mother, its
brains sucked out, causing death and making it easier to
remove the baby.'' This description is enraging. In my case,
the baby was given an injection to stop his heart and then,
through the insertion of laminaria, labor was induced.
I saw my son after delivery. He was beautiful, and his body
and head were intact. The process was very humane and the
baby was saved from any undue suffering.
I wish that I did not have to go to Kansas in January. I
would give anything if my baby could have been born healthy.
I think about him every day and miss him terribly. The one
thing I am thankful for is that my son was able to die
peaceful and painlessly.
Kate Hlava, Oak Park.
That is a letter, from a real woman who had this procedure performed
on her this year, that just appeared in our local papers in Illinois.
Mr. President, President Clinton was right to veto this legislation.
He was right because Congress, as a body, is not licensed to practice
medicine. If the imposition of our judgment serves to condemn women to
death or premature disability or cause the kind of harm that Kate Hlava
talked about, then we will have clearly failed to live up to our
responsibility to act in the best interests of the people who sent us
here.
This debate is about whether or not women are going to have the
ability to make decisions regarding their own reproductive health,
whether they will retain their constitutional rights, and whether they
will be able to make decisions regarding their own pregnancies. In the
final analysis, it is ultimately about whether or not women are going
to retain their current status as full citizens of these United States.
If the issue were creating sound public policy, then the Senate could
vote to enact a bill that I cosponsored with Senators Feinstein and
Boxer which sought to ban late-term abortions except in situations in
which the life or health of the mother is at risk--a requirement that
has been set by the Supreme Court. The legislation we are debating
today, however, contains no exception to protect the health of the
mother, and an inadequate one with regard to protecting her life. I
believe that even the sponsors of this legislation are fully aware that
under the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade this bill, as
presently written, is unconstitutional.
I believe the sponsors of the legislation would like to pretend that
Roe v. Wade does not exist as the law of the country. That is the only
way they can argue that this bill is a constitutional measure.
But let's look at the facts. In 1973, the Supreme Court of the United
States recognized a woman's constitutional right to have an abortion
prior to fetal viability. Roe also established this right is limited
after viability at which point States may ban abortions as long as an
exemption is provided for cases in which her life or health is at risk.
These holdings were reaffirmed by the Court in its 1992 decision in
Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
That is the constitutional standard that this legislation has to
meet--and it clearly does not. The ban in this bill would apply
throughout pregnancy. It ignores the Court's distinction between pre-
and postviability. Moreover, this legislation fails to provide an
exception in cases in which the banned procedure is necessary to
preserve a woman's health. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that
such a thing, such a measure is unconstitutional.
You do not have to be a constitutional scholar to figure that out,
although, as professor Laurence Tribe has stated for the record, this
legislation is plagued by ``fatal constitutional
[[Page S10495]]
infirmities.'' That is also why, Mr. President, courts in 17 out of 18
cases--Federal and State courts; including a court in my home State of
Illinois--have ruled that laws similar to this legislation are
unconstitutional.
Mr. President, allow me a moment to look at some of the specifics of
the bill. First, I would like to examine the ban's exception to save
the life of the mother. Under this legislation, the banned procedure
may be performed if a mother's life is endangered by a physical
disorder, illness, or injury.
Something is missing here. What if the mother's life itself is
endangered by the pregnancy? The legislation is silent with regard to
whether an exception exists under those circumstances. If this bill
were to become law, the result of a problematic pregnancy could very
well be that protecting the life of the fetus--even one capable of
living outside the womb on its own for only a few moments--protecting
the life of that fetus could result in the death of its mother.
This element of the bill would be particularly devastating to those
women who are poor and/or who live in rural areas and therefore might
not have access to the top-quality tertiary kind of health care that
can make a difference in a life-or-death situation. There is a
difference between women who have access to that kind of quality health
care and those many women who do not.
The simple fact is if the President's veto is overridden, women's
lives will not be fully protected in our country. Women fought for
generations for the full protections and guarantees contained in our
Constitution. It has only been 78 years that we have been granted the
right to even vote. With this legislation, we would turn back the
clock--for it does nothing less than abridge women's hard-earned status
as full citizens of this country.
Most of the people--and I hate to say this, Mr. President, but it is
fact and it must be said--most of the people making the decision to
vote on this issue cannot themselves ever experience the trauma of
pregnancy or, for that matter, abortion. It is being made by people who
themselves are not at risk with regard to this decision.
Moving beyond the issues surrounding the legislation's unsatisfactory
lifesaving exception, I would like to address the bill's total lack of
an exception for the health of the mother. In Roe, the Court held that
even after a fetus was viable, States could not place the interests and
welfare of that fetus above those of the mother in preserving not just
her life, but her health as well.
Under this bill, women's health would be a complete nonissue. Certain
procedures developed in the years since Roe v. Wade to protect pregnant
women's health would be unavailable to our physicians, our doctors. So
this legislation would simply turn us back to the status of the law as
it existed before Roe v. Wade, a time when more than twice as many
women died in childbirth as do today.
I want to give you some numbers here, Mr. President. I think it is
important to put this in historical perspective as well. At the turn of
the century, the death rate in childbirth for women--childbirth was
much more dangerous than it is today --but the rate of mothers dying
was 600 women per 100,000 live births. By 1970, medical advances had
brought that rate down to 21.5 women for every 100,000 live births.
That is the point at which Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme
Court. Today, that number is less than 10 per 100,000 live births.
We expect that women are going to survive a pregnancy, complicated or
not. That was not the expectation 100 years ago. It was not even the
expectation 20 years ago. The fact of the matter is, that in addition
to the medical advances, the ability of physicians to make these kinds
of judgments, and women being able to choose, in consultation with
their doctors, has served to protect the health as well as the lives of
women.
Again, under this bill, women's health will be a complete nonissue.
Procedures that have been developed since Roe v. Wade would be made
unavailable. Thus, we would be turning back the clock. The Supreme
Court said in abortion rulings that a woman has a constitutionally
protected right to protect her own health at every stage of her
pregnancy. Therefore, I submit that the bill's lack of an exception to
preserve the health of the mother, like its incomplete lifesaving
provision, would strip women of fundamental rights that are guaranteed
to them under the Constitution.
Now, while the term partial-birth abortion is not a medical term--and
I think that has been debated and everybody knows that--a procedure
that certainly would be banned under this bill is a procedure known as
intact dilation and extraction, or intact D&E. The American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which represents over 90 percent of
this Nation's OB/GYNs, opposes this bill. They said:
The potential exists that legislation prohibiting specific
medical procedures, such as intact D&E, may outlaw techniques
that are critical to the lives and health of American women.
They are absolutely correct. If this legislation were to become law,
women's health would be jeopardized because doctors would be forced to
use abortion procedures that may not be the best or the most
appropriate for a particular woman.
As was eloquently stated by the speaker before me, Congress presumes
to substitute its judgment for the judgment of physicians or doctors in
regard to medical practice with this legislation. There can be no
denying the fact that if the President's veto is overridden, we will be
sending a message that women should be allowed to suffer irreparable
harm due to pregnancy even though their doctors have the ability to
have prevented that harm.
In opposing this legislation, the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists also stated:
The intervention of legislative bodies into medical
decisionmaking is inappropriate, ill-advised, and dangerous.
That is precisely right. Politicians should have nothing to do with
this issue. We have no place in the examining room, operating room, or
the delivery room. The question of how to deal with the pregnancy
should rest squarely with the pregnant woman, her doctor, her family,
her God, and not with Members of the U.S. Congress.
Some have argued that we have a responsibility to get involved and
ban the procedure because it is not safe. In my view, it is physicians,
not Senators, who should be the ones to make that decision. It is their
job to do so, not ours.
Some have argued that the procedure to be banned is unnecessary, and
yet the legislation contains an exception to save the life of the
mother. That exception is there because of the undeniable fact that in
some circumstances the procedure addressed by this legislation is
necessary--sometimes to protect a woman's health, sometimes to protect
her life. But we don't have to look at the bill to know that.
Physicians have repeatedly stated this is the case.
What all of this tells me is that this is essentially a medical
matter. Doctors must have the freedom to be able to decide which
procedures to use in cases of a troubled pregnancy. To the extent that
this Congress limits their freedom of action, their freedom of
decision, we put the lives and health of women at risk. Consider what
the effect of risking women's health in this way could mean for family
life in the United States. The inability to address one's own
reproductive health as a woman and her doctor believe is necessary,
increases the possibility that a woman's reproductive system could be
irreversibly damaged and she would be unable to bear children for the
rest of her life. Other effects of such a pregnancy on her health may
leave a woman unable to care for the children she is already raising.
All of this should make clear that this legislation poses a mortal
threat to the ability of women to make choices about their own bodies
and their own futures that all Americans ought to be able to make as
essential and fundamental freedoms. Choosing to terminate a pregnancy
is the most personal, private, and fundamental decision that a woman
can make about her own health and her own life. Essentially, choice
equates to freedom. The right to choose goes straight to the heart of
the relationship of a female citizen and her doctor. Choice is a
barometer of equality and a measure of fairness. I believe it is
central to our liberty as women.
[[Page S10496]]
Now, having said that, I do not personally favor abortion as a method
of birth control. My own religious beliefs hold life dear. I would
prefer that every potential child have a chance to be born. But whether
or not a child will be born must be its mother's decision--not
Congress', not ours.
I fully support the choice of those women who carry their pregnancy
to term regardless of the circumstances. Some women have died having
made a decision that turned out to have been ill-advised under the
circumstances. But I also respect the choice of those women who, under
very difficult circumstances in which their life and health may be
endangered by a pregnancy, choose not to go forward with it. So, while
I would like to live in a society where abortions never happen, I also
want to live in a society in which they are safe and they are legal.
I am going to put aside for a moment the abstract arguments in favor
of sustaining this veto, and bring us back to the real-life situations.
I read one letter. The last time I spoke on this issue I related the
story of Vikki Stella who lives in Naperville, IL. Vikki has a story as
heart-wrenching as the one I started with when I began my remarks on
this issue.
I won't go through the details of Vikki's case right now because,
frankly, I don't believe aggravating the emotions on this issue serves
any good purpose at this point. We have people who have clear
disagreement in regard to these situations. I am sure there are stories
that can be told for the rest of this day. I, frankly, believe that
while the stories illustrate, they should not be used to aggravate or
to inflame passions on this issue.
I think it is important for us to remember that for every story of a
woman who made the choice and it came out all right, there is another
story of a woman who made the choice and it didn't come out all right.
I think it is inappropriate for those of us in this room to force those
women to die, or alternatively, to lose their reproductive health
because of our intervention in their personal and private decisions.
I urge my colleagues to respect the decisions of these women, to
respect their freedom as citizens, to respect their fundamental rights
as citizens of this great country and give them the respect that goes
with the notion that ultimately people want to do the right thing,
ultimately people want to choose life, ultimately people want to do the
right thing by their children, and that we in this Congress should
allow those decisions to be made by women and their physicians in
consultation with their family and their God.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, would the Senator from Illinois yield
for a couple of questions?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Yes.
Mr. SANTORUM. First, I say to the Senator from Illinois that I
appreciate her comments.
With respect to the first letter that the Senator read, I have a
question. Did you say that the baby's heart, when the abortion was
done, was injected with digoxin?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. The letter did not say what procedure was used.
Mr. SANTORUM. I thought that is what you said.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I will share the letter with the Senator:
. . . was given an injection.
Mr. SANTORUM. Into the heart?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. ``In my case, the baby was given an injection to
stop his heart and then, through the insertion of laminaria, labor was
induced.''
Mr. SANTORUM. I suggest to the Senator from Illinois, if you read the
definition of partial-birth abortion in the bill, partial-birth
abortion is partially vaginally delivering a living fetus.
So if the baby in this case had an injection in the heart to stop the
heart, the baby would have died at that point, and then the baby would
be removed from the uterus, the baby would be dead, and therefore would
not fall under the definition.
So in the case that you mentioned, she did not have a partial-birth
abortion by definition. She couldn't, because the baby was dead at that
point.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I appreciate my colleague allowing for that
exception in interpreting her situation in that way.
But I think, if anything, my colleague's argument goes exactly to the
heart of my position in this matter, which is that we are forcing
physicians to consult the language of this bill in making that kind of
a judgment about what kind of procedure is appropriate for which woman
in what circumstance.
If a physician has concerns, as you just said, by making an
injection, killing the fetus in utero, and then delivering it, falling
outside of the exception, well, if that is the case, then I appreciate
my colleague making legislative history.
I think, if anything, it points to the fallacy of the nonphysicians
in this Chamber making these kinds of medical judgments.
Mr. SANTORUM. I respond to that by saying I think it points out the
cruelty, unnecessary cruelty, of doing the procedure that we are
attempting to ban here.
What was done by the woman and the doctor in this case, I think,
first off, the baby was not delivered, was not outside the mother, and
then painfully and brutally killed. The baby was killed in utero by an
injection. While I don't like abortion, period, I think that less
shocks the conscience of our country than delivering a baby, as in the
case of partial birth, most of them being healthy with healthy mothers.
In this case, that is not the case. But there is a real distinction
here, and what I think your case points out is that there are viable,
less-invasive, less-dangerous-to-the-mother alternatives available,
even for cases where you have pregnancies that have gone awry, and that
are less cruel and barbaric to the baby and less dangerous to the
woman.
You talked about preserving maternal health. There is nothing more
that I want to accomplish with this bill than preserving maternal
health. But we have ample evidence, including from the AMA who
testified, that this procedure is not healthy for women, and there are
other procedures, such as the one the Senator outlined, that are safer
for women who may elect to have an abortion--a legal abortion, which we
don't outlaw with this bill. We just say that there are alternatives.
The letter you read says, in fact, a viable and often-used alternative
to a partial-birth abortion that would continue to be available, which
is less risky to the mother, and that is less gruesome, barbaric, and
horrific to the child.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Again, I know we have irreconcilable differences
of opinion about this, but I think it is important to remember that, as
we legislate, we are legislating in broad strokes, not in specifics.
The problem with this bill, as I have said in my debate, is that one
size does not necessarily fit all. Frankly, talking about when her
baby's heart stopped, that is not an exact definition of death, either.
Those are my words, colloquial terms. We are not physicians. That is
the problem. To hamstring and say to a physician that you can make
decisions about this, except here, here, here and here will, by
definition, cause them to, frankly, shy away from exercising their best
medical judgment. We are not physicians and one size does not fit all.
That is why I believe the President's veto of this bill was appropriate
and correct.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from
Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, once again, we are on the floor
debating this very difficult issue. I commend the Senator from
Pennsylvania for his perseverance in the realities of protecting the
rights of women to control their own bodies and our obligation to
protect the rights of those unborn. That is something that we will be
discussing an extended period of time--probably without any degree of
finality.
Nevertheless, Mr. President, we must vote yes or no on this. As a
consequence, it is my fervent hope that enough votes will be cast to
put an end to this tragic procedure. It is a tragic procedure in its
very nature--partial-birth abortion.
The President defended his veto by stating that a partial-birth
abortion is
[[Page S10497]]
a procedure that is medically necessary in certain ``compelling cases''
to protect the mother from ``serious injury to her health.''
Unfortunately, the President, in my opinion, was badly misinformed.
According to reputable medical testimony and evidence given before this
Congress by partial-birth abortion practitioners, partial-birth
abortions are, one, more widespread than its defenders admit; two, used
predominantly for elective purposes; and three, are never medically
necessary to safeguard the mother's health. That is a pretty broad
statement, but that is what we are told.
The former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, whom we all admired when
he functioned in that position, stated he ``believed that Mr. Clinton
was misled by his medical advisers on what is fact and what is fiction
in reference to late-term abortions.''
Dr. Koop went on to say, ``In no way can I twist my mind to see that
the late-term abortion as described as . . . partial birth . . . is a
medical necessity for the mother.''
In a New York Times editorial, C. Everett Koop added, ``Recent
reports have concluded that a majority of partial-birth abortions are
elective, involving a healthy woman and a normal fetus.''
Other physicians agree: In a September 1996 Wall Street Journal
editorial, three physicians who treat pregnant women declared that
``Contrary to what abortion activists would have us believe, partial-
birth abortion is never medically indicated to protect a woman's health
or her fertility.''
Mr. President, a partial-birth abortion is not only tragic, it is
violent. The procedure is one in which four-fifths of the child is
delivered before the process of killing the child begins. Sadly,
throughout this procedure, the majority of babies are alive and able to
move and may actually feel pain during this ordeal.
Dr. Pamela Smith, in a House hearing on the issue, succinctly stated
why Congress must act:
The baby is literally inches from being declared a legal
person by every State in the Union. The urgency and
seriousness of these matters therefore require appropriate
legislative action.
Mr. President, it's not easy for any here to discuss this topic, but
unfortunately, there are stark and brutal realities of a partial-birth
abortion.
I, and others who support this Act, sympathize with a woman who is in
a difficult and extreme circumstance, but no circumstance can justify
the killing of an infant who is four-fifths born. My good friend and
colleague Senator Moynihan, has said the practice of partial-birth
abortions is ``just too close to infanticide.''
Mr. President, this procedure cannot be defended medically and cannot
be defended morally. That is why I hope that this is the one issue that
can unite pro-life and pro-choice individuals. I strenuously urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of overriding President Clinton's veto of
the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban.
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Alaska for his leadership and
support. He has always come to the floor and spoken in strong support
of this, and he has been a great and committed warrior in this cause. I
thank him for that.
Mr. President, the Senator from California gave her remarks and she
talked about women here in town who had horrible things happen to them
during pregnancy, and that they were faced with very difficult
decisions to make. I understand that those are difficult decisions. She
said, in one case, that a baby was well along and was, unfortunately,
hydrocephalic, which means water on the brain. They could not do a
vaginal, natural delivery. For some reason, she did not want to do a C-
section. There were no other options available to save this mother's
health. Let me just read to you what a doctor said, a board-certified
OB/GYN:
Sometimes in the case of hydrocephalus, in order to drain
some of the fluid from the baby's head, a special long needle
is used to allow a safe vaginal cephalic head-first delivery.
In some cases, when the vaginal delivery is not possible, a
doctor performs the Cesarean Section. But in no case is it
necessary, or medically advisable, to partially deliver an
infant through the vagina and then cruelly kill the infant.
Another piece of information that the Senator from California and the
Senator from Illinois were talking about is that women would have their
health and life at risk with having an abortion, going through with the
pregnancy later in term. The facts are just the opposite. The Senator
from Illinois said, ``Let's not deal with anecdotes, let's deal with
facts.''
Here is the statistical evidence: At 21 weeks or more--that is the
time in which partial-birth abortions are done because they begin to be
done at 20 weeks gestation--the risk of death from abortion is 1 in
6,000 and exceeds the risk of maternal death from childbirth, which is
1 in 13,000. You are twice as likely to die if you have an abortion
than if you deliver the baby after 21 weeks.
So this whole concept that these procedures are necessary--a
procedure that is much more risky than others, much more dangerous than
other procedures to the mother--aside from the fact that they are
brutal procedures, this is a procedure that is much more risky to the
mother; that just the medical evidence shows, the statistics show, that
having an abortion--and there are other complications--termination of a
pregnancy at more advanced--again, this is from an article, from the
Journal of the American Medical Association, August 26, 1998, current
edition, which talks about two obstetricians from Northwestern
University. It says:
Termination of pregnancy at more advanced gestational ages
may predispose to infertility from endometrial scarring or
adhesion formation.
It is documented in one study that 23.1 percent of patients had
induced midtrimester abortions. Nearly a quarter of those. Again, that
is all midtrimester abortions. You hear the argument in this paper and
by hundreds of physicians that partial-birth abortion is even more
damaging to the cervix and to the future ability for a mother to carry
a baby to term.
It continues on:
. . . and from pelvic infections, which occur in 2.8% to
25% of patients following midtrimester terminations. Dilation
and evacuation procedures commonly used in induced
midtrimester abortion may lead to cervical incompetence,
which predisposes to an increased risk of subsequent
spontaneous abortion, especially in the midtrimester.
Cervical incompetence is more prevalent after midtrimester
termination of pregnancy than first trimester termination
because the cervix is dilated to a much greater degree.
And other physicians have gone on to say that because this is a
procedure that takes 3 days to dilate--you hear so much about this may
be necessary to save the life or health of the mother because of some
emergency. This is a 3-day procedure. The cervix is dilated over a 3-
day procedure, which makes the probability of an incompetent cervix,
which means the ability to carry a baby in future pregnancies--it
inhibits the ability to carry a baby in future pregnancies. It
increases the risk of infection, because now for 3 days the cervix is
open. And they are not in a hospital setting. They are out, either back
at their home, or in a hotel, waiting for the procedure to be done.
This is an unhealthy procedure for women.
If we are concerned about women's health, let's look at the fact
about what this does to women's health. Frankly, it sounds to me, if
you look at the evidence, there seems to be a sort of pushing aside of
all of the nonanecdotal evidence about women's health and putting forth
legal arguments about what the Supreme Court says. They are one of
three branches of Government, folks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for
as long as I may consume under the remaining time left on the other
side with the understanding that if anybody comes I will be happy to
yield the floor at that point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, they are focusing on legal arguments.
The fact of the matter is we are one of three branches of Government.
We can put forward things that we believe are constitutional. We can
test what they are. I have seen a lot of decisions at the Supreme Court
that have moved all over the place on this issue.
It seems very clear to me that we are not providing an undue burden.
We are
[[Page S10498]]
here. We are eliminating one procedure that is not taught in any
medical school, that has not been peer-reviewed, that has not been done
in a hospital. It is done in clinics, and, in fact, was invented--
created--not by an obstetrician.
Someone referred to earlier that Senator Frist and C. Everett Koop
are two people who testified against this procedure. They are not
obstetricians. That is true. But the person who invented this procedure
is not an obstetrician, either. He was a family practitioner who did
abortions.
So the fact of the matter is that C. Everett Koop was a pediatric
surgeon--someone who dealt with these little babies, who understands
very well what damage is done to these little babies, and, in fact,
what is available to save their lives. He knows very well about what he
talks about, as does the Senator from Tennessee who has studied this
issue thoroughly, and who has reviewed the literature thoroughly.
Let's walk away from the facts for a moment. Let's deal in the realm
of what the other side seems to point to--the pictures.
The Senator from California suggested that there will be women here
who have had this procedure who will be in the Halls looking at Members
as they come in to vote tomorrow to insist that they keep this
procedure legal. I only wish, I only wish, that the children who have
fallen victim to this would have the opportunity to stand in that Hall
and look at the Senators and plead with them to ban this procedure.
We may have one such person which I will talk about in a moment.
But I am going to talk to you first about a little boy--a little boy
who was the first child of Whitney Goin. Whitney was 5 months pregnant
with her first child. She went in for her first sonogram, and a large
abdominal wall defect was detected. She described her condition after
learning that there was a problem with the pregnancy:
My husband was unreachable so I sat alone, until my mother
arrived, as the doctor described my baby as being severely
deformed with a gigantic defect and most likely many other
defects that he could not detect with their equipment. He
went on to explain that babies with this large of a defect
are often stillborn, live very shortly or could survive with
extensive surgeries and treatments, depending on the presence
of additional anomalies and complications after birth. The
complications and associated problems that a surgical baby in
this condition could suffer include but are not limited to:
bladder exstrophy, imperforate anus, collapsed lungs,
diseased liver, fatal infections, cardiovascular
malformations, ect.
A perinatologist suggested she strongly consider having a partial-
birth abortion. The doctor told her it may be something she ``needs''
to do. He described the procedure as one where the baby would be
partially delivered except for the head, and the pregnancy would be
terminated.
The Goins made a different choice.
If there is one thing that those who are listening to this debate--if
there is one thing that I hope for that results from this debate today,
it is that people who will be watching this debate understand one
thing: Whether we pass this override of the President's veto or not,
please understand that there are other choices. There are other
options--and to follow your heart, to follow your love for your child,
and pursue those options, as Whitney Goin did.
The Goins chose to carry the baby to term. But complications related
to a drop in the amniotic fluid created some concerns. Doctors voiced
to the Goins that the baby's chances for survival would be greater
outside the womb. So on October 26, 1995, Andrew Hewitt Goin was
delivered by C-section. He was born with a condition in which the
abdominal organs--stomach, liver, spleen, and small and large
intestines--were outside the baby's body.
Here is the picture. In the incubator there is little Andrew Hewitt
Goin.
Andrew had his first of several major operations 2 hours after he was
born. Andrew's first months were not easy. He suffered from
excruciating pain. He was on a respirator for 6 weeks. He needed tubes
in his nose and throat. They continually suctioned his stomach and
lungs. He needed eight blood transfusions. His mother recalled, ``The
enormous pressure of the organs being slowly placed into his body
caused chronic lung disease for which he received extensive oxygen and
steroid treatments.'' It broke his parents' hearts to see him suffering
so badly.
Remember how we heard about someone who said that it would just break
your heart to see your child suffer so badly. And I understand what she
feels. But it breaks the hearts of thousands of parents every day to
see their children suffer. But that is no reason, that is no reason, to
kill your child. It is all the more reason to love that child, to draw
that child near to you, and to accept that child as part of your
family.
Andrew fought hard to live. And he did. This is Andrew Hewitt Goin at
3 years of age.
I would also note that Andrew will not be the only child for much
longer. Next March, the Goins will welcome their second child into the
family. Contrary to the misinformation about partial-birth abortion
that has been so recklessly repeated, carrying Andrew to term did not
affect Whitney's ability to have future children.
I think if you asked Andrew a few years from now whether he would
prefer to have suffered that pain or be listening to music, or not be
listening to that music, or not be alive today, the answer would be
pretty clear.
Not all the stories turn out as happily as Andrew's. Not all of them
do. But what does turn out happily in so many more instances is for
parents to have the recognition that they have the capacity to love
their children even when it is so hard to do that. Whether we override
the President's veto is less important than that simple fact that I
hope the people listening here will understand.
The next case I want to talk about is Christian Matthew McNaughton.
For 4 years, Christian Matthew McNaughton fought the odds. An
ultrasound revealed that he had hydrocephalus 30 weeks into pregnancy--
again, the condition that has been described as one that is necessary
to kill the child and perform a partial-birth abortion, the very case
just cited in this Chamber as the reason for keeping this procedure
legal.
After Dianne McNaughton learned of their son's dim prospects because
of hydrocephaly, which can cause a variety of problems including,
because of the water on the brain, the lack of brain development,
Dianne asked for information on hydrocephaly. The counselor called
doctors on staff and explained the request, and imagine Mrs.
McNaughton's surprise when the counselor told her the hospital felt
``it was better if she didn't know anything.''
Still, Dianne and her husband, Mark, determined to educate themselves
on what to expect from now and how to care for a child who had
hydrocephaly. They continued to persevere. Life was very stressful for
the McNaughtons after the diagnosis. Dianne suffered from nightmares.
She never considered aborting the baby, but she worried about how her
other two children would be affected by having a disabled child in the
home. With the help of Dianne's brother, who happened to be a doctor,
the McNaughtons found a specialist in Philadelphia to deliver their
baby.
As we learned last year with the case of Donna Joy Watts, another
child with hydrocephaly, the Watts family had to go to three hospitals
in Maryland before they could find a physician team and a hospital that
would deliver their child, because children with hydrocephaly are
thought not to have the ability to live and are simply seen as abortion
clients; they are seen as disposable.
They were advised again to end their pregnancy. They were warned that
hydrocephaly is associated with spina bifida, Down's syndrome, and
cerebral palsy. The baby might never achieve bowel or bladder control;
he might not be able to move his arms or legs; he might be born blind;
he might not even be able to swallow.
The McNaughtons were offered a partial-birth abortion. As a doctor
explained it, the baby would be partially delivered, a sharp surgical
instrument would be inserted into the base of the skull, and the brains
would be extracted--of course, the doctor noted, ``what there was of
the brain.'' The rest of the body would then be delivered. This option
was rejected.
As if the shock of being advised to undergo a gruesome partial-birth
abortion was not enough, one doctor said the shunt surgery to relieve
the pressure and the fluid in the baby's brain would not be performed
if the child's ``quality of life'' prospects did not warrant it.
[[Page S10499]]
I again go back to the case of Donna Joy Watts just so you don't
think this is one isolated case. For 3 days, Lori Watts had to plead
with the doctors at the hospital to do a shunt operation to relieve the
fluid pressure on the brain, and the doctors refused to because the
doctors didn't think she had any chance of a quality life. Donna Joy
Watts is here in Washington today. She is 5, almost 6, years of age.
Christian was born June 20, 1993. He was a beautiful, 8-pound baby
boy. He did require a lot of medical care. A CAT scan revealed that he
suffered a stroke in utero which caused excess fluid to build up in his
brain. It also showed that the lower left quadrant of his brain was
missing. Within a week of delivery, Christian had his first shunt
surgery to drain the fluid. He had a follow-up procedure in 3 months.
As he grew, Christian exceeded everyone's expectations. A baby that
doctors initially believed would be blind or could do virtually nothing
was a little boy who walked, ran, talked, and sang. He played baseball
and basketball. He attended preschool. His heroes were Cal Ripken, Jr,
Batman, Spiderman, and the Backstreet Boys. He loved whales and
dolphins. His favorite movie was ``Angels in the Outfield.'' And he
especially loved his baby sister who was 2 years younger than he.
Christian McNaughton brought joy to all who were fortunate enough to
know him.
In August of 1997, Christian began experiencing severe head pains.
His shunt was malfunctioning. It had to be replaced. He went into
surgery and experienced cardiac and respiratory distress in surgery,
and he slipped into a coma. Christian fought hard to live but he never
recovered. He died on August 8, 1997, at the age of 4.
But if you talked to his parents and you talked to those who knew him
and you asked them whether they would have traded those 4 years for
denying Christian's humanity by aborting him in such a brutal and
inhumane way, they would have said no.
On the anniversary of his death, they entered these memorials to
Christian in the Harrisburg Patriot News:
Christian, we love you. We miss you. We wish we could kiss
you just one more time. Until we meet again. Your loving
sisters, Meghan and Kelly.
The McNaughtons were worried about whether their children would
accept a disabled child in the home. I think it is pretty clear that
they accepted him very well, and he added to their lives, and he
affirmed their lives.
A letter from the brother:
Dear Christian. I have a poem for you.
Blue jays are blue and I love you.
Robins are red and I miss you in bed.
Sparrows are black and I wish you were back.
I am sorry for the bad things I did to you. You are the
best and only brother I ever had. Please watch over us and
take care of us.
We wonder whether those children accepted this child. This is a sad
story, but it is a joyous story. It is a story of acceptance and love.
One of the things that often confounds me about how people deal with
this issue is that people who are in the tradition of the Democratic
Party, who have sought for the past 100 years to be inclusive in our
society, to welcome those who are on the outside of society, to fight
for civil rights, to fight for rights for the disabled, are always
fighting to include those who are most vulnerable, now turn their backs
to the most vulnerable of all. How does that speak to a country where
Hubert Humphrey once said: ``We are judged by how we treat the least of
us.'' Can you think of anything less in our human family than a little
baby outside of the mother's womb, 3 inches from life, asking only to
be given a chance; prone, with its back to the abortionist, helpless
from what might happen next? Just like baby Phoenix, helpless. But,
thank God, a moment, finally a moment of conscience hit him and he
decided, no, I can't thrust those scissors into this child. And now
this temporarily unwanted baby is so loved and wanted somewhere in
Texas, by parents who cherish that little girl every day.
The question is, in this debate--you can talk about legal axioms, you
can talk about medical theories, you can talk about ethics, you can
talk about all sorts of things. The question here is how inclusive are
we going to be in our family? As I see the empty seats on this side of
the aisle, and I look for the men and women who have given great talks
on the floor of the U.S. Senate about the need for rights for the
downtrodden: Find me a more helpless creature in our human family, a
more downtrodden, helpless, beautiful creation of God than a little
baby, his back to the doctor who is going to kill him or her, waiting
for the pain to stop.
Mr. President, do we have any time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. All time
on debate has expired.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from
Kansas be recognized for 4 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania
for his work and his effort in this area. I want to talk in the brief
period of time that I have about the soul of a nation, the soul of our
Nation and what happens to it when, once pierced with consciousness
that this procedure goes on, allows it to continue to go on.
Government-sanctioned brutality presently exists in America in the
form of partial-birth abortion. We know that now. The cold mechanics of
partial-birth abortion involve the near delivery of a late-term infant
to facilitate the extraction of the child's brains. This procedure will
be performed several times this month throughout our Nation, and we
know that, and we know that we sanction that as a State-sanctioned form
of death.
I speak today of deep concern for the soul of our Nation which is
permitting these defiling acts to continue with our consent. Why do
otherwise decent nations permit their young to be ripped apart? Why do
they permit the shameless repeated acts of cruelty against their
weakest and most vulnerable? People of conscience must intervene now.
I draw attention of the people here in this body to the words that
adorn the doorways as we walk in. As you preside, you stare up at the
words, ``In God we trust.'' As you look across the walkway, ``He, God,
has smiled on our undertakings.'' Above this doorway we have ``A new
order for the ages.'' All thoughts of our founders; all thoughts, I
think, they had towards the newborn child, towards any nature of life
in this Nation, that, ``In God we trust.''
With a nation of such a conscience and such a soul, would it tolerate
such a procedure once it knows that this procedure exists? I think not.
I urge my colleagues, as we look at this, as we consider the soul of
our Nation, would we, should we, can we continue to tolerate this
outrageous form of death? History teaches us that tolerated acts of
cruelty both brand a nation for infamy and sear its conscience.
Tolerance is complicity, and nations will eventually be judged for
their failure to stop the course of unbridled cruelty.
America is distinguished around the world basically because of one
phrase: America is distinguished for her goodness. I don't think we can
excuse this act. No adequate excuse exists for the death of an innocent
child by this horrific surgical procedure. This is a human rights abuse
of the basest form, which, if condoned, will singe the soul of our
Nation now that we know it exists.
We must force ourselves to look squarely into the face of this
brutality, regardless of the many sophisticated arguments. I close with
a quote from Edward R. Murrow on this point. He would say: ``There are
not two sides to every story.'' There are not two sides to this story.
Partial-birth abortion must be banned.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________