[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 124 (Thursday, September 17, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10545-S10549]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION
Mr. SANTORUM. If I can, let us return to the issue that we have spent
a great deal of the day debating. I know the hour is late. Let me thank
the staff who are here, the pages, and others. The pages are actually
very happy I am up here talking, because if I talk for a little while
longer they will not have school in the morning. So that will be a good
thing for them--as I see the smiles down there and the encouragement to
wind it up and get going.
I thank the Senator from Arkansas for his indulgence in presiding
during these remarks. But as I mentioned today, I think this is one of
the most important issues we can face here in the U.S. Senate. As the
Senator from Ohio eloquently said, it begins the process of defining
who we are as a country and what will become of us as a civilization if
we do not begin to draw lines where lines need to be drawn.
I just find it remarkable that we seem to create these fictions when
it comes to life. When it comes to the life of little children, we
create this fiction in our mind. And it was a fiction that was created
back when Roe v. Wade was decided that these were not really babies.
We did not have good ultrasounds then and the kind of technology
where we could really see how developed these little babies were in the
womb. They were just sort of passed off as these sort of blobs. Yet, we
now know, through the miracle of ultrasound, and other techniques, that
these are precious little developing babies.
It is very difficult as a father who has seen those ultrasounds of
our children to dismiss the humanity, that my wife Karen was carrying a
blob of tissue or something that was prehuman. But we tell these lies
to ourselves in order that we can go on and in order that we can sort
of live with our own internal inconsistencies.
One lie you cannot tell, one lie that is inescapable--inescapably
alive--is the lie of partial-birth abortion being something that is
medically necessary or that simply this baby is just sort of this blob
of tissue. This baby is outside of the mother. Its arms, its legs, its
torso, outside of the mother--just inches away from being born.
One of the things I often marvel at--and I just do not understand--is
why wouldn't you, if you have gone through the process, as I described
earlier today, of dilating the cervex over 3 days, reaching in with
forceps and pulling the baby out in a breached position, which is
dangerous, again, for the baby and mother, and you deliver that entire
baby, why wouldn't you just let the rest of the baby come out?
Why is it necessary to protect the health of the mother at that point
in time--now that you have gone through all this other procedure--at
that very crucial moment when the doctor takes those scissors and
begins the process of killing that baby? Why at that moment is the
mother's health in less danger if you kill that baby than if you just
gave that little, helpless, defenseless and, yes, even at times
imperfect life the opportunity for life?
Why does that so endanger the mother to do that? Why is it necessary
to thrust these Metzenbaum scissors into the base of the baby's skull?
Why is it necessary to suction the baby's brains out?
So many doctors have described to me in testimony--and today at a
press conference--the complications resulting from this blind procedure
where the physician has to feel for the base of the neck and could slip
and miss. As the Senator from Tennessee testified today, there are
large vessels, blood vessels within a centimeter from the point where
this procedure is done that a minor miss could lacerate and cause
hemorrhaging and severe complications, or by thrusting the scissors in
the back of the neck, through a bony part of the brain, you could only
imagine what would happen to the skull of that baby and what damage
that skull could do to the mother.
How can we--how can we--continue to contend or pretend that this is
healthy for the mother to end this baby's life when it is this close
and a delivery could be performed? Let's get away from that charade
because it is a charade. It is not about the health of the mother; it
is about killing a baby. It is about making sure, beyond any certainty,
beyond any doubt, that the result of this abortion you are going to
have is a dead baby.
That is what this is about. This is about a lethal form of abortion,
not a healthy form for the mother--far from it. Even folks who disagree
with this legislation will tell you that this very well may not be the
safest form. In fact, that organization has not done any studies to
prove it is safe, that is, the American College of Obstetrics and
Gynecologists. They have done no studies to prove that this procedure
is safe, that this procedure is preferable.
They say--they say--and I will quote them--they say:
[We] could identify no circumstances under which this
procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or
preserve the health of the woman.
That is an admission by the organization that all those in opposition
to this bill use as their medical shield. Listen to what they say. They
never read this part of the letter. They only read the second part,
which I will read to fully disclose. I will read it again, an ACOG
policy statement emanating from the review declared that:
A select panel [the panel they selected to review this]
could identify no circumstances under which this procedure
[partial-birth abortion], would be the only option to save
the life or preserve the health of the woman.
They went on to say that a 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.
They say that:
. . . only the doctor, in consultation with the patient
based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this
decision.
That is what you hear from the other side. What you do not hear from
the other side is that this report lists no circumstances to support
that claim. They can give, and in fact have given--this was written
well over a year ago--they have given no medical situation, no
scenario, no hypothetical where what they say may happen would, in
fact, happen, which is that a partial-birth abortion would be
preferable to some other procedure. They just think it might.
Now, I might be wrong, but there are probably very few things that
are happening in obstetrics today that haven't happened for the past
several years. There are not a lot of new things coming up. There are
problems that come up routinely. There may be some strange problems;
they are probably not new.
To make this kind of statement and support it with no evidence is
irresponsible. To use this organization and this statement as a shield
when they cannot provide one single example where this procedure would
be preferable, again, just builds up the record that I have laid out.
This entire debate is based upon a series of misleading statements to
try to divert attention away from the horrible, barbaric reality and
the fact that this is not a medically necessary procedure.
I want to get back for 1 minute to the issue of life of the mother
which I addressed a few minutes ago. I said I would read the piece of
legislation itself to put to bed, if you will, any concern by anyone
who might be listening that there isn't a legitimate life-of-the-mother
exception. I noted the American Medical Association's letter of
endorsement of this bill. They believe there is a legitimate exception
if the life of the mother is in danger.
Let me read the actual legislation, the paragraph on prohibition of
partial-birth abortion:
[[Page S10546]]
. . . shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is
necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is
endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.
Now, I cannot imagine a life-of-the-mother situation this does not
cover. In fact, I don't recall any example from the other side of a
life-of-the-mother situation that this does not cover. They just say it
is different from other life-of-the-mother exceptions that we put
forward. But they don't say where the ``hole'' is in the exception.
I think it is very clear and very certain that there is an adequate
protection in that case.
I will say that I cannot imagine--and I have talked to many
physicians on this point--I cannot imagine a woman coming into an
emergency room where her life is in danger, whether she is hemorrhaging
or has preeclampsia--I can't imagine a doctor, being presented with
this emergency case where they must act within a short period of time,
saying, ``We are going to dilate your cervix over a 3-day period of
time and we will perform this procedure.'' That just wouldn't happen.
It is almost absurd to suggest that this would actually be used in a
situation where the life of the mother was threatened.
Yes, there is a life-of-the-mother exception, but there is absolutely
no circumstance I could conceive of--and I don't recall any information
from any of the medical experts by the other side coming out and saying
medical experts believe that there is a case where the life of the
mother is in danger in an emergency situation where they may use this.
I don't think they even made claims of the woman presenting herself to
a hospital or a clinic, where her life is in danger, that any
practitioner would use a 3-day procedure.
While there is a life-of-the-mother exception in there, and I think
it is a solid one, it is certainly not one that I believe will ever be
used, because this procedure certainly doesn't comport with a life-
threatening situation because of the time it takes.
Since I have the AMA letter here, I want to read it. I think it is
important for the Record to reflect the support of the American Medical
Association, ``physicians dedicated to the health of America.'' That is
their saying under their logo.
They say:
Our support of this legislation is based on three specific
principles. First, the bill would allow a legitimate
exception where the life of the mother was endangered,
thereby preserving the physician's judgment to take any
medically necessary steps to save the life of the mother.
Second, the bill would clearly define the prohibited
procedure so that it is clear on the face of the legislation
what act is to be banned. Finally, the bill would give any
accused physician the right to have his or her conduct
reviewed by the State medical board before a criminal trial
commenced. In this manner, the bill would provide a formal
role for valuable medical peer determination in any
enforcement proceeding.
The AMA believes that with these changes, physicians will
be on notice as to the exact nature of the prohibited
conduct.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you towards
restricting a procedure we all agree is not good medicine.
Not good medicine.
With respect to the points they make, many of the courts--while some
have validated the statutes, some of the courts have been concerned
about vagueness, of what procedure we are actually defining.
We worked with the American Medical Association to come up with a new
definition, a tighter definition that put the physician, as they say,
on notice as to the exact nature of the prohibited conduct, which I
think is important to meet constitutional scrutiny.
Second, we provide an opportunity for the procedure and the conduct
of the physician to be reviewed by the State medical board to see
whether, in fact, it was necessary under some circumstance, which was
an important peer review element that we think is a safeguard, if you
will, for the physician.
A couple of other points that I want to make before I go back to
talking about what I was talking about when we had to conclude debate
earlier today.
This is a picture of a young man by the name of Tony Melendez. That
is Tony. Tony Melendez will be here in Washington tomorrow up in the
Senate gallery watching the vote on partial-birth abortion, because
Tony's disability, Tony's handicap, is one of the disabilities that has
been mentioned here on the floor as a good reason to perform a partial-
birth abortion.
Senators come up and say there are children who will be so grossly
deformed. They may be blind--I am not making this up; this is what was
said--blind, or without arms or without legs, and they went on with
other deformities. Well, Tony Melendez is a thalidomide baby. Tony
Melendez doesn't have any arms. Tony Melendez was born in Rivas,
Nicaragua. His father was a graduate of the International Academy of
Agriculture in this town and had a good job in the sugar refinery.
Sara, his mother, was an elementary school teacher. They had their
first child, named Jose. In the summer of 1961, she had a second
pregnancy. She was given thalidomide to treat her morning sicknesses
because it was hailed as a safer alternative to other sedatives to deal
with morning sickness. On January 9, 1962, Sara gave birth to Tony. He
had no arms, 11 toes, and a severe club foot that would require
surgical repair if he were ever to have a chance to walk. He was
typical of babies who were exposed to thalidomide at the early stages
of pregnancy.
Well, his family was very concerned about showing the baby to the
mother because of the fear of her reaction. When they did give little
Tony to his mother, she embraced her child with the confidence that he
would live a full and meaningful life, regardless of his flaws. Still
there was question of how he could live a normal life with no arms.
Young Tony answered the question one day when he was in his crib. His
mother had put away the toys that he had been given as gifts because
she assumed he would be unable to enjoy them. However, Tony showed he
could play just like any other child when a red balloon landed in his
crib. He began bouncing it up and down with his feet, laughing and
giggling. She placed the toys in the crib and vowed that day that she
would never assume Tony could not do anything because of his
disability. She would let him try.
Tony needed corrective surgery for his club foot. Since Nicaragua did
not have adequate facilities, or the level of care he needed, they went
to Los Angeles. Due to the nature and length of time involved in Tony's
corrective surgery, the family decided to stay in the United States and
become citizens. Tony spent most of his childhood in Southeastern
California.
Tony enjoyed sports, particularly volley ball--volley ball?--where he
would hit the ball with his head back over the net. And, of course, he
liked soccer. As a sixth grader, Tony wanted to play a game that the
neighbor kids were playing, in which his brother Jose excelled--
basketball. He tried, with great difficulty, with his feet to do what
his peers did so easily with their hands. After being told by his
brother that he could not do it, he was determined to do it, and
despite blistering and even bleeding toes, one day he eventually
succeeded. The one thing Tony hated more than anything else was growing
up and not being treated as an equal. When once asked whether he
preferred to be called handicapped or disabled, Tony responded that he
would like to be called ``human.''
At the age of 14, in high school, he demanded to be transferred out
of a handicapped class to the regular classroom with students. He was
allowed to go to a normal gym class. In his first gym class, he was
watched intensely by the others when class started. Jumping jacks? How
would a kid with no arms do jumping jacks? The other kids tried to
determine that, and they watched and tried to be subtle in looking. And
Tony jumped and shouted and counted in unison with the others. The rest
of the class accepted him readily.
In his teenage years, Tony showed a talent for music. He learned to
play the guitar with his feet. At first, he played at various events,
such as weddings, funerals, and special events at his church.
Eventually, he turned his guitar talent into a full-time vocation. Here
is a picture of Tony Melendez today. In connection with his church, he
would also talk to groups of kids about his story and how one can
overcome difficulty. Tony's life was such an inspirational story, and
he was selected to be a ``gift'' to the Pope by a Catholic youth group
during a papal visit to California in 1987. Tony gave a performance to
a live audience of 6,000 at the Universal Amphitheater in Hollywood. He
performed at World Youth
[[Page S10547]]
Day in 1991 and World Youth Day in Denver 1993. He also has appeared on
numerous television shows and performed at major sporting events,
recently singing the National Anthem at Yankee Stadium, I believe. Tony
now resides in Dallas, Texas.
Why do I talk about Tony Melendez? Today on the floor of the Senate,
the Senator from California referred to some people up in the galleries
as women who needed to have partial-birth abortions, and that they
would be here tomorrow standing in the Halls staring at Senators as
they walked in here to make sure they knew--that we knew they were
there to keep this procedure legal. Tony Melendez, and so many like
Tony who are not perfect in the eyes of our society--but, of course,
are perfect in the eyes of God--will be there also to represent the
millions of little babies who could not be there themselves, to remind
every Member that walks on this floor that there is a severe cost, a
human cost to what we will be voting on tomorrow. And the ones who have
the arrow or the bull's-eye on their back, who are the target of
partial-birth abortion--at least if you believe the arguments on the
other side--are people like Tony Melendez who, because they are not
perfect, don't deserve to live.
I have always found it ironic, and I will never forget the last time
we brought this bill up on the floor of the Senate. I remember standing
here waiting for the debate to begin and working on some remarks, and
the debate that was going on around us. The vote that was finally taken
was on a bill to provide individuals with disabilities the right to an
education in a classroom. I will never forget the Members, many of
which oppose banning partial-birth abortions; I will never forget those
Members coming to the floor and standing up with passion, which I
respect, admire, and support, about how children with disabilities
should have the right to live a fulfilling, complete life, and should
be given rights to education. Or as they did under the Americans With
Disability Act, where they should have the right to public
transportation, the right to have access to buildings, to cut the curbs
at the corners so they can have access to sidewalks--rights, rights,
rights--with the passion that was the hallmark of liberalism in this
country--until this issue, because with the very next vote they cast
they made this statement: If you can survive the womb, we will defend
your rights. But we will not defend your right to be born in the first
place. In fact, you are the very reason this procedure needs to
continue, because we don't want you. You are not what we are looking
for in people.
What a loss this country would have without Tony Melendez. But had
partial-birth abortions been around when Tony was in his mother's womb,
many on this floor would stand up and argue that he is just the kind of
baby that we need to get rid of with this procedure. The Bible says,
and Abraham Lincoln quoted, ``A house divided against itself cannot
stand.'' You cannot stand up and passionately argue for the rights of
the disabled, and with the same breath not give them the right to exist
in the first place. It doesn't make sense. It isn't logical or
rational. Oh, it may be political; it may make sense because little
babies in the womb don't vote, but it makes no logical sense, and it
makes no moral sense to draw that line where it doesn't exist.
The Senator from Illinois said today that we should not have this
debate with anecdotes. Yet, this debate has been all anecdotes on the
other side because the facts are not in their favor. So I thought it
was important to present some anecdotes on the other side, to lay out
what we are missing. Tony's is a happy story, but earlier today I
talked about some stories that were not so happy. The endings were so
fairy tale-like.
Let me talk about another one of those stories--a little girl named
Mary Bernadette French. In 1993, Jeannie French was overjoyed to learn
she was pregnant with twins. Four months into her pregnancy, tragedy
struck and Jeannie learned her daughter Mary was not developing
normally.
Specialists identified an opening at the base of the baby's neck.
Mary was diagnosed with occipital encephalocele, a condition in which
the majority of the brain develops outside the skull. Prospects for a
normal life for the child were very dim. Jeannie's doctors advised her
to abort Mary due to the severity of the disability and in order to
reduce the complications of the twin birth.
What a horrible thing she must have had to deal with--two lives
within her, one, according to the doctor, potentially threatening the
other. Because Mary could not have survived normal labor, Jeannie and
her husband opted for a cesarean section. In December of 1993, Mary was
born 1 minute after her twin brother, Will. Hospital staff promptly
moved Will to the nursery. Mary stayed with her parents, was welcomed
into the world by her parents, grandparents, and close friends of the
family. Mary was held, loved, and serenaded for 6 hours. She quietly
passed away that afternoon.
That is little Mary in the arms, I believe, of her grandmother.
In memory of her daughter, Jeannie French testified in favor of the
ban on partial-birth abortions before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
She explained that Mary's life was short but meaningful. She entreated
the committee: ``Some children by nature cannot live. If we are to call
ourselves a civilized culture, we must allow that their death be
natural, peaceful, and painless. And if other pre-born children face a
life of disability, let us welcome them into society with our arms open
in love.''
For the Record, Jeannie French requested meetings with the President,
pleading with him on more than one occasion to listen to a fellow
Democrat, she said, who is on the other side of the debate. She
explained in the letter:
We simply want the truth to be heard regarding the risks of
carrying disabled children to term. You say that partial-
birth abortion has to be legal, for cases like ours, because
women's bodies would be ``ripped to shreds'' by carrying
their very sick children to term. By your repeated
statements, you imply that partial-birth abortion is the only
or most desirable response to children suffering severe
disabilities like our children.
What she showed is that instead of giving her child a death sentence,
she found it within herself to love that child. She found it within
herself to name that child, to welcome that child into the family, to
commit to that child as a child who will always be part of the family,
who will always be in her memory and in the memory of her twin
brother--not a bag of tissue discarded and executed, ignored, and put
behind them, but loved, accepted, welcomed, and committed to memory;
with pain, yes, but with the knowledge that in the 6 hours that little
Mary Bernadette French lived, she knew love. She was loved by her
mother and father. What greater gift can a parent give? What a life, as
short as it was, to know only love and her parents.
Jeannie continues her efforts today to educate the public about
partial-birth abortion. She also works to ensure that people know that
the lives of disabled children, while short, are sometimes painful and
not in vain because they teach us so much about us.
Finally, a case--I hate to say ``case''; a little girl--a little girl
who I talked about a lot last year, a little girl by the name of Donna
Joy Watts who, with Tony Melendez tomorrow, will be here as another
example--in this case, a real life example--of how a mother, who was
not only asked and encouraged but almost forced to abort her child,
could not find a hospital to deliver her child.
The Watts family, Donny and Lori Watts, had to go to three hospitals
in Maryland to find a hospital that would deliver their child. We hear
so much talk on the floor about, ``We need to make sure that women have
access to abortion.'' What we are finding out and what I have found out
through this debate is that we actually need to make sure that women
who want to deliver their baby have access to a hospital to deliver
their baby and have access to care once that baby is delivered.
The Wattses ended up at a hospital in Baltimore. Their daughter was
diagnosed with multiple problems. Hydrocephalus was the principal one.
Again, hydrocephalus is water on the brain. She had so much cerebral
fluid that it impeded the normal development of the brain. In her case,
they believed that she had little to no brain. But the Watts family
said they were going to move forward, that they were going to accept
and love their child, and they wanted to deliver their child and give
it every opportunity for life.
[[Page S10548]]
At every step of the process, even the last step, the OB/GYNs
recommended abortion, because not only did she have hydrocephalus but
part of her brain was developing outside of her skull, and that this
baby had no chance of survival.
She was born on November 26, 1991, through cesarean section. Again,
an option available for hydrocephalus, because the baby's head is too
big to go through the birth canal, is to do a cesarean section. There
are other methods: Draining the fluid from the head and then delivering
through the vagina. In this case, they chose cesarean section.
She was born with very serious health problems. The most remarkable
thing after the birth was that the hospital staff made no attempt to
feed her in the traditional sense. The doctors at the University of
Maryland where she was delivered believed that Donna Joy's deformities
would prevent her from suckling, eating, or swallowing. Because a
neural tube defect made her feeding difficult, Donna received only IV
fluids for the first days of her life. But Lori refused to give up.
Initially, she fed breast milk to Donna Joy with a sterilized eye
dropper to provide sustenance, because they wouldn't feed her. Then, at
2 weeks of age, the shunt that was placed in Donna Joy's head--by the
way, the shunt. It took 3 days for Lori and Donny to convince the
doctors to do an operation on her brain to relieve the pressure from
the fluid. The doctors thought she was just going to die, so they
didn't want to treat her. But finally after 3 days of pounding away at
the doctors they did the procedure. Two weeks later, the shunt, which
allows the fluid to drain from the brain, failed, and she was
readmitted to the hospital for corrective surgery.
When the tray of food was delivered to their hospital room by
mistake, Lori had a brainstorm. She mashed the contents together,
created her own food for the newborn with rice, bananas and baby
formula, and she fed the mixture to the baby one drop at a time with a
feeding syringe. Unfortunately, Donna Joy's fight for life became even
more complicated.
After 2 months, she underwent an operation to correct occipital--I
won't get into the terms but another problem. After 4 months, a CT scan
revealed that she also suffered from another condition which results
from an incomplete cleavage of the brain. She also suffered from
epilepsy, sleep disorder, and continued digestive complications. In
fact, the baby's neurologist said, ``We may have to consider placement
of a gastronomy tube in order to maintain her nutrition and physical
growth.''
She still had hydrocephaly, or water on the brain, and she couldn't
hold her head up because it was so heavy. She suffered from apnea--in
other words, a condition where breathing spontaneously stops. She had
several brushes with death. She had undergone eight brain operations.
Finally, through all of that trauma and all of the problems, she
survived and she will be here tomorrow. Donna Joy continues to be, at 6
years of age, an inspiration. She continues to battle
holoprosencephaly, hydrocephalus, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, tunnel
vision, and Arnold-Chiari Type II malformation that prevents formation
of her medulla oblongata.
Despite these hardships, having only a small fraction of her brain,
she runs, walks, plays, has a healthy appetite and even likes Big
Mac's, and she is taking karate lessons now. She has earned her white
belt and performed in karate demonstrations.
Before Donna Joy moved to Pennsylvania, Greencastle, PA, Franklin
County, Maryland Governor Parris Glendening honored her with a
certificate of courage commemorating her fifth birthday. Mayor Steve
Sager, of Hagerstown, MD, proclaimed her birthday Donna Joy Watts Day.
Members of the Scott Bakula Fan Club, who is someone who helped Donna
Joy get through some very difficult times with his songs, have sent
donations and Christmas presents to the Watts family. People from
around the world have learned about Donna Joy on the Internet and
write, e-mail her, and send her gifts. But perhaps the most important
thing was because of Donna Joy's determination, it inspired a Denver
couple to fight for their little boy under similar circumstances.
This is Donna Joy's story, this little girl who was considered by the
medical world as somebody who was not worthy to live, someone on
repeated occasions who would have been aborted using partial-birth
abortion, who I have had the time to spend time with, and my children
have, too. She is not a burden, although I understand from Lori she can
be a handful like any other 6-year old. She is not a heartache or a
sorrow, as some would describe children with disabilities who need to
be aborted. She is a beautiful, marvelous, wonderfully made gift from
God, who has inspired so many to understand just that fact. She will be
here tomorrow, possibly standing next to the women who want to keep
this procedure legal, so we can kill people like Donna Joy Watts in a
brutal fashion, in an inhumane fashion, in a painful fashion, in a
fashion, as I quoted today from the AMA Journal, that would violate
Federal regulations on the treatment of animals used in research. We
could not do to animals used in research legally in this country, we
could not do what we do every day in this country to little babies
because they are not wanted, in some cases not wanted because of their
deformity but in the vast majority of cases they are just simply not
wanted. What a high price to pay for one person not wanting you to be
around, the ultimate price to pay.
Tomorrow, we are going to have the opportunity to show the world the
direction the United States of America is taking. We are involved right
now in a moral crisis in this country, on the front page of the paper
every day. It is no wonder that we are in a moral crisis.
Back in 1972, 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, many people said
that this was going to be a breakthrough for women and for children,
that all these wonderful things would happen to our society as a
result, to children and to women, as a result of the legalization of
abortion. We would eliminate unwanted pregnancies, and the result of
that would be less child abuse because we wouldn't have all these
children nobody wanted, illegitimacy would go down, child poverty would
go down because we wouldn't have all of these poor kids around that we
don't want. Spousal abuse would go down, divorce would go down, less
complications in marriages and relationships.
It is a cruel joke. It almost seems laughable to think back 25 years
and look at what has happened on every single count. All of the culture
indicators that I mentioned go down worse and worse and worse. Those
who feared Roe v. Wade back in 1973 were very much on target. The fear
was that we would lose respect for life and that we would become so
insensitive to life that abortion would be just the beginning of the
end of our selectivity of who we include in our society.
And so it has gone, to the point where now we can't even save a
little baby almost born. I wish that were the worst. We now have State-
assisted suicide laws. We now have debates, active debates on
euthanasia. We even have an article from a professor at MIT who argues,
or at least makes the case for infanticide--not infanticide on partial-
birth abortion but actual infanticide. And then we have the cases of
prom mom and the Delaware couple and so many others where we hear
around the country of babies being born and then murdered shortly after
birth. The initial reaction, while horror, at the same time is
sympathy--sympathy for this difficult situation in which these children
or kids were put.
We somehow see little children, little babies, different than older
children. Older children--if you have killed your older children, that
is really bad. We have no sympathy for you. But somehow, if you killed
a baby just born we try to figure out a way to get around it. We try to
figure out a way that that does not quite meet the threshold of murder.
If you look at the punishments meted out--substantially lower. They are
substantially lower than other murder cases. We just do not value those
little babies as much.
Why? Why? Is it any mystery why? If we start, as we have, down the
path of not valuing those little babies because we do not value them in
the womb, or four-fifths outside the womb, or just newly outside the
womb, who is next? Look around. Who is going to be next? Who is going
to be the next group of
[[Page S10549]]
people who we are not going to value, who does not have the might to
force down what they believe is right? I made it. I am here in this
body. I am whole. I am healthy. If you have not made it yet, watch it,
because it then depends on whether you are on the committee that
decides, or you are on the court that decides who lives and who dies.
Because there is no line anymore. There is no truth on which we are
basing this. There is no ``life or nonlife.'' There is might. There is
political power and that is what determines who lives and dies, who is
valuable and who is not.
Tomorrow, 34 Senators can exercise their might on who lives and dies.
They can decide for a country that a group of people, a group of little
helpless babies, do not belong.
I am hopeful that when tomorrow comes, after much prayer tonight by
so many people all over the country, and the world, that three more
Members will open their eyes when they wake up in the morning and
realize that but for the grace of God, there go I, and that we have to
open our hearts more and include the least among us, the little
children.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________