[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 83 (Thursday, June 14, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6329-S6330]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Mr. Voinovich):
  S. 1050. A bill to protect infants who are born alive; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Born Alive 
Infants Protection Act.
  When I was first elected to the Senate in 1994, I never imagined that 
the bill I am offering today would be necessary. Simply stated, this 
measure gives legal status to a fully born living infant, regardless of 
the circumstances of his or her birth. I am deeply saddened that we 
must clarify Federal law to specify that a living newborn baby is, in 
fact, a person.
  One could ask, ``Why do you need Federal legislation to state the 
obvious? What else could a living baby be, except a person?'' I will 
begin my explanation with events in 1995, when the Senate began its 
attempts to outlaw a horrifying, inhumane, and barbaric abortion 
procedure: partial birth abortion. In this particular abortion method, 
a living baby is killed when he or she is only inches from being fully 
born. Twice, the House and Senate stood united in sending a bill to 
President Clinton to ban this procedure. Twice, President Clinton 
vetoed the bill; and twice, the House courageously voted to override 
his veto. Although support in the Senate grew each time the ban came to 
a vote, the Senate fell a few votes shy of overriding the veto.
  Then, on June 28, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's 
partial birth abortion ban. The Supreme Court's ruling in Stenberg v. 
Carhart, as well as subsequent rulings in lower courts, are disturbing 
on a number of levels. First, the Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's 
attempt to ban a grotesque procedure the American Medical Association 
has called ``bad medicine,'' and thousands of physicians who specialize 
in high risk pregnancies have called ``never medically necessary.'' 
Further, the Court said it did not matter that the baby is killed when 
it is almost totally outside the mother's body in this abortion method. 
In other known abortion methods, the baby is killed in utero. Finally, 
the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Third Circuit Court have stated it does 
not matter where the baby is positioned when it is aborted. This 
assertion, to me, is the most horrifying of all.
  In the years of debates on partial birth abortion, I have asked 
Senators a very simple question: If a partial birth abortion were being 
performed on a baby, and for some reason the head slipped out and the 
baby were delivered, would it be o.k. to kill that baby? Not one 
Senator who defended the procedure has ever provided a straightforward 
``yes'' or ``no'' response. They would not answer my question. I 
believe it is important to define when a child is protected by the 
Constitution; so, I revised my question. I asked whether it would be 
alright to kill a baby whose foot is still inside the mother's body, or 
what if only a toe is inside? Again, I did not receive an answer.
  Unfortunately, evidence uncovered last year at a hearing before the 
House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution suggests my questions 
were not so hypothetical. In fact, two nurses testified to seeing 
babies who were born alive as a result of induced labor abortions being 
left to die in soiled utility rooms. Furthermore, the intellectual 
framework for legalization of

[[Page S6330]]

killing unwanted babies is being constructed by a prominent bioethics 
professor at Princeton University. Professor Peter Singer has advocated 
allowing parents a 28-day waiting period to decide whether to kill a 
disabled or unhealthy newborn. In his widely disseminated book, 
Practical Ethics, he asserts, ``killing a disabled infant is not 
morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at 
all.''
  In response to these events, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act 
grants protection under Federal law to newborns who are fully outside 
of the mother. Specifically, it states that Federal laws and 
regulations referring to a ``person,'' ``human being,'' ``child,'' and 
``individual'' include ``every infant member of the species homo 
sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.'' ``Born alive'' 
means ``the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that 
member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or 
extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical 
cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether 
the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the 
expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, 
caesarean section, or induced abortion.'' The definition of ``born 
alive'' is derived from a World Health Organization definition of 
``live birth'' that has been enacted in approximately 30 states and the 
District of Columbia.
  Again, all this bill says is that a living baby who is completely 
outside of its mother is a person, a human being, a child, an 
individual. Similar legislation passed by the House of Representatives 
last year by an overwhelming vote of 380-15. I am hopeful that Senators 
on both sides of the general abortion debate can agree that once a baby 
is completely outside of its mother, it is a person, deserving the 
protections and dignity afforded to all other Americans.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Born Alive Infants 
Protection Act be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1050

       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 ``Born-Alive Infants 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' 
       as including born-alive infant

       ``(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or 
     of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various 
     administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the 
     words `person', `human being', `child', and `individual', 
     shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens 
     who is born alive at any stage of development.
       ``(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive', with 
     respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the 
     complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that 
     member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion 
     or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of 
     the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary 
     muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been 
     cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction 
     occurs as a result of natural or induced labor,caesarean 
     section, or induced abortion.
       ``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, 
     deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right 
     applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any 
     point prior to being born alive as defined in this section''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as including 
              born-alive infant.''.
                                 ______