[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 60 (Thursday, April 29, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4461-S4463]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. 
        Lott, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Allard, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Bond, Mr. 
        Brownback, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Burns, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Craig, Mr. 
        Crapo, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. 
        Frist, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Grams, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
        Hagel, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Helms, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. 
        Kyl, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Mack, Mr. McCain, Mr. McConnell, Mr. 
        Murkowski, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shelby, 
        Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Voinovich, 
        and Mr. Warner):
  S. 928, A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-
birth abortions; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


               the partial birth abortion ban act of 1999

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Partial 
Birth Abortion Ban Act. This bill is identical to the legislation 
endorsed by the American Medical Association (AMA) and vetoed by 
President Clinton in October, 1997. This bill is narrowly written to 
prohibit one particularly gruesome, inhumane, and medically unaccepted 
late term abortion method, except when the procedure is necessary to 
save the life of the mother.
  Also known as Intact Dilation Evacuation or Intrauterine Cranial 
Decompression, a partial birth abortion is performed over a three day 
period during the second or third trimester. After the cervix is 
dilated over a two-day period, the doctor begins the actual abortion on 
the third day. Once the doctor turns the baby into the breech position, 
he delivers all but the head through the birth canal. At this point the 
child is still alive. Then, the doctor stabs the baby in the base of 
its skull with curved scissors and uses a suction catheter to remove 
the child's brain. This procedure kills the baby. After the skull 
collapses, the doctor completes the delivery.
  Partial birth abortions are performed as outpatient procedures in 
clinics. They are usually done on healthy 20-25 week olds with healthy 
mothers. Estimates suggest as many as 5000 are performed annually in 
the U.S. We know of 1500 per year in one New Jersey clinic.
  The American public finds this procedure repugnant. A growing 
consensus in the medical community considers it unnecessary and even 
unethical. Yet the reason this horrific procedure is still legal in the 
United States is because President Clinton has twice vetoed legislation 
that would have outlawed partial birth abortion, except in cases of 
maternal life endangerment.
  The lies propagated by proponents of partial birth abortion have 
taken on a life of their own. First, we were told--and by we I mean 
Congress--there was no such thing as partial birth abortion. Three 
years after Dr. Martin Haskell, a pioneer of this technique, described 
it to the National Abortion Federation (NAF), the NAF sent a letter to 
Congress denying its existence. Then Congress was assured the fetus 
feels no pain during the procedure because anesthesia given to the 
mother induced ``neurological fetal demise.'' Such was the testimony of 
Dr. James McMahon, another pioneer of the partial birth abortion, to 
the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. After pregnant 
women across the country started refusing necessary surgery, Dr. Norig 
Ellison, President of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, 
testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee to set the record 
straight. He told the Committee women would have to be anesthetized to 
the point where their own health was endangered to achieve 
``neurological demise'' of the fetus. By the way, ``neurological 
demise'' refers to the ``brain death,'' not literal death. Not to be 
deterred, proponents of partial birth abortion circulated a third lie--
anesthesia kills the fetus. Yet we know from Dr. Ellison's testimony 
and Dr. Haskell's own statements that the baby is alive during the 
procedure. Lie number four asserted partial birth abortions were 
``rare.'' Then, a small newspaper in New Jersey discovered that 1500 of 
these ``rare'' procedures were performed each year in one clinic. This 
one clinic was performing three times the supposed national rate of 
partial birth abortions. Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the 
National Coalition of Abortion Providers, suggested as many as 5000 
could be performed annually. Another egregious lie asserted this 
technique was only used in cases where the mother's life or health were 
at risk, or when the fetus was deformed. Ron Fitzsimmons helped spread 
this misinformation. He would later admit that he ``lied through my 
teeth.''
  The last lie, which the President continues citing in defense of this 
procedure, proports that partial birth abortion is necessary to protect 
women's health. A group of more than 600 doctors, most of whom are OB-
GYNs or perinatologists, call this lie the ``most serious distortion.'' 
In reality, partial birth is never medically necessary. That is the 
opinion of doctors across this country. The AMA says it is ``not 
medically indicated,'' ``is not good medicine,'' is ``ethically wrong'' 
and ``is not an accepted `medical practice' ''. Former Surgeon General 
C. Everett Koop, who has 30 years of experience in pediatric surgery, 
has publicly denounced this procedure. Dr. Warren Hern, who wrote the 
most widely used textbook on performing abortions admitted he ``* * * 
would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use.'' 
The Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT), a group of over 600 
doctors, emphatically states that partial birth abortion is never 
medically necessary and ``should be banned in the interests of women, 
their children, and the proper practice of medicine.''
  There is absolutely no evidence that partial birth abortion is a safe 
procedure. There are no peer reviewed scientific studies. It is not 
mentioned in medical textbooks or taught in medical schools. The facts, 
as reviewed by doctors, suggest this technique is in fact dangerous for 
women. Because of the deliberate breech positioning and the blind 
procedure of stabbing the baby at the base of its skull, partial birth 
abortion subjects women to risks beyond those normally encountered in 
conventional late term abortions. Furthermore, it could not be used in 
the two most common life endangering conditions during pregnancy, 
infection and hemorrhage, because it puts women at greater risk for 
both.

[[Page S4462]]

  Conditions such as hydrocephaly, trisomy, Downs Syndrome, and 
development of the organs or brain outside the body have been cited as 
instances in which partial birth abortion was recommended to preserve a 
woman's life, health, or future fertility. There are tragic situations 
that require separation of the child from the mother. But it is never 
necessary to kill the child during that separation to preserve maternal 
health.
  I have met families who were advised to have a partial birth abortion 
after their child was diagnosed with a disability. These mothers faced 
many of the same struggles, such as concerns for their other children, 
concerns about whether they would be able to care for a handicapped 
baby, and finding a doctor who was willing to deliver the child. As the 
Senate considers the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, I will tell the 
stories of these families and the children.
  In closing, I ask my colleagues to examine this issue with their 
hearts. We know of two baby girls, one born in Phoenix and the other in 
Ohio, who survived this brutal procedure. Baby Phoenix overcame cuts 
and a skull fracture sustained during a partial birth abortion 
procedure. Today, she lives with her adopted parents in Texas. Baby 
Hope lived only three hours and eight minutes. She was born prematurely 
during the first dilation stage of a partial birth abortion. Her life 
was short, but she personalized this issue for the hospital staff who 
gently nursed her for those few hours. I ask that my colleagues 
consider whether these little girls deserved to be subjected to partial 
birth abortions. I ask them to consider that these children were not 
catch phrases, slogans, or concepts. These babies, and other candidates 
for partial birth abortions, are human beings. They are being killed 
with a procedure that would not be legal for use on animals. I ask my 
colleagues to do the right thing and vote to outlaw this horrific 
procedure.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Partial 
Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1999 be inserted into the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 928

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after chapter 73 the following:

                 ``CHAPTER 74--PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS

``Sec.
``1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited.

     ``Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

       ``(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or 
     foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion 
     and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this 
     title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. This 
     paragraph 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. This 
     paragraph shall become effective one day after enactment.
       ``(b)(1) As used in this section, the term `partial-birth 
     abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing 
     the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus 
     before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.
       ``(2) As used in this section, the term `physician' means a 
     doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to 
     practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the 
     doctor performs such activity, or any other individual 
     legally authorized by the State to perform abortions: 
     Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician 
     or not otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform 
     abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a partial-
     birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this 
     section.
       ``(3) As used in this section, the term `vaginally delivers 
     a living fetus before killing the fetus' means deliberately 
     and intentionally delivers into the vagina a living fetus, or 
     a substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing 
     a procedure the physician knows will kill the fetus, and 
     kills the fetus.
       ``(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time 
     she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the 
     mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of 
     the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in 
     a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the 
     pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or 
     the plaintiff consented to the abortion.
       ``(2) Such relief shall include--
       ``(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and 
     physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and
       ``(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of 
     the partial-birth abortion.
       ``(d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this 
     section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on 
     whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the 
     life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical 
     disorder, illness or injury.
       ``(2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that 
     issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the 
     defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial 
     for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take 
     place.
       ``(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is 
     performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a 
     conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under 
     section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this 
     section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to chapter 73 the following new item:

``74. Partial-birth abortions...............................1531''.....

 Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am very proud to join my 
distinguished colleague, Senator Santorum, in introducing this 
legislation to ban one of the most barbaric practices ever tolerated in 
a civilized society. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is a measure we 
have already passed twice, only to see it overturned by Presidential 
vetoes. Enactment of this bill into law is long overdue.
  A recent tragic event in my own home state of Ohio brings home yet 
again the need for this ban.
  On April 6, a young woman went into the Dayton Medical Center in 
Montgomery County, Ohio, to undergo a partial-birth abortion. This is a 
procedure that usually takes place behind closed doors, where it can be 
ignored, its moral status left unquestioned.
  But this particular procedure was different. In this procedure, on 
April 6, things did not go as planned. Here's what happened.
  The Dayton abortionist, Dr. Martin Haskell, started a procedure to 
dilate her cervix, so the child could eventually be removed and killed. 
He applied seaweed to start the procedure. He then sent her home--
because this procedure usually takes two or three days. In fact, the 
patient is supposed to return on the second day for a further 
application of seaweed--and then come back a third time for the actual 
partial-birth abortion.
  So the woman went home to Cincinnati, expecting to return to Dayton 
and complete the procedure in two or three days. But her cervix dilated 
far too quickly. Shortly after midnight in the first day, after 
experiencing severe stomach pains, she was admitted to Bethesda North 
Hospital in Cincinnati.
  The child was born. After three hours and eight minutes, the child 
died.
  The cause of death was listed on the death certificate as 
``prematurity secondary to induced abortion.''
  True enough, Mr. President. But also on the death certificate is a 
space for ``Method of death.'' And it says, in the case of this child, 
quote, ``Method of death: natural.''
  Now that, Mr. President, may well be true in the technical sense. But 
if you look at the events that led up to her death, you'll see that 
there was really nothing natural about them about them at all.
  The medical technician who held that little girl for the three hours 
and eight minutes of her short life named her Baby Hope. Baby Hope did 
not die of natural causes. She was the victim of a barbaric procedure 
that is opposed by the vast majority of the American people. A 
procedure that has twice been banned by act of Congress--only to see 
the ban repeatedly overturned by a Presidential veto.
  The death of Baby Hope did not take place behind the closed doors of 
an abortion clinic. It took place in public--in a hospital dedicated to 
saving lives, not taking them. It reminds us of the brutal reality and 
tragedy of what partial birth abortion really is.
  When we voted to ban partial-birth abortions, we talked about this 
procedure in graphic detail. The public reaction to this disclosure--
the disclosure of what partial-birth abortion really is--was loud and 
it was decisive. And there is a very good reason for this. The 
procedure is barbaric.
  One of the first questions people ask is ``why?''

[[Page S4463]]

  ``Why do they do this procedure? Is it really necessary? Why do we 
allow this to happen?''
  Dr. C. Everett Koop speaks for the consensus of the medical 
profession when he says this is never a medically necessary procedure. 
Even Martin Haskell--the abortionist in the Baby Hope case--has 
admitted that at least eighty percent of the partial-birth abortions he 
performs are elective.
  The facts are clear. Partial-birth abortion is not that rare a 
procedure. What is rare is that we--as a society--saw it happen. It 
happened by surprise, at a regular hospital, where it wasn't supposed 
to.
  Baby Hope was not supposed to die in the arms of a medical 
technician. But she did. And she cannot easily be ignored.
  This procedure is not limited to mothers and fetuses who are in 
danger. It's performed on healthy women--and healthy babies--all the 
time.
  The goal of a partial birth abortion is not to protect somebody's 
health but to kill a child. That is what the doctor wants to do.
  Dr. Haskell himself has said as much. In an interview with the 
American Medical News, he said--and I quote--``you could dilate further 
and deliver the baby alive but that's really not the point. The point 
is you are attempting to do an abortion. And that's the goal of your 
work, is to complete an abortion. Not to see how do I manipulate the 
situation so that I get a live birth instead.'' Unquote.
  Dr. Haskell admitted it. Why don't we?
  Again, let's hear Dr. Haskell describe this procedure. Quote: ``I 
just kept on doing D&Es (dilation and extractions) because that was 
what I was comfortable with, up until 24 weeks. But they were very 
tough. Sometimes it was a 45-minute operation. I noticed that some of 
the later D&Es were very, very easy. So I asked myself why can't they 
all happen this way. You see the easy ones would have a foot length 
presentation, you'd reach up and grab the foot of the fetus, pull the 
fetus down and the head would hang up and then you would collapse the 
head and take it out. It was easy.''
  It was easy, Mr. President. Easy for him. He doesn't say it was easy 
for the mother, and I suspect he doesn't care. His goal is to perform 
abortions. Is he the person we're going to trust to decide when 
abortions are necessary? He's got a production line going--and 
nothing's going to stop him from meeting his quota.
  Dr. Haskell continues: ``At first, I would reach around trying to 
identify a lower extremity blindly with the tip of my instrument. I'd 
get it right about 30-50 percent of the time. Then I said, `Well gee, 
if I just put the ultrasound up there I could see it all and I wouldn't 
have to feel around for it.' I did that and sure enough, I found it 99 
percent of the time. Kind of serendipity.'' End of quote.
  Serendipity, Mr. President.
  Let me conclude.
  We need to ask ourselves, what does our toleration of this procedure 
say about us, as a nation?
  Where do we draw the line? At what point do we finally stop saying, 
``I don't really like this, but it doesn't really matter to me, so I'll 
put up with it?''
  At what point do we say, unless we stop this from happening, we 
cannot justly call ourselves a civilized nation?
  Mr. President, when you come right down to it, America's moral 
anesthetic is wearing off. We know what's going on behind the curtain--
and we can't wish that knowledge away. We have to face it--and do 
what's right.
  We have to make the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act the law of the 
land. Twice in the last three years, Congress has passed this 
legislation with strong, bipartisan support, only to see it fall victim 
to a Presidential veto. Once again, I am confident Congress will do the 
right thing and pass this very important bill.
  But that's not enough, Mr. President. Passing this legislation in 
Congress is not enough. It will not save any lives. For lives to be 
saved, the bill must become law.
  If something happens behind the iron curtain of an abortion clinic 
it's easier to pretend that it doesn't happen. But the death of Baby 
Hope has torn that curtain, revealing the truth of this barbaric 
procedure. Let people not ask about us fifty years from now, ``How can 
they not have known?'' and ``Why didn't they do anything?''
  Because, Mr. President, the fact is: We do know. And we must take 
action.
                                 ______