[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.

                          ____________________