[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 148 (Tuesday, October 21, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12914-S12927]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2003--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany S. 
3. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 3) 
     to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth 
     abortion, having met, have agreed that the Senate recede from 
     its disagreement to the amendment of the House, and agree to 
     the same with an amendment, signed by a majority of the 
     conferees on the part of both Houses.

  (The Conference Report was printed in the House proceedings of 
September 30, 2003.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be up to 
4 hours for debate equally divided between the majority leader or his 
designee and the Senator from California or her designee.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I would like to enter into a time 
agreement for the first portion of the time allotted in this debate. I 
ask unanimous consent I be given the first 20 minutes until 11 o'clock; 
following that, the Senator from California be recognized for 20 
minutes; following the Senator from California, the Senator from 
Alabama, Mr. Sessions, be recognized for 10 minutes; following the 
Senator from Alabama, the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, be 
recognized for 20 minutes; following Senator Brownback, the Senator 
from California would then be recognized for 30 minutes. We will stop 
there and go from that point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have a question. That would take Senator Brownback 
until 11:40 or 11:45?
  Mr. SANTORUM. To 11:50, and the Senator from California would have 
until 12:20.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, we are here today on the verge of 
something the United States has done on two previous occasions; that 
is, pass a conference report to ban a partial-birth abortion procedure 
to be done in the United States of America. The only difference this 
time is we have a President who has said he is willing to sign this 
legislation. This is a very important day for this country and for 
those babies who would be the object of this brutal procedure. Having 
it banned in the United States of America is a historic event and a 
step forward in human rights for this country.
  We have overcome two Presidential vetoes but now have a President who 
will sign this legislation.
  The other thing that stopped this legislation from moving forward and 
becoming law was the United States Supreme Court decision in the 
Nebraska partial-birth abortion case. We have addressed those issues. 
There were two issues the court cited as its reason--in a 5-to-4 
decision--for finding the Nebraska partial-birth abortion statute 
unconstitutional.
  Those two reasons were, No. 1, that the statute was vague. We have 
amended the language of this statute to make sure that the description 
of a partial-birth abortion is clear to include only those types of 
abortions and not other late-term abortion procedures, which was the 
concern of the court. We did so by a couple of things, but the most 
essential part was that the court found that the prior description 
could have included other forms of abortion because during other types 
of late-term abortion procedures there may be a portion of the baby's 
body that at some point during the abortion procedure may come outside 
of the mother.
  As a result of that, this could have been broadly construed to 
abolish those procedures, also.

  In our language we are very clear. We say that the term ``partial-
birth abortion'' means an abortion which the person performing the 
abortion:

       (A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a 
     living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, 
     [all new language] the entire fetal head is outside of the 
     body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, 
     [that is, feet first] any part of the fetal trunk past the 
     navel is outside of the body of the mother . . .

  Now, that specificity of talking about the way in which the child is 
delivered and then killed is fundamentally different than anything we 
had before. All we said before was that some portion of a living, 
intact fetus must be outside of the mother. That, the court found, was 
a little too vague for them. It could have included other types of 
abortions. So we are being very clear. There is no other abortion 
procedure which the entire fetal head would be presented with the child 
still being alive out of the mother, or the child would be delivered 
all but the head at this point and then be killed. There can be no 
confusion as to what procedure we are talking about in this case.
  We believe with the language we have put in this bill we have now 
solved the constitutional problem of vagueness.
  The second issue is the issue of women's health. We have a 
substantial section of findings in this legislation.

[[Page S12915]]

Much of those findings occurred since the case was tried at the 
district court level of Nebraska, which was the record upon which the 
Supreme Court made its decision. There has been a substantial amount of 
evidence that has been printed in the record in Congress at 
congressional hearings that show not only the overwhelming weight of 
evidence but the dispositive weight of that evidence in this procedure 
is never--I underscore never--necessary to protect the health of the 
mother.
  So the court found there needed to be a health exception because 
there may have been, according to the record they looked at in the 
Nebraska case, there may have been an instance in which this could have 
been necessary.
  We have, without question, clarified that record to make sure that 
the court knows that there is no medical evidence out there that this 
procedure is ever necessary to protect the health of a mother, and 
therefore falls outside of Roe v. Wade where a health exception is 
necessary. In fact, the overwhelming weight of medical evidence 
suggests this is a dangerous procedure, a much more dangerous procedure 
for a woman than the other abortion procedures that are used at this 
time in pregnancy.
  We believe this bill is constitutionally sound and obviously very 
necessary from the standpoint of who we are as a society and, I argue, 
for just basic human rights.
  The question is, Why are we doing this? Let me describe the 
procedure. I did not do that when we had the conference report being 
moved to conference, but I think it is important for people who may not 
be familiar with this procedure to see this procedure. I hope 
sensibilities are shaken to the point where I do not have to explain 
why we want to ban this procedure; that by going through this procedure 
and showing what happens to a baby who is at least 20 weeks of 
gestation--in other words, at least halfway through the pregnancy; with 
40 weeks gestation, this is at least 20 weeks, and in many cases, 21, 
22, 23, 24 weeks, and in rarer cases, beyond that--but these are babies 
who would otherwise, had they been delivered, be born alive.

  Now, in the case of 20 and 21 weeks, the chance of them surviving are 
not particularly high, although there are cases in which babies at 21 
weeks have survived. But the point is these are children who would 
otherwise be born alive, and the people who perform these abortions, 
the abortion provider organizations, have testified that these 
abortions are performed on healthy mothers with healthy children. These 
are healthy children who otherwise would be born alive had this 
procedure not been performed on them. I put that in the context of this 
is what we are doing to healthy children, with healthy mothers who 
otherwise would be born alive. These are children who, again, the 
medical evidence has been presented, that experience and feel pain.
  The partial-birth abortion takes 3 days. That is the normal time. 
What the doctor does when the mother presents to the abortionist--and I 
say the ``abortionist'' because these are only done--again, this is 
clear from the record--these are only done in abortion clinics. The 
person who designed this procedure did so, and he testified to this, 
for his convenience because he can do more of them quicker. He can do 
more abortions more often. He is in business. These late-term abortions 
are more complicated than earlier term abortions, and they take more 
time using other methods, so he designed a method that would take less 
time. So this method was designed not to protect the health of the 
mother.
  In fact, it is less healthy; it is not to protect the mother's life. 
It is never done in the case of an emergency.
  You would not do this in the case of an emergency because it takes 3 
days to do this. It is done for the convenience of the abortionist, for 
them to make more money.
  So this procedure was designed for the mother to be presented, to be 
given something to help dilate the cervix. So when the mother re-
presents in a couple of days, her cervix is dilated, the doctor has 
access to the baby at this point.
  What happens is, the doctor then takes the baby--because usually at 
that gestational age the baby is in a breach position--and goes into 
the uterus and grabs the child by one of the limbs, usually the leg or 
the foot, and then--if the next chart will come up--pulls out the baby 
through the birth canal, feet first.
  Now, I have been blessed to have my wife deliver seven children. One 
of the fears of any pregnancy is having the child being in a breach 
position. Every obstetrician knows, everybody who has ever gone through 
a pregnancy knows, that a breach position is a dangerous position for 
the baby to be in; it is not the natural position to deliver a child. 
So what we are doing here is performing a procedure that is inherently 
dangerous; that is, delivering in a breach position.
  So you are pulling the baby through the birth canal. Again, this baby 
is alive. If the baby is not alive, it is not a partial-birth abortion 
under the definition of the statute. The baby has to be alive and 
intact. So the baby is being pulled by these forceps from the mother.
  Again, it is being pulled out completely--and, again, the definition 
that is in the statute--until the trunk is exposed, at least past the 
navel. So at least the lower extremities of the baby are exposed 
outside of the mother. As such, the term ``partial birth'' comes from 
the fact that the baby is partially born, is in the process of being 
delivered.
  The physician--as you can see--is holding the baby in his or her 
hand. This child weighs about 1 pound. This is a fully formed baby. It 
is not completely formed, obviously, because it is of only 20 weeks 
gestation, but hands, arms--everything--legs, toes, ears, et cetera, 
all these things you see here, that is what a baby at that gestational 
age looks like. And the relative size, vis-a-vis the size of the hand, 
is a pretty accurate depiction. This is not a cartoon. This is an 
accurate scale medical drawing.
  As you can see from the next depiction, the baby is born, really, 
with the exception of the head. The thing that grabs at me is, here is 
this child who is literally inches away from being born, who would 
otherwise be born alive, and in almost all cases is a healthy child--it 
is not being done for any health reason of the mother or life reason of 
the mother; it is simply being done because the mother wants to 
terminate her pregnancy very late in the pregnancy--and the doctor has 
to hold this living child in his or her hand, with the heart beating, 
with the baby, who is probably in shock at this point, but moving and 
alive.
  Then what the procedure calls for is these scissors, called 
Metzenbaum scissors. The doctor feels up the baby's back. The doctor 
finds the base of the skull and then takes these sharp scissors and 
probes in to find the point right at the base of the skull--and, as you 
know, a baby's skull is soft. So they take these scissors and they 
thrust them into the baby's skull.
  Now, Nurse Brenda Shafer, who has testified before Congress, said 
that when that thrusting action took place, she saw the baby's arms and 
legs spasm out like this--like a baby you would hold, and if you 
pretended you were going to drop the baby, how the baby sometimes would 
spasm their arms and legs out like that. That is what she said 
happened.
  Then, as you see from this picture, the baby's arms and legs go limp, 
because when you thrust a pair of scissors in the back of baby's skull, 
you kill the baby.

  But that is not enough. Now we have to remove the rest of the baby. 
So what the abortionist does is take a suction catheter, a vacuum hose, 
and, in the hole created by these scissors, they place a vacuum hose, 
and they suck the baby's brains out to collapse the skull. It is a soft 
skull. At that point, the rest of the baby can then be removed from the 
mother's womb.
  This goes on in America virtually every day, maybe more than once or 
twice a day, depending on whom you believe, anywhere from a few hundred 
times a year to a few thousand times a year. We never have very good 
information because the very people who collect that information are 
the people who oppose this procedure being banned, so they try not to 
publicize too much about what they do.
  But the fact is, if it occurred once in America a year, this kind of 
treatment to an innocent child, who would otherwise be born alive--was 
healthy, with a healthy mother--there is no excuse for it.

[[Page S12916]]

  So when people ask the question, ``Senator, why do you keep bringing 
this procedure back up to the Senate floor; it only stops one 
procedure; you are not banning other procedures that are used,'' my 
answer is, ``Because this is horrendous.''
  In America, whether we like it or not, we are the beacon of freedom, 
but in many cases we are also the model of what is right and just. The 
world looks to us as Americans, as free people, as people who, probably 
uniquely in the world, get a chance to determine what our law should 
be, what our collective morality should be, what our culture looks like 
because of the enormous freedom we have.
  The heart and soul of America is reflected through our laws, unlike 
other countries that do not allow that democratic process to work so 
effectively. So when America passes laws, or when America allows 
certain behavior to occur, the world looks at that law or that behavior 
as supported by the collective consciousness and morality of the 
American public.
  When they see this, what do they think of us? What do they think of 
us? What kind of culture do you think the rest of the world thinks 
America is all about? What kind of morality or ethics do you think the 
world thinks America is all about when they look at us and see that we 
allow this to be done to innocent little children?
  So I think it is important for us to have laws that proscribe things 
that we would not want our children to see, that I know a lot of people 
do not want their children to see. My goodness, this goes on and you 
want little children to see this? We don't want the rest of the world 
to see that we allow this kind of brutality to occur to innocent little 
children.
  So the answer is, we need to do this for ourselves. We need to police 
ourselves in what we are going to allow in our culture. We cannot allow 
this kind of brutality to corrupt us, to corrupt our soul. And that is 
what it does. It makes us a much more brutal and harsh country if we 
stand here and say, yes, for whatever reason, we are going to allow 
this to occur. It coarsens us, it dulls our senses, and that dulling of 
the senses has a corrupting effect on not just how we treat little ones 
here but how we treat each other in every aspect of our lives.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, do let me know when I have 2 minutes 
remaining out of my 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so advise the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I stand before my colleagues as a Senator 
from California but also as a mother who had two complicated 
pregnancies and two wonderful, fabulous children, and also as a proud 
grandmother. I stand before you to tell you this is a very sad day for 
the women of America, a very sad day for the families of America, 
because what is about to happen here is this Senate is about to pass a 
piece of legislation that for the first time in history bans a medical 
procedure without making any exception for the health of a woman. This 
is a radical thing that is about to happen.
  Let's clear something up for the record. When the clerk read the 
bill, she said this is banning something commonly called partial-birth 
abortion. There is no such term in medicine as partial-birth abortion. 
There is either a birth or there is an abortion. There is a 
miscarriage. There is no such thing as partial-birth abortion. It is a 
made-up term to inflame passions.
  My friend knows very well, if he was willing to agree to a health 
exception to protect the health of women, if he would have sat down 
with us on our side, we are ready to ban all late-term abortion. We are 
ready to ban all late-term abortion on our side, as long as there is an 
exception for the life and the health of a woman, which is the 
centerpiece of Roe v. Wade. If he was willing to do that, we would not 
be taking the time of the Senate. This would be done.
  This is more a case of wanting to keep an issue alive out there to 
make people believe those on the other side are cruel, whether we are 
mothers or grandmothers or aunts. That is what it is about. It took me 
a while to figure that out. But once I saw this bill come back to us in 
this form--clearly unconstitutional, clearly without a health 
exception, clearly vague, and all those who have discussed this with me 
tell me it is clearly going to be declared unconstitutional because it 
is practically identical to other bills that have been declared 
unconstitutional--I saw what this is about. This is about politics. 
That is what I believe. Because we could have a bill today, as long as 
we protected the health of the women of this country.
  Why would anyone in this Chamber be so callous as to pass a law 
knowingly keeping out a health exception for women? Well, if you listen 
to my friend's words and you hear the words he uses, you will 
understand why this is happening from the other side. My colleague uses 
the term ``killing the child.'' As the author of the Violence Against 
Women Act and the Violence Against Children Act, I take deep offense at 
that language--deep offense. Women do not want to kill their child. 
Women who have had this procedure have come to the Congress, have 
begged Members of Congress: Do not pass this without a health exception 
for the mother. If I didn't have this procedure, I would have been made 
infertile.
  I am going to go into those stories later in the debate. But here is 
the situation. If you listen to the language ``killing the child,'' you 
must come to the conclusion my colleague believes abortion is murder 
and women are murderers and doctors are accomplices. I thought we moved 
away from that when Roe v. Wade became the law of the land.
  Why are we here today? I will be honest with you: because I didn't 
want this bill to go through, and neither do people who believe women 
are important. Women deserve to have their health and lives protected 
and their fertility protected and their organs protected. Women want to 
take a look at what this debate is all about. I have already told you 
we were willing to go down the aisle with my friend and ban this, as 
long as it was not vague and had a clear health exception for women. 
Forget all this other talk about how cruel we all are. We were ready to 
do that. But no, my friend and his colleagues had to keep this thing 
going. It is their way or the highway.

  Forget about what the Supreme Court has said about vagueness. Forget 
about what the Supreme Court has stated many times. This is basically a 
Republican court that has upheld Roe v. Wade.
  With the next breath my colleague says: This bill is consistent with 
Roe v. Wade. It doesn't do anything to Roe v. Wade.
  If that is the case, why in the conference--and I was a conferee 
along with the Senator from Pennsylvania--did they say--and they run 
the Senate and the House and the White House--we are taking out the 
Senate amendment authored by Tom Harkin which simply said: The Congress 
believes that Roe v. Wade ought to be upheld?
  There are two things in my friend's verbiage that show exactly what 
this is about. One, the term, used over and over again, ``killing a 
child,'' which gives me a very chilling feeling that what this whole 
thing is about is eventually saying women are murderers and should to 
go jail, and doctors are their accomplices and they should go to jail. 
When you listen to verbiage, you hear a lot around here. And then, no 
problem, this bill, he says, is just in concert with Roe v. Wade, even 
though there is no health exception because they declared, in writing 
this bill, that this procedure is never necessary to save the health of 
a woman, which I will prove to you is made up.
  The Senators on the other side who are pushing this are not doctors. 
There is one, but he is not an OB/GYN. I would rather listen to the 
doctors. I would rather listen to the health organizations rather than 
my friend from Pennsylvania. I like him. We are friends. That is not 
the point. We just strongly see this very differently. And we will 
continue to see this very differently as this issue goes on and on.
  There we are. We are sitting in a conference committee. Here is where 
we are. The House and the Senate passed different bills. What was 
different about our bill, S. 3? Senator Harkin put in language, and the 
Senate voted on it twice--twice: once was unanimous, once was a 
majority--to keep Roe v. Wade in the bill, a simple statement of 
support of Roe. So I come to

[[Page S12917]]

the conference committee ready, along with Senator Feinstein, and other 
Congress people, to debate this issue. After all, my friend says here, 
we don't have any problem with Roe. This has nothing to do with Roe.
  Fine. Let's keep it in the bill, folks, a sense of the Senate that 
Roe v. Wade should not be overturned. The Senate voted for it twice.
  Let me tell you how long it took them to kick that amendment out. It 
was about 5 minutes. Not even a real discussion, not even a discussion 
about an amendment that passed this Senate twice, not even a discussion 
about a law which was a landmark law which passed in 1973, which has 
been upheld by the Supreme Court over and over and over. That is the 
kind of attitude you find from the other side when it comes to a 
woman's right to choose. They threw out Roe v. Wade faster than you 
could blink an eye. That is what they want the Court to do, and that is 
what this bill is about. That is why I want to take time here.
  I know this thing is going to pass. I know exactly that it is going 
to pass. I have respect for that. I wish my friends would have respect 
for the fact that Roe passed also and leave it in this bill, so we do 
not send a confusing signal to the women of this country that their 
health no longer matters.

  The Senator from Pennsylvania says, no problem, there is no reason 
ever to use this procedure. Let's look at what some of the doctors' 
organizations say. Let's hold up some of our charts on that. I will 
tell you something; I never dreamed I would be down here with Senators 
who think they know more than doctors, but that is what happens. Let me 
read you a statement by the American College of OB/GYNs:

       Especially for women with particular health conditions, 
     there is medical evidence that D&X [that is the procedure 
     being banned] may be safer than available alternatives. A 
     select panel convened by ACOG concluded that D&X may be ``the 
     best or most appropriate procedure in a particular 
     circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a 
     woman.''

  Look at this. You are in the Supreme Court and you are hearing this 
case, S. 3; this bill is coming before you. They are going to quote 
Senator Santorum that never is this needed to save the life--though he 
will not say that--of a woman. It is not a problem. Are you going to 
believe Senators or the doctors who deal with this every day of their 
working lives? Common sense tells me, when I want to go to the doctor, 
I don't go to the Senator from Pennsylvania. We might have a nice chat 
about things, a good political talk, but I don't want him telling me or 
my daughter; I want a doctor who knows what they are talking about.
  The doctors tell us this is necessary. Let's look at some other 
statements. This is a very important letter from the University of 
California-San Francisco, Center for Reproductive Health Research and 
Policy. This is a very important letter signed by a very important 
physician. What does she tell us. This print is too small to read, so 
let's get the large one that lists the problems women can face. What 
Dr. Stewart tells us in very clear terms is there are serious health 
consequences of banning safe procedures, which she considers the 
procedure that is being banned in this bill to be, a safe procedure: 
hemorrhage, uterine rupture, blood clots, embolism, stroke, damage to 
nearby organs, and paralysis. This is a partial list of what doctors 
tell us could happen to a woman if this procedure that is being banned 
is no longer an option.
  Who do you think the Supreme Court will listen to? Senators with no 
degree in OB/GYN or doctors who are telling us this is what could 
happen to a woman? Do you think we are doing the right thing by banning 
a procedure without which a woman could face damage to a nearby organ, 
paralysis, or a blood clot? What is it about this bill that makes it so 
sacrosanct that you cannot add an exception for the health of the 
mother? We tried everything. The straight health exception is the one 
that is the most constitutional. Others around here said serious 
adverse health consequences. Oh, no, that wasn't good enough.
  There wasn't anything we could say on behalf of the women in this 
country that the other side would not shoot down. I don't understand 
it. I do not understand that kind of mentality. Don't we love our wives 
and our daughters and our aunts and all the women in our lives? How 
could we pass a bill that would say even if a woman's health is 
threatened, this procedure cannot be used, when we could have walked 
down the aisle together and passed a bill with a health exception?

  So when I come before the Senate this morning, it is with a very 
heavy heart. But it is also with the knowledge that I think this Court 
is going to throw out this bill, regardless of whether colleagues say 
in the beginning there is no problem, no relation to a woman's health, 
because doctors have told us the serious health consequences of banning 
this procedure include all these horrible things. By the way, what is 
not listed here is infertility. Later today I will show you the cases 
of women who were spared that problem because this procedure was used 
on a very complicated, difficult, emergency abortion where the brain 
was outside the baby's head, where the child would have suffered.
  I am telling you that I don't know where the compassion is, when we 
would have agreed to do this with a health exception. I don't know 
where the compassion is on the other side. My friend talked about a 
civilized society. I want a civilized society. That means you care 
about the women of this country. That means you care about their 
pregnancies. That means you want to help them through the most 
difficult times. That means you don't play doctor here because you are 
not a doctor. We are about to play doctor in a big way. Fortunately, 
across the street in the Supreme Court they will see right through it.
  So there are many things I could tell you about this bill. I will 
show you some others. Let's see what the Supreme Court said about why 
we believe this bill is unconstitutional. There was a case called 
Stenberg v. Carhart. The Supreme Court found their ban of this 
procedure in this State--it was Nebraska, I believe--was 
unconstitutional. They said it put an undue burden on women because the 
definition is vague.
  Now the other side said they fixed that problem. We don't think they 
did. That will be decided. The second reason it was thrown out is there 
is no exception to protect women's health. I have to tell you that on 
both of these counts S. 3 failed the Supreme Court test. It failed it. 
Even some of the most anti-choice people out there have written letters 
criticizing the other side because they said why don't you do something 
that matters.
  This is going to be overturned in the Supreme Court. So why are we 
going through this, seeing these pictures? Once I was on the Senate 
floor and a colleague wanted a 5-year-old to sit up there and look at 
these pictures. I objected to that. That is inflaming passions. I can 
show pictures of what it looks like when a woman gets a blood clot or 
when a woman is in a wheelchair and paralyzed, but I would not do that 
because this is not about sensationalizing anything. It is about doing 
the right thing.
  I will yield the floor at this time. I see the Senator from Alabama 
here. I will return to continue this debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California. I 
know she cares deeply about this. I just suggest that things are not as 
a lot of people think with regard to the question of abortion--
particularly partial-birth abortion, which we are talking about today. 
That is all this bill has to do with.
  I will just note that Faye Wattleton, a former president of Planned 
Parenthood, a very pro-choice group, and now head of a new 
organization, the Center for the Advancement of Women, recently 
commissioned a survey by the Princeton Survey Research Associates. It 
involved 3,329 women. This was a scientific survey. That is a very 
large number. A lot of polls on Presidential elections don't have that 
many people polled.
  That survey found that 51 percent of the women, who are supposed to 
be offended by this small, but horrible procedure, wanted to ban 
abortion altogether, or limit it to cases of rape or incest or where 
the mother's life is in danger.
  Another 17 percent said abortion--this is abortion in general--should 
be available under stricter laws than now

[[Page S12918]]

apply. That means that 68 percent of women polled think we ought to 
tighten up the laws. This idea, that dealing with partial-birth 
abortion is offensive to women, does not strike me as being sound based 
on that poll. But, of course, polls are not what we are about here. We 
are here to do what is right.
  I do not believe this is the kind of action that most women in 
America are going to be offended by. I suspect if they knew the nature 
of partial-birth abortion, as Senator Santorum has explained, the 
numbers would be higher than 68 percent opposing it. I think we are 
having a growing understanding of the issue.
  I thank Senator Santorum for raising this issue. He has been a good 
advocate of it. It is time now that we take a step that will make 
America a better place. We must just say no to this procedure. There 
are some activities that we can't allow. There are some activities that 
can't be justified and are so beneath the decency of a nation as great 
as America that we ought to ban.
  I remember the debate a number of years ago when Senator Bob Smith, a 
former Senator from New Hampshire, raised this issue for the first time 
in this Chamber. He was attacked bitterly as being an extremist, 
talking about things he ought not to be talking about on the floor of 
the Senate. But Bob Smith stood firm, as he always did, for what he 
believed in. He said this was wrong. But year after year has gone by. 
We have had hearings, and I was on the Judiciary Committee when we had 
hearings on it. We heard the implacable opposition from the pro-
abortion forces. They wanted no yielding, no compromise, nothing that 
would give an inch on this issue, and they dismissed facts and figures. 
Senator Bob Smith will now be vindicated. He displayed courage and 
determination in bringing this issue up and making sure that the 
American people understood what it is about and why this is a 
significant step in protecting the innocent unborn, but certainly does 
not have any broad impact throughout the abortion debate.
  Many people probably did not believe what Senator Smith was saying at 
the time, frankly, but we have seen more about it. I think it is true 
that many people have not wanted to know about the gruesome details of 
this procedure: How a child, a baby, just 3 inches from complete birth 
is deliberately and systematically killed. That is not something about 
which we want to talk. We cringe to say the words. I wish they were not 
true, but unfortunately, they are true.
  The destruction of a partially born child continues to this day. It 
is an affront to the decency of America, and I do believe this is a 
rational and appropriate legislative response on behalf of the American 
people.
  The Senate is on record as agreeing with this view. Last year, we 
answered a very important question when we passed the Born Alive Infant 
Protection Act. This legislation basically said that if a child is 
accidentally born during a partial-birth abortion procedure--that is, 
the baby was actually born and removed from the mother--if the head was 
to move that final couple of inches, then that child's life would be 
protected. What else could we do? Why should we even have a law that 
would say that you have a right to kill a child who has been removed 
from the mother? The Born Alive Infant Protection Act was passed 
unanimously by this body. Partial-birth abortion inflicts pain and 
suffering on the child being born. That we know today. A few years ago, 
we were told by the experts that the anesthetic given to the mother 
would ensure the child feels no pain. However, we have learned this is 
just not true. Professional societies of anesthesiologists have refuted 
this claim.
  The most mind-boggling aspect of this procedure, however, is that it 
is absolutely unnecessary. Almost all of the partial-birth abortion 
procedures that are performed in America are elective and not due to 
any danger to the mother's life. A number of people during this debate 
have expressed concern about the life of the mother, and that is a 
valid concern. I heard this argument during my time on the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. We had a number of hearings on the subject.

  There are exceptions included in this bill to protect the life of the 
mother if it is in danger, although the evidence suggests that such 
circumstances virtually never occur.
  Even in extremely rare circumstances where the life of the mother may 
be endangered by a pregnancy, the only medical requirement is that she 
be separated from the child. There is no requirement that the child be 
killed. The legislation provides, however, for a contingency in which 
the life of a mother is threatened. It would permit this partial-birth 
abortion procedure but only ``to save the life of a mother whose life 
is endangered by physical disorder, physical illness, or physical 
injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or 
arising from the pregnancy itself.''
  That is a pretty broad protection to a mother who may be endangered, 
but I really think it is unnecessary. The fact is the American Medical 
Association, a major institution in America, one that has consistently 
defended abortion rights, has declared this procedure is never 
medically necessary. That is an official position of the American 
Medical Association that it is never medically necessary. This is not 
what we need to be doing when there is a danger to the life of the 
mother. It is not necessary, and it should be outlawed.
  The support for ending this procedure goes beyond our traditional 
debate on abortion. The support exists overwhelmingly in a bipartisan 
way because the partial-birth abortion procedure deeply offends our 
sensibilities as a people, as human beings who care about one another, 
who know that life is fragile, and who believe that all human beings 
need to be treated with respect and dignity, even though they may be 
weak.
  The Declaration of Independence notes life, liberty, and the pursuit 
of happiness as the ideals of the American life. Without this bill, a 
child partially born has those rights ripped away in a most vicious 
way. Allowing partial-birth abortion is a dangerous policy. It is a 
thin line. There is a thin thread that can justify this procedure that 
is, in essence, I believe, infanticide, as said by the former Senator 
Daniel Patrick Moynihan from New York.
  This is a dangerous line we are pushing. If we say that a child 
partially born can be killed----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 10 minutes have expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 
4 additional minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we certainly have no problem with that 
request, just that it come out of the time of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the pro-abortion groups implacable in 
their opposition to any reduction in so-called choice powers, 
emphatically insisted and went around the country declaring that the 
number of partial-birth abortions performed every year was small.
  They insisted these despicable procedures were only performed in 
extreme medical circumstances. Therefore, they said the Federal 
Government should not pass laws to stop it, but that was a flat out 
lie. I do not use that word often, but I will repeat it. It was not 
just an error. It was a lie.
  These claims were either manufactured or disseminated in an attempt 
to minimize the significance of the issue and to dismiss the issues 
raised by Senator Smith. In my view, it was based on an ends justify 
the means theory.
  As reported in a 1997 front-page article in the Washington Times, Mr. 
Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of 
Abortion Providers--let me say that again, the executive director of 
the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, who had been traveling 
the country saying these procedures were rare, had a change of heart. 
In his own words, he publicly admitted that he had ``lied through his 
teeth'' about the number of partial-birth abortions that were 
performed.
  He estimated that ``up to 5,000 partial birth abortions are performed 
annually, and that they are primarily done on healthy women and healthy 
fetuses.'' That is what we are dealing with today.
  So I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, how can we 
answer to our children and our constituents, our highest ideals as 
Americans, if we

[[Page S12919]]

allow children to be destroyed in this way? If we are a nation that 
aspires to goodness, that aspires to be above the coarse and to meet 
minimum standards of decency, this legislation is most strongly needed.
  I find it very puzzling that there continues to be strong resistance 
by a few to the banning of this one brutal procedure. I ask myself: Why 
is that? I have heard it said that the people who oppose partial-birth 
abortion do so for religious reasons, as if that is an illegitimate 
reason to consider as one evaluates public policy.
  Was it illegitimate when Dr. Martin Luther King marched for freedom 
based on his belief in the Scriptures? Religious principle is not an 
illegitimate reason for a motivation, but that has been a complaint 
about those who question the procedure.
  I have analyzed the opposition to this bill and I cannot see that it 
can be founded on the law. I cannot see that it can be founded on 
science; the AMA says it is not necessary. I cannot see that it can be 
founded on ethics; certainly not. Why is it? The only thing I can see 
is that there is a sort of a secular religious opposition to any 
control whatsoever on abortion that is, I believe, driven by an 
extremist group. We are going to allow these procedures to go forward 
as long as abortionists wish to perform them, they say, and you, 
Congress, just have no say in it whatsoever.
  I do not believe that is a rational argument. It is not justified. 
This legislation is specific.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that I have 1 additional 
minute.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, under the same conditions previously asked.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this legislation would ban one simple, 
gruesome, unjustifiable procedure for destroying the life of a 
partially born child. I do not believe that threatens anybody's 
principles, but I will say one thing, not doing it threatens the 
decency and morality of the American people. Every day that it 
continues is a stain on the conscience of America.
  I support this legislation, and I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania 
for his leadership.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized for 20 
minutes.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this is an historic day. For the first 
time since Roe v. Wade, we are going to deal with the issue of abortion 
and limit the practice in one significant way. This is an historic day 
for life; for establishing and supporting a culture of life in the 
United States; for freedom; and for human rights--for the dignity of 
the weakest and most vulnerable amongst us, which we all profess to 
support.
  This is will go down in history as a pivotal day, where we start to 
recognize that the child in the womb is a child. The child in the womb 
is not a piece of property. The child is, indeed, a person with dignity 
and rights and is entitled to life. That is a very important thing for 
us to recognize and for the United States to support.
  I will begin my comments by showing a picture of a very young child. 
Thanks to modern technology, we are able to see a lot more these days. 
We now have what is called 4D, four dimensional, CAT scans of children 
in the womb. We can see children smiling and yawning in the womb at a 
very young age.
  I recently had a gentleman in my office--we actually had him testify 
in front of the Commerce Committee--who performs surgeries on children 
in the womb--in utero surgeries. This gentleman works on children in 
the womb a great deal, and in doing these surgeries, for example, he 
says a child in the womb acts just like a child outside the womb. One 
has to go into the womb, when they are performing the surgery, to 
anesthetize the child. When a doctor goes in with a needle to poke the 
child in the womb, they have to chase them. There is a confined area 
that the child can run around in the womb, but as they go in with that 
needle the child jerks back, holds their buttocks back. They do not 
like to get the needle in them.
  Having five children myself--two of them are five now--I know it is a 
major procedure for us to go in and get immunizations in the doctor's 
office. For us to get two children immunized, it takes five people--two 
holding down, one giving the shot, and a couple of us saying, there, 
there, it is all right.
  It turns out that children in the womb are very similar. They do not 
like the pain. They feel it. They pull back from it. They repulse, and 
yet it is something we need to do.
  I wish to continue my remarks by talking about a famous young child 
who is probably more famous before he was born than most people are 
during their life--Samuel Alexander Armas. I had him testifying about 2 
months ago. He is now 3 years old. Samuel is a unique and beautiful 
child. He actually testified in front of the committee.
  This is his hand coming out of his mother's womb. He had spina 
bifida, which a number of people recognize is a very difficult thing. 
The spinal cord does not develop. The child generally has great 
difficult in mobility and can also be deaf resulting from that. Yet we 
have now found a way that in utero, in the womb, that we can operate on 
that child and close that area.
  When Samuel testified at age 3 in front of my committee, he was fine; 
though, he does have some mobility problems with his legs. When his 
parents discovered that he had spina bifida, they had recommendations 
from their physicians that the pregnancy should be terminated. The 
parents said, no, no, we believe in life. We are not going to do this 
to our child. At that time, they had even named him Samuel. They asked: 
What else can we do? They were told of in utero surgeries, and they 
decided to try it.
  This in utero surgery actually took place at 21 weeks of age, which 
is about the timeframe that partial-birth abortions occur--21 weeks. I 
want to show a positive side of this. They went in and did the surgery 
on Samuel. They fixed the problem of the spina bifida. As they were 
concluding the surgery on Samuel, this picture was taken of his 
mother's womb. The surgery on Samuel was resolved and a photographer 
from USA Today was in the room taking pictures. USA Today had asked 
previously if they could be present at the surgery, taking 
pictures. This surgery was being done at Vanderbilt University Medical 
Center. The photographer was there. He had taken pictures throughout 
the surgery. The surgery was just wrapping up when all of a sudden they 
saw the womb shake a little bit and Samuel's hand comes out of the 
womb.

  The doctor is looking at it. Out of curiosity, I guess, as much as 
anything, he puts his finger near the womb and Samuel grabs the 
doctor's finger--21 weeks of age, and Samuel holds onto it.
  The photographer, in just a moment's notice, just clicks it. He 
doesn't know if he even gets the picture. He just senses that there is 
something important that has just happened. The hand lets go and goes 
back into the womb--Samuel likes it better in the womb at this point in 
time--and they close up the womb. The surgery is successful.
  This picture that appeared in USA Today--it has actually been all 
over the world and is one of those famous pictures--has been renamed 
``The Hand of Hope,'' as Samuel reaches out from the womb and grabs 
hold of that next generation already there, seeking and yearning to 
join them.
  The photographer was stunned about it. He was stunned how the picture 
had come out. He was stunned by the response that he received around 
the world. He gets e-mails on a regular basis, all the time, frankly, 
in response to this ``Hand of Hope.'' It has appeared in USA Today and 
in newspapers around the world multiple sets of times.
  We had Samuel in to testify. We had his parents testify about what 
they went through to undergo this surgery. We had a doctor testify 
about the number of things we can now cure in utero. I think it is 
important that we start to cover children in utero because, when you 
have these sorts of surgeries, they are expensive, but they are 
important and they are better covered at that point in time. This is a 
heroic thing. It is a beautiful thing.
  It is the other end of the tragedy that we close here today because 
Samuel, until this procedure is banned, could be

[[Page S12920]]

aborted legally and killed by this brutal procedure called partial-
birth abortion. Partial-birth abortion is a procedure that we have had 
gruesomely described to the American public on numerous occasions. So 
while at this stage of life, Samuel has a hand of hope. He also could 
legally be killed at this point in time by that brutal procedure, 
partial-birth abortion, which involves no anesthetic, nothing--just a 
brutal, gruesome procedure that we will not stand for anyplace in the 
world, being the country that we are that believes in freedom and hope 
and in opportunity for everybody. We believe in life and liberty and 
the pursuit of happiness.
  The central debate we are finally getting out into is this little 
hand of Samuel, and asking is that the hand of a person or is that the 
hand of a glob of tissue? Is it the hand of an individual? Is it the 
hand of an extension of the mother? Is it a person or is it a piece of 
property? That is the central question, and it is a question we have 
wrestled with before. We wrestled with this question on the slave issue 
when we--in that original sin of the United States of having slavery--
would not recognize an individual as a person but rather as a piece of 
property. It was a horrible thing, a horrible chapter. We have all 
recognized that and we say it was a bad thing.
  Now we are on the same debate. Here is little Samuel's hand. Is it 
the hand of a person or the hand of a piece of property? If it is 
property, we can dispose of it as we choose to see fit. If it is a 
person, it has rights and we have responsibilities towards that 
beautiful child; that Samuel is and is on a continuum, this child, from 
that point of time as well.
  Do we want that child killed or do we want that child cured? Do we 
want that child in our society or do we want that child somehow just 
kind of done away with for whatever reason the case might be?
  I do hope we get into a substantial and long-term debate about the 
nature of Samuel and his hand of hope as he reaches out from the womb 
and, by that little hand, says to us: I am a person. I am yearning to 
be free, yearning to live. I have much to give to you. I have much to 
give to this society. I have much to help with, and I want to do it and 
I want to be able to help you. I want to be there with you when my time 
comes. And Samuel did. He came out, and he is now with us.

  We are this day moving forward on an issue of human dignity that I 
think is incredibly important. I think it is also an obligation for us 
to stand and recognize that human life--at whatever stage--is sacred, 
unique, and a precious gift. Each day when we have the call that says 
we lost a soldier in Iraq--two--three--each of us in this country just 
gets sick at the stomach because that person was somebody's brother; 
that person was somebody's sister; that person was somebody's father or 
mother; that person is unique, sacred, and that person is precious to 
us.
  Is Samuel Alexander Armas any less unique and sacred and precious? If 
you kill him at this point in time, isn't he dead for the rest of his 
life? Is it somehow that because he is in the womb he is not a life 
continuum at that point in time? Is there something different here?
  At this point in time he is property, and then when he comes out of 
the womb he becomes a person with rights and responsibilities? Why? Is 
it that he is dependent here in the womb? He is dependent when he is 
born, but he is property here that can be disposed of, and he is a 
person who must be protected when he is born? His hand speaks to us. 
His hand challenges us. His hand is a hand of hope to us as a society 
that says, yes, we recognize the rights of the most vulnerable amongst 
us, and we are going to protect them. We are going to stand for them. 
We are not going to let them be killed.
  This is an enormous day. This has been a long, 7-year fight about the 
issue of partial-birth abortion. In many ways it has been instructive 
to us as a country. I am absolutely convinced the American people are 
convinced that Samuel is a child and not somehow a piece of property or 
a lump of tissue. People in this country do not want children killed. 
They do not want that to take place.
  As this debate has gone on and on, what we found is the American 
public has shifted. Now, particularly amongst young women of child-
bearing age, you are seeing for the first time since this has been 
recorded that they are more pro-life than pro-choice. They are 
recognizing this is a child, it is a person, it has rights, it has 
beauty, it has things it wants to contribute. It is important that we 
let that child contribute.
  Last weekend was a celebration of Mother Teresa's beatification. It 
is quite something. A number of people in this body had a chance to 
meet Mother Teresa--a great contributor to the society around the world 
to the most weak and defenseless. She often came to the United States 
and graced us with her presence. She talked about the beautiful things, 
and she would talk about each of us having our own Calcuttas, where we 
can help people wherever we are. She talked about poverty in America. 
Actually, she was talking about the poverty of love.
  She was most harsh about the institution of abortion, where a mother 
would end the life of her own child. She cared deeply for the mother 
and she cared deeply for the child.
  She once said this: If we can accept that a mother can kill her own 
child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?
  She asked this sort of haunting, piercing question. If we allow this 
in society, don't we spawn a continual culture of death instead of a 
culture of life at the very inception of things? What do we say to 
Samuel later on? Well, OK, we could have killed you by a brutal 
procedure at this point in time, legally, and that would have been 
fine, or we could have saved your life. There was no protection in 
particular one way or the other.
  This is an important day for life. It is an important day for a 
transition in the culture of life. I ask people who are opposed to this 
ban to look at this hand of Samuel.
  My colleague from California cares passionately about this issue, and 
about the issue of choice and the right of a woman to choose. But I 
don't know that she or anybody else can deny that this is the hand of a 
child, and we have some responsibilities to that child as well. Maybe 
we can call a hand a piece of property. But I don't know how else 
biologically it could be defined. I don't know how else physically it 
could be defined.
  With each passing day, and our technology getting better and better 
and better, I really do ask people on the other side, Is this not a 
child?
  Am I not a person? Am I not a brother? A sister? Am I not?
  Others care deeply about the right to choose. I respect that. But we 
all have choices to make. Is it one that we choose to terminate a 
brother or sister, a person who could be a parent, a person who could 
be a contributor, or do we not?
  It really is a defining moment. I hope people on the other side would 
look at this picture and say: Yes, I cannot deny the humanity of that 
hand, the hand of hope. I support the ban on partial-birth abortion and 
look forward to the day when it is signed.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for 
30 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will you let me know when I have used 7 
minutes and I will yield time to the Senator from New Jersey.
  I am very pleased to be joined by Senator Lautenberg. I will respond 
with my comments to the comments of the Senator from Kansas who was 
very eloquently talking about the most vulnerable among us.
  As the author, when I was in the House, of the Violence Against Women 
Act, as the person who offered the amendment which allowed abortion 
after rape in the House--and that passed for Medicaid patients--and as 
the author of the Violence Against Children Act today--and I hope my 
colleague will cosponsor that bill because it is a wonderful way to 
highlight the most vulnerable among us--the example the Senator talked 
about, the case of Samuel, illustrates why the pro-choice position is 
so much the right position--In that case, the doctor recommended an 
abortion but the parents made another choice. The parents acted and 
said to the doctor: We do not agree. So they had the right to choose 
what they wanted to do. And good for them.

[[Page S12921]]

  But if we legislate bans on this and bans on this--you have to have a 
child, you do not--and we turn into China or countries like Romania 
that said you shall have the babies, on the one hand, or you may not 
ever have a baby, on the other, then we lose the ability for families, 
with their God, with their conscience, with their doctor, to make the 
decision they want to make.
  The important thing is that the family have the choice. That is why I 
stand here today.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. I will not yield time because Senator Lautenberg is in a 
rush.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask that it not be taken off your time.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield for a short time.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Is this the hand of a child?
  Mrs. BOXER. Senator, you did not listen to what I said, because you 
were talking to your staff, when I stood up.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I am responding to what you were saying.
  Mrs. BOXER. No, you did not. I said, good for the parents for making 
the choice and standing up for the doctor who gave them another 
suggestion. Fine. That is what a pro-choice position is. That is why I 
am so much for Roe v. Wade. That is why I stand here as a mother, as a 
grandmother, as a Senator from a very large State, admitting, Senator, 
and admitting to all my friends in the Senate, in the Congressional 
Record for all times, that I am not a doctor and I am not God. I am a 
human being. I trust other human beings to make these decisions. I 
trust Samuel's family to make the decision they made. The doctor gave 
his opinion.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. And I will not yield at this time.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Just a question.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will not yield at this time. I will continue my 
statement. I do not want to lose my trend of thought because we are 
about to do something today that, although hailed by the other side, is 
the first time in history that the Senate is going to ban a medical 
procedure that is considered by many doctors--and we have put it in the 
Record, pages and scores, and I ask unanimous consent that they be 
printed in the Record--doctors and nurses have told us this procedure 
is often essential to protect the life and health of a woman.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           The American College of


                              Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

                                    Washington, DC, March 6, 2003.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: The American College of Obstetricians 
     and Gynecologists (ACOG) reaffirms its Statement of Policy on 
     Intact Dilation and Extraction, initially approved by the 
     ACOG Executive Board in 1997.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Ralph Hale, MD,
                                         Executive Vice President.
       Attachment.

                        ACOG Statement of Policy


              statement on intact dilation and extraction

       The debate regarding legislation to prohibit a method of 
     abortion, such as the legislation banning ``partial birth 
     abortion,'' and ``brain sucking abortions,'' has prompted 
     questions regarding these procedures. It is difficult to 
     respond to these questions because the descriptions are vague 
     and do not delineate a specific procedure recognized in the 
     medical literature. Moreover, the definitions could be 
     interpreted to include elements of many recognized abortion 
     and operative obstetric techniques.
       The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 
     (ACOG) believes the intent of such legislative proposals is 
     to prohibit a procedure referred to as ``Intact Dilatation 
     and Extraction'' (Intact D & X). This procedure has been 
     described as containing all of the following four elements:
       1. Deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a 
     sequence of days;
       2. Instrumental conversion of the fetus to a footling 
     breech;
       3. Breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and
       4. Partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of a 
     living fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but 
     otherwise intact fetus.
       Because these elements are part of established obstetric 
     techniques, it must be emphasized that unless all four 
     elements are present in sequence, the procedure is not an 
     intact D & X.
       Abortion intends to terminate a pregnancy while preserving 
     the life and health of the mother. When abortion is performed 
     after 16 weeks, intact D & X is one method of terminating a 
     pregnancy. The physician, in consultation with the patient, 
     must choose the most appropriate method based upon the 
     patient's individual circumstances.
       According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     (CDC), only 5.3% of abortions performed in the United States 
     in 1993, the most recent data available, were performed after 
     the 16th week of pregnancy. A preliminary figure published by 
     the CDC for 1994 is 5.6%. The CDC does not collect data on 
     the specific method of abortion, so it is unknown how many of 
     these were performed using intact D & X. Other data show that 
     second trimester transvaginal instrumental abortion is a safe 
     procedure.
       Terminating a pregnancy is performed in some circumstances 
     to save the life or preserve the health of the mother. Intact 
     D & X is one of the methods available in some of these 
     situations. A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no 
     circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, 
     would be the only option to save the life or preserve the 
     health of the woman. An intact D & X, however, may be the 
     best or most appropriate procedure in a particular 
     circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a 
     woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, 
     based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this 
     decision. The potential exists that legislation prohibiting 
     specific medical practices, such as intact D & X, may outlaw 
     techniques that are crucial to the lives and health of 
     American women. The intervention of legislative bodies into 
     medical decision making is inappropriate, ill advised, and 
     dangerous.
       Approved by the Executive Board.
       January 12, 1997.
                                  ____

                                          American Medical Women's


                                            Association, Inc.,

                                   Alexandria, VA, March 25, 2003.
     Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Nadler: The American Medical Women's 
     Association (AMWA) strongly opposes HR 760, the ``Partial-
     Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.'' While the Association has 
     high respect for each member and their right to hold whatever 
     moral, religious and philosophical beliefs his or her 
     conscience dictates, as an organization of 10,000 women 
     physicians and medical students dedicated to promoting 
     women's health and advancing women in medicine, we believe HR 
     760 is unconscionable.
       AMWA has long been an advocate for women's access to 
     reproductive health care. As such, we recognize this 
     legislation as an attempt to ban a procedure that in some 
     circumstances is the safest and most appropriate alternative 
     available to save the life and health of the woman. 
     Furthermore, this bill violates the privilege of a patient in 
     consultation with her physician to make the most appropriate 
     decision regarding her specific health circumstances.
       AMWA opposes legislation such as HR 760 as inappropriate 
     intervention in the decision-making relationship between 
     physician and patient. The definition of the bill is too 
     imprecise and it includes non-medical terminology for a 
     procedure that may ultimately undermine the legality of other 
     techniques in obstetrics and gynecology used in both abortion 
     and non-abortion situations. At times, the use of these 
     techniques is essential to the lives and health of women. The 
     potential of this ban to criminalize certain obstetrics and 
     gynecology techniques ultimately interferes with the quality 
     of health and lives of women. Furthermore, the current ban 
     fails to meet the provisions set forth by the Supreme Court 
     in Stenberg v. Carhart, a ruling that overturned a Nebraska 
     statute banning abortion because it contained no life and 
     health exception for the mother.
       AMWA's position on this bill corresponds to the position 
     statement of the organization on abortion and reproductive 
     health services to women and their families.
       AMWA believe that the prevention of unintended pregnancies 
     through access to contraception and education is the best 
     option available for reducing the abortion rate in the United 
     States. Legislative bans for procedures that use recognized 
     obstetrics and gynecological techniques fails to protect the 
     health and safety of women and their children, nor will it 
     improve the lives of women and their families. If you have 
     any questions please contact Meghan Kissell, at 703-838-0500.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Lynn Epstein, MD,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                   March 10, 2003.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: We are writing to urge you to stand in 
     defense of women's reproductive health and vote against S. 3, 
     legislation regarding so-called ``partial birth'' abortion.
       We are practicing obstetrician-gynecologists, and academics 
     in obstetrics, gynecology and women's health. We believe it 
     is imperative that those who perform terminations and manage 
     the pre- and post-operative care of women receiving abortions 
     are given a voice in a debate that has largely ignored the 
     two groups whose lives would be most affected by this 
     legislation: physicians and patients.

[[Page S12922]]

       It is misguided and unprincipled for lawmakers to legislate 
     medicine. We all want safe and effective medical procedures 
     for women; on that there is no dispute. However, the business 
     of medicine is not always palatable to those who do not 
     practice it on a regular basis. The description of a number 
     of procedures--from liposuction to cardiac surgery--may seem 
     distasteful to some, and even repugnant to others. When 
     physicians analyze and debate surgical techniques among 
     themselves, it is always for the best interest of the 
     patient. Abortion is proven to be one of the safest 
     procedures in medicine, significantly safer than childbirth, 
     and in fact has saved numerous women's lives.
       While we can argue as to why this legislation is dangerous, 
     deceptive and unconstitutional--and it is--the fact of the 
     matter is that the text of the bill is so vague and 
     misleading that there is a great need to correct the 
     misconceptions around abortion safety and technique. It is 
     wrong to assume that a specific procedure is never needed; 
     what is required is the safest option for the patient, and 
     that varies from case to case.


                               the facts

       (1) So-called ``partial birth'' abortion does not exist.
       There is no mention of the term ``partial birth'' abortion 
     in any medical literature. Physicians are never taught a 
     technique called ``partial birth'' abortion and therefore are 
     unable to medically define the procedure.
       What is described in the legislation, however, could ban 
     all abortions. ``What this bill describes, albeit in non-
     medical terms, can be interpreted as any abortion,'' stated 
     one of our physician members. ``Medicine is an art as much as 
     it is a science; although there is a standard of care, each 
     procedure--and indeed each woman--is different. The wording 
     here could apply to any patient.'' The bill's language is too 
     vague to be useful; in fact, it is so vague as to be harmful. 
     It is intentionally unclear and deceptive.
       (2) Physicians need to have all medical options available 
     in order to provide the best medical care possible.
       Tying the hands of physicians endangers the health of 
     patients. It is unethical and dangerous for legislators to 
     dictate specific surgical procedures. Until a surgeon 
     examines the patient, she does not necessarily know which 
     technique or procedure would be in the patient's best 
     interest. Banning procedures puts women's health at risk.
       (3) Politicians should not legislate medicine.
       To do so would violate the sanctity and legality of the 
     physician-patient relationship. The right to have an abortion 
     is constitutionally-protected. To falsify scientific evidence 
     in an attempt to deny women that right is unconscionable and 
     dangerous.
       The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecology, 
     representing 45,000 ob-gyns, agrees: ``The intervention of 
     legislative bodies into medical decisionmaking is 
     inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous.''
       The American Medical Women's Association, representing 
     10,000 female physicians, is opposed to an abortion ban 
     because it ``represents a serious impingement on the rights 
     of physicians to determine appropriate medical management for 
     individual patients.''


                              the science

       We know that there is no such technique as ``partial 
     birth'' abortion, and we believe this legislation is a 
     thinly-veiled attempt to outlaw all abortions. Those 
     supporting this legislation seem to want to confuse both 
     legislators and the public about which abortion procedures 
     are actually used. Since the greatest confusion seems to 
     center around techniques that are used in the second and 
     third trimesters, we will address those: dilation and 
     evacuation (D&E), dilation and extraction (D&X), 
     instillation, hysterectomy and hysterotomy (commonly known as 
     a c-section).
       Dilation and evacuation (D&E) is the standard approach for 
     second-trimester abortions. The only difference between a D&E 
     and a more common, first-trimester vacuum aspiration is that 
     the cervix must be further dilated. Morbidity and mortality 
     studies indicate that this surgical method is preferable to 
     labor induction methods (instillation), hysterotomy and 
     hysterectomy.
       From the years 1972-76, labor induction procedures carried 
     a maternal mortality rate of 16.5 (note: all numbers listed 
     are out of 100,000); corresponding rate for D&E was 10.4. 
     From 1977-82, labor induction fell to 6.8, but D&E dropped to 
     3.3. From 1983-87, induction methods had a 3.5 mortality 
     rate, while D&E fell to 2.9. Although the difference between 
     the methods shrank by the mid-1980s, the use of D&E had 
     already quickly outpaced induction, thus altering the size of 
     the sample.
       Morbidity trends indicate that dilation and evacuation is 
     much safer than labor induction procedures, and for women 
     with certain medical conditions, e.g., coronary artery 
     disease or asthma, labor induction can pose serious risks. 
     Rates of major complications from labor induction were 
     more than twice as high as those from D&E. There are 
     instances of women who, after having failed induction, 
     acquired infections necessitating emergency D&Es, which 
     ultimately saved her fertility and, in some instances, her 
     life. Hysterotomy and hysterectomy, moreover, carry a 
     mortality rate seven times that of induction techniques 
     and ten times that of D&E.
       There is a psychological component which makes D&E 
     preferable to labor induction; undergoing difficult, 
     expensive and painful labor for up to two days is extremely 
     emotionally and psychologically draining, much more so than a 
     surgical procedure that can be done in a few hours under 
     general or local anesthesia. Furthermore, labor induction 
     does not always work: Between 15 and 30 percent of cases 
     require surgery to complete the procedure. There is no 
     question that D&E is the safest method of second-trimester 
     abortion.
       There is also a technique known as dilation and extraction 
     (D&X). D&X is merely a variant of D&E. There is a dearth of 
     data on D&X as it is an uncommon procedure. However, it is 
     sometimes a physician's preferred method of termination for a 
     number of reasons: it offers a woman a chance to see the 
     intact outcome of a desired pregnancy, thus speeding up the 
     grieving process; it provides a greater chance of acquiring 
     valuable information regarding hereditary illness or fetal 
     anomaly; and there is a decreased risk of injury to the 
     woman, as the procedure is quicker than induction and 
     involves less use of sharp instruments in the uterus, 
     providing a lesser chance of uterine perforations or tears 
     and cervical lacerations.
       It is important to note that these procedures are used at 
     varying gestational ages. Neither a D&E nor a D&X is 
     equivalent to a late-term abortion. D&E and D&X are used 
     solely based on the size of the fetus, the health of the 
     woman, and the physician's judgment, and the decision 
     regarding which procedure to use is done on a case-by-case 
     basis.


                            the legislation

       Because this legislation is so vague, it would outlaw D&E 
     and D&X (and arguably techniques used in the first-
     trimester). Indeed, the Congressional findings--which go into 
     detail, albeit in non-medical terms--do not remotely 
     correlate with the language of the bill. This legislation is 
     reckless. The outcome of its passage would undoubtedly be 
     countless deaths and irreversible damage to thousands of 
     women and families. We can safely assert that without D&E and 
     D&X, that is, an enactment of S. 3, we will be returning to 
     the days when an unwanted pregnancy led women to death 
     through illegal and unsafe procedures, self-inflicted 
     abortions, uncontrollable infections and suicide.
       The cadre of physicians who provide abortions should be 
     honored, not vilified. They are heroes to millions of women, 
     offering the opportunity of choice and freedom. We urge you 
     to consider scientific data rather than partisan rhetoric 
     when voting on such far-reaching public health legislation. 
     We strongly oppose legislation intended to ban so-called 
     ``partial birth'' abortion.
           Sincerely,
     NAtalie E. Roche, MD,
       Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New 
     Jersey Medical College.
     Gerson Weiss, MD,
       Professor and Chair, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology 
     and Women's Health, New Jersey Medical College.
                                  ____

                                                    March 5, 2003.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: I understand that your will be 
     considering Senate S. 3, the ban on abortion procedures, soon 
     and would like to offer some medical information that may 
     assist you in your efforts. Important stakes for women's 
     health are involved: if Congress enacts such a sweeping ban, 
     the result could effectively ban safe and common, pre-
     viability abortion procedures.
       By way of background, I am an adjunct professor in the 
     Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive 
     Sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, 
     where I co-direct the Center for Reproductive Health Research 
     and Policy. Formerly, I directed the Reproductive Health 
     program for the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and served 
     as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs for the 
     United States Department of Health and Human Services. I 
     represented the United States at the International Conference 
     on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo, Egypt, and 
     currently serve on a number of Boards for organizations that 
     promote emergency contraception and new contraceptive 
     technologies, and support reducing teen pregnancy. My medical 
     and policy areas of expertise are in the family planning and 
     reproductive health, prevention of sexually transmitted 
     infections including HIV/AIDS, and enhancing international 
     and family planning.
       The proposed ban on abortion procedures criminalizes 
     abortions in which the provider ``deliberately and 
     intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus . . . for the 
     purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will 
     kill the partially delivered living fetus . . .'' The 
     criminal ban being considered is flawed in a number of 
     respects:
       It fails to protect women's health by omitting an exception 
     for women's health;
       It menaces medical practice with the threat of criminal 
     prosecution;
       It encompasses a range of abortion procedures; and
       It leaves women in need of second trimester abortions with 
     far less safe medical options: hysterotomy (similar to a 
     cesarean section) and hysterectomy.
       The proposed ban would potentially encompass several 
     abortion methods, including

[[Page S12923]]

     dilation and extraction (d&x, sometimes referred to as 
     ``intact d&e''), dilation and evacuation (d&e), the most 
     common second-trimester procedure. In addition, such a ban 
     could also apply to induction methods. Even if a physician is 
     using induction as the primary method for abortion, he or she 
     may not be able to assure that the procedure could be 
     effected without running afoul of the proposed ban. A likely 
     outcome if this legislation is enacted and enforced is that 
     physicians will fear criminal prosecution for any second 
     trimester abortion--and women will have no choice but to 
     carry pregnancies to term despite the risks to their health. 
     It would be a sad day for medicine if Congress decides that 
     hysterotomy, hysterectomy, or unsafe continuation of 
     pregnancy are women's only available options. Williams 
     Obstetrics, one of the leading medical texts in Obstetrics 
     and Gynecology, has this to say about the hysterotomy 
     ``option'' that the bill leaves open:
       ``Nottage and Liston (1975), based on a review of 700 
     hysterotomies, rightfully concluded that the operation is 
     outdated as a routine method for terminating pregnancy.''--
     Cunningham and McDonald, et al., Williams Obstetrics, 19th 
     ed., (1993), p. 683.
        Obviously, allowing women to have a hysterectomy means 
     that Congress is authorizing women to have an abortion at the 
     price of their future fertility, and with the added risks and 
     costs of major surgery. In sum, the options left open are 
     less safe for women who need an abortion after the first 
     trimester of pregnancy.
        I'd like to focus my attention on that subset of the women 
     affected by this bill who face grievous underlying medical 
     conditions. To be sure, these are not the majority of 
     women who will be affected by this legislation, but the 
     grave health conditions that could be worsened by this 
     bill illustrate how sweeping the legislation is.
       Take for instance women who face hypertensive disorders 
     such as eclampsia--convulsions precipitated by pregnancy-
     induced or aggravated hypertension (high blood pressure). 
     This, along with infection and hemorrhage, is one of the most 
     common causes of maternal death. With eclampsia, the kidneys 
     and liver may be affected, and in some cases, if the woman is 
     not provided an abortion, her liver could rupture, she could 
     suffer a stroke, brain damage, or coma. Hypertensive 
     disorders are conditions that can develop over time or spiral 
     out of control in short order, and doctors must be given the 
     latitude to terminate a pregnancy if necessary in the safest 
     possible manner.
       If the safest medical procedures are not available to 
     terminate a pregnancy, severe adverse health consequences are 
     possible for some women who have underlying medical 
     conditions necessitating a termination of their pregnancies, 
     including: death (risk of death higher with less safe 
     abortion methods); infertility; paralysis; coma; stroke; 
     hemorrhage; brain damage; infection; liver damage; and kidney 
     damage.
       Legislation forcing doctors to forego medically indicated 
     abortions or to use less safe but politically-palatable 
     procedures is simply unacceptable for women's health.
       Thank you very much, Senator, for your efforts to educate 
     your colleagues about the implications of the proposed ban on 
     abortion procedures.
           Sincerely,
     Felicia H. Stewart, M.D.
                                  ____



                               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 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. Let me reiterate who is being compassionate. Our side of 
the aisle, down to every person, and the pro-choice side of the aisle. 
On the other side we have a few. We agree to this ban if there is an 
exception for the health and life of a woman. The other side said no. 
And the clear fact is, when the other side says there will not be an 
exception for the health of the woman, the other side is not being 
compassionate.
  Let me tell you, when a woman is told--and we will take out what 
could happen to a woman if this is not available--some of the health 
consequences, when a woman is told she could have a stroke, that she 
could wind up paralyzed, that she could wind up hurting or harming 
other organs, we are talking about a major problem to women.
  To say you are being compassionate and you are being caring to the 
most vulnerable when you turn your back away from the fact that a woman 
could have a hemorrhage, she could have her uterus ruptured, she could 
be made infertile, she could have blood clots, embolism, a stroke, 
damage to nearby organs, or paralysis if this particular procedure is 
not available to her--if you have no compassion, if you smile when you 
look at this, if you do not feel what it is like for a woman to face 
this, if you put this in the back of your mind, I am sorry, in my view 
you are not for the most vulnerable at all.
  We could have banned this procedure if we had added a health 
exception. But the other side is so demagogic on this, they will not 
walk down the bipartisan aisle with us. That is a very sad commentary. 
They said the health exception is too broad. They do not trust women. 
Face it, they think a woman is going to make something up?
  We said, OK, add ``serious adverse health consequences.'' No, they 
would not do that either.
  The Supreme Court decided a very similar ban was unconstitutional. 
What the Supreme Court said about the fact that there was no health 
exception in the Stenberg v. Carhart case, that came out of Nebraska 
law, that had no health exception and was vague--first, they said the 
bill bans more than one procedure:

       Even if the statute's basic aim is to ban D&X, its language 
     makes clear that it also covers a much broader category of 
     procedures.

  Some would say that is the intent of the other side, to take away a 
woman's right to choose. So they say they are banning one procedure 
when, in fact, it is so vague that maybe they are banning more.
  I would have more respect and admiration for my friends on the other 
side if they just said, let's just ban abortion, just call it killing, 
put away the women into jail who have an abortion, send the doctors to 
jail. That is what is in their heart. But no, they do not want to do 
that.
  My colleague from Alabama talked about a poll. I have other polls 
that did not track that which I will print in the Record. The polls I 
have do not go along with those polls.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 7 minutes the Senator asked to be notified 
of have elapsed.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will take 3 more minutes before I yield as much time as 
he may consume to my colleague from New Jersey.
  The poll I have is very difficult. We have a majority of 56 percent 
believing abortion should be legal in all or most cases. That is a very 
recent poll. It has a margin of error of 1 to 3 points; 55

[[Page S12924]]

percent believe the Government should not be involved in this private 
medical decision. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            NARAL Pro-Choice America 2004 Presidential Poll

       Anna Greenberg of Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research Inc. 
     conducted this poll for NARAL Pro-Choice America between June 
     5, 2003 and June 12, 2003 among 1,200 likely voters with a 
     margin of error of 1/3.
       While the 2004 election will be shaped by the economy, 
     security and the war on terrorism, a woman's right to choose 
     will play an important role in the presidential contest. 
     Protecting a woman's right to choose, especially when it is 
     framed as protecting her right to privacy and freedom from 
     government interference, can move important swing voters 
     including Independents and suburban voters toward a pro-
     choice Democratic candidate.
       Here are our findings:
       The country is pro-choice. A majority, 56 percent, believes 
     that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
       The country does not want the government involved in a 
     woman's private medical decisions. Eighty percent of voters 
     believe that abortion is a decision that should be made 
     between a woman and her doctor as compared to just 11 percent 
     who say it's a decision that should be made by the 
     government. Only 27 percent of those who are identified as 
     ``pro-life'' believe that government should make the 
     decision. Even a majority of those who identified as ``pro-
     life'' (55 percent) believe that a woman and her doctor 
     should make the decision.
       The presidential race will be competitive and choice can 
     play an important role. After a fully informed debate that 
     includes the candidate's position on a woman's right to 
     choose, the race between President Bush and a generic 
     Democrat tightens considerably. Initially, a generic 
     Democratic candidate trails President Bush 15 points, 38 to 
     53 percent; after hearing the candidates' competing agendas 
     that includes support for a woman's right to choose, the race 
     tightens to a 6-point race, 44 to 50 percent.
       Choice moves swing voters. After hearing two statements 
     describing the Democratic candidate and President Bush's 
     position on choice, support for a generic Democratic 
     candidate increases from 44 to 46 percent, while support for 
     President Bush drops 2 points, 48 to 46 percent. This 
     movement is driven by moderately pro-choice voters who did 
     not yet support the Democratic candidate at that stage of the 
     survey (more below).
       A principled commitment to privacy is the strongest message 
     a pro-choice can make about choice. The privacy message is 
     the strongest pro-choice message for a Democratic candidate 
     and is consistent with the values promulgated in recent 
     Supreme Court decisions. Fully 71 percent of voters say the 
     privacy argument is a convincing reason to support the 
     Democratic candidate for president; a majority (52 percent) 
     says it is a very convincing reason.
       A woman's right to choose is a private and very personal 
     choice, and it should remain that way. The decision to have 
     an abortion should be a decision made between a woman and her 
     doctor. The government should stay out of private medical 
     decisions.
       Important swing voters move towards a pro-choice Democratic 
     candidate. After a fully informed debate that includes the 
     candidate's position on choice, there is a 16-point shift 
     toward the Democratic candidate among Independent voters, a 
     12-point shift among suburban voters and a 10-point shift 
     among moderate voters.
       A pro-choice Democratic candidate can improve his or her 
     standing with moderately pro-choice voters. Voters who 
     describe themselves as pro-choice move from a 7-point margin 
     for a Democratic candidate (49 to 42 percent) in the initial 
     vote to vote to a 28-point margin for a Democrat (61 to 33 
     percent) in the final post-choice positioning vote.
       Democrats have a strong advantage on gender issues. Whether 
     that means women's rights, a woman's right to choose or 
     abortion, voters believe that Democrats do a better job on 
     these issues. The strongest advantage is on a woman's right 
     to choose with 60 percent of voters saying Democrats do a 
     better job on the issue as compared to just 19 percent who 
     believe Republicans do a better job on the issue.
       Other findings of interest: 61 percent of Americans know 
     someone who had an abortion, including 56 percent of those 
     who identified themselves as ``pro-life.''

  Mrs. BOXER. We have different polls. But my friend from Alabama is 
totally correct. This is not about polls. He can prove in one poll that 
he is right; I can prove in one poll that I am right. The issue is in 
our hearts. We do not agree with each other.
  If you want to make a woman a criminal, make a doctor a criminal, 
come here, we will have a vote up or down on that. Do not chip away, 
chip away, chip away, and hurt women in the process. The Court has 
stated that this is unconstitutional, bottom line.
  On the other hand, my colleague said: our bill that bans this 
procedure is not violative of Roe because we have declared in the 
findings that the health issue is immaterial.
  Well, good luck. When you have doctors testifying, when you have 
nurses testifying, when you have health professionals testifying, when 
you have women testifying, ``We have had this procedure,'' because they 
knew they might die if they did not or they would be made infertile, 
and compare that to Senators or Congresspeople, I think the Court will 
look at the professional judgment of doctors because we are not doctors 
here. And we are certainly not God.

  So let's call it what it is. It is not compassionate to pass a bill 
today that turns its back on the health of women. That is not 
compassionate. And the Supreme Court, let's see what else they said 
about this particular philosophy that you are going to get in this bill 
and why they overturned the last one that did the same thing.
  Even if it only banned D&X, meaning the proposal my colleagues say 
they are banning, this ban would pose grave health risks. This is the 
Supreme Court:

       The record shows that significant medical authority 
     supports the proposition that, in some circumstances, D&X 
     would be the safest procedure.

  This is the Court, the same Court that is going to hear your ban that 
has no health exception:

       A statute that altogether forbids D&X creates a significant 
     health risk. The statute consequently must contain a health 
     exception.

  I ask my colleague if he is ready to speak because I am ready to 
yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Here is what we know so far. We have a bill that has no 
health exception. It bans a procedure doctors say is needed. We have a 
bill that looks just like the Supreme Court case, and the Supreme Court 
said it is unconstitutional. And in the course of the conference, the 
conferees on the other side threw out the language that supports the 
Roe v. Wade decision.
  This is a bad package for the families of America. I know the 
handwriting is on the wall that it will pass, but the issue is not 
going away.
  I yield to my colleague as much time as he may wish to consume, 
Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey. I thank him for coming over today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California 
for her courage to stand up here and take a position when what we are 
seeing on the other side, with its pictures and statements about how 
this process is running rampant through America. It is not. We ought to 
face up to reality.
  My position is kind of: There they go again. There they go again, 
wanting to curb people's rights, rights that are abundant and ought to 
remain in place without us touching them, civil rights such as 
affirmative action, rights such as the ability to have your day in 
court to make your case, and not have it snatched away to protect the 
gun industry from lawsuits no matter how reckless their behavior.
  We do not hear anything nor have we ever seen a picture here of a 
gunshot victim who may never be able to walk again. We know Jim Brady 
will not walk again on his own, because of a gunshot wound. Do we see 
those kinds of pictures, the horror? Do we see surgical procedures 
depicted here in the Chamber, pictures of people having their 
intestines removed or something of that nature? Sure, they are ugly, 
but the point is that sometimes doctors have to do them to preserve 
someone's health, and that's a positive purpose.
  At any rate, the other side wants to take away workers' rights to 
join unions and get overtime pay. The other side wants to promote 
judicial nominees who are anti-choice, anti-union, and anti-civil 
rights.
  This is an attempt to regulate people's behavior.
  I have noticed one thing here since this debate has begun: We have 
not seen one woman talk in favor of the side that says: This procedure 
ought to be banned. Put the doctors in jail. We have 15 women in the 
Senate, but not one is here defending the position that says: Take away 
the doctors' ability to practice medicine as they see fit.
  Listen. I want to be clear here. And I want everybody to hear my 
voice: I am

[[Page S12925]]

not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. I believe a woman has the right to 
make a decision, in concert with her doctor, about her health.
  What happens if she has another sick child or she herself suddenly 
finds that her health is being ruined, physically or mentally? Does she 
have a right to make her decision? I think so.
  I have a child who is now pregnant with my 10th grandchild. We do not 
talk about abortions. Thank God, my other grandchildren and their 
mothers have been healthy. But we had their health checked to make sure 
everything was going to be OK because nothing is more important than 
having my three daughters and my daughter-in-law available to take care 
of the children they have and to make sure that their families stay 
intact.
  But here, in what I call the ``male-garchy'' that is the United 
States Senate, we have the men deciding what ought to happen with women 
who, with their doctor, want to make a decision to protect their 
health.
  The Senator from California was eloquent. She said: Provide those 
exceptions for the health and well-being of a mother. But no, that is 
not good enough: We don't like the way these women are making these 
decisions. We don't like it. We don't think they are mature enough to 
make these decisions. They are mature enough to be a mother, but are 
they mature enough to make their own decisions about their body? No, 
not according to the ``Big Boys' Club'' here; they should not be 
allowed to do that.
  This is always a very difficult discussion. I don't think my friends 
who are on the opposite side are evil; they just happen to be wrong, in 
my view. I do not attribute anything to them except that I want to 
expose what I think is the truth; and that is, this growing trend to 
regulate people's behavior in this free, democratic society about which 
we talk so much.
  When our young people fight in Iraq, when they fought in Vietnam, or 
in other wars--I fought in World War II--the fight has been to protect 
people's freedoms--freedoms. What are we doing trying to take away a 
right, and threatening doctors who perform a procedure they judge 
necessary to protect the life and health of the mother?
  I voted against this bill, and I intend to vote against the 
conference report. A woman's right to choose is in greater danger now 
than it has been at any time since the Supreme Court issued its 
decision in Roe v. Wade 30 years ago.
  Supporters of this bill use the term ``partial-birth abortion.'' 
There is no medical term ``partial-birth.'' It is a term deliberately 
concocted by the anti-choice movement to inflame passions. Make no 
mistake: the procedure(s) covered by this phony term are not chosen 
lightly. Does anybody here think that a woman who is 6 or 7 months 
along in her pregnancy, who falls prey to illness or disease, or 
discovers for some other reason that the pregnancy must be terminated--
does anybody think that is an easy decision? It absolutely is not.
  I am the father of 4 and, as I mentioned, the grandfather of 9--Lord 
willing, 10 soon.
  But how can such a decision be challenged? How can the woman's 
decision, made in concert with her doctor, who says, ``I recommend this 
as a necessary procedure''--be challenged? Well, here in the ``Boys' 
Club,'' a woman and her doctor won't be allowed to make that decision. 
In my opinion, that is not right. I think the message the other side is 
sending to women is: Your behavior is abominable. We don't want you to 
do it. And here we have these poor people, these poor woman, who are 
risking their own health, carrying a fetus for 6 or 7 or 8 months--
never a pleasant experience, I assure you.
  As I said, there is no such medical term as ``partial-birth 
abortion,'' and that is intentional because this bill is not designed 
to ban one particular abortion procedure but many safe and legal 
medical procedures. If S. 3 is ultimately passed, and President Bush 
signs it into law, as he has promised, he will become the first U.S. 
President to criminalize safe medical procedures.
  Nobody is fooled by the real objective here, which is to chip away at 
a woman's right to choose and, ultimately, to criminalize legal and 
safe abortion procedures.
  No. When people know what this bill is really about, they are 
opposed. An ABC News poll showed that 61 percent of Americans oppose 
criminalizing abortion procedures if a woman's health is threatened.
  The bill is deceptive. It is extreme. We already know this bill won't 
pass the constitutional test. When we debated this bill back in March, 
many of us who are pro-choice said clearly, directly, that we would 
accept this bill if the bill's proponents would just make an exception 
for the life and health of the mother. That is what we were asking for. 
What is wrong with that? I don't understand the other side's objection 
to that.
  Their obstinance shows the true position of those who want to police 
our conduct and decide how people ought to behave. It is too bad. It is 
not right.
  The sponsors of S. 3 have repeatedly resisted reasonable attempts to 
include a health exception such as the Feinstein substitute, which was 
defeated. This bill is purely political. Everybody here knows it will 
be ruled unconstitutional. Five members of the current Supreme Court 
have struck down a State ban on so-called partial-birth abortions. The 
same fate awaits this legislation. And in New Jersey, my State, the 
State Supreme Court overturned a similar ban in 2000.
  About a month ago we had a very enlightening debate on the Senate 
floor over an important amendment offered to S. 3 by our colleague, 
Senator Harkin. The amendment reaffirmed support for the Supreme 
Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. The House Republican leadership 
decided that the Senate did not have the wisdom, and their leadership 
and their anti-choice friends removed Senator Harkin's language in 
conference. Striping this bill of the Harkin amendment that reaffirms 
Roe v. Wade shows us what the President and his anti-choice allies are 
really after. They want to overturn Roe v. Wade. It has been said many 
times. Unfortunately, this bill puts them on that path.
  During the previous debate on this bill, the junior Senator from 
Pennsylvania characterized the Harkin amendment, a reaffirmation of 
current law, as extreme. That is absurd. Not being willing to protect a 
woman's health is extreme. It is extreme, and it is wrong.
  We know where this administration is headed. We know the true motives 
of the anti-choice administration and its allies in Congress. Look no 
further than the recent decision in 2002 made by the Bush 
administration to amend the State Children's Health Insurance Program 
to provide coverage for fetuses and embryos rather than for pregnant 
women.
  This rabid ideology extends so far that the administration won't 
allow the United States to participate in international family planning 
programs. We are so paranoid about this, it is ridiculous.
  I urge my colleagues to think this whole matter through, to put 
women's health and access to safe medical care before ideology, not to 
vote for this thinly veiled attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. I urge 
that they vote against this unconstitutional bill before us.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time do I still retain?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time remaining is 76 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I mean under the agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. I will use the 6 minutes and then the 
time will revert to my colleague from Pennsylvania.
  I thank my colleague and friend from New Jersey for coming to the 
Chamber to lay out so many of the unstated issues that revolve around 
this debate. The points he made today are important. Before he leaves, 
I want to ask him a question on my time. I know he is the proudest 
grandpa of 9, soon to be 10, we hope and expect. You have served for 
many years not only in public life but as a leader in business and 
leader of the community.
  We hear from the other side about the need to protect the vulnerable. 
My friend stands with me as a supporter of the Violence Against Women 
Act, a supporter of the Violence Against Children Act and the need to 
do everything we can for the most vulnerable, to protect them from 
environmental hazards.
  I find it interesting that they will talk on the other side and show 
pictures on the other side of fetuses before

[[Page S12926]]

they are born. And the compassion, I don't doubt that for a minute. I 
have no doubt that my colleagues feel such compassion. Believe me, I do 
as well. Having given birth to two premature babies, I totally 
understand the love and compassion you give to the child you are 
carrying.
  But I want to say to my friend, isn't there something missing here 
from this discussion of compassion? Should we not show compassion for a 
woman who desperately seeks to have a child and is told in the 7th 
month, the 6th month, something has gone terribly awry, that the baby's 
head is so large, the brain perhaps is developing outside of the skull, 
there are other problems, that the doctor says, to spare this woman a 
terrible life-threatening illness or to spare her infertility, that he 
recommends or she recommends that this procedure that is now being 
outlawed is the only way to, A, spare the woman from these possible 
health consequences which are serious and long term, could even land 
her in a wheelchair, render her unable to take care of her other 
children, and to spare that fetus, if it were born, the worst nightmare 
of a brief and short life? This happens to women. Does my friend not 
see the compassion in working with this family in a way that would give 
the woman dignity, preserve her health, the fetus dignity? I will talk 
about this because we have pro-life women, very religious, who went 
through this to spare the indignity to the fetus, to spare the pain to 
the fetus, to spare their own health. Is there not compassion in that 
decision and in that choice?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in fact, the question is a very good 
one. It addresses the issue we are discussing. Why is there no 
agreement to the request of so many of us to go along and outlaw 
certain procedures altogether, get rid of them, as long as the health 
and well-being of the mother is taken care of?
  I endowed initially--and it is still in existence--a cancer research 
center. It is called the Lautenberg Cancer Research Center, paid for 
with my own funds and people from whom I have raised money. We focus on 
breast cancer and other issues. We try to protect the women's health at 
all costs. We are not as generous here as we are to the fat cats who 
are going to get those huge tax cuts. Oh, no, they are entitled to 
theirs. But when it comes to potentially taking care of women's health, 
a child's health, men's health, all of it--well, it is OK to do that to 
a point. But to let women make their own decisions is outrageous.
  There is nothing more tragic than to see a woman unable to take care 
of herself or her family as a result of continuing with a pregnancy 
that robbed her of her well-being.
  Mrs. BOXER. Well, my friend is right. I just hope we recognize, 
because I know the Supreme Court recognizes it, that if we turn our 
backs on the women of this country as we are going to do today, first, 
it will never hold up across the street in the Supreme Court--no way.
  Second of all, we are threatening the health of so many women. Before 
my friend leaves, I want to give him two brief stories. Eileen Sullivan 
of California--and these women are so courageous to tell the stories--
is a Catholic with 10 brothers and sisters. Eileen had long awaited her 
first child. She and her husband were devastated to discover, at 26 
weeks of pregnancy, that testing revealed overwhelming fatal 
abnormalities in their son, including an improperly formed brain, a 
malformed head, no lungs, and a nonfunctioning liver. The severe 
anomalies were incompatible with life.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is up.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for just 1 more minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Eileen and her husband sought the advice of medical 
specialists, but the prognosis grew worse with each additional test. 
Finally, the Sullivans, religious Catholics, made the decision they 
thought was most compassionate for their son, safest for Eileen, and 
most likely to allow them to have a healthy child in the future. Eileen 
had a D&X abortion in July of 1996.
  I will conclude by saying I don't think it is compassionate to take 
away the choice of a woman such as this who is grappling with her 
religion, ethics, and making a decision with her family to do what is 
right for her family and for this unborn child. I think it is such a 
statement that there is no respect for the people of this country, 
there is no value given to their values, their souls, their religion, 
to their way of dealing with tragedy.
  I don't understand how my friends from the other side of the aisle, 
who always talk about Big Brother interfering, could move into this 
area and turn their backs on the American families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, it is very clear to me that the Senator 
from New Jersey and I have a fundamental difference on how we view this 
issue. For the Senator from New Jersey to liken this procedure to the 
removal of an intestine, to compare the killing of a fetus----
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SANTORUM. To compare the killing of a fetus to the removal of an 
intestine--a fetus like in this picture, where you can see that little 
hand, that is a 21-week-old. That is the age at which these children 
are killed by partial-birth abortion. To compare the killing and 
extinguishing of life to the removal of an intestine is----
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a very brief question? My 
father was 42 when he was stricken with colon cancer and he had his 
intestine removed to try to save his life. It was an ugly, painful 
procedure. As I equate this with any painful procedure that is 
surgically necessary. They tried to save his life but were 
unsuccessful.
  Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator from New Jersey is equating the removal of 
tissue that was damaging to the person involved--removing an intestine 
to preserve that health or life. This little child, in almost every 
situation--in fact, the industry agrees: healthy mothers, healthy 
children--that little child is not a threat to this mother. It is not a 
cancerous lesion. It is not a defective or deformed part of that 
person's body that is threatening their health. This is a living 
organism. It happens to be a human being inside of the mother, and it 
is being killed not for the health of the mother or for the life of the 
mother but because the mother no longer wants the child.
  The father of the Senator from New Jersey whose operation was 
performed was removing something that was damaging his health and 
potentially threatening his life. That is not the case here. To compare 
the two shows you the fundamental difference in our view.
  What are we saying to people when we liken little children to 
cancerous parts of someone's body? We just see these little children 
as, what, threats? As something to be excised because they are not 
wanted? Is that the way we look at children? Is that how we see them--
as cancerous lesions? Then we wonder why we have so much child abuse in 
this country, why one-third of the pregnancies end in abortion, why our 
culture is degraded, because we compare them to cancerous intestines on 
the floor of the Senate.
  I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, the first thing I want to address is: the 
other side has been talking about the health of the mother and that 
this bill includes a provision if the life of the mother is threatened. 
As far as the health of the mother is concerned, a select panel 
convened by the American Medical Association could not find any 
``identified circumstance'' where a partial-birth abortion was the only 
appropriate alternative.
  We have heard a lot of testimony from OB/GYNs and all kinds of 
medical experts that this procedure is never necessary. To argue that 
it is somehow medically necessary is a false argument. This procedure 
is so grotesque that when it is described, it makes people shudder. I 
once described this procedure when I spoke to some high school kids, 
and I used it as an example. I got complaints from the parents because 
we talked about such a gruesome procedure in a school. I can understand 
why they would be upset.
  But people have to understand that this gruesome procedure is 
happening in the United States. What we are trying to do now in the 
Congress is to say

[[Page S12927]]

this is so outrageous that we need to ban it.
  I am a health care professional and I cannot even imagine a doctor or 
a nurse being involved in one of these procedures, delivering the baby 
out of the birth canal up to about here, the neck--arms and legs 
moving, holding that little baby in their hand, feeling life in their 
hand, a little heartbeat--and voluntarily taking forceps and jabbing 
them into the back of the skull. The skull is too big to come out so 
they have to collapse the skull down, sucking out the contents of the 
skull--the brains, basically. The baby at that point can feel pain. It 
is documented. In fact, it feels pain more than a normal child that has 
inhibitory pain fibers. We are saying this is somehow humane for the 
child, and that is literally beyond me.
  This procedure is completely, in my mind, indefensible; it is 
infanticide. I want to talk about abortion in general because the other 
side is saying this is just chipping away at the rights of abortion. I 
remember when President Clinton said that abortion should be safe, 
legal, and rare. I think those were his terms. I was thinking to 
myself, safe, I can understand that; legal, from his perspective, I can 
understand that; but if you don't believe it is wrong, who cares 
whether it is rare?
  If there is nothing wrong with abortion, why should it be rare? Who 
cares? If it is not a baby, if it is just a blob of tissue, like the 
other side says, who cares whether it happens all the time? Why do we 
care whether it is rare?
  The reason even somebody like Bill Clinton says it should be rare is 
because there is something in our conscience that is telling us 
abortion is wrong. Eighty-six percent of Down syndrome babies are 
aborted today--86 percent. We have an incredible young man right out 
here who runs the elevators. His name is Jimmy. He has Down syndrome.
  We have a great organization in Las Vegas called Opportunity Village 
which deals with a lot of people. It employs a lot of people, finds 
them a job, people with either congenital problems, whether Down 
syndrome or other problems, or whether they have had a brain injury. We 
are saying to those people: You don't have the right to live. We are 
saying to the Jimmys of the world: You know what, you aren't perfect, 
so you don't have the right to live. That is what abortion is about. Is 
it going to be difficult? Yes, but life isn't guaranteed to be easy.
  Mr. President, we have to look at what we are becoming as a society. 
If we do not value human life to the point where it is OK to have 
little imperfections, what are we becoming as a society? Haven't we 
seen in history the societies that have tried to create the perfect 
race, how immoral that was? Isn't that what we are trying to do 
somewhat with abortions and some of the other new medical technologies 
that are coming out?
  This is a very emotional issue, and I understand people who believe 
abortion should be legal. There are a lot of women who have had 
abortions, who have gone through incredible stress--post-abortion 
syndrome, as it is known. It is likened to post-traumatic stress 
syndrome. I feel badly, and I feel pain for those women and men who 
have been involved with abortions.
  Sometimes as a defense mechanism, one tries to justify what one did. 
I think it is important for us to show compassion for those people who 
have been involved and it is important not to judge other people's 
motives. But at the same time, we have to look, as a country, at 
whether it is right or wrong. If it is a baby, it is wrong. It just is. 
If it is a baby, it is murder. If it is not a baby, if it is some 
tissue, like the other side says, that is exactly right, it should be 
legal. It should be absolutely legal, if it is just tissue. But if it 
is a human life, then that human life deserves to be defended. That 
innocent human life deserves all the protections of the law, whether 
they have Down syndrome, spina bifida, or any other congenital ailment. 
They deserve the same protection under our law any other ``normal'' 
healthy child has.
  We have to look at ourselves as a society and what type of a society 
we want to have going into the future. America's greatness has been 
because we have had strong moral standards. This is the great moral 
problem of our day about which we have to do some soul-searching as a 
country, to be on our knees in prayer to figure out the right course of 
action. For me, it is clear.
  I urge all of our colleagues to do a lot of soul-searching on this 
issue. I believe if you are honest, people will see the rights of a 
baby deserve to be protected.
  I thank the manager of the bill and others who have been involved in 
this issue for the great work they have done. This is truly a fight 
worth doing and worth doing right.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________