[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 150 (Thursday, October 23, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13127-S13130]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2003

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these 
documents related to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 be made 
a part of the permanent Record for October 21, 2003.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   March 12, 2003.
     Senator Rick Santorum,
     U.S. Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Santorum: I have read the letter from Dr. 
     Philip Darney addressed to Senator Feinstein regarding the 
     intact D&E (often referred to as ``intact D&X'' in medical 
     terminology) procedure (partial-birth abortion) and its use 
     in his experience.
       As a board certified practicing Obstetrician/Gynecologist 
     and Maternal-Fetal Medicine sub-specialist I have had much 
     opportunity to deal with patients in similar situations to 
     the patients in the anecdotes he has supplied.
       In neither of the type of cases described by Dr. Darney, 
     nor in any other that I can imagine, would an intact D&X 
     procedure be medically necessary, nor is there any medical 
     evidence that I am aware of to demonstrate, or even suggest, 
     that an intact D&X is ever a safer mode of delivery for the 
     mother than other available options.
       In the first case discussed by Dr. Darney a standard D&E 
     could have been performed without resorting to the techniques 
     encompassed by the intact D&X procedure.
       In the second case referred to it should be made clear that 
     there is no evidence that terminating a pregnancy with 
     placenta previa and suspected placenta accreta at 22 weeks of 
     gestation will necessarily result in less significant blood 
     loss or less risk to the mother than her carrying later in 
     the pregnancy and delivering by cesarean section. There is a 
     significant risk of maternal need for a blood transfusion, or 
     even a hysterectomy, with either management. The good outcome 
     described by Dr. Darney can be accomplished at a near term 
     delivery in this kind of patient, and I have had similar 
     cases that ended happily with a healthy mother and baby. 
     Further a standard D&E procedure could have been performed in 
     the manner described if termination of the pregnancy at 22 
     weeks was desired.
       I again reiterate, and reinforce the statement made by the 
     American Medical Association at an earlier date, that an 
     intact D&X procedure is never medically necessary, that there 
     always is another procedure available, and there is no data 
     that an intact D&X provides any safety advantage whatsoever 
     to the mother.
           Sincerely,

                                   Nathan Hoeldtke, MD, FACOG,

                               Med. Dir., Maternal-Fetal Medicine,
     Tripler Medical Center, Honolulu, HI.
                                  ____

                                                      Redmond, WA,
                                                   March 12, 2003.
     Hon. Rick Santorum,
     U.S. Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Santorum: The purpose of this letter is to 
     counter the letter of Dr. Philip Darney, M.D. to Senator 
     Diane Feinstein and to refute claims of a need for an 
     exemption based on the health of the mother in the bill to 
     restrict ``partial birth abortion.''
       I am board certified in Maternal-Fetal Medicine as well as 
     Obstetrics and Gynecology and have over 20 years of 
     experience, 17 of which have been in maternal-fetal medicine. 
     Those of us in maternal-fetal medicine are asked to provide 
     care for complicated, high-risk pregnancies and often take 
     care of women with medical complications and/or fetal 
     abnormalities.
       The procedure under discussion (D&X, or intact dilation and 
     extraction) is similar to a destructive vaginal delivery. 
     Historically such were performed due to the risk of caesarean 
     delivery (also called hysterotomy) prior to the availability 
     of safe anesthetic, antiseptic and antibiotic measures and 
     frequently on a presumably dead baby. Modern medicine has 
     progressed and now provides better medical and surgical 
     options for the obstetrical patient.
       The presence of placenta previa (placenta covering the 
     opening of the cervix) in the two cases cited by Dr. Darney 
     placed those mothers at extremely high risk for catastrophic 
     life-threatening hemorrhage with any attempt at vaginal 
     delivery. Bleeding from placenta previa is primarily 
     maternal, not fetal. The physicians are lucky that their 
     interventions in both these cases resulted in living healthy 
     women. I do not agree that D&X was a necessary option. In 
     fact, a bad outcome would have been indefensible in court. A 
     hysterotomy (cesarean delivery) under controlled non-emergent 
     circumstances with modern anesthesia care would be more 
     certain to avoid disaster when placenta previa occurs in the 
     latter second trimester.
       Lastly, but most importantly, there is no excuse for 
     performing the D&X procedure on living fetal patients. Given 
     the time that these physicians spent preparing for their 
     procedures, there is no reason not to have performed a lethal 
     fetal injection which is quickly and easily performed under 
     ultrasound guidance, similar to amniocentesis, and carries 
     minimal maternal risk.
       I understand the desire of physicians to keep all 
     therapeutic surgical options open, particularly in life-
     threatening emergencies. We prefer to discuss the 
     alternatives with our patients and jointly with them develop 
     a plan of care, individualizing techniques, and referring 
     them as necessary to those who will serve the patient with 
     the most skill. Nonetheless I know of no circumstance in my 
     experience and know of no colleague who will state that it is 
     necessary to perform a destructive procedure on a living 
     second trimester fetus when the alternative of intrauterine 
     feticide by injection is available.
       Obviously none of this is pleasant. Senator Santorum, I 
     encourage you strongly to work for passage of the bill 
     limiting this barbaric medical procedure, performance of D&X 
     on living fetuses.
           Sincerely,

                                    Susan E. Rutherford, M.D.,

                                       Fellow, American College of
                                  Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

[[Page S13128]]

     
                                  ____
         University of Southern California, Department of 
           Obstetrics and Gynecology,
                                  Los Angeles, CA, March 12, 2003.
     Hon. Rick Santorum,
     U.S. Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Santorum: I am writing in support of the 
     proposed restrictions on the procedure referred to as 
     ``partial birth abortion,'' which the Senate is now 
     considering.
       I am chief of the Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine in 
     the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University 
     of Southern California in Los Angeles. I have published more 
     than 100 scientific papers and book chapters regarding 
     complications of pregnancy. I direct the obstetrics service 
     at Los Angeles County Women's and Children's Hospital, the 
     major referral center for complicated obstetric cases among 
     indigent and under-served women in Los Angeles.
       I have had occasion to review the cases described by Dr. 
     Philip Darney, offered in support of the position that 
     partial birth abortion, or intact D&E, was the best care for 
     the patient in those situations. Mindful of Dr. Darney's 
     broad experience with surgical abortion, I nevertheless 
     disagree strongly that the approach he describes for these 
     two cases was best under the circumstances. Such cases are 
     infrequent, and there is not single standard for management. 
     However, it would certainly be considered atypical, in my 
     experience, to wait 12 hours to dilate the cervix with 
     laminaria while the patient was actively hemorrhaging, as was 
     described in his first case. Similarly, the approach to 
     presumed placenta acreta, described in the second case, is 
     highly unusual. Although the mother survived with significant 
     morbidity, it is not clear that the novel approach to 
     management of these difficult cases is the safest approach. 
     It is my opinion that the vast majority of physicians 
     confronting either of these cases would opt for careful 
     hysterotomy as the safest means to evacuate the uterus.
       Although I do not perform abortions, I have been involved 
     in counseling many women who have considered abortion because 
     of a medical complication of pregnancy. I have not 
     encountered a case in which what has been described as 
     partial birth abortion is the only choice, or even the better 
     choice among alternatives, for managing a given complication 
     of pregnancy.
       Thank you for your consideration of this opinion.
           Sincerely,
                                          T. Murphy Goodwin, M.D.,
     Chief, Div. of Maternal-Fetal Medicine.
                                  ____

                                                   March 13, 2003.
     Hon. Rick Santorum,
     U.S. Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Santorum: I have reviewed the letter from Dr. 
     Darney describing two examples of what he believes are high 
     risk pregnancy cases that show the need for an additional 
     ``medical exemption'' for partial birth abortion (also 
     referred to as intact D&E). I am a specialist in maternal-
     fetal medicine with 23 years of experience in obstetrics. I 
     teach and do research at the University of Minnesota. I am 
     also co-chair of the Program in Human Rights in Medicine at 
     the University. My opinion in this matter is my own.
       In the rare circumstances when continuation of pregnancy is 
     life-threatening to a mother I will end the pregnancy. If the 
     fetus is viable (greater than 23 weeks) I will recommend a 
     delivery method that will maximize the chance for survival of 
     the infant, explaining all of the maternal implications of 
     such a course. If an emergent life-threatening situation 
     requires emptying the uterus before fetal viability then I 
     will utilize a medically appropriate method of delivery, 
     including intact D&E.
       Though they are certainly complicated, the two cases 
     described by Dr. Darney describe situations that were not 
     initially emergent. This is demonstrated by the use of 
     measures such as dilation of the cervix that required a 
     significant period of time. In addition, the attempt to 
     dilate the cervix with placenta previa and placenta accreta 
     is itself risky and can lead to life-threatening hemorrhage. 
     There may be extenuating circumstances in Dr. Darney's 
     patients but most obstetrical physicians would not attempt 
     dilation of the cervix in the presence of these 
     complications. It is my understanding that the proposed 
     partial birth abortion ban already has an exemption for 
     situations that are a threat to the life of the mother. This 
     would certainly allow all measures to be taken if heavy 
     bleeding, infection, or severe preeclampsia required 
     evacuation of the uterus.
       The argument for an additional medical exemption is 
     redundant; furthermore, its inclusions in the legislation 
     would make the ban virtually meaningless. Most physicians and 
     citizens recognize that in rare life-threatening situations 
     this gruesome procedure might be necessary. But it is 
     certainly not a procedure that should be used to accomplish 
     abortion in any other situation.
       Passage of a ban on partial birth abortion with an 
     exemption only for life-threatening situations is reasonable 
     and just. It is in keeping with long-standing codes of 
     medical ethics and it is also in keeping with the provision 
     of excellent medical care to pregnant women and their unborn 
     children.
           Sincerely,
     Steve Calvin, MD.
                                  ____

         Synergy Medical Education Alliance, Department of 
           Maternal-Fetal Medicine,
                                      Saginaw, MI, March 13, 2003.
     Hon. Rick Santorum,
     U.S. Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Santorum: I am writing in response to the 
     letter from Dr. Phillip Darney which was introduced by 
     Senator Feinstein.
       I have cared for pregnant patient patients for almost 29 
     years, and have worked exclusively in the field of Maternal-
     Fetal Medicine (high risk pregnancy) for over 15 years. I am 
     board certified in Obstetrics & Gynecology, and also in the 
     subspecialty of Maternal-Fetal Medicine. I am an assistant 
     professor in Obstetrics & Gynecology for the Michigan State 
     College of Human Medicine, and co-director of Maternal-Fetal 
     Medicine in Saginaw Michigan.
       I have never seen a situation in which a partial birth 
     abortion was needed to save a mother's life. I have never had 
     a maternal death, not ever.
       I am familiar with Dr. Darney's letter describing two of 
     his cases. My comments are not meant as a criticism of Dr. 
     Darney as a person or as a physician. I have great respect 
     for anyone in our field of medicine, which is a very 
     rewarding specialty but which requires difficult decisions on 
     a daily basis. We are all working to help mothers and their 
     children make it through difficult pregnancies. Still, I do 
     disagree with his stand that the legal freedom to do partial 
     birth abortions is necessary for us to take good care of our 
     patients. For example, in the second case he describes, I 
     believe that patient could have carried the pregnancy much 
     further, and eventually delivered a healthy child by repeat 
     cesarean section followed by hysterectomy. Hemorrhage is 
     always a concern with such patients, but we have many 
     effective ways to handle this problem, which Dr. Darney knows 
     as well as I. Blood vessels can be tied off at surgery, blood 
     vessels can be occluded using small vascular catheters, cell-
     savers can be used to return the patients own blood to them, 
     blood may be given from donors, pelvic pressure packs can be 
     used for bleeding following hysterectomy, and other blood 
     products (platelets, fresh frozen plasma, etc) can be given 
     to treat coagulation abnormalities (DIC). His approach of 
     placing laminaria to dilate the cervix in a patient with a 
     placenta praevia is not without its own risk.
       If Dr. Darney performed the partial birth abortion on this 
     patient to keep from doing another c-section, or even to 
     preserve her uterus, I'm hopeful he counseled the patient 
     that if she becomes pregnant again, she will once again have 
     a very high risk of having a placenta praevia and placenta 
     accreta.
       Lastly, I believe that for some abortionists, the real 
     reason they wish to preserve their ``right'' to do partial 
     birth abortions is that at the end of the procedure they have 
     only a dead child to deal with. If they were to abort these 
     women by either inducing their labor (when there is no 
     placenta praevia present), or by doing a hysterotomy (c-
     section), they then need to deal with a small, living, 
     struggling child--an uncomfortable situation for someone 
     who's intent was to end the child's life.
           Sincerely,
                                          Daniel J. Wechter, M.D.,
     Co-Director.
                                  ____

                                           Rockford Health System,


                              Div. of Maternal-Fetal Medicine,

                                     Rockford, IL, March 12, 2003.
     Hon. Rick Santorum,
     U.S. Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Santorum: I am writing to contest the letter 
     submitted to Senator Feinstein by Philip D. Darney, MD 
     supporting the ``medical exemption'' to the proposed 
     restriction of the partial birth abortion (or as abortionists 
     call it ``intact D&E'').
       I am a diplomate board certified by the American Board of 
     Obstetrics and Gynecology in general Obstetrics and 
     Gynecology and in the sub-specialty of Maternal-Fetal 
     Medicine. I serve as a Visiting Clinical Professor in 
     Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Illinois at Chicago, 
     Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine 
     at Rockford, Illinois; as an Adjunct Professor of Obstetrics 
     and Gynecology at Midwestern University, Chicago College of 
     Osteopathic Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and 
     Gynecology; and as an Adjunct Associate Professor of 
     Obstetrics and Gynecology, Uniformed Services University of 
     Health Sciences, F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine, 
     Washington, D.C. I have authored over 50 peer review articles 
     in the obstetric and gynecologic literature, presented over 
     100 scientific papers, and have participated in over 40 
     research projects.
       In my over 14 years as a Maternal-Fetal Medicine specialist 
     I have never used or needed the partial birth abortion 
     technique to care for any complicated or life threatening 
     conditions that require the termination of a pregnancy. 
     Babies may need to be delivered early and die from 
     prematurity, but there is never a medical need to perform 
     this heinous act.
       I have reviewed both cases presented by Dr. Darney, and, 
     quite frankly, do not understand why he was performing the 
     abortions he indicates, yet alone the procedure he is using. 
     If the young 25-year-old woman had a placenta previa with a 
     clotting disorder, the safest thing to do would be to place 
     her in

[[Page S13129]]

     the hospital, transfuse her to a reasonable hematocrit, 
     adjust he clotting parameters, watch her closely at bed rest, 
     and deliver a live baby. If the patient had a placenta 
     previa, pushing laminaria (sterile sea weed) up into her 
     cervix, and, potentially through the previa, is 
     contraindicated. It is no surprise to anyone that the patient 
     went, from stable without bleeding, to heavy bleeding as they 
     forcibly dilated her cervix to 3 centimeters with laminaria. 
     The use of the dangerous procedure of blindly pushing 
     scissors into the baby's skull (as part of the partial birth 
     abortion) with significant bleeding from a previa just 
     appears reckless and totally unnecessary.
       Regarding the second case of the 38-year-old woman with 
     three caesarean sections with a possible accreta and the risk 
     of massive hemorrhage and hysterectomy due to a placenta 
     previa, it seems puzzling why the physician would recommend 
     doing an abortion with a possible accreta as the indication. 
     Many times, a placenta previa at 22 weeks will move away from 
     the cervix so that there is no placenta privia present and no 
     risk for accreta as the placenta moves away from the old 
     cesarean scar. (virtually 99.5% of time this is the case with 
     early previas) Why the physicians did not simply take the 
     women to term, do a repeat cesarean section with preparations 
     as noted for a possible hysterectomy, remains a conundrum. 
     Dr. Darney actually increased the woman's risk for bleeding, 
     with a horrible outcome, by tearing through a placenta 
     previa, pulling the baby down, blindly instrumenting the 
     baby's skull, placing the lower uterine segment at risk, and 
     then scraping a metal instrument over an area of placenta 
     accreta. No one I know would do such a foolish procedure in 
     the mistaken belief they would prevent an accreta with a D&E.
       Therefore, neither of these cases presented convincing 
     arguments that the partial birth abortion procedure has any 
     legitimate role in the practice of maternal-fetal medicine or 
     obstetrics and gynecology. Rather, they demonstrate how 
     cavalierly abortion practices are used to treat women instead 
     of sound medical practices that result in a live baby and an 
     unharmed mother.
           Sincerely,
     Byron C. Calhoun, MD, FACOG, FACS.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 17, 1996]

                         Viability and the Law

                         (By David Brown, M.D.)

       The normal length of human gestation is 266 days, or 38 
     weeks. This is roughly 40 weeks from a woman's last menstrual 
     period. Pregnancy is often divided into three parts, or 
     ``trimesters.'' Both legally and medically, however, this 
     division has little meaning. For one thing, there is little 
     precise agreement about when one trimester ends and another 
     begins. Some authorities describe the first trimester as 
     going through the end of the 12th week of gestation. Others 
     say the 13th week. Often the third trimester is defined as 
     beginning after 24 weeks of fetal development.
       Nevertheless, the trimester concept--and particularly the 
     division between the second and third ones--commonly arises 
     in discussion of late-stage abortion.
       Contrary to a widely held public impression, third-
     trimester abortion is not outlawed in the United States. The 
     landmark Supreme Court decisions Roe v. Wade and Doe v. 
     Bolton, decided together in 1973, permit abortion on demand 
     up until the time of fetal ``viability.'' After that point, 
     states can limit a woman's access to abortion. The court did 
     not specify when viability begins.
       In Doe v. Bolton the court ruled that abortion could be 
     performed after fetal viability if the operating physician 
     judged the procedure necessary to protect the life or health 
     of the woman. ``Health'' was broadly defined.
       ``Medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all 
     factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the 
     woman's age--relevant to the well-being of the patient,'' the 
     court wrote. ``All these factors may relate to health. This 
     allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his 
     best medical judgment.''
       Because of this definition, life-threatening conditions 
     need not exist in order for a woman to get a third-trimester 
     abortion.
       For most of the century, however, viability was confined to 
     the third trimester because neonatal intensive-care medicine 
     was unable to keep fetuses younger than that alive. This is 
     no longer the case.
       In an article published in the journal Pediatrics in 1991, 
     physicians reported the experience of 1,765 infants born with 
     a very low birth weight at seven hospitals. About 20 percent 
     of those babies were considered to be at 25 weeks' gestation 
     or less. Of those that had completed 23 weeks' development, 
     23 percent survived. At 24 weeks, 34 percent survived. None 
     of those infants was yet in the third trimester.
                                  ____


                 Euthanasia of Partly Born Human Beings

       The greatest number of partial-birth abortions are 
     performed during the latter part of the second trimester, 
     from 20 through 26 weeks--both before and after 
     ``viability.'' (A 1991 NIH survey of selected neo-natal units 
     found that 23% of infants born at 23 weeks now survive.) 
     However, partial-birth abortions have also often been 
     performed in the third trimester, in a wide variety of 
     circumstances, as documented elsewhere.
       In a minority of cases involving partial-birth abortions, 
     the baby suffers from genetic or other disorders. (Dr. 
     Haskell estimated that ``20%'' of his 20-24 week abortions 
     were ``genetic'' cases.) It appears that most of these 
     involve non-lethal disabilities, such as Down Syndrome. (Down 
     Syndrome was the most frequent ``fetal indication' on Dr. 
     McMahon's table.)
       The sort of cases highlighted by President Clinton--third-
     trimester abortions of babies with disorders incompatible 
     with sustained life outside the womb--surely account for a 
     small fraction of all the partial-birth abortions. Confronted 
     with identical cases, most specialists would never consider 
     executing a breech extraction and puncturing the skull. 
     Instead, most would deliver the baby alive, sometimes early, 
     without jeopardy to the mother--usually vaginally--and make 
     the baby as comfortable as possible for whatever time the 
     child has allotted to her.
       Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education, Department 
     of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, Chicago, 
     testified, ``There are absolutely no obstetrical situations 
     encountered in this country which require a partially 
     delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or 
     health of the mother.'' [Senate hearing record, p. 82]
       Dr. Harlan Giles, a professor of ``high-risk'' obstetrics 
     and pereinatology at the Medical College of Pennsylvania, 
     performs abortions by a variety of procedures up until 
     ``viability.'' In sworn testimony in the U.S. Federal 
     District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Nov. 13, 
     1995), Prof. Giles said: ``[After 23 weeks] I do not think 
     there are any maternal conditions that I'm aware of that 
     mandate ending the pregnancy that also require that the fetus 
     be dead or that the fetal life be terminated. In my 
     experience for 20 years, one can deliver these fetuses either 
     vaginally, or by Cesarean section for that matter, depending 
     on the choice of the parents with informed consent . . . But 
     there's no reason these fetuses cannot be delivered intact 
     vaginally after a miniature labor, if you will, and be at 
     least assessed at birth and given the benefit of the doubt.'' 
     [transcript, page 240]
       When American Medical News asked Dr. Haskell why he could 
     not simply dilate the woman a little more and remove the baby 
     without killing him, Dr. Haskell responded: ``The point here 
     is you're attempting to do an abortion . . . not to see how 
     do you manipulate the situation so that I get a live birth 
     instead.''
       President Clinton and others have tried to center their 
     arguments on cases in which the baby suffers from advanced 
     hydrocephaly (head enlargement) that would make delivery 
     risky or impossible. (Cases of hydrocephaly accounted for 
     less than 4% of Dr. McMahon's ``series'' of more than 2,000 
     late-term abortions.) But an eminent authority on such 
     matters, Dr. Watson A. Bowes, Jr., professor of ob/gyn 
     (maternal and fetal medicine) at the University of North 
     Carolina, who is co-editor of the Obstetrical and 
     Gyneocological Survey, wrote to Congressman Canady; ``Critics 
     of your bill who say that this legislation will prevent 
     doctors from performing certain procedures which are standard 
     of care, such as cephalocentesis (removal of fluid from the 
     enlarged head of a fetus with the most severe form of 
     hydrocephalus) are mistaken. In such a procedure a needle is 
     inserted with ultrasound guidance through the mother's 
     abdomen into the uterus and then into the enlarged ventricle 
     of the brain (the space containing cerobrospinal fluid). 
     Fluid is then withdrawn which results in reduction of the 
     size in the head so that delivery can occur. This procedure 
     is not intended to kill the fetus, and, in fact, is usually 
     associated with the birth of a live infant.''
       President Clinton said that the five women who appeared 
     with him had ``no choice,'' and two of the women suggested 
     that their babies endangered their lives. However, Claudia 
     Crown Ades and Mary-Dorothy Line have explained that the 
     danger to their lives would have occurred if the baby had 
     died in utero and not been removed. Prof. Watson Bowes says 
     that if a baby dies in utero, it can sometimes cause problems 
     for the mother--after about five weeks. Thus, there is plenty 
     of time to deal with such a situation by removing the body if 
     necessary. Such a procedure is not, legally, an abortion, has 
     never been affected by any kind of abortion law, and raises 
     no ethical questions.
       Under closer examination, it becomes clear that in some 
     cases, the primary reason for performing the procedure is not 
     concern that the baby will die in utero, but rather, that he/
     she will be born alive with disorders incompatible with 
     sustained life outside the womb, or with a non-lethal 
     disability. (Again, in Dr. McMahon's table of ``fetal 
     indications,'' the single largest category was for Down 
     Syndrome.)
       In a letter opposing HR 1833, one of Dr. McMahon's 
     colleagues at Cedar-Sinai Medical Center, Dr. Jeffrey S. 
     Greenspoon, wrote: ``As a volunteer speaker to the National 
     Spina Bifida Association of America and the Canadian 
     National Spina Bifida Organization, I am familiar with the 
     burden of raising a significantly handicapped child. . . . 
     The burden of raising one or two abnormal children is 
     realistically unbearable.'' [Letter to Congressman Hyde, 
     July 19, 1995]
       Viki Wilson, whose daughter Abigail died at the hands of 
     Dr. McMahon at 38 weeks, said: ``I knew that I could go ahead 
     and carry the baby until full term, but knowing, you know, 
     that this was futile, you know, that she was going to die . . 
     . I felt like I need to be a little more in control in terms 
     of her

[[Page S13130]]

     life and my life, instead of just sort of leaving it up to 
     nature, because look where nature had gotten me up to this 
     point.'' [NAF video transcript, p. 4]
       Tammy Watts, whose baby was aborted by Dr. McMahon in the 
     7th month, said: ``I had a choice. I could have carried this 
     pregnancy to term, knowing everything that was wrong. 
     [Testimony before Senate Judiciary Committee, Nov. 17, 1995]
       ``My husband and I were able to talk, and the best that we 
     could, we put our emotions aside and said, `We cannot let 
     this go on; we cannot let this child suffer anymore than she 
     has. We've got to put an end to this.' '' [NAF video 
     transcript, p. 4]
       Claudia Crown Ades, who appeared with President Clinton at 
     the April 10 veto, said: ``The purpose of this is so that my 
     son would not be tortured anymore . . . knowing that my son 
     was going to die, and was struggling and living a tortured 
     life inside of me, I should have just waited for him to die--
     is this what you're saying? ''
       [material omitted]
       ``My procedure was elective. That is considered an elective 
     procedure, as were the procedures of Coreen Costello and 
     Tammy Watts and Mary Dorothy-Line and all the other women who 
     were at the White House yesterday. All of our procedures were 
     considered elective.'' [Quotes from transcript of taped 
     appearance on WNTM radio, April 12, 1996]
                                  ____


  Quote From ``Aborting America'' by Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D. With 
                           Richard N. Ostling

       How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was 
     illegal? In N.A.R.A.L. we generally emphasized the drama of 
     the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we 
     spoke of the latter it was always ``5,000 to 10,000 deaths a 
     year.'' I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, 
     and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of 
     it. But in the ``morality'' of our revolution, it was a 
     useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to 
     correct it with honest statistics?

                          ____________________