[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 38 (Monday, March 10, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3390-S3399]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION ACT OF 2003--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me return now to the debate in regard
to the partial-birth abortion ban.
Let me thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, for
his unending and unwavering and tireless efforts to put a permanent end
to this horrific partial-birth abortion procedure. In the time we have
served together in this body, he has never given up hope that Congress
and this country would put an end to this barbaric procedure.
This Senate, this Congress, and this country must ban a procedure
that is inhumane, that has absolutely no medical purpose, and that is,
quite simply, morally reprehensible.
During the course of the debate on S. 3, the bill to ban partial-
birth abortion, we will hear repeated descriptions of the barbaric
nature of this procedure. I ask my colleagues, as difficult as it is,
to listen to the description. There may be many arguments during this
debate, but the description of what this procedure is will not be
argued. There is no debate what it is. There is no debate about what
takes place during a partial-birth abortion. I submit to my colleagues
that the more you know about this procedure, the worse it is. The more
you know about it, the easier it will be to vote to ban it.
We will hear repeated descriptions of this barbaric procedure. It is
a procedure in which the abortionist pulls a living baby feet first out
of the womb and into the birth canal except for the head which the
abortionist purposely keeps lodged just inside the cervix. As Senator
Santorum explained, the abortionist then punctures the base of the
baby's skull with a long scissors-like surgical instrument and then
inserts a tube into the wound removing the baby's brain with a powerful
suction machine. This causes the skull to collapse, after which the
abortionist completes the delivery of the now dead baby.
Mr. President and Members of the Senate, those are the essential
facts. I can think of nothing more inhumane and indifferent to the
human condition. Yet every year the tragic effect of this extreme
indifference to human life becomes more and more apparent. It troubles
me deeply that this is happening across this country and that it is
happening in my home State of Ohio. In fact, it happens within 20 miles
of my home.
I would like to take a few minutes now to talk about two particular
partial-birth abortions that occurred in Ohio. They were two typical
abortions--typical except for the way they turned out. These two
tragedies that I am going to describe illustrate the gruesome facts and
the evils of this procedure and show what can happen when it does not
go according to the way the abortionist plans. Let me explain.
On April 6, 1999, in Dayton, OH, a woman entered the Dayton Medical
Center to undergo a partial-birth abortion. This facility was and is
operated by one Dr. Martin Haskell, one of the main providers of
partial-birth abortion in the Nation. Usually the partial-birth
abortion procedure takes place behind closed doors where it can be
ignored--its morality left outside. In this particular case, the
procedure was different. There was light shed upon it. This is what
happened. This is why light was shown upon it.
This Dayton abortionist inserted a surgical instrument into the woman
to dilate her cervix so the child could eventually be removed and then
killed. This whole procedure usually takes 3 days.
The woman went home to Cincinnati expecting to return to Dayton for
the completion of the procedure in 2 or 3 days. In this case, her
cervix dilated too quickly, and as a result shortly after midnight she
was admitted to Bethesda North Hospital in Cincinnati.
The child was born. A medical technician pointed out that the child
was alive. But apparently the chances of survival were slim, and after
3 hours and 8 minutes the child died. The baby was named Hope.
Mr. President and Members of the Senate, on the death certificate, of
course, is a space for cause of death--``Method of Death.'' There it
was written in the case of Baby Hope, ``Method
[[Page S3391]]
of Death: Natural.'' That, of course, is simply not true. There is
nothing natural about the events that led to the death of this tiny
little child because Baby Hope did not die of natural causes.
Baby Hope was the victim of a barbaric procedure that is opposed by
the vast majority of the American people. In fact, the Gallup poll
conducted in January of this year shows that 70 percent of the American
people want to see this procedure permanently banned because the
American people know it is wrong. They feel strongly about it. And we,
as a Senate, and as Members of Congress, I believe, should be listening
to the American people.
The death of Baby Hope did not take place behind the closed doors of
an abortion clinic. That death took place in public--in a hospital
dedicated to saving lives, not taking them.
This episode reminds us of the brutal reality and tragedy of what
partial-birth abortion really is. Because what it really is is the
killing--the killing--of a baby, plain and simple. And almost to
underscore the inhumanity of this procedure, 4 months later it happened
again, again in Ohio, with the same abortionist. This time, though,
something quite different occurred.
Once again, in Dayton, OH, this time on August 18, 1999, a woman who
was 25 weeks pregnant went in to the same Dr. Haskell's office for a
partial-birth abortion. As usual, the abortionist performed the
preparatory steps for the barbaric procedure by dilating the mother's
cervix. The next day, she went into labor, and was rushed to Good
Samaritan Hospital--again, not what was expected. Again, the procedure
normally takes 3 whole days. But she was rushed into labor.
But this time, however, despite the massive trauma to this baby's
environment, a miracle occurred. And by the grace of God, this little
baby survived. So she now is called ``Baby Grace.''
I am appalled by the fact that both of these heinous partial-birth
abortion attempts occurred in this great country of ours, and occurred
in my home State of Ohio.
When I think about the brutal death of Baby Hope and then ponder the
miracle of Baby Grace, I am confronted with the question, Why can't we
just allow these babies to live?
Opponents of the ban on this procedure argue that this procedure is
necessary to protect the health of women. And yet, the American Medical
Association has said this procedure is never medically necessary. In
fact, many physicians have found the procedure itself can pose
immediate and significant risk to a woman's health and future
fertility. Clearly, the babies did not have to be killed in the Ohio
cases I cited, no. The two babies I cited were both born alive. One was
able to live and one tragically died.
Why, Mr. President, why, Members of the Senate, does the baby have to
be killed? Why?
Opponents of this legislation say this procedure is only used in
emergency situations--you will hear those words used time and time
again: emergency situations--when women's lives are in danger. And yet
it seems very strange that in an emergency, a 3-day procedure would be
used and the mother would be sent home. If it was truly an emergency,
why would the doctor pick a procedure that would take 3 days? Why would
the woman consent to a 3-day procedure if it was truly an emergency? It
is not an emergency. And the testimony we have heard, the testimony
that has been taken in our committee in the past, has clearly indicated
this procedure is never medically indicated--never medically indicated.
Nevertheless, even abortionists say the vast majority of partial-
birth abortions are elective. Dr. Haskell, the Ohio abortionist, said
this:
And I'll be quite frank; most of my abortions are elective
in that 20-24 week range.
This is Dr. Haskell. Let me quote him again:
And I'll be quite frank; most of my abortions are elective
in that 20-24 week range.
``Elective.''
Opponents of this bill say this procedure is necessary when a fetus
is abnormal. I do not believe the condition of a fetus ever warrants
killing it. I do not believe that. But even abortionists and some
opponents of this ban agree that most partial-birth abortions involve
healthy fetuses. And that is what the statistics clearly show.
The inventor of this procedure himself, the late Dr. James McMahon,
said:
Gee, it's too bad that this child couldn't be adopted.
Opponents of this bill contend that the partial birth procedure is
rare, yet a report released just this past January suggests the number
of partial-birth abortions has, in fact, tripled, accounting for an
estimated 2,200 abortions in the year 2000.
I have heard it stated on the floor that is just a small fraction of
the number of abortions that are performed in this country every year.
That may very well be true. Still, statistics would indicate, if we
believe the previous statistics, that is a significant increase in the
number of partial-birth abortions. And still, whatever the total number
of abortions is in this country, that is still 2,200 abortions that
occurred in this very barbaric manner in 1 year.
I would again call my colleagues' attention to the description of
this procedure. And again, I remind my colleagues that no one--no one--
will come to this floor and deny what a partial-birth abortion is. No
one will come here and say what Senator Santorum has said, what I have
said, what Senator Brownback will say, what any of us are saying about
what this procedure is really like, is a lie or is not true. It is what
it is, and no one can deny it.
And so 2,200 of these children had to suffer that agony of a partial-
birth abortion. That is what the facts are. And there are many people
who believe it is underreported. But we know of at least that many.
Opponents say a ban on partial-birth abortion violates Roe v. Wade,
and they conclude it must be unconstitutional. But, as anyone who has
read that case knows, Roe declined to consider the constitutionality of
the part of the Texas statute banning the killing of a child in the
process of delivery. Moreover, the Supreme Court again declined to
decide this issue in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Again, I ask, why does the baby have to be killed? Why?
Opponents say this bill is unconstitutional because it does not have
a health exception. But the American Medical Association itself has
stated:
There is no health reason for this procedure.
``There is no health reason for this procedure.''
In fact, there is ample testimony to show that all of the
health consequences are more severe for this procedure than
any other procedure used.
The AMA has also said:
The partial delivery of a living fetus for the purpose of
killing it outside the womb is ethically offensive to most
Americans and physicians.
I ask my colleagues who wish to continue to allow this heinous act,
again, why does the baby have to be killed? Why?
Mr. President and Members of the Senate, why do babies, 3 inches away
from their first breath, have to die?
Something is terribly wrong. With the advent of modern technology, we
can sustain young life in ways we could not just a few short years ago.
We sustain children much younger than the children who are being killed
in partial-birth abortions, and they are in hospitals throughout this
country. Most of us on the Senate floor have seen these children. And
we have seen people, very gallantly, in hospitals fighting to save
their lives every day.
Unfortunately, we have created more and more savage methods of
killing our young at the same time we are creating wonderful ways to
try to continue to keep children alive and save lives.
I think we are really destroying ourselves by not admitting as a
society that partial-birth abortion is an evil against humanity. I
believe there will be more and more horrible consequences for our
Nation if we do not ban this cruel procedure.
As Frederick Douglass stated more than 100 years ago:
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and
you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong
which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till
they are resisted. . . .
Mr. President, we must stop and ask: To what depths has the American
conscience sunk? When it comes to abortion, is there nothing to which
we will say: Enough, enough, no, stop; we will
[[Page S3392]]
not tolerate this. At this point, we will draw the line. At this point,
we will go no further.
Partial-birth abortion is a very clear matter of right and wrong,
good versus evil. It is my prayer that there will come a day when my
colleagues, such as Senator Santorum and the rest of us who have fought
this battle, won't have to come to the floor and talk about partial-
birth abortion. Nobody wants to talk about this. But until that day
comes, when this procedure has been outlawed in our country once and
for all, we will have to continue to come to the floor and talk about
it. Now is the time to ban this very evil procedure. It is the right
thing to do.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the question asked very eloquently by my
friend is: How low have we sunk? I say pretty low, when we have a bill
before us that doesn't even have an exception for the health of a
woman. I get caught up in my throat when I think about it. Women like
Viki Wilson, women who are religious, women who desperately want
children, women who were told, as she was--and I will read her story--
that if she didn't have a procedure outlawed in this bill, she could
never have a child again, and worse. So I think we sink pretty low when
we write a bill that doesn't even have an exception that has been the
law of this land since 1973 in a Supreme Court case that is still
upheld, which says, yes, we can act to limit abortion, but we always
have to make an exception for the life and the health of a woman. That
is my position.
I have said on this floor, along with many of my pro-choice
colleagues who are Democrats and Republicans, we would ban all late-
term abortions, except for the life and health of the woman. My view is
anyone who comes to this floor to ban a medical procedure that could
save the life and health of a woman and doesn't have that exception, is
sinking very low. It shows a lack of respect for women, a lack of
respect for their lives, their future ability to have children, to love
children, and for their future as healthy women.
I will show you a list of problems that could develop in women if
they don't have the procedures that are banned in this bill. Show me
that list of what could happen. This comes from various physician
letters, which I will ask to print in the Record later in the debate.
This is what can happen to women if there is no health exception in the
bill, which there is not. There are 15 pages of findings, but no health
exceptions.
The Supreme Court already ruled on this very same bill--the Nebraska
law--and sent it back and said you cannot come to us with a bill that
doesn't make an exception for the health of a woman. Why? Because they
see that a woman could hemorrhage and die; a woman's uterus could
rupture and she could die; a woman could get a blood clot and she could
die; she could have an embolism and she could die; she could have a
stroke and she could die; she could have damage to nearby organs and,
in some cases, she would have to live paralyzed.
How low have we sunk that we cannot make a exception for the health
of a woman? Pretty low. Pretty low. When I started this debate, I made
the point that there is no such thing as partial-birth abortion. It is
a phrase that is used by the proponents of this bill in order to
essentially make abortion illegal one procedure at a time. Every one of
my friends who is on the floor time and time again, if you ask them,
they will be honest and they will say they don't like Roe v. Wade; they
don't think abortion should be legal; it ought to be criminalized. This
is the way they are going--one procedure at a time.
By the way, if you read the Supreme Court case--put up the chart that
shows what the Court said. We are talking about more than one procedure
banned, although our friends will tell you it is one procedure. Look at
what the case says.
First of all, there is no health exception. I will go to this chart.
The Supreme Court said in the Nebraska case, a legally identical bill:
Even if the statute's basic aim is to ban D and X, its
language makes clear it also covers a much broader category
of procedures.
So let there be no mistake, those voting for this bill are not just
outlawing one procedure, but many procedures, which fits right into the
agenda of my friends who are here tonight and who will be here in the
next several days debating with us, because they want no abortion--even
though, if you ask the American people, should a woman have a right to
choose, should Government stay out of that private decision, a vast
majority will say yes, because it is out of respect for women to make a
decision with their physician and with their God. It is a decision that
has a lot of components to it, one they discuss with their families. It
is a tough decision. But I don't personally think any Senator ought to
be put in the bedroom of any of our people making these decisions, or
in a doctor's office.
If my daughter had a problem pregnancy and her health was threatened,
just as Viki Wilson's was, I don't think that I would go to a U.S.
Senator--not even the one who is a doctor, because he is a heart
surgeon. If she had a heart problem, absolutely. I think it is
important to see what the American Medical Association says about this.
I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that they are very
holier than thou about this and they have every right to their
opinions. They do not know more than doctors. It is not their job to
protect the life and health of women. They don't even know what they
are talking about. Listen to the AMA. The AMA, American Medical
Association, has previously stated their opposition to this bill:
We oppose legislation that would criminalize a medical
practice or procedure. Since S. 3 includes a provision that
would impose a criminal penalty on physicians performing
intact dilation extraction, the AMA does not support this
bill.
Even though they don't like the procedure, they would not support
this bill. The letters I have had printed in the Record from practicing
OB/GYNs--those are the doctors women go to. They don't go to ``Dr.
Santorum,'' they don't go to ``Dr. DeWine,'' they don't go to ``Dr.
Boxer,'' they don't go to ``Dr. Murray;'' they go to their OB/GYN.
What do they say?
We urge you to stand in defense of women's reproductive
health and vote against S. 3, legislation regarding so-called
partial-birth abortion.
There is no mention of the term ``partial-birth abortion'' in any
medical literature. There is no such term, I say to my friends.
Physicians are never taught a technique called ``partial-birth
abortion'' so, therefore, they are unable to medically define it. What
is described in the legislation, they say, could ban all abortions.
Why don't my colleagues just come out and say, ``Let's ban all
abortions''? Let's have that debate. You lose it, at least with the
American people. I do not know how the votes line up here. We are going
to have a chance to vote on whether to overturn Roe v. Wade. We are
going to offer that up. We will have a debate about that. Let's see
where people stand on that one. But to do it in this way, making up a
term and doing it in a way that is so vague that the Supreme Court
basically says it covers a much broader category of procedures, is
absolutely a fraud on the people. I do not know what else to call it.
The Supreme Court said in an identical bill it is far broader than just
one procedure.
What did it say about the health of a woman? It also said:
Our cases have repeatedly invalidated statutes that in the
process of regulating the methods of abortion, imposed
significant health risks.
In other words, there is no health exception in this bill. Senator
Santorum added 15 pages of language, but the operative part of the bill
makes no exception for health.
Let's be clear on what we are talking about. First of all, a partial-
birth abortion, which there is none, is a vague term which could ban
all abortions and many abortions. There is no health exception
whatsoever in the bill. Without a health exception, if a doctor fears a
hemorrhage or a uterine rupture, or a blood clot or an embolism or a
stroke or damage to nearby organs or even paralysis, it is not enough
for my friends on the other side. How low have we sunk--I want to talk
about that. If your daughter is told if she does not get this
particular procedure, she may be paralyzed for life and you will not
make an exception, how far have we sunk? I think that is a fair
question.
[[Page S3393]]
The debate we are having is not the real debate. The real debate is
outlawing abortion completely and doing it one procedure at a time and
making people think this particular procedure, A, is real, which there
is no such thing as a partial-birth abortion--it is not in any
dictionary; it is made up--and B, making them think you really are
banning one procedure when the Supreme Court said, no, there are many
procedures and maybe all abortions are banned.
So why not come here like a man--and I say ``a man'' because it is
the men on the other side who brought this to us. Maybe we will have
some women debating it tomorrow, but so far we have seen the same men
come down here, and they are saying they are after this partial-birth
abortion when we know every one of them wants to ban all abortions,
does not believe in a woman's right to choose, wants to criminalize
women who would have an abortion, criminalize doctors, and have a
constitutional amendment to make it illegal.
I remember those days. Women died during those days. How low have we
sunk? Women were made infertile in those days. All the points we see
here--serious health consequences of banning safe procedures--all of
that I remember in those days. Finally, the Supreme Court got
enlightened in 1973 and said: Government, keep your nose out of this;
it is a health issue; and if you legislate to clamp down on abortions
in the late term--which, by the way, I agree with, but always have a
life and health exception so we do not force women into a situation
where they can lose their ability to function for their families.
Let's put Viki's picture up again. I will tell you her story. She
says:
I urge you to oppose S. 3. I understand this bill is very
broad and would ban a wide range of abortion procedures. Mine
is one example of the many families that could be harmed by
legislation like this.
In the spring of 1994, I was pregnant and expecting
Abigail, my third child, on Mother's Day. The nursery was
ready and our family was ecstatic. My husband, Bill, an
emergency room physician, had delivered our other children
and he would do it again this time. John, our older, would
cut the cord. Katie, our younger, would be the first to hold
the baby. Abigail had already become an important part of our
family.
At 36 weeks of pregnancy, however, all of our dreams and
happy expectations came crashing down around us.
This is Viki. She says:
My doctor ordered an ultrasound and detected what all of my
previous prenatal testing had failed to detect. Two-thirds of
my daughter's brain had formed outside her skull. What I
thought were big healthy, strong movements were, in fact,
seizures. My doctor sent me to several specialists. We were
in a desperate attempt to find a way to save her.
``A desperate attempt to find a way to save her,'' and yet my
colleagues come down here and make everyone believe that these women
who have had this procedure were callous about it. ``A desperate
attempt to save her.''
Everyone agreed she would not survive outside my body. They
also feared that as the pregnancy progressed before I went
into labor, she would die from the increased compression in
her brain. The doctors feared that my uterus might rupture in
the birthing process, rendering me sterile. The doctor
recommended against C section because they could not justify
the risks to my health.
What were the risks to her health? Let's look at it again and again
and again. What could have happened to Viki if she had to live under
this cruel law that has no health exception? She could have
hemorrhaged. Her uterus could have ruptured. She could have had blood
clots, an embolism, or a stroke. She could have become paralyzed. Her
organs nearby could have been damaged.
When people come down here and say ``how low have we sunk,'' I agree:
How low have we sunk to have a bill come before this body with a name
that is not even a real procedure, that could outlaw a broad range of
procedures, and that makes no exception for a woman's health and could
consign her to live the rest of her life, if she survives it, in a
horrific situation which could be so detrimental to her other children.
I see my colleague has come to the floor. I am not going to go on
much longer because I have a lot more to say on this and a lot more
cases to share with my colleagues tomorrow. We have pictures and
pictures and pictures of women and their children, women who are deeply
religious, women who tried every way to save their pregnancy, women who
wanted to live to try to have another child.
Is that a crime? Is that being made a crime? Yes, it is being made a
crime. I feel heavy in my heart that with all of the issues that face
us, 250,000 troops--talk about killing. I have 5,000 National Guard on
the border of Iraq, with another couple of thousand having been
notified. I have young people over there, people who have left their
families, who are going to face God knows what, and we are debating a
procedure that would be banned, which does not even make an exception
for the health of a woman such as Viki, and the many others I will
bring to light.
It is so callous. We have children who are uninsured who cannot even
get medicine. We are not talking about that. We have the most
unemployed people we have seen in decades, the worst economy we have
seen in 50 years. The stock market plunged again today, and people have
to work another 5 or 10 years because their dreams are gone. And we are
talking about banning a procedure without making a health exception. I
am amazed.
Debate it we will, and we will offer amendments to try to bring
health to women, to children, and to women who are pregnant. We hope
our friends will be as eloquent in supporting those as they are
eloquent tonight.
We will have the chance to speak out on Roe v. Wade and see how many
of our colleagues really support a woman's right to choose, as the
Supreme Court laid it out, in the early stages of a pregnancy. And,
yes, in the later stages one may not have an abortion unless it is to
save the life and health of a woman. That is the law.
This will set a dangerous precedent. It will send a message that the
health of the mother does not matter. Every time I put up a picture, my
friends will say, because they did it last time, oh, these women, they
could have had it, there is no problem with them. Wrong. These women
have come to us and told us they had the procedure that my colleagues
want to ban, and had they not had it, they might not have lived to tell
the tale or they would have had serious adverse health consequences.
So how low have we come? That is for the people of America to decide.
As far as I am concerned, anyone who comes to this floor and puts
forward a bill that is so callous as to say that if a woman's health is
threatened and she could suffer one of these terrible consequences, she
cannot even have a procedure that her OB/GYN says she needs to have--it
is callous, and I am going to speak out against it. I hope we will
finish this in due course, have a good debate and move on, but we will
be heard on our side. We did not bring this up, but we will be heard.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Ohio is in the
Chamber so I will not speak very long. I do want to very briefly
respond to my friend and colleague from California, if I may. I know we
will have ample time the remainder of the week to debate this issue.
She is an excellent debater, and I look forward to the chance of
continuing this dialogue and this debate as we go forward. I do want to
respond very briefly to a couple of her comments.
Quite candidly, listening to my colleague from California, I almost
get the impression that partial-birth abortion does not exist in this
country or that no one could really define it or even know it when it
exists. That is not true. The fact is that people know what it is. They
know it takes place. It is counted, at least in one State. There are
providers who say: I provide partial-birth abortion. So it is defined,
and it is defined very specifically in this bill.
Senator Santorum has worked very hard to have a definition that is a
precise definition, and I might say that it is a more precise
definition, a better definition, a definition that conforms to what the
Supreme Court has said, a better definition than the previous bill
taken up on the Senate floor. It is taking into consideration what the
Supreme Court has said. I will read a portion of that definition to my
colleagues.
As used in this section, 1, the term ``partial-birth
abortion'' means an abortion in
[[Page S3394]]
which, A, the person performing the abortion deliberately and
intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the
case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is
outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech
presentation, any part of fetal trunk past the navel is
outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing
an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially
delivered living fetus; and, B, performs the overt act, other
than completion of delivery, that kills the partially
delivered living fetus.
Then it continues on and defines physician, et cetera. But that is
the key part. That is a very precise definition. So I would reject the
argument that this is vague. It is not vague. It is very well
understood.
Turning to another point my colleague from California made, that has
to do with the health of the mother, we had the opportunity to listen
to a great deal of testimony in the past, and we have also had a lot of
people who have talked about this issue. We will have the opportunity
to debate this tomorrow and the days after. I am not going to quote a
lot of people tonight because of the time, but the testimony has been
very clear that this is not ever medically indicated. It is not
something that is done in an emergency. One does not perform a
procedure that takes 3 days in an emergency; something else is done. An
emergency is not a 3-day procedure. Make no mistake about it, all the
testimony has been that the partial-birth abortion takes 3 days. That
is not an emergency procedure. It simply is not.
Let me quote former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop:
Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to
protect a mother's health or her fertility. On the contrary,
this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.
Dr. Warren Hern, OB/GYN:
I have very serious reservations about this procedure. You
really cannot defend it. I would dispute any statement that
this is the safest procedure to use.
The physicians Ad Hoc Coalition For Truth said the following:
Given the many potential risks the procedure entails the
mother, far from being medically indicated, partial-birth
abortion is actually contra-indicated.
Dr. Pamela Smith, OB/GYN, said the following:
Partial birth is, in fact, a public health hazard in
regards to women. Medically, I would contend, of all the
abortion techniques available to a woman, this is the worst
one which could be recommended in the situation of a mother's
health.
Dr. Dominic Casanova, OB/GYN:
This procedure is totally unnecessary and dangerous. If it
becomes necessary to evacuate a uterus beyond 20 weeks
gestation, there is a recognized standard method taught in
all OB/GYN training programs which involves another
procedure.
It goes on and on. I will not take the Senate's time tonight. We will
have an opportunity tomorrow to debate this. This is not medically
indicated. The testimony has been abundantly clear. This is not a
procedure that is ever used for the health of the mother.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I take a minute to rebut my friend before I listen to my
colleague from Ohio. I find it very interesting that because a
procedure could take 3 days, it is not an emergency. If my daughter is
undergoing a procedure and on the third day she dies, because perhaps
something went wrong, she was in an emergency, even though it took 3
days. If someone has cancer and rushes into the hospital and it may
take some intensive work over a period of days to save their life, the
procedures used there are used because this is an emergency. To say it
is not an emergency because it took 3 days to try to save a woman's
life is, on its face, counterintuitive.
I say again, my friend, with all due respect, absolutely knows this
procedure he wants to ban without exception for health, he knows it is
not the safest procedure.
Well, I don't know what medical school he went to. Listen to the
physicians. They are writing to us. They are stating over and over
again, don't tie our hands; we may be forced to use this procedure.
Don't tie our hands; a woman can suffer irreparable harm.
I would love to believe in everything my friend----
Mr. DeWINE. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. BOXER. I'm sorry?
Mr. DeWINE. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. BOXER. I will.
Mr. DeWINE. Does the Senator from California dispute Dr. Haskell's
statement that the vast majority of these abortions are elective?
Mrs. BOXER. I have not read what my friend is reading from. I wonder
whether he has read what the obstetricians and gynecologists----
Mr. DeWINE. Can my colleague answer that question?
Mrs. BOXER. Send it over to me. I will be glad to. You are asking, do
I agree with this doctor. I don't know who he is. I am telling you what
I am agreeing with. I agree with the OB/GYN, the women physicians, the
physicians who were dealing with these difficult pregnancies all the
time.
But I am happy--the time is mine, if I might, I say to my friend.
Mr. DeWINE. You will not yield for another question. I understand.
Mrs. BOXER. I didn't say I would not yield for another question.
I asked you to send over the letter to which you are referring so I
can answer the question with intelligence. I have not seen the letter.
I am not asking my friend to comment on the OB/GYN because I don't know
that he has seen it. I don't think that is right to do in an
intelligent debate. I am happy to look at it and at that time I will be
happy to answer the question.
We have a situation where we are being told by doctors over and over
again, thousands of doctors, 45,000 doctors, that they may well have to
use this procedure. All they want is a health exception. My friends are
not interested in giving us a health exception. They will have a chance
to vote it down because we will offer up an exception that talks about
the terrible things that can happen to a woman. If they want to vote it
down and say no, that is fine. They have to live with that. That is
fine.
I don't want to have to face a Viki Wilson. I don't want to have to
face the women who have told me this procedure that they want to ban
saved them. I don't want to face them when they are sitting in a
wheelchair and paralyzed or suffering from a stroke because my friends
decided we were sinking so low that we would fight for an exception for
health. Imagine. Just imagine.
I rise tonight, and I will do so at every turn, because the facts
simply are not on the side of those who want to get this through the
Senate and outlaw a set of procedures the court said--by the way, my
friend argues that the bill took care of the problem; it is very
specific.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a legal
analysis by the Center for Reproductive Rights which says very clearly
that this bill is legally identical to the one that the court found
unconstitutional.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Center for Reproductive Rights,
Washington, DC, March 6, 2003.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Boxer: On June 29, 2000, in Stenberg v.
Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court held
that Nebraska's sweeping ban on abortion--misleadingly
labeled a ban on so-called ``partial-birth abortion''--was
unconstitutional. I was one of the attorneys who represented
LeRoy Carhart, M.D., the Nebraska physician who challenged
the ban in that case.
In Carhart, the Court held that Nebraska's abortion ban was
unconstitutional for two reasons. First, the Court held that
the ban did not prohibit only one type of abortion procedure,
but instead outlawed several methods, including the safest
and ``most commonly used method for performing pre-viability
second trimester abortions,'' Carhart, 530 U.S. at 945, and
therefore constituted an undue burden on women's right to
choose. Second, the Court held that the Nebraska ban was
unconstitutional because it failed to include an exception
for women's health. The Court noted that ``a State may
promote but not endanger a woman's health when it regulates
the methods of abortion'' and that ``the absence of a health
exception will place women at an unnecessary risk of tragic
health consequences.'' Carhart, 530 U.S. at 931, 937.
The new federal bill (H.R. 760, S. 3) contains the same two
flaws. Like the Nebraska law, the federal bill fails to limit
the stage of pregnancy to which the bill's provisions apply,
so the ban could criminalize abortions throughout pregnancy
(nor just post-viability or ``late term'' abortions, as the
bill's sponsors often claim), and the definition of ``partial
birth abortion'' in the bill is broad enough to criminalize
numerous safe abortion procedures, including the safest and
most commonly used method for performing
[[Page S3395]]
abortions early in the second trimester, the D&E method (not
just one abortion procedure, as the bill's sponsors
misleadingly imply). Moreover, the federal bill fails to
limit its prohibitions to abortions involving an ``intact''
fetus, fails to explicitly exclude the D & E technique or the
suction curettage abortion method from the law's
prohibitions, and fails to include definitions of key terms
such as ``living'' or ``completion of delivery.'' Like the
Nebraska law, the federal bill also fails to include the
constitutionally mandated health exception. Therefore, the
federal bill is unconstitutional for the same reasons as the
Nebraska law struck down in Carhart.
Because the U.S. Supreme Court has already struck down
legislation containing the same constitutional flaws
contained in the new federal bills, these bills can only be
seen as a direct attack on the Supreme Court's decision, on
the safest and most common abortion procedures in the second
trimester, and on the protection for women's health that have
been consistently reaffirmed throughout three decades of
abortion jurisprudence.
Please feel free to contact me with any further inquiries.
Sincerely,
Priscilla Smith,
Director.
Mrs. BOXER. My friend did say, and I appreciate that, that he heard a
lot of witnesses come forward to talk about this. That was a couple of
years ago. For some reason, they have the time to do this but they did
not have the time to send this bill to the Judiciary Committee where
they could have looked at this issue.
This is an amazing situation. We had a Supreme Court that argues that
the Stenberg case, the legally identical bill to this, is
unconstitutional on its face on two grounds--no health exception and a
very vague definition. Here it is. Unconstitutional. This is what the
Supreme Court said in a legally identical bill, and I have just placed
in the Record a letter from the attorney who argued that case. She read
the Santorum bill and says it is legally identical to the case that was
declared unconstitutional. This is what the Court said.
Unconstitutional because it put an undue burden on women because the
definition is vague. Undue burden--very important words. You cannot put
an undue burden on a woman because abortion under Roe is legal and in
the late stages it is not legal if the State says it isn't, except for
life and health. But it puts an undue burden because we don't know at
what stage the woman is going to get this abortion and whether this
procedure applies to it or not.
No exception to protect a woman's health, that is the one that breaks
my heart. After all of this, the Court sending it back, please make an
exception for women's health, my friends do not even have it in their
heart to make an exception for a woman's health. I find it difficult.
So S. 3, the bill before us, and Stenberg are legally identical
according to the lawyers who won the case.
I argue the life exception is very narrow. It does not just say you
can use it if a woman's life is threatened. It says the woman has to
have this preexisting condition. I argue that.
But clearly my purpose tonight is to say to my friends on the other
side, as we offer these amendments on women's health, be with us; as we
offer these amendments on children's health, be with us; as we offer
these amendments on prenatal care, be with us. Because you care about
children, that is why you are here. So be with us. Be with us on these.
I say be with us on Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade is a modest decision
that said to government, take your nose outside of privacy. You cannot
make a decision in an early stage of a pregnancy. Be with us on that.
Be with us if we suggest that the Judiciary Committee ought to take a
look at this in light of the Stenberg case. We offer our hand to you.
Be with us when Senator Durbin offers a health exception. If you care
about women and their families, be with us when we say make an
exception if a woman is told she could be paralyzed if she does not
have this or be prepared to face the consequences if this does become
the law of the land and the Supreme Court does change. It is bringing
pain and suffering to a lot of our families in America.
We will give you the chance to offer up these amendments. We look
forward to joining with you. We hope we will win a couple here. We have
a few people already on your side of the aisle who are pro-choice who
are going to be with us on some of these amendments. We hope we can
expand that. We hope we can have a good vote on the health exception. I
think we are getting close to winning that one. That would be a good
day for women.
Just remember the most important thing of all: This is about real
people, real women like Viki. She is just one. These are religious
women, caring women, loving women, who wanted these babies more than
anyone could say but who knew if they didn't have the procedure that
you want to ban, they could well die, be made infertile, have a blood
clot, be paralyzed. We can't do this to women. We should not do this.
We should respect women.
We should act as Senators, not OB/GYNs. I think it is important.
In closing, I want to say my friend, Senator Santorum, when I was out
of the Chamber, said: Well, Senator Boxer said we should not ban
procedures, but she voted to ban a medical procedure that would have
allowed women's genitals to be mutilated.
I just want to set the record straight. You are darned right I did.
That is not a medical procedure; that is torture. That is torture. We
are talking here about a medical procedure which doctors say is
necessary to save the life and health of a woman in certain abortions.
That's quite different. So I wanted to set the record straight.
This debate is emotional. This debate is difficult. There is no doubt
about it. But I am so proud to stand tonight, to call on my friends to
be honest about what their true goal is. If it is to ban one procedure,
then name it in the bill. They do not do that. It is vague. Therefore,
according to the Court, it could ban all abortion. That is what the
Supreme Court said.
If that is what they are about, then be man enough to come over here
and say they believe abortion should be banned, and then let's have at
it and talk about the right of families, of women, to make a decision
like this--with their doctor, with their God, with their conscience,
with their family. But I say: Not with their Senator. I don't think I
have that right. I have more humility than that.
I try hard to be a good Senator. I try hard. I come here, I try to
fight for the American dream for people. I fight for children, fight
for families, fight for jobs. God knows we have trouble in this land.
We have troubles in this land. Retirements are up in smoke. People are
being forced to work longer and harder. I mean, there are a lot of
issues that adversely impact on children and their families. But we
will stand here and we will have a point/counterpoint as long as they
want to do that.
I thank you and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me just briefly respond on my own time
now and maybe lay a little foundation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time. The Senator from Ohio has
the floor.
Mr. DeWINE. Let me lay a little foundation for my previous question
that I asked my colleague from California. I will send over to her the
quote from Dr. Haskell. But to explain to her who Dr. Haskell is, Dr.
Haskell is probably the foremost--I would say notorious--partial-birth
abortion provider in this country. He operates in my home State, near
my hometown. He operates in Dayton, OH. He performs many partial-birth
abortions.
The quote I have is as follows. I will read the quote that I have.
Dr. Martin Haskell indicates he:
. . . routinely does this procedure on all patients, 20 to 24
weeks pregnant, except on women--
He gives some exceptions.
He further states:
And I'll be quite frank. Most of my abortions are elective
in that 20 to 24-week range.
My only point to my colleague was that most partial-birth abortions
are elective. I think that has been, frankly, the testimony of most of
the witnesses we had. I don't think it is really a disputed issue. That
was the only point of my question.
I want to return briefly to the issue of medical necessity. I would
like to maybe quote a couple more experts who have testified in front
of Congress in the past.
Dr. Pamela Smith, Medical Education Director of Mount Sinai Medical
Center in Chicago, has testified in front of Congress. Here is what she
has said.
[[Page S3396]]
So, for someone to choose a procedure that takes 3 days, if
they are really interested in the life of the mother, that
puts the mother's life in further jeopardy.
Members of the Senate, those are not my words. Those are the words of
Dr. Pamela Smith.
Dr. Nancy Romer, Chairman of OB/GYN and professor at Wright State
University Medical School in Ohio, had this to say:
There is simply no data anywhere in medical literature in
regard to the safety of this procedure.
Again she was talking about the partial-birth abortion. I continue to
quote Dr. Romer.
There is no peer review or accountability of this
procedure. There is no medical evidence that a partial-birth
abortion procedure is safer, or necessary to provide
comprehensive health care to women.
Finally, Dr. Donna Harrison, a Fellow of the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, put it most simply:
This is medical nonsense. It is a hideous travesty of
medical care and should be rightly banned in this country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act. I am grateful to the Senator from Pennsylvania, and
my colleague from Ohio, the senior Senator from Ohio, for their
courageous fight to stop this barbaric procedure. Any of us who have
listened to them cannot help but be moved by their eloquence in regard
to the importance of banning this procedure.
This tie that I have on is one that was given to me last week. It
says, ``Stop Violence Against Women.''
I wish those of us who are opposed to this procedure would have had
ties made saying, ``Stop Violence Against Babies.''
It is even difficult to talk about because it is a gruesome
procedure, but we need to remind Members of the Senate that this is a
procedure that is not done on an emergency basis. It is a little bit
difficult for me to talk about it because last week my daughter
delivered our fifth grandchild, a little baby girl, Emily Elizabeth.
The way the procedure goes is that a woman goes through 2 days of
doctor visits to get dilated; 2 days to get dilated. On the third day,
the baby is positioned for delivery in the birth canal. The doctor then
pulls the living baby feet first out of the womb and into the birth
canal, except for the head which the abortionist purposely keeps lodged
just inside of the womb. The doctor punctures the base of the baby's
skull with a surgical instrument such as long surgical scissors or a
pointed hollow metal tube called a trochar.
He then inserts a catheter into the wound and removals the baby's
brain with a powerful suction machine. This causes the skull to
collapse, after which the doctor completes the delivery of the now dead
baby.
I can't understand how anyone can support this ghastly procedure or
cannot support it being illegal.
There are some who say it is hard to believe we are even talking
about the question on the floor of the Senate. In an editorial today,
the Washington Post called our debate in the Senate on this subject
``pointless.'' I have also heard my colleagues take the floor and
state, Have we no other priorities that take precedence over this? What
priority is more important than human life? It is hard for me to
believe anyone would say we should not even discuss this procedure that
kills a human being. It should have been banned years ago. I am glad we
are moving early in the 108th Congress to go forward with something
that should have been done many years ago.
The subject of partial-birth abortion is not a new one for me. Eight
years ago in 1995, Ohio was the first State to pass a partial-birth
abortion ban. The bill prohibited doctors from performing abortions
after the 24th week of pregnancy and banned completely the dilation and
extraction procedure we call the partial-birth procedure in this bill,
the one I just described.
The bill allows late-term abortions to save the life of the mother.
The women seeking abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy were
required to undergo tests to determine the viability of the fetus, and
if the fetus was deemed to be viable, the abortion would be illegal.
I am glad the Senator from Ohio pointed out the language in this bill
has been carefully drafted. It is not ambiguous. I have heard the
Senator from California say this should have gone to the Judiciary
Committee. The fact is this has been discussed on the floor of the
Senate since 1994.
While I was Governor, I watched the partial-birth abortion ban make
its way through the 104th and 105th Congresses, only to be vetoed by
President Clinton. It has been around a long time.
After I arrived in the Senate in the 106th Congress, I gave a speech
in support of banning partial-birth abortion and, quite frankly,
lobbied some of my colleagues to support it. The bill passed both
Chambers of the Senate and the House. It made it to conference but
never came out of conference.
I have listened to my colleagues quote statistics and spout off facts
about medical necessity and the health of the mother. We can all quote
different statistics, but the bottom line is there is no need for this
procedure. My colleague from Ohio has spoken to that very clearly. Most
of these partial-birth abortions are elective. They take 3 days to
complete. If a mother really needs an abortion, she has alternatives
available to her that are not as tortuous as partial-birth abortion.
It is interesting to note that in January 2003 the Alan Guttmacher
Institute, which is affiliated with Planned Parenthood, published a
survey of abortion providers, showing that the number of partial-birth
abortions more than tripled between 1996 and 2000. Why is the
occurrence of such a procedure that is never medically necessary
increasing? One of the main reasons we do not need these late-term
abortions is thanks to the technology available today. It is better
than it has ever been before. We can identify problems very early in
the pregnancy so abortions can take place earlier. Women today are
being encouraged to come in early in the first trimester for the
various tests they need so that if an abortion is acceptable to them,
they can have an early abortion while the baby is still not viable
outside the womb. In fact, to date, the technology is so sophisticated
that if they find there is something wrong with a baby, they can go in
through surgery and correct it in the womb.
I want to make it clear to those who believe in abortion and who face
that tremendous decision in terms of whether they are going to deliver
the baby, that there are other procedures available. The victims of the
partial-birth abortions are human beings. I find it interesting that
they are sometimes called ``living fetuses.'' They are living human
beings. Whether they are called ``babies'' or ``fetuses,'' no one seems
to dispute the fact that they are living. In fact, they are human
babies and they can feel pain. When partial-birth abortions are
performed, these babies are just 3 inches away from life and, for that
matter, seconds away from life.
I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to stand up against what I
refer to as ``human infanticide.'' This is not Roe v. Wade. I suspect
that when the vote is taken on the floor of the Senate, there are going
to be many people who will support partial-birth abortion who label
themselves as pro-choice and pro-abortion. When this legislation passed
in Ohio back in 1995, it passed overwhelmingly in both houses, and
there were pro-life and pro-choice and pro-abortion people who
supported this legislation. This is not an issue of Roe v. Wade. This
is an issue of banning a procedure that is gruesome and is not
medically necessary.
In the State of the Union address this year, President Bush again
pledged to support the legislation and said, ``We must not overlook the
weakest among us. I ask you to protect infants at the very hour of
their birth and end the practice of partial-birth abortion.''
I urge my colleagues to vote to ban partial-birth abortions in the
United States of America and end this national tragedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ohio yield the floor?
Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, my friend talked about the joy of
childbirth. He is so right. I have a magnificent grandchild. I have two
beautiful children, a boy and girl. They were
[[Page S3397]]
both premature. It was very scary, and they made it. It was wonderful.
I absolutely can say there is no greater joy in my life. As I stand
here today, it is because I am pro-children. I am pro-family. I am for
healthy families. I am for women not having to face a situation where
they could be paralyzed for life if a certain procedure is banned.
My friend says it is not about Roe v. Wade. Nothing could be further
from the truth. None other than the Supreme Court said on an identical
bill in Nebraska that, in fact, it was against Roe v. Wade--that
because there was no exception for the health of the mother in which
you have the same situation here. You have salutary language in
findings. But the operative language makes no exception for health.
That is against Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade was a very carefully crafted
bill that has withstood time since 1973. Even this Supreme Court, which
is new, as we well know, and to the right, has supported Roe very
recently.
It says to me, if you look at the case that just came down, you have
two problems with this bill that goes against Roe: No health exception.
Everyone agrees there is no health exception. The fact is that the
terminology used is very vague. Therefore, it puts an undue burden on a
woman because it could ban all abortion procedures.
Having said that, it seems to me puzzling why this bill didn't go
back to the Judiciary Committee. I will tell you why. It is not as if
nothing has changed since we looked at this the last time. Everything
changed. The Supreme Court said the partial-birth abortion ban, as the
Senator calls it, was unconstitutional in Nebraska because they had no
health exception and it put an undue burden on women because the
definition is vague. That has not been cured here.
This is going to go right back to the Supreme Court. I am sure the
President will sign this bill because he definitely said he is looking
forward to doing that. And it will go to the Court, and I believe it
will be struck down because it hasn't met the problems the Court found.
It is puzzling to me why we wouldn't send it back to the Judiciary
Committee to discuss the problems the Court found with a legally
identical bill. I have had printed in the Record a letter from
attorneys who say, in fact, this is a legally identical bill.
I want to close tonight for my part and talk about another case
because my friend was very eloquent, and I appreciate his eloquence
about children and families.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Will the Senator from California yield for a question?
Mrs. BOXER. I certainly will.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Do you agree this issue has been debated on the floor
of the Senate for a long period of time?
Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely, it has been, but not since the Supreme Court
case which struck down a legally identical bill. That is why I believe
it should go back to Judiciary.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Is my colleague from California aware of the fact that
those of us who want to ban this procedure believe the language in this
bill is not vague and that it will sustain a test in the Supreme Court
of the United States?
Mrs. BOXER. With all due respect to my friend, we have a Judiciary
Committee that is supposed to make those judgments. So I am sure you
think it is fine. You thought the other one was fine, the Stenberg
case. You thought the Nebraska case met the Roe v. Wade requirements as
well. You were wrong and you were faulty.
So I believe if there is sincerity here--this isn't about politics or
whatever--it is really about meeting the constitutional requirements of
Roe, it should have gone back.
But I agree with my friend, sure, it has been debated quite a bit,
but not since this latest case.
Mr. VOINOVICH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from California yield for a
question?
Mr. VOINOVICH. Will the Senator yield the floor back so I can make
a----
Mrs. BOXER. I am not going to yield the floor back to you, but I am
happy to yield for a question.
Mr. VOINOVICH. The question I would ask, again, is that those of us
who have had a concern about this for many, many years have studied the
language quite carefully. I particularly have because of the fact that
we had two partial-birth abortion statutes that passed in Ohio, and we
were looking at what the Supreme Court was going to do with the
Nebraska case.
I must say to you we have looked at it as carefully as we can. We
believe the language that is in the bill is not vague. We believe it
will stand up to a test in the Supreme Court, and that to go back to
the Judiciary Committee, quite frankly, would just delay the real
issue; that is, whether we have enough votes on the floor of the Senate
to ban partial-birth abortions.
Mrs. BOXER. Was that a question?
Mr. VOINOVICH. I think that was a statement.
Mrs. BOXER. Let me say to my friend, I appreciate his sincerity. I do
not question it for one minute. But I also have studied this. I also
have cared about this, because I care about women who I am going to be
talking about here tonight, and many of whom have come to see me in
California and here. They are begging me to fight this because it does
not have a health exception. Even though my friend thinks you have
written it in a way to have a health exception, it isn't in the bill.
Here is another story about Claudia Crown Ades, who, in 1992, was in
the 26th week of a desperately wanted pregnancy. Claudia and her
husband, Richard, were told, after an ultrasound, that their son had a
genetic condition called trisomy 13. His anomalies included extensive
brain damage due to a fluid-filled nonfunctional brain and a malformed
heart with a large hole between the chambers. He also had developed
liver, kidney, and intestinal malformations. He did not have normal
blood flow.
They were told his condition was incompatible with life. She was told
if she did not have this procedure she could suffer a number of
problems, which I have talked about before, that we have been told by
doctors can occur if the procedure is not available.
Her loving family got together, and they decided to have this
procedure. It saved her. She did not have to suffer the potential of
having a hemorrhage, a blood clot, an embolism, stroke, or paralysis.
So I know my friend worked hard on this bill. I am just saying, it
would not take that much effort to get the Judiciary Committee to take
a look at it since the stakes are so high for the women of this country
to outlaw a procedure, to not have a health exception, and to have such
a vaguely drawn phrase about a procedure that is a nonexistent medical
procedure. It was given to a procedure that I have already put in the
Record.
Maybe my friend did not hear me, but several physicians, representing
45,000 OB/GYNs, say there is no such thing as this, and that these
procedures could be far more than one.
So I am going to close my statement here tonight.
Does my friend have a question?
Mr. VOINOVICH. I do have a question.
Mrs. BOXER. I am glad to yield for a question.
Mr. VOINOVICH. What is puzzling to me--the question is, you have
pointed out some unusual cases that----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators are reminded that they will address
questions through the Chair and not address each other in the first
person.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Would the Senator from California agree that the
technology today, in terms of the delivery of babies, in the
ascertaining of a problem that a baby or a delivering mother would
have, has improved substantially over what it was in 1994 when we first
started the debate on this legislation?
Mrs. BOXER. Thank God, we have had so many advances. In my own family
we had a circumstance where we were very fearful we were going to lose
a pregnancy of one of my children. And because of these incredible
advances, she held on, and long enough to have a healthy baby.
What a miracle that is. That is the reason why I support banning all
late-term abortions across the board. I think that is consistent with
Roe. But for the life and health of a woman, which always must be, it
seems to me, considered in a civilized country, we need to make sure
women are not facing these kinds of serious problems.
So yes, I say to my friend, I could not be more excited about the
incredible progress we have made.
Does my friend have another question?
[[Page S3398]]
Mr. VOINOVICH. I do.
Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield.
Mr. VOINOVICH. If you agree that the medical technology today is
better than it was in 1994, can you explain to me why the Alan
Guttmacher Institute, which is an affiliate of Planned Parenthood,
published a survey of abortion providers, showing that the number of
partial-birth abortions more than tripled between 1996 and 2000?
Wouldn't you think there would be less partial-birth abortions because
of the technology that we have, less cases like the ones you have
presented here before my colleagues in the Senate?
Mrs. BOXER. Let me say to my friend, he keeps referring to partial-
birth abortions: ``There would be less partial-birth abortions.'' I
would defy my friend to show me where there is a list of so-called
partial-birth abortions. Because there are none. This is a made-up
term. I will read to you again--because having a debate about partial-
birth abortion, I do not know that you take care of these women on a
daily basis, as do physicians, but I want to answer my friend.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. BOXER. I would like to answer my friend's question. He is asking
me a question, whether I disagree with the premise. The premise is,
there is a procedure called partial-birth abortion. Physicians are
telling me--and I believe them, I hate to tell you, over you, because
this is their life's work. These are OB/GYNs. They are saying, there is
no such technique as partial-birth abortion.
Reclaiming my time, I am going to conclude in this way: I have shown
you a couple of cases. My friends say: Oh, they are a couple of
anomalies. There are many more I am going to share--many, many more--
many more photographs, many more stories, compelling stories of loving,
religious, caring families that made a decision based on the facts as
they were laid out, so that a woman could live and be a mother to her
other children, so she could go on with her life, where she could have
been in a circumstance where she could have absolutely been in peril
for her whole family for the rest of her life.
I think we have a lot of power here in the Senate. That is why I am
so proud the people of California sent me here. And my friend feels so
proud the people of Ohio sent him here, as my friend, who is sitting in
the Chair, feels so proud the people of Nevada sent him here.
We work hard to get here. And I do not shrink from responsibility. I
am very happy to take on whatever responsibility that I have.
I do not see it in the Constitution that I should outlaw a medical
procedure that doctors are saying to me is necessary to save the life
and health of a woman.
I think that harms families. If my friends would like to offer a
health exception, we would have a lot of support. Dick Durbin will do
that. I hope a lot of you will join us.
I will conclude my remarks because this is what I really think about
this. I don't think this about my friends who are on the floor, but I
think if you look around for the past 2 years, you see what has
happened to women who want to exercise their right to choose, their
right to family planning, and you see what has happened to women in
this country. So I am going to conclude with the chart that will go
through what has happened to women's rights in this country in terms of
a right to choose, which is so important, it seems to me.
First, we have a situation where the administration says pregnant
women won't be eligible for health benefits; their fetus will--not
them. Keep in mind what we have here. This is a circumstance where we
have a bill that will outlaw a procedure that doctors tell us they need
to save the life and health of a woman. Put that into perspective with
what has been happening lately to women's rights. So a woman is ignored
by this administration. They are going to give the prenatal care to the
fetus, not to the woman. What does that say about women, by the way? We
are not entities; we are just here to exist. People can look right by
us. That is not right. That in and of itself is an insult, a lack of
respect, it seems to me, for women.
Pushing legislation recognizing an embryo as a person with rights
separate and apart from the woman's: Again, what does that say about
women?
Moving legislation forcing some young women to make reproductive
health choices alone, and criminalizing caring adults who help them:
That will hit us soon in this debate.
Attempts to block women's access to RU486, a drug proven safe and
effective by the FDA, which will avoid abortion procedures: We have
trouble with that. By the way, women all over the world have this, and
we have fought hard to get our women to have nonsurgical abortion,
which is safer. It has been a fight. So far we have won it. It is under
attack.
Attempts to block access to emergency contraception: We are going to
have a chance to vote on that during the course of this debate.
Denial of Roe v. Wade's protections to Federal employees; low-income
women who rely on the Federal Government for their health care; poor
women who live in the District of Columbia--in other words, women,
including U.S. servicewomen, who pay out of their own pocket for a
procedure cannot even use a Federal facility, with our women abroad, in
difficult places all over the world--again, a lack of respect.
Why am I bringing this up now? Because I see what we are doing here
as a continuation of what I would call a basic assault on a woman's
right to choose, which I consider to be a fundamental right that has
been articulated in Roe v. Wade and stands for respect of a woman.
We have seen starving funding for family planning programs, and
international family planning is basically impounded by this
administration, $34 million. That money can save, by the way, tens of
thousands in abortions. If a woman has family planning, she will
hopefully plan her family and not be in a circumstance where she might
seek an abortion. Tell me how that makes any sense. I don't really see
it.
Attempts to channel taxpayer funds to deceptive crisis pregnancy
centers that intimidate and withhold information from women; pushing
legislation to gag doctors from providing abortion referrals; placing a
gag rule on international family planning providers; push for youth
programs that censor discussion of contraception benefits; censorship,
then revision of medical information on Government Web sites about
condoms, and the unproven ``link'' between abortion and breast cancer;
attempt to fund Federal research on the unproven link between abortion
and breast cancer; key Cabinet appointments who oppose the
constitutionally protected right to choose; campaign to pack courts
with judges hostile to women's rights; refusal to hold perpetrators of
violence, intimidation, and harassment at reproductive health clinics
responsible for their illegal acts; refusal to act on international
women's rights treaty. I am involved in that, the convention to
eliminate all forms of discrimination against women. We are standing
with countries such as Angola because somebody says that may mean we
support a woman's right to choose. Heaven forbid. So we cannot even
sign onto a treaty. It is stunning to me; enactment of 335 antichoice
State measures into law since 1995.
So what I am suggesting to you is there is an agenda here--and this
is part of it--to ill-define a procedure so it could, in fact, relate
to more than one. The court says it could effectively ban all abortion,
without really saying they are doing that and not having a health
exception, so that women could face all kinds of horrible problems. It
is just part of this campaign, if you will, this assault that I see
happening, that I feel is very sad for the women in this country.
This is the 21st century. We should allow women to make very private,
very difficult choices, as long as these decisions are in accord with
the guidelines sent down in 1973.
I will close by saying that Roe v. Wade is a very logical, moderate
position. It says in the very beginning of a pregnancy that a woman has
a right to choose to have an abortion, without the interference in that
decision by government. Then it says after that time, government cannot
come in and put in restrictions--but always an exception for the life
and health of the mother. I think that is a balance.
[[Page S3399]]
The problem with this bill, it bans procedures--and maybe all
procedures--many procedures, except some that are very dangerous to a
woman, and procedures that could be used at any stage of abortion. That
is what the court said, and it makes no exception for her health. I
argue the life exception is very narrowly drawn, but we don't have time
to go into that tonight.
Thank you very much. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I reiterate the fact that this is not
an issue that gets to the basis of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v.
Wade. I predict that just as in the past on the floor of the Senate,
there are going to be people supporting the outlaw of this gruesome
procedure, which is not necessary, who are very much pro-choice, pro-
abortion, and who will probably have amendments on the floor of the
Senate, a sense of the Senate, in terms of Roe v. Wade and many of the
people who will vote to sustain Roe v. Wade will be some of the same
people who will vote against this procedure because they understand how
gruesome it is.
I point out one other fact. You just cannot give the back of the hand
statistics from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is a very
respected institute, which is an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, that
published a survey of abortion providers showing--these are abortion
providers, OK--showing that the number of partial-birth abortions more
than tripled between 1996 and 2000.
So this procedure is not one that is being practiced in some of the
examples that my colleague from California has presented on the floor
of the Senate but, rather, has become a regular procedure in the
offices of many OB/GYN doctors in this country--a procedure that is not
necessary.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this much-
needed and long-overdue measure. There is no place in a decent Nation
for the barbaric practice known as partial-birth abortion. Senator
Santorum's measure is the only one the Senate is considering that will
put an end to it once and for all.
Every abortion ends the life of a tiny boy or girl, but only partial-
birth abortion involves the destruction of life at the moment when a
child is being brought out of the womb--and he or she is just inches
from under the full protection of our laws. Partial-birth abortion
blurs the line and does so in such a way as to further erode the
sanctity of life.
The legislation Senator Santorum has proposed should avoid the
constitutional problems that five Supreme Court Justices found in
Nebraska's statute in the Stenberg v. Carhart case. Specifically, it
addresses the concern that the partial-birth abortion procedure might
be necessary to protect the health of the mother by incorporating as
findings the view of the American Medical Association and the
overwhelming majority of physicians that there is no circumstance where
the health of the mother demands this procedure. It also contains a
more specific definition of the partial-birth abortion procedure, in
response to the Stenberg decision.
This revised definition ensures that, once we pass this bill, it will
no longer be permissible in America to--and here I quote the language
of the bill itself--``deliberately and intentionally vaginally deliver
a living fetus until, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the
mother and then kill the baby as happens in a typical partial-birth
abortion.''
There is no doubt, in contrast, that the substitute measures that the
Senate is considering will permit the continued use of this
unconscionable procedure. To secure the approval of the radical, pro-
abortion lobby, the authors of such measures inevitably draft their so-
called ``bans'' in such a way as to permit ``health of the mother''
exceptions that effectively negate the restrictions. Again, the
testimony of the mainstream medical community makes it clear that
``health of the mother'' is a red herring in the partial-birth abortion
context, and I trust that any measure containing such an ``exception''
will be soundly defeated.
It is simply not possible to seek cover politically while
substantively protecting the most unscrupulous abortionists. The
American people overwhelmingly favor enactment of a real partial-birth
abortion ban. Despite the predictable efforts to obscure what is really
a very clear issue--how we wish to treat the most vulnerable members of
our human family--they will soon have it.
____________________