[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 48 (Tuesday, April 25, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2832-S2835]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                ABORTION

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to depart from the debate on the 
issue before us, which is an important issue. I appreciate the remarks 
made by my colleague from North Dakota. I listened intently to what he 
had to say, and I can understand his deep feelings about this issue.
  I want to talk about another issue because today, across the street 
from where we sit in the Halls of the Senate, the U.S. Supreme Court is 
hearing arguments on a case involving the so-called partial-birth 
abortion law of the State of Nebraska. That law, passed by the Nebraska 
Legislature, is quite similar to the version the Senate and the House 
have debated over the years. In fact, it is very similar to the one 
passed by the Senate last October.

[[Page S2833]]

  However, the real issue in the case before the Supreme Court and in 
the legislation before Congress is not about banning late term 
abortions. The real issue is about a systematic effort to overturn Roe 
V. Wade and to criminalize all abortions. The real issue is about 
whether we trust women, in consultation with their faith and their 
family, to make this very difficult, personal decision or do we put 
that trust in politicians? That is what this is really all about.
  Last October 21, during debate on the so-called partial-birth 
abortion bill in the Senate, I, along with Senator Boxer, offered a 
resolution to this so-called partial-birth abortion bill. Our 
resolution was very simple. It stated that it was the sense of the 
Senate that Roe v. Wade was an appropriate decision and should not be 
repealed.
  Let me read for the record the entire text of that resolution because 
it was very simple and very straightforward.

       (a) Findings: Congress finds that--
       (1) reproductive rights are central to the ability of women 
     to exercise their full rights under Federal and State law;
       (2) abortion has been a legal and constitutionally 
     protected medical procedure throughout the United States 
     since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 
     (1973));
       (3) the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade 
     established constitutionally based limits on the power of 
     States to restrict the right of a woman to choose to 
     terminate a pregnancy; and
       (4) women should not be forced into illegal and dangerous 
     abortions as they often were prior to the Roe v. Wade 
     decision.
       (b) Sense of Congress: It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) Roe v. Wade was an appropriate decision and secures an 
     important constitutional right; and
       (2) such decision should not be overturned.

  That is the full text of the resolution that I and Senator Boxer 
offered last October 21.
  By invalidating the laws that forced many women to seek unsafe, and 
often deadly back-alley abortions, Roe was directly responsible for 
saving women's lives. It is estimated that as many as 5,000 women a 
year died from illegal abortions before Roe.
  Roe v. Wade is the moderate, mainstream policy on which American 
women have come to rely. It recognized the right of women to make their 
own decisions about their own reproductive health. And very 
importantly, it provides specific protections for the life and the 
health of women.
  So the vote on the Harkin-Boxer amendment last October to finally put 
the Senate on record about its support for the mainstream Roe decision 
was very important. It was the first vote directly ever held here on 
whether the Senate wants to go back to the days of back-alley 
abortions.
  Our amendment barely passed, 51-47. Fifty-one said yes, Roe v. Wade 
was a good decision, it should not be overturned. Forty-seven Senators 
voted against that resolution, basically saying they did not agree with 
Roe v. Wade and that it should be overturned.
  Frankly, I was shocked at how close the vote on our amendment was. In 
fact, in offering the amendment, I thought: Here is a chance for an 
overwhelming vote of support by the Senate in confirming the Supreme 
Court decision on Roe v. Wade.
  But after that close vote, I then realized that the vote really 
lifted the veil of moderation of antichoice Senators. For so many who 
were saying, that they support Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to 
choose, they just want to ban partial birth abortion, here was the 
chance to express that. With 47 votes against Roe v. Wade, the veil has 
been lifted. Now we know what is the real agenda. The agenda is to 
criminalize choice, criminalize freedom of choice for women.

  While the Nation's attention is refocused on the issue of choice with 
today's Supreme Court case, I also want to shed some light on what has 
been going on behind the scenes in Congress since the Senate very 
closely approved our amendment.
  What would normally happen is that after the Senate passed the bill 
with our amendment, the House would act on the Senate-passed bill and 
request a conference with the Senate to work out the differences 
between the two bodies. Instead, the House of Representatives avoided a 
vote on our amendment. They took up a clean bill and sent it over here 
in order to avoid a conference. So it is clear that the Republican 
leadership in the House does not want to have to take a vote on this 
issue. In fact, the House has never had a vote on the issue of support 
for Roe v. Wade.
  Why else would the House majority take the unusual step of punting 
the bill back to the Senate for a unanimous consent instead of taking 
it to conference? It is clear the Republican leadership in the House 
did not want to have a vote, which would be allowed under the House 
rules to instruct the House conferees to support my amendment in 
conference, thus putting the House on record, once and for all, as to 
whether or not they support Roe v. Wade.
  Again, the Republican leadership in the House wants to continue to 
hide their true agenda. They want to hide behind a false cloak of 
moderation on the issue of choice.
  Senator Boxer and I have objected to this latest maneuver. Let me be 
clear. Every time the so-called partial-birth abortion bill, or any 
other antichoice legislation, comes to the Senate floor, I will offer 
my amendment, and there will be another vote on the Roe v. Wade 
resolution. People in the leadership know that. That is why they have 
not bothered to bring up any of their antichoice legislation since the 
last vote on October 21. They know I will offer my amendment every 
single time to lift their veil of moderation.
  So today I am challenging the House Republican leadership to allow a 
vote on our amendment. Let's let people know where their 
representatives stand on the basic issue of choice, the basic issue of 
Roe v. Wade. Because Roe v. Wade is the moderate, mainstream policy on 
which American women have come to rely. The Roe v. Wade vote in the 
Senate should send a wakeup call to all Americans that this policy is 
in jeopardy. They need to act to maintain it.
  In this most personal of decisions, we need to trust women, not 
politicians, to make the choice. That is what this is all about. 
Whether it is the case in front of the Supreme Court or whether it is 
the vote in the Senate, the issue is simply this: Do you trust 
politicians, whether they are in a State government or in the Federal 
Government, to make this decision for women or do you trust women?
  People of strong faith and good conscience have very different views 
on the issue of abortion. I respect both sides on this often divisive 
issue. I have struggled with it personally myself.
  Whether or not we agree, we should all work together to find 
commonsense, common ground steps to reduce the number of abortions and 
to protect the health and well-being of women and children. That means 
fully funding maternal and child health programs, fully funding the 
Women, Infants, and Children's feeding programs, fully funding 
contraceptive coverage, family planning services, and better adoption 
options, just to name a few of the policies we ought to be about.
  But the bottom line is this: Roe v. Wade was an enlightened decision. 
It is moderate. It puts the basic decisions on reproductive health 
where it belongs, with the woman and not with the Government.
  Today, as the Supreme Court, across the street, listens to the 
arguments on the Nebraska partial-birth abortion law, let us resolve 
that we are going to maintain a woman's basic right to choose, that we 
will not let the politicians take it over, that we will not return to 
the dark days of back-alley abortions and the criminalization of a 
woman's own right to choose her reproductive health. That is what this 
issue is about.

  The women of this country are counting on us to make sure we uphold 
the decision in Roe v. Wade. We cannot afford to let them down.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I came to the floor of the Senate because 
I noted that my friend, Senator Harkin from Iowa, was talking about a 
very important subject, a woman's right to choose. This right has been 
protected.

[[Page S2834]]

 After the case Roe v. Wade in 1973, a woman has had that right.
  Today we are looking at a different type of constitutional amendment. 
Senator Harkin made the point that, in fact, we have a case being heard 
at the Supreme Court which is going to essentially look at a woman's 
right to choose. I think it is appropriate that he would come over to 
make a few points, and I would like to engage him in a colloquy, if he 
would be willing to do that.
  First, I ask him to reiterate for me the basic point he made. We see 
in the Senate tens of votes we have to face on the issue of a woman's 
right to choose and the different aspects of it, whether a person who 
lives in the District of Columbia can use her insurance paid by the 
city to obtain a legal abortion, whether a Federal employee has that 
right, whether a woman in the military has the right to use a clean 
medical facility to exercise her rights, whether a woman in the late 
stage of a pregnancy that has turned desperately wrong has the right to 
have her health protected. We stand here on so many occasions casting 
these votes, having this debate ostensibly about a narrower issue 
surrounding a woman's right to choose.
  I wonder if my friend believes that is the real goal of the people 
who continually bring up this matter or whether it is, in fact, 
something quite deep, which is trying to erode a woman's right to 
choose, that basic right that was given to her after the Roe v. Wade 
decision in 1973.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from California for her long and 
strong support for the decision in Roe v. Wade. The Senator from 
California has been one of the most persistent and enlightened voices 
in the Senate--indeed, in the country--on protecting a woman's basic 
right to choose. I follow in her footsteps in many of these issues.
  The Senator from California has really put her finger on it, the 
point I was trying to make today. This partial-birth abortion law that 
the Supreme Court is reviewing today, as well as the legislation before 
Congress--is just a smokescreen. Its a smokescreen which anti-choice 
Members and groups are hiding behind in order to get their eventual 
goal, which is the total repeal and overturn of Roe v. Wade, to take 
away the essential and basic fundamental rights about which the Senator 
just spoke.
  Without Roe v. Wade and without that constitutionally protected right 
of women to have control over their own reproductive health, many of 
the things about which the Senator just spoke would be gone. There 
wouldn't be any right for women in the military, there wouldn't be any 
right for women in the District of Columbia or anywhere else, to have 
the kind of health coverage that would protect them in dire need when 
they need help, when perhaps a pregnancy has gone terribly wrong and 
they need immediate and very intensive medical help.
  That was why I wanted to talk about it today. I don't want to 
interfere in the Supreme Court decision. That is for them to decide 
over there. What I wanted to point out was that in conjunction with 
that, here in the Halls of Congress there is a very dangerous game 
being played out where proponents of so-called partial-birth abortion 
really have want to overturn the basic right to choose for women. That 
is why the two of us joined together last fall to offer that amendment.
  I say this because the Senator and I worked together on this 
amendment. We offered the amendment in good faith, thinking we were 
going to get an overwhelming vote of the Senate saying, yes, we support 
Roe v. Wade. I think both of us were shocked at how close we came.
  Mrs. BOXER. I was stunned that Roe v. Wade is hanging by a thread in 
the Senate: 51-49; is that correct? It was very close.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, 51-47; there were a couple of people who 
were not here.
  Mrs. BOXER. There were a couple of Members who were not here. To 
think that a basic right won by women when we were very young, in 1973, 
all those years ago, would be hanging by a thread in the year 2000 is 
really amazing. I really do pray that the Supreme Court, as they 
independently decide these issues in this particular case of the 
Nebraska statute will recognize that what the Senator from Iowa says is 
absolutely true. It is so important.
  We have a big debate over some made-up terminology that doesn't even 
exist in medical books. There is no such thing as partial-birth 
abortion. There is either a birth or an abortion. That is it. The 
description of the method used is really a method that is used in the 
early stages of a pregnancy as well. So if, in fact, that Nebraska case 
is upheld, women will be denied what is considered by many doctors to 
be the safest method. That undermines Roe because Roe was a very 
moderate decision. It basically said that before that fetus is viable, 
the woman has an unfettered right to choose. But at any stage in the 
pregnancy, one thing has to come first: the woman's life and the 
woman's health.
  I say to my friend, when we get into a pattern of outlawing specific 
procedures and playing doctor--by the way, we do have one doctor in 
this Senate, but he is not an OB/GYN--when we start to play doctor in 
the Senate, we are going to endanger women's health.
  If we start outlawing procedures we don't like--by the way, there is 
no medical procedure--something that is gruesome or you don't get upset 
by--if we start doing that, we will overturn Roe right here because we 
will be saying a woman's health really is subordinate, doesn't matter, 
and what does it matter if a woman can't have a particular procedural 
and as a result she is paralyzed or can never bear another child? It 
would be a disaster, and it would be overturning this basic right.
  So I want to say to my friend that I appreciate his leadership. I 
enjoy working with him on this because we feel so deeply about it. 
Before he leaves, I will make one more comment. I trust my friend 
mentioned this, but I am not sure because I was on my way over here. 
The House of Representatives denied the House the opportunity to vote 
on the Harkin-Boxer amendment. The House of Representatives in this 
year has used a gag rule, if you will, to deny the Members of the House 
a chance to stand up for or against Roe v. Wade. I wonder what they are 
so afraid of. Are they afraid that some of their Members are so to the 
right on this issue and so against public opinion, it would hurt them 
in their reelection?
  Now is the time to be heard, when Roe is hanging by a thread, and we 
need to have a vote over there. I hope my friend will continue to press 
this point, as we say together that it is wrong to deny the House a 
chance to vote up or down on Roe.
  I ask my friend for his closing comment on that.
  Mr. HARKIN. Again, I appreciate the Senator's very lucid and clear 
delineation of exactly what is going on here. It was a gag rule in the 
House. That is what they did. Under their rules, the Republican 
leadership would not allow a vote on our amendment. Again, I think it 
is because they don't want their veil of moderation lifted. They want 
to say this is only about partial birth. It is not, and we know it. It 
is about Roe v. Wade. Yet they don't want to have their people out 
there voting on it.
  I think the American people have a right to know where we stand on 
this most fundamental right of women in this country.
  Again, I thank my friend from California for her long and strong 
leadership on this issue. It is vitally important to all of us in this 
country that the basic, fundamental, constitutional rights that were 
enumerated in Roe v. Wade for the women of this country remain, and 
remain strong, and not be undermined in this body. So I thank the 
Senator for her strong leadership in this effort.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. I see the Senator from Arizona on the 
floor, so I will wrap up.
  I think it is interesting and important, as we look at new amendments 
to the Constitution, that we think about the rights we already take for 
granted. The women in this country have counted on the Constitution to 
protect their right to choose. I only hope they will continue to have 
that right. It is, in fact, hanging by a thread here in the Senate with 
only 51 votes supporting that basic decision.
  So I say it is a day to look at our rights, as we are looking at 
victims' rights, or their lack of rights, and what ways we want to make 
sure victims have rights, and that we also consider if a woman is 
denied a fundamental right to have control over her own

[[Page S2835]]

body, if she is denied that, she will be a victim--a victim of this 
Government thinking that, in fact, it knows better than she or the 
people who love her, and that the Government would think it would know 
better than her family, her God, and her conscience to make such a 
basic decision.
  So it is a good day to talk about Roe v. Wade. As we look at new 
rights we are giving people, let's also make sure we don't take away 
any rights.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Arizona.

                          ____________________