[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 26060-26077]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 1999--Continued

  Mr. LOTT. The upcoming vote will be the last vote this evening. 
Senators who wish to debate the partial-birth abortion issue should 
remain this evening for statements. The next vote will be at 11 a.m. 
tomorrow morning relative to amendment No. 2321.
  I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both sides of 
this issue for their cooperation.
  I yield the floor.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2319

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Durbin 
amendment No. 2319.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I move to table the Durbin amendment, and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 2319. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I annnounce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 335 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

[[Page 26061]]



                                NAYS--38

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Collins
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Graham
     Harkin
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Ohio.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Brittany 
Feiner be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of Senate 
consideration of S. 1692.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this evening to, once again, 
strongly urge my colleagues to vote to ban partial-birth abortion. 
Three times Congress has voted to pass legislation to ban the barbaric 
practice of partial-birth abortion--but tragically, at every 
opportunity, the President of the United States has vetoed the act of 
Congress to ban this needless and horrific procedure.
  The words of Frederick Douglass uttered more than 100 years ago I 
believe are very applicable to this discussion. This is what Frederick 
Douglass said:

       Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and 
     you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong 
     which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till 
     they are resisted. . . .

  We must continue our struggle to ban partial-birth abortion in this 
country. We are debating a national question that in my ways, is not 
unlike the issue of slavery, in part, because opponents of this 
legislation are truly using artificial arguments to justify why certain 
people, in their opinion, have no legal status and no civil, social, or 
political rights. Those opposing the partial-birth abortion ban imply 
that the almost-born child has no right to live. Clearly, the vast 
majority of the American people, and a majority of Congress disagree.
  Every year the tragic effect of this extreme indifference to human 
life becomes more and more apparent. We must ban this procedure. We 
must simply say that enough is enough.
  In my home State of Ohio, two tragic cases of partial-birth abortions 
did not go ``according to plan.'' Each reveals, in its own way, the 
unpleasant facts of this horrible tragedy of partial-birth abortion.
  On April 6, in Dayton, OH, a woman went into the Dayton Medical 
Center to undergo a partial-birth abortion. This facility is operated 
by Dr. Martin Haskell, a pioneer of the partial-birth abortion 
procedure. Usually this procedure takes place behind closed doors, 
where it can be ignored--its morality left outside.
  But, this particular procedure was different. Here is what happened.
  The Dayton abortionist inserted instruments known as laminaria into 
the woman, to dilate her cervix, so the child could eventually be 
removed and killed. This procedure usually takes 3 days.
  This woman went home to Cincinnati, expecting to return to Dayton for 
completion of the procedure in 2 or 3 days. But, her cervix dilated too 
quickly and so shortly after midnight, she was admitted to Bethesda 
North Hospital in Cincinnati.
  The child was born. A medical technician pointed out that the child 
was alive. But apparently her chances of survival were slim. After 3 
hours and 8 minutes, this baby died. The baby was named Hope.
  On the death certificate is a space for ``Method of Death.'' And it 
said, in the case of Baby Hope, ``Method of Death: Natural.'' That, of 
course, is not true. There was nothing natural about the events that 
led to the death of this poor innocent child.
  Baby Hope did not die of natural causes. Baby Hope was the victim of 
this barbaric procedure--a procedure that is opposed by the vast 
majority of the American people. It is a procedure that has been banned 
three times by an act of Congress--only to see the ban overturned by a 
veto by the President of the United States.
  The death of Baby Hope did not take place behind the closed doors of 
an abortion clinic. The death of this baby took place in public--in a 
hospital dedicated to saving lives, not taking them. This episode 
reminds us of the brutal reality and tragedy of what partial-birth 
abortion really is, the killing of a baby--plain and simple.
  And, almost to underscore the inhumanity of this procedure--4 months 
later, in my home State of Ohio it happened again. This time, though, 
something quite different occurred.
  Once again, the scene is Dayton, OH. This time on August 18, a woman 
who was 25-weeks pregnant, went into Dr. Haskell's office for a 
partial-birth abortion. As usual, the abortionist performed the 
preparatory steps for the barbaric procedure by dilating the mother's 
cervix. The next day, August 19, the mother went into labor, and was 
rushed to Good Samaritan Hospital. This time, however, despite the 
massive trauma to this baby's environment, a miracle occurred. By 
grace, this little baby survived, and so she now is called ``Baby 
Grace.''
  I am appalled by the fact that both of these heinous partial-birth 
abortion attempts occurred anywhere, but particularly because in my 
home State. When I think about the brutal death of Baby Hope and then 
ponder the miracle of Baby Grace, I am confronted with the question--a 
haunting question that we all face--Why can't we just allow these 
babies to live?
  Opponents of the ban on this ``procedure'' say that this procedure is 
necessary to protect the health of women. We know from testimony that 
we heard in our Judiciary Committee that that simply is not true. The 
American Medical Association says that this procedure is never--never--
medically necessary. In fact, many physicians have found that the 
procedure itself can pose immediate and significant risks to a woman's 
health and future fertility. Clearly, the babies did not have to be 
killed in the Ohio cases I just cited. No. The babies were both born 
alive. One survived; one did not.
  Why does the baby have to be killed?
  Opponents of this legislation say that this procedure is only used in 
emergency situations, when women's lives are in danger. Again, from the 
testimony that we heard in the Judiciary Committee, we know this is 
absolutely not true. It seems strange that a 3-day procedure would be 
used and the mother sent home if, in fact, we were dealing with an 
emergency. Nevertheless, even abortionists say that the vast majority 
of partial-birth abortions are elective. Dr. Haskell, the Ohio 
abortionist, stated as follows: ``And I'll be quite frank; most of my 
abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range.''
  Why? Why? Why does the baby have to be killed?
  Opponents of this bill say that this procedure is necessary when a 
fetus is abnormal. Now, I do not believe the condition of the fetus 
ever warrants killing it. But, even abortionists and some opponents of 
this ban agree that most partial-birth abortions involve healthy 
fetuses. The inventor of this procedure himself, the late Dr. James 
McMahon, said ``I think, `Gee, it's too bad that this child couldn't be 
adopted.' ''
  So, again, the question: Why does the baby have to be killed?
  Opponents of this bill say that this partial-birth procedure is rare. 
But, again, that is not true either. Even the director of the National 
Coalition of Abortion Providers admitted that there are up to 5,000 
partial-birth abortion procedures in the United States.
  Why? Why does the baby have to be killed?
  Opponents say that this ban violates Roe v. Wade, and so it is 
unconstitutional. But, anyone who has read the case knows that Roe 
declined to consider the constitutionality of the part of the Texas 
statute banning the killing of a child who was in the process of 
delivery. And, the Supreme Court again declined to decide this issue in 
Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

[[Page 26062]]

  Again, we must ask, why does the baby have to be killed?
  Opponents say this bill is unconstitutional because it doesn't have a 
``health exception.'' First, the ``health exception'' is defined by Doe 
v. Bolton so broadly as to make the ban unenforceable--effectively 
gutting the bill. We know that is how the courts have defined the 
``health exception'' in abortion legislation. Both sides of this debate 
fully understand that.
  The American Medical Association itself has stated:

       There is no health reason for this procedure. In fact, 
     there is ample testimony to show that all of the health 
     consequences are more severe for this procedure than any 
     other procedure used.

  Further, the AMA concluded:

       The partial delivery of a living fetus for the purpose of 
     killing it outside the womb is ethically offensive to most 
     Americans and physicians. (New York Times, May 26, 1997).

  I ask my colleagues who wish to continue to allow this heinous 
procedure by upholding the President's veto, why? Why does the baby 
have to be killed? Why do babies, inches away from their first breath, 
have to die? Something is terribly wrong in this country when these 
babies continue to be killed.
  With the advent of modern technology, we can sustain young life in 
ways we could not have just a few short years ago. Those of us who have 
had the privilege of going into neonatal intensive care units in our 
States have seen the miracles being worked today with precious, tiny 
children. Medical science can keep babies alive who are only 22 weeks, 
23 weeks, children who before would simply not have survived.
  While we have this great technology, while we have made such great 
advances, while we are saving so many innocent children, at the same 
time we have also perfected and created more and more savage ways of 
killing other children, other babies who are the same level of 
development.
  I think we are destroying ourselves by not admitting as a society 
that partial-birth abortion is an evil against humanity. I believe 
there will be more and more horrible consequences for our Nation if we 
do not ban this cruel procedure. As a friend of mine reminded me, no 
culture can be demolished without the voluntary cooperation of at least 
a number of its own members. We must stop and ask, to what depths has 
the American conscience sunk? When it comes to abortion, is there 
nothing to which we will say no? Is there nothing so wrong, so cruel 
that we will not say, as a society, we will not tolerate this; we will 
not put up with this; this is going simply too far?
  Partial-birth abortion is a very clear matter of right and wrong, 
good versus evil. It is my wish that there will come a day when my 
colleagues and I no longer have to come to the floor, to debate this 
issue. I hope we have the votes this year to not only pass the partial-
birth abortion ban, but also to override the President's veto. We have 
to do it. It is the right thing to do, because innocent children are 
dying every day in America because of this horrible, barbaric 
procedure.
  Let us ban this procedure which kills our partially born children, 
and let's do it for our children.
  I thank the Chair, and thank my colleagues. I congratulate Senator 
Santorum for bringing this matter to the floor, and Senator Smith, who 
has so long been a proponent of doing away with partial-birth abortion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio, Senator 
DeWine for his eloquent remarks that were delivered in such a way as to 
touch the conscience of all of us. I join him in also thanking Senator 
Santorum for his insightful, intelligent, and passionate commitment to 
ending this horrible procedure which, by any definition, is not good 
for this country.
  I also appreciate the leadership of Senator Bob Smith, who is here 
tonight. Senator Smith started this debate a number of years ago. I 
don't know if people thought he was even telling the truth about it or 
not. They didn't know it was really going on. But as time has gone by, 
we have seen more and more that this procedure is horribly true and 
much more common than we knew.
  This is a bipartisan effort, Republicans and Democrats. We have 
joined together, and I think it is important we work together to not 
just talk about this problem but to end it.
  Some, I think, would prefer not knowing about it. They do not want to 
be told the gruesome details of this procedure; how a child, a baby, 
just 3 inches from birth, is deliberately and systematically killed. 
That is not something people want to talk about. They cringe and wish 
it would go away. I wish the procedure would go away. Unfortunately, it 
has not. It is so cruel, so inhumane, and so unnecessary, I believe 
this legislation is justified and necessary to prevent it.
  A number of people during this debate have expressed concern about 
the life of the mother. I have heard this argument during my time on 
the Senate Judiciary Committee, serving with Senator DeWine and others. 
We have had a number of hearings on this subject.
  The bill, crafted by Senator Santorum, provides for this contingency. 
It would permit this procedure, partial-birth abortion, 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 pregnancy 
itself.''
  These are the kinds of exceptions that are in this bill. Some may 
say, as most physicians do, that these exceptions are not necessary. It 
is never the kind of occurrence that would justify this procedure. But 
it is in this bill. It makes me wonder why those who are concerned 
about the health of the mother are not able to read those words and 
understand them. The truth is clear. This bill will not endanger the 
life of the mother.
  The fact is, the American Medical Association has noted that this 
procedure is never medically necessary. It is not the kind of procedure 
we need to use. It is a convenient procedure that abortionists have 
found they like to use. I don't think it is necessary and it should be 
outlawed.
  So there is broad bipartisan support for the bill from both pro-life 
and pro-choice people. I think that shows what we are debating goes 
beyond the traditional debate on abortion. This support exists because 
the partial-birth abortion procedure deeply offends our sensibilities 
as human beings and as a people who care for one another, who know that 
life is fragile and believe that people need to be treated with respect 
and dignity and compassion. The Declaration of Independence notes life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, those are ideals of American 
life. A child partially born has those rights ripped from them in a 
most vicious way.
  This is a dangerous policy. It is a thin line, a thin thread that we 
are justifying a procedure that is so much and, I think, in fact is 
infanticide. It is an unjustifiable procedure we are dealing with.
  There has been a tremendous amount of debate on the number of 
partial-birth abortions performed each year. The pro-abortion groups 
and others have emphatically insisted that the total number of partial-
birth abortions performed was small, and they were only performed in 
extreme medical circumstances. Therefore, they say the Federal 
Government should not pass laws about it. But now we know the truth. It 
has come out in dramatic form. Their issue, that this procedure is rare 
and only for extreme circumstances, has plainly been established to be 
false. These claims were either manufactured or disseminated in an 
attempt to minimize the significance of the issue.
  As reported in a 1997 front-page article in the Washington Times, Mr. 
Ron Fitzsimmons, 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 has been traveling 
the country and saying these procedures were rare--admitted, that

[[Page 26063]]

he had ``lied through his teeth'' about the numbers of partial-birth 
abortions performed. Mr. Fitzsimmons estimated ``that up to 5,000 
partial-birth abortions are performed annually and that they're 
primarily done on healthy women and healthy fetuses.''
  That is a fact. That is what we are dealing with today. Those who 
would oppose this procedure, I believe, are not as concerned--or at 
least are not thinking clearly--when they suggest their opposition is 
based on their concern for the health and safety of the mother. I say 
to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, how can we answer to our 
children, our constituents, and others if we allow children to be 
destroyed through this brutal partial-birth abortion procedure? So I 
think if we are a nation that aspires to goodness, that aspires to be 
above the course and to reach minimum standards of decency, this 
legislation is needed.
  I find it very puzzling that there is such resistance to the banning 
of just this one brutal procedure. I ask myself, what is it? I have 
heard it said that, well, the people who oppose partial-birth abortions 
do so for religious reasons, as if that is an illegitimate reason. Was 
it illegitimate for Martin Luther King to march for freedom based on 
his belief in the Scriptures? It is not an illegitimate reason if you 
have a religious motivation. But that has been a complaint about those 
who would question this.
  I have analyzed the opposition to this partial-birth abortion bill 
and I can't see that it can be founded on law. I can't see that it can 
be founded on science; the AMA says it is not necessary. I can't see 
that it can be founded on ethics. Certainly, it seems to me that it is 
so close to infanticide--if not in fact infanticide--that it is 
difficult to see how it could be argued ethically. Why is it? The only 
thing I can see is that there is a sort of secular religious opposition 
to any control whatsoever on abortion--we will never agree to anything, 
any time, anywhere, no matter what you say. We are going to allow these 
procedures to go forward just as long as the abortionists wish to 
perform them and you, Congress, should never intervene in any aspect of 
it.
  I don't believe that is a rational argument. It is not justified. 
This legislation is specific; it is directed to a procedure that all 
good and decent people, I believe, if they knew the facts and studied 
it, would know to be an unacceptable procedure. It would ban one 
procedure and it would not affect other abortions. I think all good 
Americans should be for it. I will be deeply disappointed if the 
President of the United States insists once again on vetoing this 
legislation, which has the overwhelming support of the Members of 
Congress and the American people. I don't see how it is possible that 
we continue to come back to this floor again and again over this issue. 
But it is going to continue because the procedure continues. Lives are 
being eliminated in a way that is unhealthy and not good for America. 
It is below the standards to which we ought to adhere. I thank Senator 
Smith, who is here, and Senator Santorum for their leadership and 
dedication to this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I offer my support today of S. 1692, the 
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1999, introduced by my colleague, 
Senator Santorum. Congress has twice passed legislation outlawing 
partial-birth abortion, only to have it vetoed by the President for 
fallacious reasons. It is time that we close this shameful chapter in 
our nation's history during which we have permitted the destruction of 
fully-formed, viable human beings in a most gruesome and shockingly 
cold-hearted manner. If there is a meaningful distinction between this 
abortion procedure and infanticide, it escapes me.
  I know that there is a certain numbing fatigue that sets in when we 
are forced to once again review the details of the partial-birth 
abortion procedure. But we must not let our aversion to the particulars 
of the procedure cause us to turn away from addressing the cruel 
injustice of it. I commend Senator Santorum for his persistence in 
pursuing this legislation. Congress must keep the pressure on President 
Clinton to stop opposing the bill and sign it into law.
  It is time for President Clinton to abandon the false claim that 
somehow this bill would jeopardize the health of a mother unless a so-
called health exception permitting the procedure is not added to the 
bill. President Clinton knows that the term ``health'' in the context 
of abortion has become so broadly defined by the Supreme Court that it 
would strip this bill of any force, and would render the entire bill 
meaningless. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has denounced this 
false argument, asserting that ``partial-birth abortion is never 
medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future 
fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant 
threat to both.'' The American Medical Association has also expressed 
support for the partial-birth abortion ban, noting that the Santorum 
bill ``would allow a legitimate exception where the life of the mother 
was endangered, thereby preserving the physician's judgment to take any 
medically necessary steps to save the life of the mother.''
  The bottom line is, the alternative bill that has been offered by the 
minority leaders in the past, and which we will likely see again, 
extends no real protection at all to unborn children. Again, the so-
called health exception it adopts essentially renders the bill 
meaningless, and offers opponents to the Santorum bill only a cosmetic, 
public relations cover to veil their commitment that abortion should be 
free of any reasonable restrictions.
  To allow this partial-birth procedure to continue to be performed 
across our land cheapens the value of life at all stages, for the 
unborn, the physically handicapped, and the feeble elderly. Our 
government must affirm life and not let our civil society decay into a 
mentality that only the strong and self-sufficient should survive and 
the weak can be considered expendable.
  President Clinton once said that he wanted abortion to be ``safe, 
legal, and rare.'' He has worked very hard to keep it ``legal,'' in the 
sense of being completely free of any restrictions. It is now time for 
Congress and the President to make the partial-birth method of abortion 
truly rare by passing and signing S. 1692.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President I rise today to oppose the so-called 
``Partial Birth'' Abortion Ban.
  In 1973 the Supreme Court held that women have a constitutional right 
to an abortion. That decision--Roe v. Wade--was carefully crafted to be 
both balanced and responsible while holding the rights of women in 
America paramount in reproductive decisions. This decision held that 
women have a constitutional right to an abortion, but after viability, 
states could ban abortions as long as they allowed exceptions for cases 
in which a woman's life or health is endangered.
  The legislation before us today is in direct violation of the Court's 
ruling. It does not ban postviability abortions as its sponsors claim, 
but it does ban an abortion procedure regardless of where the woman is 
in her pregnancy. And this legislation, as drafted, does not provide an 
exception for the health of the mother as required by law, and provides 
a very narrow life exception. In fact, the legislation's exception only 
allows that the ban, and please let me quote from the bill here, 
``shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save 
the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, 
illness, or injury.'' Not her health, but only her life.
  There is no question that any abortion is an emotional, wrenching 
decision for a woman. No one would debate this. And when a woman must 
confront this decision during the later stages of a pregnancy because 
she knows the pregnancy presents a direct threat to her own life or 
health, the ramifications of such a decision multiply dramatically.
  We stand on the floor of this body day after day and pontificate on 
laws, treaties, appropriations bills, and budget resolutions. But how 
often do we really, truly consider how a piece of legislation will 
affect someone specific

[[Page 26064]]

. . . a wife or a husband . . . a mother or a father? And I don't mean 
knowing how the budget numbers or appropriations will generally help 
our constituents, I mean considering the very, very personal lives of 
our constituents.
  This last March the Lewiston Sun Journal, a paper in my home state of 
Maine, ran an article about a woman in Maine, one of the women that I 
was elected to represent, who had faced the heartbreaking decision of a 
late-term abortion. Before I tell my colleagues her story, I ask 
unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, Barbara and her husband had been ecstatic 
when they discovered that they were expecting a child--an unborn 
daughter they would name Tristan. But this anticipation and delight 
turned to profound sorrow when, at 20 weeks into the pregnancy Tristan 
was diagnosed with a rare genetic disease called Edwards' syndrome. An 
extra chromosome in Tristan's DNA had caused lethal abnormalities.
  The Sun Journal reports that ``Their daughter would have severe heart 
and gastrointestinal problems, they were told. In an ultrasound image, 
they could already see cystic tissue forming on top of Tristan's brain 
and partly outside of the skull tissue. The shape of her stomach and 
diaphragm muscle were abnormal. Her diaphragm was perforated. Her 
stomach was growing in her heart and lung cavity. In all likelihood 
Tristan wouldn't be born alive. She probably would suffocate before 
that because her lungs would be so underdeveloped. Barbara and her 
husband were told that no surgery could or would be possible.'' In 
fact, doctors predicted that Tristan would probably die before she was 
born. And if not, she had a 95 percent chance of dying before her first 
birthday.
  Barbara told the Sun Journal that ``It seemed to us that it would be 
cruel, that it would be absolute torture to put our little girl through 
the pregnancy. . . . With her heart and her lungs being crushed by her 
stomach and her diaphragm. We were worrying what it would feel like. 
What sensation she might be experiencing as the cystic tissue continued 
to grow on her brain.'' And as Barbara and her husband consulted other 
medical specialists and prayed over the fate of their daughter, Barbara 
remembers that ``I was so afraid for my baby. I didn't want her to feel 
any pain in the last hours of her life. . . . It wasn't really life 
yet. She wasn't born.''
  Barbara remembers that ``Loving the baby was never part of the 
discussion. . .. Of course you would love the baby no matter what was 
going on, disability or healthy. I think sometimes there's a 
misperception about that, that love might be conditional based on 
whether it's a perfect fetus or not.''
  This family in Maine is what the debate today is really about--when 
does the State have the right to tell Barbara and her husband that they 
cannot have the abortion they believe to be the best medical procedure? 
A procedure that will protect her health and her future fertility? At 
the very end of her story, Barbara tells the Sun Journal that women who 
have abortions are unfortunately ``portrayed as some kind of careless 
monsters without any kind of moral direction. The people who know me 
would be aghast that that's how I'm seen by people who don't even know 
me.''
  I stand before this body today and I am saddened that there are those 
out there who would so judge Barbara and her husband. Because I do 
believe they have moral direction--and I don't believe that I or my 
fellow Senators should be able to tell them when a decision such as 
this is wrong or medically inappropriate. I don't believe that I have 
the medical training necessary to decide when one type of medical 
procedure is best used over an alternative procedure.
  And let there be no doubt about it, this legislation does nothing but 
create an inflammatory political issue. This legislation does nothing 
to end postviability abortion--nothing--or to prevent unwanted 
pregnancies. And courts around the country have recognized this.
  In fact, of the 30 states that have enacted legislation banning so-
called ``partial birth'' abortions, there have been 21 court challenges 
and 19 of these challenges have been either partially or fully enjoined 
while their constitutionality is considered. Four U.S. Courts of Appeal 
have ruled on the issue--and just this September, the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed three trial court injunctions 
on partial birth abortion bans in Arkansas, Iowa, and Nebraska.
  When the Kentucky District Court overturned its State's ban on these 
so-called ``partial birth'' abortions this year, the author of the 
decision, the Honorable John G. Heyburn, II, said ``By adopting a 
considerably less precise definition of a partial birth abortion, the 
legislature not only defined the terms of its prohibition, but also 
said a lot about its own collective intent. Though the Act calls itself 
a partial birth abortion ban, it is not. The title is misleading, both 
medically and historically. . . . A few [legislators] seem to disregard 
the constitutional arguments and push for language which they believed 
would make abortions more controllable.''
  And though proponents of this legislation claim that these bans 
address only one abortion procedure, courts have disagreed. Last year, 
the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras, a U.S. District Judge for the 
Northern District of Illinois, also struck down an Illinois law banning 
these so-called partial birth abortions. In his opinion Judge Kocoras 
stated that, ``[The Act] has the potential effect of banning the most 
common and safest abortion procedures. . . . To ensure that her conduct 
does not fall within the statute's reach, the physician will probably 
stop performing [all] such procedures. . . . Because the standard in 
[the Act] effectively chills physicians from performing most abortion 
procedures, the statue is an undue burden on a woman's constitutional 
right to seek an abortion before viability.''
  And this year, the Honorable G. Thomas Porteous, writing for U.S. 
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana said that the 
Louisiana ``Partial Birth'' Abortion ban ``advances neither maternal 
health nor potential life and clearly would create undue burdens on a 
woman's right to choose abortion. At most, the Act may force women 
seeking abortions to accept riskier or costlier abortion procedures 
which nevertheless result in fetal death.''
  Riskier or costlier? At what price? Can you ask Barbara and her 
husband to risk that? They desperately wanted their baby--and though 
they were faced with losing her they knew that they would want to try 
again. Four years later they have a beautiful 2\1/2\-year-old daughter. 
But they would not have this daughter nor even had the chance to try 
again had Barbara been forced to have a procedure that threatened her 
ability to have another child. What if the riskier or costlier 
procedure Judge Porteous referred to had been a total hysterectomy?
  Is this what we really want? To put Barbara's health and life at 
risk? To put women's health and lives at risk? Shouldn't these most 
critical decisions be left to those with medical training, and not 
politicians?
  I believe so. I believe that a decision such as this should only be 
discussed between a woman, her family, and her physician. I am 
absolutely and fundamentally opposed to all post-viability abortions 
except in the instances of preserving the life of or preventing 
grievous physical injury to the woman. This legislation neither 
provides for those exceptions nor does it prevent post-viability 
abortions.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit I

           [From the Lewiston (ME) Sun Journal, Mar. 7, 1999]

                      Abortion: One Woman's Story

                       (By Christopher Williams)

       For weeks Barbara and her husband had consulted medical 
     experts and researched scientific journals. They meditated 
     and prayed.
       To the visible mound protruding above her waist Barbara 
     spoke quietly, lovingly. She

[[Page 26065]]

     sang to it. She sometimes felt the light flutter of kicks.
       The day before final tests had confirmed the diagnosis, 
     Barbara and her husband had named their unborn daughter 
     Tristan, which means tears and sadness.
       Then the time came for Barbara's decision.
       It's not the kind of choice that any mother ever wants to 
     have to make.
       She would have an abortion.
       ``I didn't feel like I was taking my baby's life away,'' 
     she says ``I felt like it had already been taken away from 
     her. And all that was left for me to have any control over 
     was what was going to be the least painful for her.''


                            quality of life

       It was the last day of summer.
       Barbara made the 2\1/2\-hour trip from her Camden home to 
     Portland. She rocked all night in a motel room, crying, 
     unable to stop.
       At 20-weeks, Tristan had been diagnosed with a rare genetic 
     disease called Edwards' syndrome. An extra chromosome had 
     caused ``lethal'' abnormalities.
       Doctors said Tristan would probably die before she was 
     born. If not, she had a 95 percent chance of dying before her 
     first birthday. No surgical options could correct the 
     multiple birth defects.
       ``It seemed to us that it would be cruel, that it would be 
     absolute torture to put our little girl through the 
     pregnancy,'' Barbara recalls. ``With her heart and her lungs 
     being crushed by her stomach and her diaphragm. We were 
     worrying what it would feel like. What sensation she might be 
     experiencing as the cystic tissue continued to grow on her 
     brain.''
       As Barbara continued rocking in her motel room, cramps from 
     medicine preparing her for the abortion gripped her insides.
       ``I was so afraid for my baby. I didn't want her to feel 
     any pain in the last hours of her life,'' she says adding, 
     ``It wasn't really life yet. She wasn't born.''
       She also was ``grateful'' that she didn't live in a state 
     that would ``force me to carry her to term because I knew at 
     that moment, in those hours, that if I had, I probably would 
     have cracked up.''
       The strain would likely have landed end of the process. To 
     have done that, feels to me, like it would have been the 
     epitome of selfishness.''
       The last few days, Barbara had been jolted awake by 
     nightmares, including ``ghastly images.'' In one of the 
     dreams, a python had devoured her youngest niece.
       The dishes had piled up in the sink. Housework was 
     forgotten. Tristan was the only thing they talked about.


                              the abortion

       The abortion was scheduled for Sept. 23, the first day of 
     fall.
       There was only one place in Maine where an abortion could 
     be performed in the 20th week of a pregnancy.
       Barbara would have a procedure called a dilation and 
     extraction. Her cervix was slowly dilated. Then the fetus was 
     extracted. The method would be less damaging to her uterus 
     and therefore to her future fertility.
       Rain poured down. By noon the sky had darkened, turning an 
     eerie greenish yellow. Barbara imagined it was ``crying as 
     deeply as I was because that day I was losing Tristan.''
       She wandered around the halls of the hospital guided by her 
     husband's hand on her elbow. She remembers staring at signs, 
     but not understanding their meaning. Studying the words, she 
     didn't know what she was reading.
       In the waiting room, she shook uncontrollably and kept 
     breaking into sobs, consoled by her husband.
       ``I couldn't stop them. I kept trying to think of anything 
     to shut down the tears. Sitting in that waiting area. Just 
     kept crying and waiting.''
       A nurse's clipboard recorded Barbara's demeanor as 
     ``appears emotional.''
       The abortion took 45 minutes. She asked for general 
     anesthesia. Then she spent about an hour recovering before 
     she was allowed to leave the hospital.
       Driving back to Camden, she reclined in the seat, putting 
     her feet on the dashboard. It was raining even harder.
       ``The sky was so dark. And it was only mid-afternoon, early 
     evening. It was much darker than it should have been.''


                                 grief

       But that was just the beginning, Barbara says.
       For the next two years, she cried every day. The first 
     year, several times a day.
       ``I don't mean light crying, where you can sort of keep it 
     back. I mean it would kind of well up from my center and it 
     just didn't seem to stop. It seemed to be bigger than the 
     person who's doing the crying. There was so much grief over 
     the baby I'd hoped for,'' she says.
       She wasn't grieving her decision to have the abortion, 
     Barbara says, ``That's a very important distinction,'' That 
     decision was the ``most humane choice possible for Tristan.''
       Instead, she was grieving for the child she didn't have.
       ``I had so much grief for the baby that I had fantasized 
     about. A vibrant, healthy little girl.
       For the two years following her abortion, Barbara was 
     treated by a therapist who helped her to work through the 
     grief.
       She decided not to join the support groups for parents who 
     suffered the loss of babies due to stillbirth, miscarriage or 
     ``other means,'' as if it's a ``dirty phrase'' to say 
     abortion.
       Yet, Barbara says she is ``very careful'' about revealing 
     the details of how her pregnancy ended.
       ``By and large most of the people I'm close with I would 
     describe as moral, ethical people and without exception they 
     were all supportive about the decision we had made, which is 
     not to say they would have done the same thing,'' she says.
       ``But they seemed to inherently understand that if you're 
     not in the situation, how could you possibly know all the ins 
     and outs of the circumstances and come up with the universal 
     which is right and which is wrong, a cookie-cutter answer for 
     someone else's baby.''


                                  fear

       Four years later, Barbara sits on the couch in her cottage 
     overlooking the water. Her legs are tucked under her and her 
     2\1/2\-year-old daughter is asleep on her breast.
       Outside, in the garden, a dark gray angel cherub perched on 
     the edge of a scallop shell keeps watch.
       A week after the abortion, Barbara and her husband bought 
     the sculpture, which doubles as a bird bath. Each summer, 
     they plant marigolds around it and a bleeding heart behind 
     it.
       On the first day of November every year, they sprinkle 
     marigold petals from the garden to the steps of the house. 
     It's a Catholic tradition in Mexico performed during the day 
     of the dead, she explains. The petals are intended to lead 
     Tristan back to hearth and home. Barbara learned of the 
     ceremony when she lived in New Mexico and made frequent trips 
     over the border.
       Their daughter knows about Tristan. Sometimes she wanders 
     over to the angel, talking to the statute and stroking its 
     smooth stone surface.
       ``She knows there was a baby named Tristan who wasn't born, 
     who was in mommy's tummy,'' Barbara says.
       Barbara asked that her last name not be used, fearing 
     harassment or intimidation by those who disagree with her 
     decision to seek an abortion.
       She sees a growing threat to abortion access around the 
     state. A citizens' petition aimed at ``partial birth'' 
     abortions is clearly an attempt to further erode reproduction 
     rights, she says.
       Although she and her husband collected all of the 
     information about Tristan and discussed the options for 
     weeks, Barbara says he recognized who had to make the final 
     choice.
       ``He was being very clear that ultimately it was my body 
     that we were talking about.''
       But others don't.
       ``Today, we're portrayed as some kind of careless monsters 
     without any kind of moral direction. The people who know me 
     would be aghast that that's how I'm seen by people who don't 
     even know me.''

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to take the opportunity to state 
my position on S. 1692, and to explain the reasons why I will again 
oppose this legislation.
  I respect the deeply held views of those who oppose abortion in any 
circumstances. I have always believed that the decisions in this area 
are best handled by the individuals involved, guided by their own 
beliefs and unique circumstances, rather than by government mandates.
  Second, like most Americans, I would prefer to live in a world where 
abortion is unnecessary. I support efforts to reduce the number of 
abortions through family planning and counseling to avoid unintended 
pregnancies.
  I support Roe v. Wade, but I also understand that some restrictions 
on abortion can be constitutional when there is a compelling State 
interest at stake. I have previously voted to ban post-viability 
abortions unless the woman's life is at risk or the procedure is 
necessary to protect the woman from grievous injury to her physical 
health. That is why I will vote for the Durbin alternative to S. 1692. 
I conduct a Listening Session in every one of Wisconsin's 72 counties 
every year. In 1997 and 1998, hundreds of Wisconsin citizens came to 
talk to me about their serious and sincere concerns that, in some 
nearby states, abortions are being performed very late in pregnancy for 
reasons that they believe are not medically indicated. I support 
legislation that will actually reduce the total number of late-term 
abortions while providing reasonable exceptions when necessary to deal 
with serious medical situations. I am disappointed that the proponents 
of S. 1692 have steadfastly refused to accept any amendment, no

[[Page 26066]]

matter how tightly crafted, which would include provisions to protect 
women's physical health. This intentionally polarizing approach is the 
reason people suspect that the objective of the bill is to further a 
political issue rather than change the law.
  I am concerned that S. 1692 will not stop a single abortion late in 
pregnancy. The bill, by prohibiting only one particular procedure, 
creates an incentive for an abortion provider to switch to a different 
procedure that is not banned. The Durbin alternative amendment would 
stop abortions by any method after a fetus is viable, except when 
serious medical situations dictate otherwise.
  I am supporting the Durbin amendment because it recognizes that, in 
some circumstances, women suffer from severely debilitating diseases 
specifically caused or exacerbated by a pregnancy or are unable to 
obtain necessary treatment for a life-threatening condition while 
carrying a pregnancy to term. The exceptions in the Durbin amendment 
are limited to conditions for which termination of the pregnancy is 
medically indicated. It retains the option of abortion for mothers 
facing extraordinary medical conditions, such as: breast cancer, 
preeclampsia, uterine rupture, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, for which 
termination of the pregnancy may be recommended by the woman's 
physician due to the risk of grievous injury to the mother's physical 
health or life. In contrast, S. 1692 provides no such exception to 
protect the mother from grievous injury to her physical health. At the 
same time, by clearly limiting the medical circumstances where post-
viability abortions are permitted, this legislation prohibits these 
procedures in cases where the mother's health is not at such high risk.
  I also feel very strongly that Congress should seek to restrict 
abortions only within the constitutional parameters set forth by the 
U.S. Supreme Court. I would have preferred that S. 1692 had been 
reviewed by the Judiciary Committee on which I serve, rather than 
having been placed straight on the Senate calendar. I believe S. 1692 
raises significant constitutional questions, and with court decisions 
in 19 of the 21 states where state legislation similar to S. 1692 has 
been challenged, the Judiciary Committee should have reviewed this bill 
prior to its consideration on the Senate floor.
  S. 1692, by prohibiting a procedure whenever it is used, breaches the 
Court's standard that the government does not have a compelling 
interest in restricting abortions prior to fetal viability. However, I 
am also aware that some of the recent decisions on state legislation 
similar to S. 1692 raises questions about whether an exception for 
grievous physical injury may be too narrow. To date I have supported 
this very narrow definition of the exception necessary to protect the 
physical health of the woman while balancing concerns that abortion 
late in pregnancy should only be used in rare circumstances. I have 
specifically voted for the Daschle amendment last Congress, legislation 
which exactly reflects this position. The Durbin amendment contains 
similar language.
  The Durbin amendment goes farther than the Daschle amendment in 
ensuring that the exceptions to the ban on post-viability abortions are 
properly exercised. It requires a second doctor to certify the medical 
need for a post-viability abortion. The second doctor requirement is 
intended to ensure that post-viability abortions take place only when 
continuing the pregnancy would prevent the woman from receiving 
treatment for a life-threatening condition related to her physical 
health or would cause a severely debilitating disease or impairment to 
her physical health.
  The Durbin alternative amendment strikes the right balance between 
protecting a woman's constitutional right to choose abortion and the 
right of the state to protect future life. It protects a woman's 
physical health throughout her pregnancy, while insisting that only 
grievous, medically diagnosable conditions could justify aborting a 
viable fetus. Both fetal viability and women's health would be 
determined by the physician's best medical judgement, as they must be, 
in concurrence with another physician.
  I hope, as we vote today, we do so in full knowledge of the strong 
feelings about this issue on all sides. We should respect these 
differences, avoid efforts to confuse or trick each other and the 
public, and maintain a level of debate that reflects the importance of 
ascertaining the truth about this issue and finding responses that are 
sensitive and constitutionally sound.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from New Hampshire 
is recognized.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that immediately following my remarks there be a period for the 
transaction of routine morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, the 
Senators from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, and Alabama, Mr. Sessions, for their 
kind remarks. It has been a long, long struggle, and we are still not 
there yet. It is very frustrating to this Senator, who initially came 
to the floor in the mid-1990s, the early 1990s, in 1994 and 1995, where 
I found out these kinds of procedures were occurring, the so-called 
partial-birth abortions. I was shocked and I could not believe that in 
America we would be doing anything like this. This is America, I 
thought, we can't be killing children inches from birth. It makes no 
sense.
  So I sought answers and talked to a number of people, including a 
nurse who had witnessed them. After getting all of that information 
together, I decided to write a bill banning partial- birth abortions. 
Here we are. Each time we have passed it here, it has been vetoed by 
the President of the United States, regretfully. I think it has been 
two or three times now. There will be another veto coming if we pass it 
again. But initially, when we started, we only had 25 to 35 votes on 
the floor because we were told it was only four or five times a year. 
Then we were told it was maybe 15 times a year. As the years 
progressed, we found out this is on demand and is not strictly for 
abnormalities at all but, rather, on demand, for any reason, if a woman 
chooses to have such a procedure.
  So it has been a long struggle. As I listened to the debate--and I 
have been on the floor all day listening to my friend, Rick Santorum, 
the Senator from Pennsylvania, who has done such an outstanding job on 
this issue. He is very passionate. You need to be passionate on this 
issue. I don't know how anybody can come down on the floor of the 
Senate and talk about this issue and not be passionate. We are killing 
unborn children who are in the process of exiting the birth canal. That 
is what needs to be understood. I ask my fellow Americans and my 
colleagues, don't we have better things to do than that here in 
America?
  I am proud to say that I, to some extent, exposed this horrible 
procedure, establishing that it did take place. I am proud to say that 
I exposed it for what it is--infanticide, or murder. That is what it 
is. We are killing children as they exit the birth canal, and we are 
putting all kinds of labels on this process. We are saying all kinds of 
things to cover up what is happening. I remember--how well I remember--
the incredible amount of flack I got for standing on the Senate floor 
with a plastic medical doll. The liberal press called it a plastic 
fetus. There is no such thing. It was a medical doll. And with a pair 
of scissors, I demonstrated how this process worked because I thought 
the American people needed to know what was happening.
  I was terrorized, if you will, by the press, bashed, called a 
``right-wing extremist,'' and ``out of the mainstream.'' Of course, 
those people who commit these acts of violence against these children 
are not extreme in the eyes of the media, which is fascinating.
  President Bill Clinton personally came to my State, as did Vice 
President Gore, as did Mrs. Clinton, and campaigned against my 
reelection in 1996 on this issue. It was ugly; it was nasty; it was 
brutal. But, you know, for every one of those arrows that I took, I 
said to myself, it is all worth it because these children can't speak 
for

[[Page 26067]]

themselves. They do not have the opportunity to stand here on the 
Senate floor. They don't have a representative here unless we do it for 
them. They don't get a chance to say I would like to be born. They 
don't have that opportunity.
  So I am proud to take every arrow they can throw, shoot, or whatever 
they want to do. I take it as a badge of honor. And I am glad to do it.
  I got an incredible amount of flak from the media on this to the 
extent that they have distorted what I said. It is interesting to read 
``mainstream'' respectable papers such as the New York Times and find 
that they cannot get it right. We called a number of times to correct 
these papers and reporters to tell them that the things they were 
saying I did I didn't do.
  For example, they said, as I indicated earlier, that I waved a 
plastic fetus around on the floor of the Senate when it was a little 
medical doll. They did get the scissors right. They also then said I 
showed pictures of aborted children on the floor of the Senate, 
photographs, which was not true. I showed a photograph of a child who 
had been born prematurely and had lived. That, I did show. In fact, 
some of them went so far as to say that I actually showed photographs 
of an actual abortion, which, again, was not true. They had a heyday at 
my expense. I lived through it all. I am proud of it.
  People said, well, you know you made a mistake, Senator, that almost 
cost you your election last time. You know you did all of this on the 
Senate floor.
  I would do it again. I am going to do it again right now for whatever 
time it takes for me to make the point that I want to make tonight.
  There are several points that I want to make.
  One of them that I want to make is that this is a disgusting, dark, 
horrible game we are in, this abortion industry. And somebody needs to 
take a flashlight or, bigger than that, a searchlight and shine it into 
this industry so that we find out exactly what is going on in this 
abortion industry. It is not just partial-birth abortion. It is 
abortion in general.
  It is a dirty business. It is a profitable business. There are people 
making money out there at the expense of young women, young mothers, 
who are in a terrible dilemma. They are making money on them.
  We are going to find out, as I move through my presentation tonight, 
that we are going to be talking about some things in this industry that 
aren't too pleasant. It is not just that they are making money on the 
women. We will get into that a little bit further in a moment.
  But I think most Americans, if they knew what was going on, would be 
disgusted, appalled, sickened, and angry that such a brutal act as 
killing a child with scissors to the back of the head, with no 
anesthesia, in the act of birth, would go on in this America--
defenseless in America, a defenseless little unborn child. We do it at 
random. We do it 4,000 times a day, every day--not just partial birth 
but abortions in general, 4,000 of them every single day. We don't know 
how many partial births. It doesn't matter; it is still the killing of 
a child.
  I ask my colleagues and those who may be watching out across America 
tonight: If you saw an article in your local paper tomorrow that said 
that all of the puppies and all of the kittens in your local SPCA that 
no one adopted were going to be killed tomorrow with no anesthetics, 
with a needle to the back of the head to suck out the brains of those 
animals, what would be your reaction? I guarantee you there would be 
people marching down in front of the SPCA, and it wouldn't happen. But 
that is what we are doing to our children.
  I know it is not pleasant to talk about. I don't like to talk about 
it.
  I wish I didn't have to stand on the floor of the Senate as some of 
the great orators and great Senators of all time have stood and debated 
the issues of the day. Think about it, the issues of the Civil War, the 
issues of federalism, and civil rights, all of the great issues of the 
day that have been debated right here with some of the greatest 
people--John C. Calhoun, Daniel Webster, at whose desk I sit--the great 
debates that have taken place in here. Yet because this President 
refuses to stop this procedure, we are down here now again for the 
fifth or sixth time debating this again trying to stop this horrible, 
horrible procedure that kills unborn children.
  Why are we surprised, my fellow Americans, when we pick up the 
newspaper and read somewhere that a mother flushes her child down the 
toilet or that somebody shoots somebody in school? Why should that 
surprise you? What message are we giving to our children? We are 
telling them every day: Children, you are expendable. You are not 
important. Go to school today, Johnny. You be a good boy. While you are 
in school doing your class work, and then you come home to do your 
homework, we are going to abort your sister.
  Kids understand. They know what is going on. They are smarter than 
you think they are. They know what is going on. They read about this 
stuff. They hear it. Some of them are listening to this debate right 
now. They know what is happening.
  Yet as horrible as this procedure is, and as many times as so many 
people have been down on this floor, as my two colleagues a moment ago 
did, eloquently discussing this issue and talking about how horrible it 
is, as I have done, as Senator Santorum has done in great detail over 
the years, as many times as we talk about it, we still can't get enough 
votes to override the veto of the President of the United States.
  It is frustrating. I tried one time to meet with the President of the 
United States personally on this issue. I asked him for 15 minutes of 
his time. I said, I will go on the record, off the record, with staff, 
without staff, personally, with just you and me, whatever you want. 
Just give me 15 minutes. I couldn't get it. He wouldn't deal with me. 
He wouldn't talk with me about it.
  This procedure that kills a child, as you have seen it described--I 
will not go through the description again--is legal in all 50 States of 
the United States of America.
  In addressing the controversy over the partial-birth abortion method, 
the National Abortion Federation has written to its membership and said 
don't apologize for this process. Do not be on the defensive for 
killing children this way because it is a legal procedure. It is legal 
to do this. So don't apologize for it. When somebody says, oh, you 
know, you took scissors to the back of a head and you killed a little 
baby coming out of the birth canal, don't apologize for that, they say. 
It is right in their literature because it is legal.
  This is America. America, America, we sure need help. If we ever 
needed God to shed his grace on this great country, it is now. We are 
killing the posterity that the Founding Fathers talked about--our 
posterity, our children. We are killing them every single day--not just 
with partial-birth abortion but with all abortions--4,000 a day. Think 
of it: 4,000 abortions a day in this country; 4,000 children--children. 
Let's use the correct term.
  Many of my opponents argue that this procedure is necessary to 
preserve the health of the mother. I am going to dispel that myth in 
great detail in a little while. I hope you are listening because it is 
a myth. It is not done for the health of the mother; it is done for the 
profit of the abortionist.
  President Clinton twice vetoed this legislation with false and 
deceptive information and justification.
  How does partially delivering a living child and then restraining it 
from exiting the birth canal so that only the head remains in the womb 
possibly enhance the health of a mother?
  I have asked that question on the floor 100 times, and I can't get an 
answer. You have to understand now. The child is exiting the birth 
canal. The abortionist is holding the child--actually holding that 
child--in his or her hands and forcefully stopping the head from 
exiting the birth canal because once the head exits the birth canal, it 
is a birth. It is a birth.
  What is he holding? Is that not a child? What is that part of the 
body? The feet, the legs, the torso, the shoulders, the hands, what is 
that? That is

[[Page 26068]]

not supposed to be a child? If the baby turned around and exited 
headfirst, you couldn't do it because then it is born.
  That is a pretty fine line. That is a pretty fine line. They do that 
in the name of the mother's health? You have got to be kidding me.
  What is wrong with this country? Where are we going? We have to stand 
down here on the floor of this Senate and protect and fight to protect 
the lives of children, our children, killed in this way every day in 
America, every day. We can't win because the President will veto what 
we pass with about 63 or 64 votes. He will veto it. We need 67 votes.
  President Clinton's claim that partial-birth abortions are only 
undertaken to protect the mother from serious injury to her health has 
been conclusively proven to be false. When he says that--and he will 
when he vetoes it--he is not telling the truth. In fact, the vast 
majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on perfectly healthy 
women with perfectly healthy babies--that is the truth--80 to 90 
percent, perfectly healthy women, mothers and babies.
  The Nation's leading practitioner of partial-birth abortion, Dr. 
Martin Haskell of Ohio, has been quoted extensively today. He said in 
the American Medical Association's American Medical News:

       I'll be quite frank. Most of my abortions are elective, in 
     that 20 to 24 week range. In my particular case, probably 20 
     percent are for genetic reasons and the other 80 percent are 
     purely elective.

  That is the abortionist speaking. That is not me. It is not some pro-
life organization. That is the abortionist.
  He said 20 to 24 weeks; 24 weeks is a 6-month fetus.
  I want to share with my colleagues a phone call I received in my 
office a few months ago from a 9-year-old girl. She said to me: 
Senator, I heard you were very much pro-life. I want to give a message 
that I would like you to share with your colleagues and with the 
American people as you travel around the country.
  She said: I want them to know that I'm now 9 years old but my Mommy 
gave birth to me at 5 months; she was 5 months pregnant, and I lived 
and am here to tell you and tell America that babies at 5 or 6 months 
in the womb can survive. I'm glad my Mommy didn't pick that option.
  When somebody says we are not taking the lives of unborn children, we 
are not taking the lives of people who have an opportunity to be 
productive members of our society, they are wrong.
  At the White House veto ceremony Mr. Clinton hosted the last time he 
vetoed the partial-birth abortion ban, he presented five women at a 
press conference whom the President said ``had to make a lifesaving, 
certainly health saving but still tragic decision, to have the kind of 
procedure that would be banned by H.R. 1833.'' That is, the ban of 
partial-birth abortions.
  The President around this town and around America doesn't have the 
greatest reputation for telling the truth, and he didn't tell the truth 
there either. Despite saying those five women had health-saving 
partial-birth abortions, one of the women involved in the press 
conference later publicly admitted neither her abortion nor those of 
any of the other four women was actually medically necessary.
  Two days after the ceremony, one of the five women, Claudia Ades, 
appeared by telephone on a radio show in Mobile, AL, and quotations 
from the interview appear in the May-June 1996 edition of the newspaper 
Heterodoxy. During the course of the radio show, she told Mr. Malone, 
the MC: This procedure was not performed in order to save my life. This 
procedure was not performed in order to save my life.
  This procedure was elective. That is considered an elective 
procedure, as were the procedures of all the other women who were at 
the White House veto ceremony.
  Here again, President Bill Clinton is using people and not telling 
the truth.
  The health-of-the-mother exception is so broadly defined, it would 
include the mother's emotional health, let alone physical health.
  I don't enjoy talking about this stuff on the Senate floor. I don't 
enjoy standing here and talking about the fact we are killing our 
children. Who does? If we don't, it will keep on happening. Some in 
politics, some even in the Republican Party, the pro-life party in 
America supposedly, said we shouldn't talk about this issue; it is too 
controversial; let's sweep it under the rug and try to be less 
confrontational, be more together.
  I don't believe we ever would have ended slavery or segregation or 
any of the other great issues we resolved in American history if we 
hadn't talked about it, if we hadn't faced it. Suppose Lincoln had 
said: I'm totally opposed to slavery, but my neighbor wants to own a 
couple of slaves; that is OK with me; I will not make a big deal out of 
it.
  So we can take that approach on abortion and say, I'm personally 
opposed to abortion but my neighbor wants to have an abortion; that is 
OK with me.
  Somebody has to stand up for 4,000 babies a day who are being killed 
in this country by all abortions. I don't mind being that person, I 
will be very honest. If that means I lose an election somewhere, that 
is fine with me. I am not here to compromise my views to win elections. 
I am here to lead, to stand up on principle. Otherwise, I don't want to 
be here. Anybody who stands here and says they are afraid to discuss 
this issue or won't come down here and discuss this issue because they 
are afraid they might leave ought to resign because they are not 
bringing dignity to this body. They should stand up and passionately 
fight for what they believe.
  I will review in a few moments some very dirty, disgusting little 
secrets about the abortion industry in this country. It doesn't apply 
strictly to any one type of abortion; it applies to abortions in 
general. It is not pleasant. It is not pretty. It is pretty graphic. 
But I am going to talk about it because the American people need to 
understand what is going on. These children don't have a voice. They 
can't ask for the opportunity to be born.
  Imagine, since Roe v. Wade passed--and we will have a vote on that 
very shortly, tomorrow, this infamous Roe v. Wade decision in 1973--40 
million babies have died in this country. I don't want anyone to 
misunderstand me lest I be accused of misusing facts. All abortions, 
including partial-birth abortions--40 million babies.
  Have you ever stopped to think what some of those babies might have 
grown up to be had they had the chance? I wonder if there is a 
President in that group. How about a doctor? How about a cure for 
cancer? Maybe there is a scientist who would cure breast cancer--
wouldn't that be ironic--or cure any type of cancer, or perhaps 
discover some big secret in the universe, maybe even a Senator. Never 
to have a chance to live their dream, never to have a chance to grow 
up, have a family, to pursue their dreams--gone, down the drain. They 
didn't have a chance to talk about it, didn't have a chance to even ask 
for mercy; they were just eliminated.
  Do the math. We have about 260 million Americans. We have killed 40 
million of them in the years since Roe v. Wade, and we have people on 
this floor bragging about Roe v. Wade, what an important decision it is 
and has been in American history. You bet it is important; they are 
right about that.
  We took the lives of 40 million of our fellow citizens, 40 million 
people who never get a chance to pay Social Security taxes or pay any 
taxes or build any bridges or buy any products or contribute any money 
to the U.S. Treasury, if you want to put it in those terms, never, 
never had a chance. Mr. President, 40 million children, one-seventh of 
the entire U.S. population, one-seventh, and we are killing them.
  You do not think we have some cultural problems in America? 
Unbelievable. I would like to ask all of you listening to answer this 
question silently to yourself: If you knew a woman who had three 
children born blind, two children born deaf, and one child born 
retarded, she was pregnant again and she had syphilis, would you 
recommend she have an abortion? Answer to yourselves out there. I will 
give you a second.

[[Page 26069]]

  Guess who you just killed? Beethoven. That was Beethoven's mother, a 
pretty fair contributor, I would say, to the arts of the world, and 
this country. Who are we, Roe v. Wade? Who are we to do that to the 
Beethovens, the potential Beethovens of the world? This is a sick 
society, for people to stand down here and defend that, and that is 
what we are doing.
  Mr. President, 95 percent or more of all abortions are used for birth 
control, 1 or 2 percent of all abortions performed are done because the 
life of the mother was threatened or she was raped or sexually abused 
by a member of her family--a small minority. That means over 38 million 
abortions occurred for a variety of reasons that boil down to one 
word--convenience. It is convenient. That is what it is, convenience. 
The mother was too old, maybe too young, in high school, maybe in 
college, had to work, didn't have a husband, didn't have a boyfriend; 
it wasn't in her best interests to have the baby; she had her whole 
life ahead of her. Pick any excuse, pick any reason. Pick the one you 
like, but that is the reason--convenience. It is a little inconvenient, 
isn't it? I have raised three children. Sure, it is inconvenient. But 
they are beautiful and I am sure glad I have them, and I am sure glad 
nobody made the decision to end their lives.
  I know many of these desperate young mothers myself. I serve on the 
board of a home for unwed mothers. I have raised money for homes for 
unwed mothers. I have compassion for these mothers and for those who 
have gone through a horrible experience of having an abortion, or 
struggling in terms of whether to have the abortion or not, or whether 
to give the child up for adoption or to keep it.
  I must say to any woman out there listening to me tonight, any 
mother, there are people out there who will help you. There are people 
out there who will help you. You do not have to have an abortion and 
you don't have to listen to one side of the argument. Ask. If you want 
help, call my office; I will put you in touch with people who will help 
you. It would be my honor and privilege to do that. Don't have an 
abortion; have your child like I did, my wife and I. You will be glad 
you did when you get down the road. You will be very glad you did.
  You have other options available, options that will benefit you, that 
will benefit your child. Choose adoption or choose to keep your child. 
There are people out there who want to love that child. In either case, 
adoption or keep your baby, choose life. I beg you to do that, please. 
Do it for yourself; don't do it for me. Do it for yourself and for your 
baby. You will be glad you did. I promise you will. It will be tough 
for awhile but you will.
  All across the fruited plains of America runs a river of abortion--
blood. School shootings, we blame guns for that. After all, it could 
not possibly be our fault. Babies born alive left in trash cans: A 
young woman who goes into a restroom, gives birth to a child and throws 
it in the trash can can be prosecuted for murder. If she had a partial-
birth abortion 5 minutes before that happened, it is all legal. Is 
there any difference in terms of the result, the child? It is still a 
child, isn't it?
  Why are we here today? I just told you a few moments ago. It is to 
outlaw a cruel, inhuman procedure used for late-term abortions, a 
process so barbaric and so inhuman we would not even do it to animals. 
We wouldn't even think of it, I promise you. It is not being done to 
animals anywhere in the country.
  We fell three votes short last time to override this President. I 
would give anything to have this President change his mind and not veto 
this. Do you realize how many children died since then? We don't really 
know. We know there are thousands who die from partial-birth abortions 
every year. If you multiply that by 4 or 5 years, we know it is 
probably in the vicinity of 15,000. I don't know what the number is. 
Whatever it is, it is too many. But hundreds, if not thousands, of 
young children are gone, just because the President of the United 
States refused to sign that bill; three votes short of an override. You 
talk about whether one vote means something or two votes mean 
something? You bet they do. If you are out there somewhere in America 
and you think I am right, you ought to take a look at who your Senators 
are and see how they are voting on this because those votes are going 
to cost lives. We are not talking about budgets. We are not talking 
about taxes. We are not talking about things such as that. We are not 
talking about anything other than lives, American lives, little babies.
  Generically, without singling anybody out, let me speak to those 
Senators out there who might be wavering. I know some of you have been 
struggling with this vote for 4 years. You know in your heart it is 
wrong to kill unborn children this way. You know it, but you have 
connections to the abortion industry, the National Abortion Rights 
League, and others. I know they pressure you. I know I get pressured on 
the other side, too. I know what pressure is. We all do. But in your 
heart you know it is wrong. You can stop it. Three more votes or four 
more votes here can stop this. We can save thousands of lives down the 
road--thousands.
  Imagine, if you could, all those children who have died from just 
partial-birth abortion in the last 25 years coming here today. If they 
had the opportunity to live, what do you think they would say? I don't 
think they would be with those who say, no, we ought to have this 
process. I don't think so. Maybe I am wrong. I have been wrong before.
  Hold your grandchild in your arms, or your child, and ask yourself: 
How far removed is that grandchild or child from the process that you 
are voting to allow? A year? A month? Maybe you have a newborn. Think 
about it. I have.
  According to the American Medical Association, the partial-birth 
abortion method is never medically necessary--never medically 
necessary. According to the Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth, 
partial-birth abortion is likened to infanticide and is considered an 
extremely dangerous procedure.
  Let me quote from these physicians:

       The prolonged manipulation of the cervix introduces a 
     serious risk of infection and excessive bleeding. Turning the 
     child inside the womb using forceps risks rupture or puncture 
     of the uterus, infection, and hemorrhage from displacing the 
     placenta. Inserting the scissors--a blind procedure--risks 
     cutting the cervix.

  That is one doctor.
  Another one says:

       Beyond the immediate risks, partial-birth abortion can 
     undermine a woman's future fertility and compromise future 
     pregnancies.

  Many pro-abortion advocates have publicly stated their opposition to 
the partial-birth-abortion technique. Warren Hern, the author of the 
Nation's most widely used textbooks on late-term abortions, said:

       You really can't defend it. I would dispute any statement 
     that this is the safest procedure to use.

  This leads me to another dirty little secret about the industry which 
is that abortion clinics are losing doctors who are willing to perform 
abortions. Do you know what happens when you lose the ability to 
perform abortions? You lose the ability to make money.
  My colleagues on the left will assert that they are afraid they are 
going to get killed by a pro-life activist. That has happened seven 
times, and it is seven times too many, but it has happened. I have 
statements from the media, the abortion industry, and the doctors 
themselves that say the reason abortion clinics cannot find doctors is 
because they are considered losers in the medical field.
  Those of us who have been pro-life who have been talking about this 
are making a difference in some of these abortions. Abortionists are 
losers. They are having such a tough time recruiting abortionists. They 
are actively lobbying right now to force medical students to perform 
abortions. What happened to choice? It is very interesting, isn't it?
  Listen to these quotes from the abortion industry. I am making these 
points because I want to lead you into the next issue of what is 
happening in the industry and why these things are occurring and what 
you will see where I am leading you in terms of another

[[Page 26070]]

ugly little secret, dirty little secret about what is happening in 
addition to the abortionists. Here is what Morris Wortman, abortionist, 
Democrat and Chronicle, 1992, said:

       Abortion has failed to escape its back-alley associations . 
     . . [it is the] dark side of medicine . . . Even when 
     abortion became legal, it was still considered dirty.

  That was the abortionist.
  Joe Thompson, retired abortionist, South Bend Tribune, December 26, 
1992:

       In obstetrics and gynecology, the term abortionist is a 
     dirty word.

  Jean Hunt, former executive director, Elizabeth Blackwell Center, 
Philadelphia, PA, Westchester Daily Local News, November 26, 1992:

       Doctors today see abortion as a mud puddle not worth 
     jumping into.

  David Zbaraz, abortionist, Washington Post, 1980:

       [Abortion is] a nasty, dirty, yukky thing and I always come 
     home angry.

  Another:

       . . . some residents are concerned about being stigmatized 
     for performing abortions and feel they are likely to perform 
     abortions once in practice.

  Abortionist Trent MacKay and Andrea Phillips MacKay, Family Planning 
Perspectives, May and June, 1995.

       Organized medicine has been sympathetic to abortion--not 
     abortionists.

  Carol Joffe, pro-abortion author, 1998.
  A couple more:

       [Abortion] is a difficult field from an emotional aspect. 
     Some of us, and all of us, I suspect, to some degree or 
     another, have emotional isolation and separation and distance 
     from some of our social friends, certainly from the community 
     and from our professional colleagues.

  George Tiller, abortionist, St. Louis, MO.
  On the status of abortionists, Warren Hern says.

       . . . status of [abortionists] is somewhere well below the 
     average garage mechanic . . . patients do not value what we 
     do.

  Richard Hausknecht, abortionist, January 1998:

       It's true that abortion providers are perceived as not very 
     good doctors--that they have no alternative so they do 
     abortions, that they cannot earn a living any other way.

  Is that the kind of person you want to send a woman to because you 
want to protect her health?
  Another one. Merle Hoffman, president, Choices Women's Medical 
Center, Queens, NY, 1995:

       The medical establishment has yet to welcome in abortion 
     providers . . .

  Tom Kring, director, California Planning Clinic:

       Abortion has a stigma attached to it that is increasingly 
     scaring doctors and clinics.

  I think, I say to my colleagues, one of the reasons clinics are 
closing is because of the doctors. You cannot get a good doctor.
  Eileen Adams, former administrator for Park Medical Center in 
Illinois which closed after 13 years of operation:

       You cannot get a good doctor.

  Then she said:

       I hate to have that in the paper so the anti-abortionists 
     would say they've won--but they did.

  That is what Eileen Adams said.
  A 1993 Boston Globe article had this so say:

       Opponents of abortion in New England may have lost the 
     battle of public opinion, but they appear to be winning the 
     war . . . there are no longer enough doctors and hospitals in 
     some areas to provide abortions.

  With all that testimony from within the industry--dirty, yucky, not 
protecting the health of the mothers--why is it still going on? Because 
there is another dirty little secret, and it is called fetal tissue 
marketing. We will take a look at this chart.
  I want everybody to see what happens in this dirty little secret of 
the abortion industry. I want my colleagues to know this is the 
abortion industry in general, but abortion is abortion. There are 
different types of abortion. Partial-birth abortion is what is on the 
agenda today. But fetal body parts marketing is what I am talking 
about.
  A woman comes into an abortion clinic. It could be Planned 
Parenthood. She goes into the clinic, and she is talked to, advised to 
have an abortion. But what she may or may not know is that inside that 
clinic in a little room somewhere or some office that is not 
necessarily visible to her, is the harvester, the wholesaler, the 
person who is going to take her baby, cut it into pieces and sell it.
  They are going to say: Oh, no, no, no, nobody is selling any babies. 
Listen to what I have to say, and then you tell me.
  The wholesaler and the harvester is in the clinic. This poor woman, 
this mother, this woman who has probably gone through unimaginable 
trauma, is now faced with this little secret because she has to sign a 
waiver that allows them to do it.
  You have the harvester now who is in that building. Anatomic Gift 
Foundation, Opening Lines--those are the names of a couple of the 
wholesalers.
  What happens? We will get into that in a few moments.
  But here is the buyer over here. If you are pro-life, you will be 
pleased to know, I am sure, that maybe a university in your State, 
Government agencies to which you are paying taxes, pharmaceutical 
companies, private researchers, and research organizations are buying 
body parts.
  How does this work?
  Here is step 1. The buyer orders the fetal body parts from the 
wholesaler/harvester. The buyer says: We need a couple of eyes, or 
whatever. The abortion clinic provides space for the wholesaler and 
harvester in the clinic where that woman goes to procure fetal body 
parts. The wholesaler/harvester faxes an order to the abortion clinic, 
faxes an order to the clinic, and says: We need this, and we need this, 
and we need this. The wholesaler's technician harvests the organs: 
Skin, limbs, whatever, from aborted babies.
  Now, bear in mind how gruesome this really is. This is the abortion 
industry, ladies and gentlemen. Here is a woman coming into that 
clinic, thinking she needs an abortion. She is advised to have it. And 
these people are sitting around the room, the harvesters. When they are 
looking at that woman, there is a living child there that has not been 
aborted yet, and they are placing orders for body parts--placing orders 
for body parts--before the child is even dead.
  The wholesaler's technician harvests the organs. Then the clinic 
``donates'' fetal body parts to the wholesaler/harvester, who in turn 
pays the clinic a ``site fee'' for access to the aborted babies. Then 
the wholesaler/harvester ``donates'' the fetal body parts to the buyer. 
The buyer then ``reimburses'' the wholesaler/harvester for the cost of 
retrieving the fetal body parts. We are going to get into a little more 
detail on this.
  You might say: This is a debate about partial-birth abortion. What 
does the sale of fetal tissue have to do with partial-birth abortion?
  First, like partial-birth abortions, the selling of fetal tissue is 
immoral and unethical. It is illegal. And it is a reprehensible, dirty 
practice that is going on in the shadows of the industry. It is a 
practice I had never even heard of. Again, I could not believe this was 
going on. But it is.
  Second, it is a practice that very graphically shows how this 
industry has gone far beyond the ethical boundaries that even most pro-
choice Americans would find repugnant.
  Third, like partial-birth abortion, the industry has taken the 
practice of selling fetal body parts, which is illegal under Federal 
criminal law, and created a loophole to allow them to do it.
  In partial-birth abortion, they use the head loophole. In other 
words, what I mean by that is: Arms, feet, body, neck, heart, toes. 
That is not birth. That is not the baby--until the head comes into the 
world. Then it is a baby. Really? It is a legal mumbo jumbo, as Senator 
Santorum talked about. It is a bunch of garbage. It makes lawyers 
around the country very rich, and it allows these clinics to kill our 
children.
  I am sure the legal team that came up with the head loophole is very 
proud of themselves, just as we have the fetal harvesting loophole. In 
a sense, we call it ``donations'' or ``reimbursements'' rather than 
selling parts. They are both loopholes to hide the facts.

[[Page 26071]]

  Stabbing a baby in the back of the head and sucking its brains out is 
illegal; it is murder; it is infanticide--whether that child is sitting 
in a play pen or whether that child is trying to exit the birth canal 
to become a member of this world. But its head is conveniently, under 
this stupid legal definition, ``stuck'' in the womb. And it is not 
stuck; it is held there. And they call it medicine. We have people 
standing down here saying: This is medicine. We're doing this for the 
health of the mother. Really?
  Let's go back to the sale of fetal body parts. I have here the United 
States Code. Here is what the United States Code says:

       Prohibitions Regarding Human Fetal Tissue.

  That is the topic. That is the heading right here in the United 
States Code.

       Purchase of tissue. It shall be unlawful for any person to 
     knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any fetal 
     tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects 
     interstate commerce.
       Criminal penalties for such violations.
       In general, any person who violates subsection--

  The one I just referenced--

     shall be fined in accordance with title 18, U.S. Code, 
     subject to paragraph 2, or imprisoned for not more than 10 
     years, or both.
       The term ``valuable consideration'' does not include 
     reasonable payments associated with the transportation, 
     implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or 
     storage of human fetal tissue.

  It is against the law, ladies and gentlemen, my fellow Americans, and 
colleagues, it is against the law to do this. And they are doing it 
every day to our children--every day. So 10 years in jail if you sell 
human fetal tissue. That was signed into law, ironically, by President 
William Jefferson Clinton. It took effect on June 3, 1993.
  But the lawyers went to work, as only lawyers can do. They found a 
loophole: How can we sell this tissue, make a profit at the expense of 
this poor woman victim, and get it to research, and hide it all by 
calling it research? How do we do that without getting caught and 
getting our tails thrown in jail?
  That was the question. So they found it in section D(3) which:

       . . . allows reasonable payments associated with the 
     transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, 
     quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.

  That is the loophole I just read out of the book.
  But because there is no documentation, no disclosure, no government 
oversight, this section has become a gigantic loophole to allow this 
industry to engage in the illegal trafficking of body parts of fetal 
tissue without any prosecution.
  Mr. President, we need a big beam of light to shine into this 
industry, to get into the darkness and find out what is going on in 
this for-profit industry. We need some sunshine. We need it so badly. I 
am not looking to get into the medical records of individuals. That is 
not what I am about. But I believe if we are going to allow the use of 
fetal tissue from aborted fetuses --I mean aborted fetuses for 
research, which I believe we should not--if we are, we need at least a 
minimum of documentation to ensure this tissue is not being sold in 
violation of Federal criminal law.
  Is partial-birth abortion used for this? I don't know. Why not find 
out? Let's shine the light in. Let's talk about a few things that might 
make you think, however, that there is a link here. Your call. You 
listen. You make your own determination.
  Let us talk about dilation and evacuation, the so-called D&E, for a 
moment. This method, which is performed during months 4 to 6, 6 months, 
is particularly gruesome in that the doctor must tear out the baby 
parts with a pliers-like instrument. Literally disassembles it in the 
womb. It is horrible. No wonder they are angry when they get home and 
sick, sick before they start. Then the nurse gruesomely has to take all 
these body parts of this child who was torn apart in the womb and 
reassemble them in a pan to be sure they got it all. That is the first 
method.
  I will just ask you to think, as we go through this, if you are in 
the business of selling body parts, how is that going to work with your 
buyer, if all the body parts are torn apart? I think you would say, 
well, probably it isn't going to be much good. There might be some 
tissue, but if you need intact organs, disassembling the organs ought 
to lead you to believe, reasonably, I think, they are probably not very 
good. If you need a liver and it is all chopped up in this procedure, 
it is probably not going to do you much good. So the D&E method is not 
real good for selling body parts. But that is one type of abortion.
  The next is the saline abortion. This occurs after the first 
trimester. The abortionist injects a strong salt solution into the 
amniotic sac and, over a period of an hour, the baby is basically 
poisoned and burned to death in her mother's womb. That is the saline 
solution. So now I ask you again, if you are selling body parts, and 
the buyers want good body parts, good condition, that is not going to 
do a lot of good. That is not going to make your product very 
marketable. That is probably not a good method either.
  The next one is a little more grotesque, if you can imagine that. 
This is called the dig method, or digoxin method. It is called 
harpooning the whale inside the industry. You see, even in the industry 
they can't even be respectful to the child or even the woman in some 
cases, the mother. They use terms such as that, ``harpooning the 
whale.'' The abortionist inserts a needle containing digoxin into the 
abdomen of the woman. In order to make sure the doctor hits the baby 
and not the woman, which would be lethal for her as well, he must watch 
to see the needle begin moving wildly. And when it does move wildly, he 
knows he has harpooned the whale and can push his needle all the way 
through and kill the baby. This abortion procedure is probably the 
least desired method for the body parts people because the baby's 
organs are, in essence, liquefied by this horrible poison. They are 
basically worthless to the body parts market.
  Those are three types of abortions. They have nothing to do with 
partial-birth abortion. I use these examples of three types of 
abortions to show you they basically make the sale of body parts 
worthless for the most part. Some tissue I am sure they can use.
  So where are they getting these things? Ask yourself, what have we 
been talking about all day? How can we get a good specimen, a baby 
whose organs are intact, a good cadaver? You can do it two ways. You 
could have a live birth and kill it, or you could have a partial-birth 
abortion, kill it that way, and damage only the brain so the rest of 
the body is good for research.
  Now, is this happening? Shine the light in. There are going to be 
people who say that I have made this link. I will tell you right now, I 
haven't. I am asking you to shine the light into this industry. Bring 
in the sunshine. Let's look in the clinics. Let's find out what is 
going on. Are they being used? We will take a look in a few moments at 
some of the things going on here. I ask you whether or not you think 
they might be getting these parts from some other source of abortion 
other than partial-birth abortions. I don't know. I know one thing. It 
is a black market. It is illegal. It is unreported, and it is 
unregulated. If it is the last thing I do before I leave this body, I 
will change that. I am going to change that.
  The good news is abortion rates are down. That is good. But the 
problem is, because they are down and because the doctors aren't doing 
them, they have to make it up somewhere. The industry has to make up 
the money. They have to make it up. Where do they do that? By selling 
body parts. That is where they make it up. It is really the dark side 
of the industry.
  This is the testimony of a woman who calls herself Kelly, a 
fictitious name. Kelly was working and received a service fee from the 
Anatomic Gift Foundation, which is the wholesaler, the harvester, of 
these organs.
  Listen to what Kelly had to say. Kelly fears for her life. That is 
why Kelly is a fictitious name and why Kelly is not being identified.
  ``We were never employees of the abortion clinic,'' Kelly explains.

[[Page 26072]]

  That is when they would sit in the clinic, in this room, and the lady 
comes in pregnant.
  ``We would have a contract with the clinic . . . .''
  Listen very carefully to what I am saying. A woman comes in. I am 
sorry. I am confusing the stenographer. I will go through the quote 
first and then explain it.

       We were never employees of the abortion clinic. We would 
     have a contract with an abortion clinic that would allow us 
     to go in to procure fetal tissue for research. We would get a 
     generated list each day to tell us what tissue researchers, 
     pharmaceuticals and universities were looking for. Then we 
     would go and look at the particular patient charts. We had to 
     screen out anyone who had STDs or fetal anomalies. These had 
     to be the most perfect specimens we could give these 
     researchers for the best value that we could sell for. 
     Probably only 10 percent of fetuses were ruled out for 
     anomalies. The rest were healthy donors.

  To capsulate, a woman is in the abortion clinic, and basically they 
are eyeing up the source. It is like a hunter going out and seeing, I 
guess in this case, a trophy doe rather than a trophy buck, and saying, 
there is a good specimen there. I hope that baby is fairly normal so I 
can sell the body parts. And they looked at the patients' charts while 
this child was alive in the womb. This girl might change her mind on 
whether to have this abortion, and nobody is helping her change her 
mind or asking her if she would like to change her mind. Oh, no, we 
have a contract here. We have a patient chart here. We have somebody 
looking at her, looking at the trophy and then saying: Hey, this chart 
looks real good, this gal has what we want; she has a normal baby 
there. My goodness, a perfect specimen, the most perfect specimen we 
could find. So give the researchers the best value we could sell for. 
Her words. Probably only 10 percent of fetuses were ruled out for 
anomalies; the rest were healthy donors. So said Kelly.
  Let's look at a work order. This is a work order. Mailing address, 
shipping address, everything. OK. Tissue, fetal lung; one or both from 
the same donor, 12 to 16 weeks. Preservation: Fresh. Gestation: 12 to 
16. Shipping: Wet ice. Constraints: No known abnormalities. We don't 
want any babies who have any problems. Obtain tissue under sterile or 
clean conditions.
  Let me ask you a question, colleagues. In this filthy, dirty, 
disgusting business we are talking about, do you really think you can 
get a perfect lung, with no cuts and no abnormalities, by chopping up 
the child in the womb or putting all of this poison in the body, in the 
womb, in the embryonic sack? Or do you think it might be possible that 
the best way to get a normal lung is to bring a child through the birth 
canal in perfect condition, damaging only the brain, or perhaps even a 
live birth? Oh, you think that would not happen? Well, we will talk 
about that in a little while. Oh, yes, it happens.
  Look here: ``Normal fetal liver.'' A normal fetal liver is not one 
filled with poison. It is not a liver that has been chopped up. It is a 
normal fetal liver. There aren't too many ways you can get a normal 
fetal liver in an abortion clinic. ``Dissect fetal liver and thymus and 
occasional lymph node from fetal cadaver within 10 minutes of the time 
it is extracted, and ship within 12 hours.'' ``No abnormal donors.''
  There is a whole lot of money in this business, folks. With abortions 
down, they will charge a woman anywhere from $300 to $1,000 for an 
abortion and make several thousand dollars on the parts of her child. 
But she doesn't get any of that money, you can bet on that.
  Let's look at another work order. The National Institutes of Health 
gets the delivery here. If you are pro-life, you will be ``pleased'' to 
know they are getting some of this stuff. ``I would prefer tissues 
without identified anomalies; in particular, bone anomalies.''
  Let's look at another one. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I 
could give you hundreds of these work orders. I am picking a few of 
them.
  Now, this one is particularly disturbing--as if the others weren't. 
Here is the donor criterion on this. We are talking about whole eyes. 
Now, the donor criterion is that the child be ``brain dead.'' Think 
about that for a minute. Why would you put that on there? Are we to 
assume this child is going to be delivered to them live?
  I assume if a child has been aborted and it is being sold, or 
provided, or donated, or whatever it is, to some research center, we 
ought to assume it is dead. Well, they are not assuming it. They are 
not assuming it at all. They are directing it: Make sure it is ``brain 
dead.'' If anything else is moving, that is OK. Maybe the heart is 
beating, and that is OK. But make sure it is brain dead, noncadaver, 
and post 4 to 6 hours, any age. Again, no contagious diseases. ``Remove 
eye with as much nerve''--they go into that. Federal Express--send it 
out. That is against the law.
  So let's say a girl walks into a clinic and sits down to wait. I want 
to try to paint you a picture of what happens. A girl walks into a 
clinic and sits down to wait. A fax comes in, and the fax contains a 
list of what body parts are needed for that day. So here she comes. She 
still hasn't had the abortion. But they now have this list--the 
abortionist perhaps, but I don't know; I have not seen this. Perhaps he 
looks through the glass window, and maybe there is a one-way glass. He 
looks out into the waiting room and stares at her stomach and knows 
this is the very same child who is very much alive now, perhaps even 
moving and kicking; he knows that child will be dead in a few moments, 
and they already have the work order. They have already checked the 
charts, already know it is normal; they already know what they need. 
They are already planning it all.
  If that is not sick, if that doesn't bother you, then, man, there is 
something wrong with the people in this country--big-time wrong.
  After her abortion, in a matter of 10 minutes, if it is done then, 
that baby can be shipped on wet ice to researchers across the country, 
just like going into a supermarket and buying a piece of meat.
  There are four illegal and immoral things happening with this issue. 
First, as I said before, current law prohibits receiving any 
consideration, valuable consideration, from the tissue of aborted 
children for research purposes. This is happening. So that is wrong. 
Violation No. 1.
  Secondly, it has been reported that, in fact, live births are 
occurring at these clinics. Oh, that is a dirty little secret we don't 
want anybody to talk about. Let's not talk about that. It doesn't 
happen a lot, but in 100 abortions it could be as few as 5, 6, maybe 7, 
maybe 10 times--live births. Oh, boy, that is a real problem. What 
better way to get a good sample than a live birth?
  It is the law of every State to make every medical effort to save the 
life of that child. I am going to show you proof that that isn't done. 
It is not happening in every case.
  Thirdly, our tax dollars are being used to fund Planned Parenthood on 
the one end to kill the children, and NIH on the other end to do 
research on them. If you are pro-life, as I am, you won't like it; I 
don't like it. I am going to do something about it if it is humanly 
possible.
  In 1996, Planned Parenthood received $158 million in taxpayer 
dollars. Who knows how much in addition is being funneled through the 
valuable consideration loophole from NIH research labs. The taxpayers 
and Congress deserve an answer. The chart shows Federal funds 
supporting Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates, 
in fiscal year 1994, $120 million; in 1995, $120 million; in 1996, $123 
million. Add it all together. It is $158 million.
  The fetal body parts industry is a big business, ladies and 
gentlemen, and it is not being honest. Mothers are not being given 
their consent forms sometimes. Sometimes they are. And the wholesalers 
are not forthright about how they ship the babies, among other things. 
These people are in the business of selling dead humans, so I guess 
maybe we should not expect too much in terms of ethics.
  There are two statutes that govern fetal tissue research, and both 
statutes were passed as part of S. 1 in 1993, the National Institutes 
of Health and Revitalization Act of 1993. I was one of four Senators 
who voted no, as usual, because I don't believe Government

[[Page 26073]]

should be doing any research on induced abortions, aborted fetuses. Up 
until 1992, we had a President, George Bush, who agreed. But Bill 
Clinton changed all of that. But even President Clinton, who signed the 
fetal tissue research Executive order as one of the first acts of his 
Presidency, was unwilling to accept the sale of fetal tissues.
  Prior to 1993, there was a moratorium prohibiting Federal funding of 
fetal tissue research. That was overturned by President Clinton by 
Executive order on January 22, 1993. And Senator Kennedy introduced S. 
1 to codify Clinton's Executive order. Part of that was because this 
``statute permits the National Research Institutes to conduct support 
research on the transplantation of human fetal tissue for therapeutic 
purposes.'' The source of the tissue may be from an abortion where the 
informed consent of the donor is granted. This statute allows for 
Federal money to be used in fetal tissue research. And you will see 
that NIH is involved in this.
  The second statute made it unlawful to transfer any human fetal 
tissue for valuable consideration. I talked about this statute. In 
other words, it is illegal to give monetary value to the various body 
parts being sold. And it is illegal to profit from the sale. The guilty 
receive fines and imprisonment for not more than 10 years. As long as 
the tissue is donated, it is OK. But large amounts of cash are changing 
hands.
  Again, abortion clinics and the wholesalers are making a killing--
that is a sick pun, a killing--literally with the abortion and with the 
sale of human baby parts.
  Listen to what one of the leaders of fetal body parts marketing said 
in an interview with a pro-life publication: ``Nearly 75 percent of the 
women who chose abortion agree to donate the fetal tissue.''
  Granted, this organization claims to only operate out of two abortion 
clinics. But if you apply their statistic nationwide, for theoretical 
purposes, you are talking about a lot of aborted babies being sold for 
cold, hard cash.
  In addition, the consulting firm of Frost & Sullivan recently 
reported that the worldwide market for sale in tissue cultures brought 
in nearly $428 million in 1996, and they predict that market will 
continue to expand and will grow at an annual rate of 13.5 percent a 
year, and by 2002 will be worth nearly $1 billion. That is a whole lot 
of money at the expense of these unfortunate women.
  In a taped conversation with the wholesaler, she says they do not buy 
the tissue. That is the way it works. That is really what happens.
  In a taped conversation with another marketer of fetal body parts, 
they admit to try to get abortion clinics to alter procedures to get 
better tissue, which is a violation of Federal law. This person then 
offers discounts for being a ``high volume'' user, and that the buyer 
can save money by purchasing their cost-effective, lower-range product.
  Let's look now at a chart offered by Opening Lines, and you tell me 
if this isn't a business transaction for profit. Bear in mind the sale 
of body parts is illegal. You are not supposed to receive any 
consideration. Well, then maybe you could tell me why--this is one of 
those wholesalers, Opening Lines. Maybe you could tell me why they have 
a price list. Has anybody ever done any marketing before?
  Look. You can get a kidney for $125. You can get a spinal cord for 
$325. Then down at the bottom, it says prices in effect through 
December 31, 1999. That is a price list, ladies and gentlemen. I 
suppose there will be somebody who will come down here and say, ``Well, 
Senator, that is not a price list. That is fee-for-service.''
  That is what it says at the top.
  What is the service? You say: Well, you know it is expensive. You 
have to take the brain out, or you have to take the spinal cord out. 
OK. We take the spinal cord out. I am not a doctor. I am not going to 
pretend to be. I am not going to make any reference to how difficult 
that might be.
  But let's assume to remove a spinal cord from a child is a difficult 
operation. They are charging $325 for the spinal cord. I would think it 
would be safe to assume--I am not a doctor, but if you want to send an 
intact cadaver, that doesn't involve any research at all. Does it? They 
don't have to cut anything. We will just ship that along. But it cost 
$600. It doesn't have anything to do with what the service is in terms 
of finding the spinal cord and getting it out. It has nothing to do 
with it at all.
  I will tell you why this is $600--the cadaver. Because when they get 
the cadaver; they can get the spinal cord; they can get the eyes; they 
can get the nose; they can get the ears; they can get the liver; they 
can get the thyroid, whatever they want. That is why it is $600. That 
is why the price list is there. You can even get a discount if you buy 
enough.
  This is a dirty business. It is bad. It stinks.
  The brochure boasts that it offers researchers ``the highest quality, 
most affordable and freshest tissue prepared to your specifications and 
delivered in the quantities you need when you need it.''
  Here is the copy of the brochure. I didn't make it up. This is their 
brochure, Opening Lines. This is what they said.
  Think about it. ``We are professionally staffed and directed,'' it 
says. ``We have over 10 years of experience in harvesting tissue and 
preservation. Our full-time medical director is active in all phases of 
our operation. We are very pleased to provide you with our services. 
Our goal is to offer you and your staff the highest quality, most 
affordable, and freshest tissue prepared to your specifications.''
  Please tell me how you can do that if it is simply a matter of taking 
an aborted child and sending it off to a research laboratory somewhere.
  My colleagues and American people, I don't know what is going to 
happen to this country. But I just want to recap for you what has 
happened here.
  A woman comes into a clinic, an abortion clinic. She is pregnant. She 
is in trouble. She needs help. They already have somebody who has read 
her charts. They know her baby is normal. They know it has no abnormal 
functions. They know they need to get that baby out of there quickly. 
They know they can't do damage to the cadaver. They cannot do damage to 
the fetus. They can't poison it. They can't cut it because, to their 
specifications, they need perfect eyes, or they need perfect skin, or 
good lungs, even the gonads, the ultimate. The poor little child just 
has no privacy here. Limbs, brains, spinal, spleen, liver, all of it, 
price list, all the way down--they have it all figured out.
  And they have the gall to stand out here and tell you these clinics 
care for the women. They care for the profit. They cannot make it 
because abortions are going down. They can't charge these women any 
more because they are too poor to pay. So they take it from their 
bodies, from the children. It is a filthy, disgusting, dirty business, 
and it needs to be exposed and eliminated.
  How much more should we tolerate in this country? How much more 
degradation must these children absorb and endure?
  Look at that list. Look at it and tell me that is fee-for-service--to 
your specifications, your specifications. You give us the order, and we 
will make sure you get perfect eyes that weren't hurt by any 
abortionist's knife, or they weren't poisoned by digoxin, or saline. 
Oh, we will make sure. We will get you a live birth, if we have to, or 
a partial birth, if we have to. We will get it for you because there is 
a lot of money in it. That is why we will get it.
  This is a filthy, disgusting, dirty business.
  People say: Oh, you are antiresearch. I am not antiresearch. If a 
woman has a miscarriage and wishes to donate that miscarried child to 
research, she has every right to do that. I am proresearch.
  The Department of Health and Human Services under President Bush 
determined there was plenty of tissue available through spontaneous 
abortions and ectopic pregnancies to satisfy research needs--plenty. 
But oh, no, we have to get into this. We have to make

[[Page 26074]]

up for the loss of revenue because, thank God, abortions are starting 
to go down in this country. We have to make it up. Doctors don't want 
to do them anymore. It is a dirty business, they say. I'm sick when I 
go home. We are going down a slippery slope, my fellow Americans.
  I used to teach history. I used to tell my kids in those classes: If 
you forget everything else I said, I want you to remember you have a 
responsibility to pass on America to your children, hopefully in better 
shape than we gave her to you. If you do that, America will always be 
here; if you fail, we could lose it.
  What message are we giving to our children when we tolerate this--an 
order form before the woman even has the abortion.
  Henry Hyde said: I deplore any medical procedure that treats human 
beings as chattel, personal property, as a subject fit for harvesting. 
The humanity of every fetus should be respected and treated with 
dignity and not like some laboratory animal.
  Is that dignity? Is that respect?
  Let me tell a story about a girl name Christy. This is not a pleasant 
story. These are the abortion clinics, there to protect the mother and 
make her healthy again. She went in to have her safe, healthy, legal 
abortion. Something went wrong. On July 1, 1993, Christy--fictitious 
name--underwent an abortion by John Roe, abortionist. After the 
procedure, Roe looked up to find Christy pale with bluish lips and no 
pulse or respiration. Christy's heart had stopped and there were no 
records that her vital signs were monitored during the procedure. 
Additionally, Roe was not trained in anesthesia and the clinic had no 
anesthesia emergency equipment or staff trained to handle a 
complication. Paramedics were able to restore Christy's pulse and 
respiration, but she was left blind and in a permanent vegetative 
state. Today, she requires 24-hour-a-day care and is fed through a tube 
in her abdomen. She is not expected to recover and is being cared for 
by her family. Christy had a legal abortion on her 18th birthday.
  They took good care of her, didn't they? I have in my hand a consent 
form that Christy signed. Do you know what they tell you in the 
industry? Ask them; don't believe me. Ask them. They say: We know the 
woman is in a terrible emotional condition when she comes in, so we 
don't always ask her to sign these forms. We wait until after the 
procedure.
  Is that so? Well, you have to do it within 10 minutes if you want to 
get some of these buyers for organs because they say they need them in 
10 or 15 minutes from the time they exit the birth canal; otherwise, 
they are no good in some cases. They have to do it quickly. So the poor 
girl is just coming out of the anesthetic. I know she is not coming out 
in 10 minutes. ``Here, Christy, want to sign this? We want to send your 
6-month old boy to be chopped up for medical research. Would you sign 
this?''
  They say we don't bother the women before. OK, can a woman who is in 
a 24-hour-a-day coma sign a consent form? Can she? Here is the form. It 
is signed and she didn't sign it after the procedure. She signed it 
before the procedure and she signed it because they needed the body 
parts of her fetus and they wanted to make doggone sure they got them. 
They didn't want anything to get in the way of that. They didn't want 
anything to interrupt that little profit they had coming, so they just 
said we will get this signed by Christy.
  Maybe they should have taken a little time to counsel her. ``Would 
you like to have some other discussion perhaps about adoption?"
  We gave her that. OK, fine.
  How about the anesthesiologist. Did someone know what in the hell 
they were doing when they put this poor woman under?
  Oh, no, we have to get this, because this is money.
  Here is what Christy signed:

       I grant permission to one of these agencies and each of its 
     authorized agents and representatives to distribute and 
     dispense tissue from the surgery. I release all my property 
     and financial interests therein and any product or process 
     which may result therefrom. I read and I understand this 
     document and I have been given the opportunity to ask 
     questions. I am aware I may refuse to participate. I 
     understand I will receive no compensation for consenting to 
     this study.

  As I said, if anybody thinks she signed it after the surgery, I will 
sell you some ocean-front property in Colorado. They say they don't 
bother them beforehand because they are too distraught, they are too 
emotional, or they don't want to bring all this up.
  That is Christy.
  I saw a bumper sticker once that said:

       Abortion: One dead; one wounded.

  Can't sum it up any better than that. One dead and one wounded. And 
the people who were in charge of the health and safety of the mother in 
these cases are more interested in the dead than the wounded because 
they are going to make a big profit.
  Let's talk about the dirtiest most disgusting secret of all. This is 
not pleasant. I had somebody from the National Right to Life tell me 
today, believe it or not--I won't mention names-- that we don't have 
any evidence of any link here. Fine. I am not asking anyone to tell me 
whether they think this is evidence or not. I am asking everyone to 
make their own decisions. I am not making any links. I am giving facts. 
Make your own links.
  There is a little complication called ``live birth.'' Uh-oh. Live 
birth. It happens. When it does, what happens?
  I was at an award dinner several years ago when a young woman who is 
known by many in the right-to-life movement by the name of Gianna 
Jessen, who then was about 21, so she is probably 25, 26, maybe a 
little older now. She had been aborted. She was a beautiful girl. She 
was aborted. There were 1,000 people at this event. She stood up and 
sang ``Amazing Grace.'' There wasn't a dry eye in the place, including 
mine. When it was all over she said: I want all of you to know 
something. My mother made a terrible mistake because I wanted to live. 
If I had had my choice, if I could have said, spare me, I would have 
said that. I didn't, but I survived, and I am meaningful. I just sang 
to you. And she said: I love my mother and I forgive her.
  There is a lot more power in that than these people that run these 
clinics that do this.
  Why can't we bring this debate to that level? There is no way to know 
how many live births actually occur. It happens in partial-birth 
abortions because they are alive until they are executed as they come 
through the birth canal. Feet first, they are executed; headfirst, they 
are born. Any difference? Maybe somebody can explain it.
  Many of you may have heard of a gentleman by the name of Eric Harrah. 
About 10 years ago he left the abortion business. One night Eric and 
his staff were called to the clinic-- remember, he was an abortionist 
then--because a pregnant girl had given birth in a motel room. The baby 
was wrapped in a towel. She had been given medication to begin the 
process of dilation. So it was wrapped in a towel and they thought it 
was dead, so she came from the motel room carrying this little child in 
the towel.
  Eric, the abortionist, saw the baby's arm fly up and he screamed, 
``My God, that baby is alive.''
  The doctors sent Rick and the nurse out of the room. When he came 
back in the baby was dead. A live birth? You might ask yourself, did 
they take any means to save the child? Or did they kill the child? Who 
knows? In either case, they let it die.
  I have been in this business of doing research on this issue since 
1984. I have been involved in the pro-life movement. I have read, I 
don't know how many thousands of pages. What I am going to read to you 
now is the worst I have ever come across in everything and anything 
that I have read. I have never seen anything to equal it. I do not 
understand how we can tolerate this in this country, but it shows you 
how sick we really are. We are sick. Oh, we are sick, collectively, 
believe me. This is a story from Kelly. A short paragraph, what she 
said. It is very difficult for me even to read it, but you need to hear 
it.
  The doctor walked into the lab. This is in an abortion clinic. Kelly 
is the

[[Page 26075]]

wholesaler for the fetal tissue. She is the person who has to take this 
fetus and do what has to be done to it to get it to the supplier.

       The doctor walked into the lab and set a steel pan on the 
     table. ``Got you some good specimens,'' he said. ``Twins.'' 
     The technician looked down at a pair of perfectly formed 24-
     week-old fetuses, moving and gasping for air. Except for a 
     few nicks from the surgical tongs that had pulled them out, 
     they seemed uninjured.

  This is pretty difficult. I have witnessed the birth of my three 
children, so forgive me if I have a little trouble.

       The wholesaler, Kelly, said, ``There is something wrong 
     here. They are moving. I don't do this. That's not in my 
     contract.''
       She watched the doctor take a bottle of sterile water and 
     fill the pan until the water ran up over the babies' mouths 
     and noses. Then she left the room. ``I couldn't watch those 
     fetuses moving. That's when I decided it was wrong.''

  So the abortionist, twin live births, 6 months--the little girl I 
spoke to you about earlier who wrote to me was born prematurely at 5 
months. Two little twins drowned in a pan so their body parts could be 
sold because they had an order for the body parts. America.
  Many of you may have heard about Jill Stanek, the nurse at Chicago's 
Christ Hospital who has openly admitted that live births occur at her 
hospital. We are going to have some testimony from Jill. She will be up 
here on the Hill very soon so you do not have to believe me; you can 
listen to her. The hospital staff, when it happens, offer comfort care, 
which amounts to holding the child until it dies. If they are lucky, 
they get a little love on the way out. Perhaps it is better than being 
drowned in a dish.
  Jill Stanek says:

       What do you call an abortion procedure in which the fetus 
     is born alive, then is left to die without medical care? 
     Infanticide? Murder?
       Most people would recoil at just the thought of such a 
     gruesome, uncaring procedure, but it is practiced at least 
     one Chicago suburban hospital. When I called Christ Hospital, 
     the Medical Center at Oak Lawn, I frankly expected a denial 
     that it uses the procedure, but instead the spokeswoman 
     explained it is used for ``a variety of second-trimester'' 
     abortions when the fetus has not yet reached viability. 
     That's up to 23 weeks of life, when a fetus is considered not 
     yet developed enough to survive on its own.
       Instead of medical care, the child is provided ``comfort 
     care,'' wrapped in a blanket and held when possible.

  This is very interesting.

       The procedure is chosen by parents and doctors instead of 
     another method in which the fetus is terminated within the 
     womb by, for example, injection with a chemical that stops 
     the heart.

  She says further: One day there was a newborn who survived the 
abortion with no one around to hold it. It was left to die in a soiled-
linen closet.
  The hospital denies it. She says it happened. Interesting, the 
hospital says abortions are elective, but they are done only to protect 
the life or health of the mother or when the fetus is nonviable due to 
extreme prematurity or lethal abnormalities.
  The nurse, Jill Stanek, said she has seen some elective abortions 
done on newborns whose physical or mental defects are deemed 
incompatible only with the ``quality of life.''
  That is pretty heavy stuff. This is going on in America. People come 
down here on this floor, year after year, and defend it. That is what 
they are doing, defending it: A woman's right to choose. The bassinet 
or the hospital sterile bucket, which is it? Right--right to choose. 
Put the child in the bassinet or throw it in the garbage or send it off 
to some research lab.
  Here is a headline, a transcript from the WTVN-TV in Columbus, OH, 20 
April, 1999:

       Partial-Birth Abortion Baby Survives 3 Hours.
       A woman 5 months pregnant came to Women's Medical Center in 
     Dayton, Ohio, to get a partial-birth abortion. During the 3 
     days it takes to have the procedure she began to have stomach 
     pains and was rushed to a nearby hospital. Within minutes she 
     was giving birth.
       Nurse Shelly Lowe in an emergency room at the hospital was 
     shocked when the baby took a gasp of air. [Lowe] ``I just 
     held her and it really got to me that anybody could do that 
     to a baby. . .I rocked her and talked to her because I felt 
     that no one should die alone.'' The little girl survived 3 
     hours.
       Mark Lally, Director of Ohio Right to Life, believes this 
     is why partial birth abortions should be banned. [Lally] 
     ``This shows what we've have been trying to make clear to 
     people. Abortion isn't something that happens just early in 
     pregnancy, it happens in all stages of pregnancy. It's legal 
     in this state any time.''

  Like it is in any State.
  Warren Hern is the author of the most widely used textbook on 
abortion procedures. Dr. Hern says, in this article:

       A number of practitioners attempt to ensure live fetuses 
     after late abortions so that genetic tests can be conducted 
     on them.

  There is a link. They say there is no link? There is one.

       It is his position that practitioners do this without 
     offering a woman the option of fetal demise before abortion 
     in a morally unacceptable manner since they place research 
     before the good of their patients.

  (Mr. SANTORUM assumed the Chair.)
  Here is an admission from the industry itself that when they want 
to--I am not saying all do it, I am saying some do it--when they want 
to, practitioners can do this. They can ensure a live birth to fall 
within that 10-minute window, to get that child chopped up quickly and 
on ice so those limbs are better for the researcher and worth more 
money. You don't want any abnormalities, don't want any problems.
  There was an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer a few years ago 
called ``Abortion Dreaded Complication.'' The patient had been admitted 
for an abortion, but instead of a stillborn fetus, a live 2\1/2\-pound 
baby boy appeared. A dismayed nurse took a squirming infant to the 
closet where dirty linens are stored. When the head nurse telephoned 
the patient's physician at home, he said: ``Leave it where it is. He 
will die in a few minutes.''
  I used a term in a speech over the weekend referring to doctors such 
as that. I said they took a hypocritic oath. Someone corrected me and 
said: ``Don't you mean Hippocratic oath?''
  I said: ``No, hypocritic; they are total hypocrites because they are 
not protecting the lives of unborn children. They should not even be 
taking the oath.''
  In this article, there are some very interesting headlines in this 
dreaded complication. Listen to what some of the people in the industry 
say:

       Reporting abortion livebirths is like turning yourself into 
     the IRS for an audit. What is there to gain?

  Another article says:

       How things sometimes go wrong.

  Another one:

       You have to have a fetus--

  Whatever; I can't pronounce the word--

     dose of saline solution. It is almost a breach of contract 
     not to. Otherwise, what are you going to do, hand her back a 
     baby, having done it questionable damage?

  What a bunch of insensitive, uncaring individuals.
  Then they say:

       If a baby has rejected an abortion and lives, then it is a 
     person under the Constitution. . . .

  I think it is a person under the Constitution before it is born, not 
under Roe v. Wade but under the Constitution. Roe v. Wade did not let 
the Constitution get in its way when it made that terrible decision.
  Then another guy says:

       I find [late-term abortions] pretty heavy weather, both for 
     myself and for my patients.
       I stood by and watched that baby die.

  They are real caring people, aren't they? They are compassionate, 
caring people. I think I have made my point on that.
  You will notice from these charts I have been putting up that many of 
the highlights suggest the baby be put on ice within 10 minutes of 
exiting the womb. I mentioned that earlier.
  Stop and think about this. If you do any of the other types of 
abortions--saline, digoxin, and these other procedures, D&E--what are 
you going to get? You are going to get something that is going to be an 
abnormality. No abnormal donors. Within 10 minutes, we want it on ice.
  The point I am trying to make is, there are only two ways you can get 
a baby, a fetus, on ice that quickly. One

[[Page 26076]]

is a live birth; you instantly kill it. Another is partial-birth. If 
there is another method, I am open-minded. I would like to hear about 
it. Maybe somebody has it.
  Let me read a letter I received today. This letter is pretty 
devastating. I want you to think about this 10 minutes on these charts. 
Within 10 minutes, we need to be able to ship it to give you no 
abnormal donors, to make sure the fetus is in good shape:
  This is from Raymond Bandy, Jr., M.D., Dallas, TX:

       Dear Senator Smith: As a physician and pastor in the 
     Dallas, Texas suburb of Lewisville, I was shocked and 
     outraged several months ago when my friend Mark Crutcher 
     invited me to the offices of Life Dynamics to review for him 
     from a medical perspective of several requisitions for fetal 
     tissue and body parts.
       There were 2 areas particularly disturbing: No. 1, It was 
     almost unfathomable to be reading requests for arms, legs, 
     brains, etc., from aborted babies. Leading institutions in 
     our country with research scientists requesting in mail-order 
     catalog format, body parts from babies killed in abortion 
     clinics.

  Leading institutions were requesting these parts.

       No. 2, My attention was drawn to the fashion in which the 
     requests were made. Over and over again the requests would 
     mention that the tissue must be ``fresh''--

  It says ship on wet ice. Another one says fresh, remove specimen and 
prepare within 15 minutes.
  This is the process, a doctor talking now:

       (a) The baby must in some fashion be killed in its mother's 
     womb. (b) The baby must then be extracted from the womb. (c) 
     It must then be delivered in some fashion to a technician who 
     would then proceed to amputate limbs; extract eyes, brains, 
     hearts, and then process them; (d) all within 10 minutes. I 
     am not an abortionist, nor have I performed an abortion, but 
     to require these procedures to be accomplished in 10 minutes, 
     means of necessity that the baby be extracted as close to 
     life as possible, and would lead to in many cases babies . . 
     . being born living, in order to be able to have them on ice, 
     or otherwise processed within this short period of time.
       As a community physician, I find this barbaric, cruel, 
     evil, and intolerable to the greatest degree. This is a 
     return to the medical practices of the [Nazis] of 1940s. . . 
     .
       Can anyone with even the most remote conscience, or moral 
     decency, tolerate this practice?

  He closes with that.
  Here is a doctor. He is telling us and he is reinforcing everything I 
have said. Fresh, wet ice, no known abnormalities; get it on the ice. 
How do you get a fetus that is not chopped up, that is not poisoned? 
There are only two places. I talked to you about both of them: Live 
births, partial births.
  The dirty little secret is that Planned Parenthood takes Federal 
taxpayers' dollars. American workers, especially pro-life workers, all 
of us--but those especially who are pro-life, I am sure, would be 
opposed to it--are having money taken out of their paychecks to pay for 
the marketing of babies' body parts. I talked about the $158 million 
grant from the Federal Government for Planned Parenthood, NIH, $17.6 
billion in this year's labor bill--not all for that but just in the 
bill.
  I am not against the funding of the National Institutes of Health, 
but I think when research is being conducted by the Government, where 
taxpayer dollars are involved, there is a much higher ethical standard 
to meet.
  In addition, universities receive Federal funding, lots of it. In 
fact, there are some universities that receive Federal funding 
specifically for fetal tissue research.
  I want to point out one chart that I did not highlight before because 
this really drives the point home in terms of whether or not there is 
any particular reason to believe that in the industry they are looking 
for live births or partial births.
  Look what it says on this memo: ``Please send list of current frozen 
tissues.'' And they go down the list: Liver and blood and kidney and 
lung, and all this down here. And then what does it say? No digoxin 
donors. ``No DIG.'' That is the term for digoxin donors.
  I want you to understand this and think about this: This is an order 
form. They are saying here: We don't want any digoxin babies.
  Well, why don't they want them? Because they cannot sell them. The 
parts are no good. It is in their own writing. They are incriminating 
themselves. They are violating the law, and they ought to be 
prosecuted.
  Shine in the light. Bring in the sunshine. Live births are a big 
problem, but DIG is not good for research. Abortion clinics and 
harvesters are also deliberately hiding the fact that they are shipping 
these parts all over the United States. They even use vague language to 
trick and deceive shippers such as Federal Express who will not do it, 
to their credit. But they are not told. They are hidden. One marketer 
says: ``We've learned through the years of doing this'' how to avoid 
problems with shippers like Federal Express.
  But they have. If you are violating the law, you do everything you 
can.
  As I have gone through this now for I don't know how long here on the 
floor, you probably say to yourself: Could it get any worse? Can it be 
any more humiliating?
  We have covered pretty well what is happening to the child. 
Recapping: A woman, pregnant--abortions are down, the industry is 
losing money, and they can only charge so much. So they find a buyer of 
the body parts of the fetus. There it is: ``Fee For Services.'' As I 
said before, $600 for a cadaver, $125 for this, $75 for that. The lower 
numbers are probably so common that they are not worth much. So they 
sell the body parts. Then they do unimaginable things to the emotional 
life of this unfortunate woman who is in so much need of help and 
counseling.
  But there is another dirty little secret, which isn't very well 
talked about; that is, untold numbers of women in some clinics are 
being sexually assaulted, harassed, physically harmed, and sometimes 
killed, as I said before, in these ``safe'' and ``legal'' clinics.
  I will give you two examples.

       Two months later, [fictitious Dr.] Roe was performing a 
     first-trimester abortion on 23-year-old ``Lucy'' when she 
     began to hemorrhage from a perforation he had made. Still 
     operating without a back-up supply of blood, Roe gave her a 
     transfusion of his own blood. . .

  The only problem was, it was not her blood type. He did not bother to 
check that out.
       Lucy then went into cardiac arrest. . . . In Texas, private 
     ambulances are limited to transfers of stable patients and 
     are prohibited from responding to emergency calls. Therefore, 
     they do not respond with any sense of urgency. When the 
     ambulance crew finally arrived and discovered the case was a 
     life-and-death emergency, they transported Lucy immediately 
     rather than call for a fire department ambulance. 
     Unfortunately, Lucy was not as lucky as Claudia [another 
     girl] and she bled to death--

  She bled to death--

     on November 4, 1977.

  That was a long time ago, so I will probably be criticized for 
bringing something up that long ago.

       On June 2, 1989, ``Margaret'' went to [an abortion clinic] 
     to have an abortion performed. . . . After she was dismissed, 
     she started experiencing pain and bleeding, and called the 
     facility about her symptoms. They did not advise her to seek 
     medical care. Two days later, she sought medical treatment on 
     her own and was told that she had a perforated uterus and 
     retained fetal tissue. A D&C was performed to complete the 
     abortion and, due to infection, a hysterectomy was also 
     necessary. Unfortunately, despite all efforts to save her 
     life, Margaret died of the complications of her abortion, 
     leaving behind her husband and one-year-old son.

  Taking good care of mom, aren't they? They really are.
  And more recently in 1997, in San Diego:

       An abortion doctor is being charged with murder by the 
     district attorney of Riverside County, east of Los Angeles.
       Dr. Bruce Steir faces a February hearing on a murder charge 
     stemming from the December 1996 death of Sharon Hamptlon, 27, 
     following an abortion at A Lady's Choice Clinic in Moreno 
     Valley, near Riverside.
       Miss Hamptlon died from internal bleeding as the result of 
     a perforated uterus. The pathologist in the case found 
     ``gross negligence'' and recommended that the death be 
     considered a homicide.

  You see, it is getting more serious because the better trained 
doctors in all types of abortions are not doing them anymore. So they 
want to go where the money is: Body parts. I am not going to go into 
the gory details and some of the sick things that have

[[Page 26077]]

been done by some in terms of the humiliation of patients, in terms of 
sexual abuse, and so forth.
  Tomorrow, at some point, I intend to offer an amendment that shines 
the light into the industry. I intend to push for a full investigation 
into this industry. I intend to find out whether live births are, in 
fact, used for the sale of body parts. I intend to find out whether in 
fact partial-birth abortions are used for the sale of body parts. I 
intend to find out whether laws are being violated in this country and, 
if so, who is violating them.
  This amendment will provide for the light to shine into these clinics 
so we can get these answers. We deserve these answers. If you are pro-
woman, and you are pro-child, you ought to be for my amendment. If you 
do not like the fact that women die horrible deaths, that children are 
being chopped up and sold illegally, I don't care which side of the 
debate you are on, if you wonder whether or not and you are not sure 
whether or not partial-birth abortions are used for the sale of body 
parts in some cases, if you want to know whether they are, then let's 
find out. Let's look into it. Let's see if we can get the answers. And 
that is what my amendment does.
  This has been a long, difficult speech for me to make. But I want my 
colleagues to know that just about everything in America is regulated--
unfortunately, in some cases. There is no reason why this industry 
should not be regulated. Let's find out what is going on. Let's shine 
the light in. Let's bring the sunshine in. And let's get answers. And 
let's find out about the sale of body parts. Let's find out what the 
source of those body parts are. Let's shine the light in on the 
industry.
  Tomorrow, I will have an amendment on that subject. I truly hope all 
Americans will be supportive--pro-life, pro-abortion. If you want to 
see to it that women are not abused, if you want to see to it that 
women are treated with respect and dignity, if you want to see to it 
that if an abortion occurs and there is a live birth, that that child 
should get help, should be allowed to live, if you want all that, and 
you care, then you should support this amendment because all it does is 
shine the light in. It is a disclosure amendment. That is all it is. It 
requires disclosure to shippers for any package containing human fetal 
tissue. It also contains language to limit the payment of a site fee 
from the transferee entity to the abortionist to be reasonable in terms 
of reimbursement for the actual real estate or facilities used by such 
an entity.
  We are going to find out whether these people are in the business of 
selling body parts or abortions or both. What is the percentage? How 
much are they making on each? Shine in the light.
  I have been on the floor year after year and in the House before 
that, for 15 to 16 years, trying to end this horrible industry, this 
disgusting exploitation of children and women, to no avail. If we just 
had a President who would pick up his pen and say, ``I don't want to 
see another few thousand people die in the next 5 years; I am willing 
to sign the ban on one type of abortion,'' we could get a good start. 
But he won't do it. We are going to lose again.
  So let's win with this amendment. Let's try to get an amendment 
passed that will shine the light in so we can find out what goes on in 
the industry.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________