[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22070-22077]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2003--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate the message 
from the House accompanying S. 3, as under the previous agreement.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A message from the House to accompany S. 3, a bill to 
     prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth 
     abortion.

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, we have before the Senate right now what 
is usually a procedural motion. When the House passes a bill and the 
Senate passes a bill and they are different, we procedurally just move 
to disagree with the House and their provision and go to conference, 
just as we did prior to the calling up of this bill, S. 3.
  The Presiding Officer, who is sitting here for the Vice President, 
said we were appointing conferees.
  The Senator from California has sought to have a debate about whether 
we are going to disagree with the House and therefore go to conference. 
I don't understand quite why this is necessary since it is purely a 
procedural motion. I have been in the Senate not that many years. I 
have been here about 9 years and have never had a debate on a motion to 
disagree with the

[[Page 22071]]

House and to have this kind of time spent when everybody agrees that is 
what we need to do.
  I will support the motion to disagree with the House so we can go to 
conference and come up with a bill on partial-birth abortion that will 
be in a conference report that will then come to the Senate that will 
not be amendable.
  If we did not disagree with the House, and the bill came here to the 
floor, we would have the House bill here. It would be subject to 
amendments. We would go on again for a long time and have debates and 
discussions on other amendments. We would have to send it back to the 
House, and we would be going through this game again.
  So this is just a way to bring finality to this process of trying to 
get a bill which has now been hanging out here in the Senate. We passed 
this several months go. The House did also. We have sort of been on 
hold here because of this procedural motion.
  Now that we have agreed to allow 8 hours of debate--2 of which were 
last night--we will debate a couple hours tonight, and tomorrow morning 
we will have run a couple more hours, and then, hopefully, finish it 
sometime, maybe tomorrow evening. But the idea is to get this bill to 
conference where I am confident we will get a bill that will be to the 
liking of the vast majority of the Senate as well as the House and the 
President.
  With that, we will have this bill signed and for the first time have 
a Federal piece of legislation to ban a procedure which the late 
Senator from New York, standing at that desk right over there, referred 
to as ``infanticide.''
  It is a gruesome procedure which is very difficult to talk about 
because it is so gruesome and graphic, this description of what this 
procedure is all about.
  It is used almost always on babies who would otherwise be born alive, 
who are post 20, 21 weeks in gestation, which is halfway through a 
pregnancy, or later.
  These babies are, as I said before, in most cases, healthy. The 
mothers are healthy. This procedure is used because late in pregnancy a 
mother decides, for some reason, that she no longer wants the child 
within her--which is a tragic situation to have a child that is 
unwanted. I think we all recognize the tragedy of that.
  But I think what most Members of the Senate have said is that this 
procedure--not that she shouldn't have the right to do it. Roe v. Wade, 
as interpreted by many subsequent Supreme Court cases, gives a woman 
the absolute right to an abortion at any time during pregnancy.
  Now, for those of you who have not listened to debates on abortion 
before in the Senate or who have not read the case law with respect to 
abortion, that may come as a surprise to you, that Roe v. Wade, and its 
subsequent line of cases, has developed to the point where there is no 
restriction--no restriction--on the right to an abortion up until the 
moment the baby separates from the mother completely. Up until that 
time, the Supreme Court now has decided that a woman has a right to 
kill the child within her. Or even, as in the case of partial-birth 
abortion, the Supreme Court ruled that the woman has a right to kill 
the child who is but an inch, 2, or 3 inches completely from being 
separated from the mother in the process of being delivered. That is 
how extreme the Roe v. Wade decision is.
  Now, I would say that for most Americans who are listening, that is 
further than they had thought Roe v. Wade had taken this country, and 
that it is not where the vast majority of Americans are. That is why 70 
percent of the people in this country oppose partial-birth abortion and 
would like to see it banned. That is why the vast majority of people in 
this country are for some limitation on abortion.
  Depending on the poll you see, anywhere from 15 to 23 percent of the 
American public want abortions available at any time during pregnancy. 
Most Americans--the overwhelming majority of Americans--want some 
restrictions.
  Now, in the Senate we did something I would argue was unfortunate. A 
couple months ago we adopted an amendment offered by the Senator from 
Iowa which was truly an extreme amendment.
  We hear so much talk about people who are pro-life, who are against 
abortion, as being extremists. The definition of ``extreme'' is someone 
who is outside the norm. Well, when you have 15, 16, 17 percent holding 
this position, and 85 percent holding the other position, it is very 
difficult for the 16 percent to say the 85 percent is extreme.
  But that is what we hear on the floor of the Senate, that those who 
believe in the absolute right given under Roe v. Wade--the absolute 
right--to have an abortion at any point in time in a pregnancy, for any 
reason--because you don't like the color of your child's eyes or 
because your child may have a cleft palate or because something 
happened in your personal life that has upset you and you no longer 
wish to carry this child, even though you may be 37 or 38 weeks along--
it doesn't matter.
  Under Roe v. Wade, and under the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Iowa, we have said in the Senate--I believe wrongly and unjustly--
that should be the law of the land, that a woman's right, domain over a 
child, is absolute until complete separation. There are some who even 
argued after separation. But, thankfully, the Senate voted last year 
that a child who was born and completely separated has a constitutional 
right. That is how far we have come. We actually passed a bill last 
year which said that once a child is born it has constitutional 
protection. That is the biggest step we have been able to take to 
protect the life of innocent children in America.
  But what this Roe v. Wade language--this language which I anticipate 
being dropped in conference--says is that we believe in the absolute 
right--absolute right--of a woman to terminate a pregnancy, to kill the 
child within her, at any point in time, for any reason. That is what 
the law of the land says.
  Now, I would make the argument that Roe v. Wade, because of this 
twisting of the Constitution--it really is tortuous--has done something 
that we have not seen done in this country, that we have not seen done 
in this country since the Dred Scott decision.
  If we think back to the Dred Scott decision--well over 100 years ago, 
150 years ago--the Dred Scott decision was based on a misunderstanding 
of ordered liberty, of ordered rights that we laid out in our founding 
documents. In the Declaration of Independence, the document on which 
this country was founded, we made a statement as a country that we hold 
dear. The Declaration of Independence--of maybe all the documents, of 
all the great works of craftsmanship of words that we have seen put 
forth in this country--there are very few that match the eloquence of 
the Declaration of Independence.
  What the Declaration of Independence said is: We hold these truths to 
be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by our 
Creator with certain inalienable rights. And then what--this is very 
important.
  The Presiding Officer is a great student of history and maybe the 
greatest advocate for the understanding of history and the knowledge of 
who we are as Americans. I would argue the Declaration of Independence 
tells us more about who we are as Americans than maybe any other single 
document. But what this document says is: We are endowed by--not a 
Congress or not the courts or not some king--our Creator, the God that 
you worship, Allah, Jesus, God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, a God who 
may be a God of the Hindu religion, whatever that creator is, the 
creator God, he has given us rights by the fact that we are human.
  What these rights consist of the Constitution laid out. They laid 
them out very particularly because there is an order to the rights that 
God has given us. There has to be. We have the right to life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of happiness. They didn't say the pursuit of happiness, 
liberty, life. They didn't say liberty, life, happiness. They said them 
in a specific order because without that ordering of liberty, without 
that ordering of rights, they make no sense. For you cannot have 
happiness, true happiness, you cannot pursue true happiness,

[[Page 22072]]

which the Founders really sought as truth--the ability to find what is 
true and what is right and what is just, and that would in a sense make 
you happy--you cannot pursue happiness without the freedom to do so, 
without the liberty, the right of liberty to think and to pursue your 
beliefs freely.
  But you cannot have liberty, obviously, if you are not alive. If you 
don't have life, then what good is liberty? And if you are not alive, 
if you have no right to your own life, you can't pursue happiness. So 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not just words that 
were thrown out there because they sounded lofty or because they were 
rolled off the tongue in a way that makes a nice impression. They are 
there because they are foundational in understanding how free people 
treat each other, how a free society must conduct itself in order for 
it to prosper.
  What did Dred Scott do? The Dred Scott decision put the liberty 
rights of the slaveholder over the life rights of the slave. It said 
that I, as a slaveholder, could own and control you, could kill you, 
could sell you as a piece of property--liberty rights over life rights. 
The U.S. Supreme Court in the 1850s said that was constitutional. As a 
result, many people believed that, because it was constitutional, it 
was therefore right. It was legal. It was just. It was moral. Why? 
Because our laws are a reflection of a collective morality. Our laws 
are a reflection of what we as a society believe is right.
  At first there were a few. As Henry the Fifth in Shakespeare said: We 
few, we band of brothers. In this country there were few who stood and 
said: No. It may be legal, it may be seen as just by the courts, but it 
is wrong. It is immoral; it is unjust; and it is a fundamental 
misunderstanding of the basis upon which this country was founded.
  As Abraham Lincoln said, a house divided against itself cannot stand. 
The separation began to grow. And more and more people began to 
understand the injustice of taking the liberty rights of one to trump 
the life rights of another. There were many in this country and many in 
this very Chamber who believed we could sustain that, as unjust as 
maybe they even thought it was.
  Many would have said: Well, I am personally opposed to slavery. I 
would never own a slave. I would never do something like that. But who 
am I to tell someone else they can't own a slave? Is that my 
responsibility? I may think it is immoral, but how can I impose my 
morality on a slaveholder who has his own economic interests? He has a 
family to raise. He has complications in getting his crops in.
  There are exigencies out there that those who promoted slaveholding 
said: We need this. We don't like it.
  I am sure there were many people on both sides of the aisle who said: 
We support slavery. We don't like it. We don't encourage it. Yes, we 
think it is probably immoral. But we need to have this option available 
for people if that is what they choose. We need to give people the 
right to choose.
  Eventually there were enough people in this country who decided they 
could not let that stand. Unfortunately, we had to fight a war to 
change it.
  After that war, I am sure there were many in this Chamber who thought 
this great scourge, this black mark, this pox upon the American 
existence had been wiped away, never to be seen again; that we would 
learn from history never to repeat this horrendous injustice, this 
immoral behavior as a society. We would never, ever again misorder our 
liberties. But they were wrong. For today in this country, as a result 
of Dred Scott 2, the Roe v. Wade decision, we have seen the same thing 
come about.
  We now have the life rights, the most important right given to us as 
children of the Creator, crushed and hidden away behind the concept of 
liberty. It repulses us now to think that people used liberty to defend 
slavery. They used the right of free people to live their life freely 
to defend slavery.
  I hope that 100 years from now--hopefully soon--people will be on the 
floor looking back at this time and saying: I can't believe they did it 
again. I can't believe they didn't learn their lesson. I can't believe 
they didn't see that a House divided against itself cannot stand.
  The Senator from Tennessee, the Presiding Officer, is honest. It has 
been said many times that those who do not learn from history are 
doomed to repeat the mistakes of history. And so we are, and so we will 
continue, I suspect. But it is important that the few, we merry band of 
brothers, stand up, in spite of what may be majorities against us--and 
certainly the media and the popular culture is speaking against us--and 
speak the truth that our Founders laid out.
  They did not say we believe or we think we were endowed by our 
Creator. They did not say it is our opinion that these rights exist. 
They claimed truth. They claimed truth, and they devoted their lives, 
their fortunes, and their sacred honor to fight for that truth during 
the Revolutionary War.
  People who came from little hamlets all over the north and the border 
States did the same. Today, in their own quiet way, millions of 
Americans do the same. They fight the battle. They fight it with prayer 
chains. They fight it at home at night and through their prayers, 
through the counsel of those who are going through troubled times. They 
do it through the love they feel toward those who are going through 
difficult times in their lives, but they understand that the truth 
claim that our Founders chiseled into the Declaration of Independence 
will not be forgotten in our society.
  We will lose many more battles. There is no doubt we will lose many 
more battles, but ultimately, I have to believe, because I do believe 
in America, we will win the war and reestablish truth, justice, and 
righteousness--righteousness as defined by our Founders, as understood 
in the nature of humans. We will win that war one day.
  I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be 
taken equally off both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to join with 
my colleague from California and talk about this important measure 
pending before the Senate.
  First, I applaud the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, for 
insisting on a vote on this motion to disagree with the House. She has 
been a long-time leader in the Senate and the House in protecting a 
woman's constitutional right to privacy and her right to choose.
  The motion before us is a motion to disagree with the House version 
of the late-term abortion bill. What is the reason we would want to 
disagree with the House bill? The House bill is exactly the same as the 
Senate bill except for one key difference: It failed to include the 
resolution which I offered on the Senate floor, adopted in the Senate 
regarding the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade.
  This is the exact language that is in the Senate bill that the House 
disagrees with:

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade 410 
     (U.S.C. 113) (1973) was appropriate and secures an important 
     right; and (2) such decisions should not be overturned.

  That is all it says. That is what the Senate adopted. That was my 
amendment that I offered to the bill, and the Senate adopted it. This 
is what the Senator from Pennsylvania said was extreme. It is just a 
sense-of-the-Senate that Roe v. Wade was appropriate and secures an 
important right and

[[Page 22073]]

should not be overturned. The Senator from Pennsylvania says that is 
extreme.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania may think that. From listening just a 
little bit to him--and I have heard him talk at length on this issue on 
the Senate floor in the past--I am sure the Senator from Pennsylvania 
believes Roe v. Wade was an extreme decision. It is his right to think 
that. I do not say he cannot think that if he wants to, but that is not 
what the majority of people in this country believe. It certainly is 
not the way the vast majority of women in our society feel.
  Again, this passed the Senate 52 to 47. It passed the Senate before 
in the same version. About 4 or 5 years ago, we passed the same thing, 
a sense of the Senate that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned. So, 
again, the only difference between the House and the Senate bills is 
simply this: The House does not have this language in it, so, again, to 
go to conference with the House we have a vote to disagree with what 
the House did.
  If we agreed with what the House did, we would have no need for the 
conference. We would send the bill to the President. For example, if 
the House had included this language in their bill, we would not be 
here tonight talking about this. It would already have gone to the 
President and he would have signed it into law. So that is what we are 
talking about. We are going to have a record vote on a motion to 
disagree with the House version. It is my belief that if one votes to 
disagree with the House version, then they are disagreeing with the 
fact that they did not put this language in their bill. That is the 
only difference.
  Therefore, if my colleagues vote to disagree with the House, then 
they are voting to agree with the Senate. If they vote to agree with 
the Senate, they agree that this language should stay.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania may try to explain it one way or 
another, a procedural vote, blah, blah, blah--all that kind of stuff--
but the truth is, if my colleagues vote to disagree, the only thing on 
which they disagree is this language supporting Roe v. Wade. That is 
why I think it is important to have this vote.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania says he is going to vote to disagree 
with the House, and then try to explain it some way. I mean, a vote is 
a vote. One can try to explain it any way they want, but the fact is 
this is the only difference.
  I believe most people in this country believe that Roe v. Wade is a 
mainstream, moderate decision by the Supreme Court. It is one that 
American women have come to rely on, and I believe we owe it to them to 
insist that it remains in this bill.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania has already said they will drop it in 
conference. Well, that is kind of interesting, is it not? The Senator 
from Pennsylvania has already preordained that no matter what we vote 
on in the Senate, they are going to drop it in conference.
  I think every woman in America ought to know this. Every woman in 
America ought to know that the Republican leadership--and the Senator 
from Pennsylvania is in the Republican leadership--has said: We do not 
care what the Senate said, we are going to drop this language.
  Can there be any doubt in any American woman's mind that their right 
to privacy, their right to choose, hangs by a thin thread?
  The vote in the Senate was 52 to 47. Someone was missing. But a few 
votes here, a few votes there in the coming election, and I can 
guarantee that the right to choose for every young woman in America 
will be taken away. This Congress and this President will see to it 
that Roe v. Wade is overturned. They will see to it.
  Every woman ought to know that whether they think abortion may be 
right or not, that is not the point. The point is whether a woman 
should have control over her own reproductive system or should some man 
have control over it? Or should a Supreme Court have control over it? 
Or should a legislative body such as a Senate or a House--comprised 
mostly of men, I might say--tell a woman what her reproductive rights 
are?
  I have often wondered, if we could have randomly picked a Senate of 
100 women or randomly picked a House of 435 women--I am sure there 
would be some women who would probably vote to do away with Roe v. 
Wade--but I would wager that the vast majority of any vote held in a 
Chamber of 100 women would be overwhelmingly: Keep your hands and keep 
your laws off my body. Keep your hands and your laws away from my right 
of privacy and my right to choose.
  Does anybody have any doubt that a Senate of 100 women or a House of 
435 women would vote differently than that? We would only be fooling 
ourselves if we thought they would vote the same as the men in the 
Senate and the men in the House. And I say pick them randomly.
  On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in 
Roe v. Wade. Again, for the record, it was a challenge to a Texas 
statute that made it a crime to perform an abortion unless a woman's 
life was at stake. That is what some in this Chamber want us to go back 
to.
  Siding with Jane Roe, the Court struck down the Texas law. In its 
ruling, the Court recognized for the first time that a constitutional 
right to privacy is ``broad enough to encompass a woman's decision 
whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.''
  It also set some rules. The Court recognized that the right to 
privacy is not absolute and that a State has a valid interest in 
safeguarding maternal health, maintaining medical standards, and 
protecting potential life.
  A State's interest in potential life is not compelling until 
viability, the point in pregnancy at which there is a reasonable 
possibility for the sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb. A 
State may, but is not required to, prohibit abortion after viability. 
Let me repeat that. A State may--it is not required--prohibit abortion 
after viability, except when it is necessary to protect a woman's life 
or health, and that is the difference.
  This is what the Supreme Court said:

       The stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting 
     its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it 
     chooses, regulate, and even proscribe--

  Prohibit--

     abortion except where it is necessary in appropriate medical 
     judgment--

  Interesting, the Court said medical judgment; they did not say 
legislative judgment--

     for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

  Very important words.
  Some people, when they get all ``rhetoricked'' about this issue, say 
that a woman can choose at any point, even up to minutes before the 
child is born, to terminate her pregnancy. That is not what the Supreme 
Court said. The Supreme Court said the State may even proscribe--
prohibit--after viability ``except where it is necessary, in 
appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or the 
health of the mother.''
  So we see what the Senator from Pennsylvania and those who want to do 
away with Roe v. Wade are saying. They are saying: Look, we do not 
trust medical judgment, we do not trust a woman, and we do not believe 
that the health of the mother should be in here. ``Life,'' maybe, but 
not ``health of the mother.'' That is the difference. That is the key. 
Again, is that really extreme?
  Oh, I hear the arguments. They say, ``Health of the mother? Why, the 
woman can say anything. Why, a woman can say, `I may break out in a hot 
sweat if I don't end this pregnancy. Maybe my big toe hurts; therefore, 
I have to have an abortion.'''
  Again, what this gets back to is a mistrust of women, that somehow a 
woman cannot make that decision as to how it affects her health; that 
somehow a man, a legislator, a legislative body, has to then intervene 
because, you see, you can't trust women to make that decision.
  I trust women to make that decision. I have never in all my years 
ever talked to a woman who has had an abortion who took it lightly, 
willy-nilly, just a little procedure and move

[[Page 22074]]

on. This is one of the most profound, traumatic, life-changing 
decisions a woman will ever have to make. It is not made lightly. It is 
made under great anguish, with great thought and contemplation.
  So I guess when it comes down to that, I say I put my trust in women 
to make that decision. Not me. It is not going to happen to me. I will 
trust the woman, with her husband, her family, her doctor, her priest, 
rabbi, minister--whatever religious faith she may be--but ultimately it 
is up to the woman to make that decision.
  That is what this is all about, isn't it? When you cut down through 
all of it, get rid of all the rhetoric, it gets down to whether women 
can be trusted to make these decisions. That is what my resolution 
said. It said Roe v. Wade was an appropriate decision and should not be 
overturned.
  Before the 1973 landmark ruling of Roe v. Wade, it was estimated that 
each year about 1.2 million women resorted to illegal abortion, despite 
the known hazards of frightening trips to dangerous locations in 
strange parts of the city, of whiskey used as an anesthetic, of 
``doctors'' who were often marginal or unlicensed practitioners, 
sometimes alcoholic, sometimes sexually abusive, under unsanitary 
conditions, with incompetent treatment. Many times there were 
infections, hemorrhages, disfigurement, and death.
  By invalidating the laws that forced women to resort to back-alley 
abortions, Roe was directly responsible for saving women's lives. It is 
estimated at least 5,000 women died yearly from illegal abortions 
before Roe v Wade.
  Who were these women? They were not the well-to-do. We all know from 
our youth that the well-to-do, the people who were well situated, had 
access. They always had a friend, they had a doctor who would perform 
it and not say anything. They would pay him and that would be the end 
of it. To say otherwise, to say that never happened, stretches 
credulity. We know that. And we all know cases of it happening.
  No, it was not the well-to-do. They had their own special doctors who 
could keep things quiet. It was poor women, women without connections, 
women who lived in small towns in rural Tennessee and rural Iowa who 
didn't have that kind of access, poor women who lived in cities and 
urban areas who resorted to these back-alley abortions because they 
didn't have the ``connections.''
  Sometimes I feel there are many who want to overturn Roe v. Wade 
because, you know, deep down inside they know if it ever came to them 
or their families and they were confronted with a situation where their 
loved one--a wife, a spouse, a mother, a daughter, a sister--for health 
reasons had to terminate a pregnancy, for health reasons wanted to 
terminate a pregnancy, they could get it done because they have 
connections. Don't you see? We all kind of have these kinds of 
connections, if you are well connected like a Senator or a Congressman, 
people with financial resources.
  We can do away with Roe v. Wade, but if it ever happened to my 
sister, my daughter, and it was health, and I knew it was going to 
affect her health for the rest of her life--well, we would find 
somebody to take care of it, don't you know.
  Again, it is back to poor women. Unfortunately, what is lost in this 
rhetoric is the real significance of the Roe decisions. Here is what 
the Supreme Court said, again, just 3 years ago in Stenberg v. Carhart. 
This was the Nebraska law. Nebraska had passed a law banning abortions 
except to save the life of the mother.
  Here is what the Supreme Court said 3 years ago. The governing 
standard requires an exception:

       . . . where it is necessary in appropriate medical judgment 
     for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

  That is what the Court said 23 years prior to that in Roe v. Wade. 
That is exactly what it said. So the Supreme Court in 2000, in the 
Nebraska case, said here is the governing standard.
  Then they said:

       Our cases have repeatedly invalidated statutes that, in the 
     process of regulating the methods of abortion, imposed 
     significant health risks.

  Once again the Supreme Court has said:

       Our cases have repeatedly invalidated statutes that, in the 
     process of regulating the methods of abortion, impose 
     significant health risks.

  That is why this late-term abortion bill before us I am sure will go 
to the Supreme Court and it is going to strike it down. Why? Because 
there is no exception for the health of the mother: Zero, no exception.
  The whole concept of late-term abortions obviously is not something 
anyone relishes. I do not. It is not something that conjures up pretty 
thoughts. But neither does conjuring up the thought of a woman for 
whom, in the judgment of medical experts, this is the safest procedure 
to protect her health, and the woman can't have this procedure done and 
may lose her ability to ever have a child again.
  A few years ago I met from my neighboring State of Illinois a woman 
who came to Iowa to speak to me when this issue came on the floor. She 
went public. In other words, she came out in the public. She is happily 
married. She had this late-term abortion procedure, this D-and-X 
procedure it is called, performed because she had a serious health 
problem.
  Whether or not it is true, the doctor told her this was the safest 
procedure for her; that if, in fact, she did not have this procedure, 
the other two procedures that were left--one of them being a 
hysterectomy, and I don't remember what the other one was--would 
obviously leave her incapable of every having children again. She told 
me what a painful decision this was for her to give up this fetus that 
she had carried for several months. She spoke to me in heart- wrenching 
detail about how painful this was for her. But they made that decision. 
She made that decision with her husband, with her religious counsel, 
and she had this late-term abortion procedure done by a qualified 
doctor in a hospital in sanitary conditions with good medical personnel 
around her. And her and her husband went on to have more children--
beautiful children.
  Who am I as a Senator to have gone to that woman and said: You can't 
do that. I don't care what your doctor says. It makes no difference. It 
makes no difference how your health is going to be affected. It makes 
no difference whether you can ever have a child again. You cannot have 
that procedure done.
  That is what we are saying here, folks. That is what we are saying to 
this woman. We don't care what the doctor says. We don't care what the 
medical judgment is. We don't care how badly your health may be 
affected. You can't have that done.
  As a Senator, I am going to tell a woman that? Some people around 
here may want to play God. Some people around here may want to play 
dictator and dictate to women what they can and cannot do. That is not 
my role. That is why the longer we look at Roe v. Wade, and the 
decision that was made by the Supreme Court--and when we read the 
Nebraska case--it becomes clearer and clearer that the Supreme Court 
made a very wise decision in 1973. They set up a trimester system. When 
they set up the viability, the State does not have an interest. But 
after viability, States may even prohibit an abortion except to save 
the life or the health of the mother. The longer that we have to look 
at what has happened with Roe v. Wade the more clear it becomes to this 
Senator that that really was a very wise decision.
  This decision is profoundly private. As I said, it is life altering. 
As the Court understood, without the right to make autonomous decisions 
about a pregnancy, a woman cannot participate freely and equally in 
society because Roe v. Wade not only establishes a woman's reproductive 
freedom, it was also central to women's continued progress toward full 
and equal participation in American life.
  In the 30 years since Roe v. Wade, the variety and level of women's 
achievements have reached higher levels. Now the Supreme Court in 1992 
observed this. They said:


[[Page 22075]]

       The ability of women to participate equally in the economic 
     and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their 
     ability to control their reproductive lives.

  That is why I believe the freedom to choose is no more negotiable or 
should be no more subject to the whims of the Senate or the House than 
the freedom to speak or the freedom to worship. It is a matter of 
trusting women to make the right decision.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote to disagree with the House 
version of the bill but not to do it in some phony sense; that somehow 
we are going to vote but that is not what I mean. I think votes around 
here have consequences. They have meaning. That is the language. The 
sense of the Senate that the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. 
Wade is appropriate and secures an important right, and such decisions 
should not be overturned. That is all it says. The House would not 
adopt that. The House wouldn't adopt that.
  It is my hope that the conferees will preserve the Roe v. Wade 
resolution. But again, it is the Republican leadership that runs the 
Senate and runs the House. It is the Republican leadership that 
repeatedly wanted to restrict a woman's right to choose. It is the 
Republican leadership that says the language of Roe v. Wade is extreme, 
and that every woman in America ought to understand that--especially 
young women whose lives are ahead of them, who have grown up with more 
freedom, more avenues open to them to fulfill their choices in life as 
to who they want to be and what they want to do than was ever available 
to women in my generation.
  I think many young women in America today just take it for granted 
that if they should ever find themselves in a situation where they 
might seek an abortion, they will be able to do so.
  I talk with young women. I recently came off a political campaign 
last year. I had many young women talk about this time after time after 
time--college-age women, young women who say to me: There is no way 
that they are ever going to take away my right to choose; it just won't 
happen.
  They don't believe it could happen. I hate to disappoint these young 
women.
  The vote here was 52 to 47. It was that close. It could be 
overturned. This Senate, this House, and this President could overturn 
that and take it away and turn the clock back. And that is what some 
want to do.
  I have no doubt that the Senator from Pennsylvania is sincere in his 
beliefs. I don't doubt that for a minute. And he is certainly entitled 
to his beliefs. He is not entitled to force the women of America to 
believe as he does. The women of America ought to make their own 
choices and not have us make them for them.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the issue of banning 
partial-birth abortion in the United States.
  We have a unique opportunity to end this grisly practice of partial-
birth abortion in this country. Sadly, some in this Chamber have 
delayed a vote to send this bill to conference and then to the 
President. That is what needs to take place. This has passed the body 
repeatedly. The President is ready to sign it. It is time to move 
forward on this issue.
  This is an important milestone. This will be the first time since the 
Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade that the Congress will have 
curtailed in any way the practice that results in the death of an 
innocent human being and the emotional wounding of the mother. In this 
process, both are victims--the child and the mother.
  The partial-birth abortion procedure, which former Senator Moynihan 
called the closest thing that he had seen to infanticide, is something 
that needs to be banned once and for all. This comes from both sides of 
the aisle. This comes from the American public. The vast majority of 
the American public, over 77 percent, support banning this procedure of 
partial-birth abortion. They see this as it is, as clearly the late-
term killing of a child. And it ought to be stopped. It should have no 
place in a civilized country. It should have no place in a country such 
as the United States which stands for human rights and the dignity of 
the individual.
  I believe the true mark of a civilized society is not the level of 
human dignity that it confers on the strong and wealthy. Its true mark 
is on how much it confers on the vulnerable and on the oppressed. 
Clearly, an abortion procedure that dismembers and kills a partially 
born human being has no place in a civilized society.
  Aside from partial-birth abortion, it is becoming increasingly clear 
that the impact abortion has on this society, on the people, and 
particularly on the women who have had abortions, is itself profound.
  I will talk briefly about the impact of having an abortion on a 
woman. There are an increasing number of studies coming forward about 
the woundedness that takes place to a woman.
  I mention to my colleagues and to those watching a particular Web 
site titled ``Women Deserve Better.'' I have met with the leadership 
from this group. A number of the women have had abortions--some of them 
have not--and deeply regret it, going through years of suffering, 
emotional suffering, personal suffering, physical suffering, as a 
result. They have now said: We were not told the story at that time. We 
were not told the truth of the amount of suffering we would go through. 
We were told this would take place and it would be quick and easy and 
it would be over with and that would be it. And it is far from the 
truth.
  I cite one study from their Web site ``Women Deserve Better,'' 
talking about psychological and emotional complications reported in a 
1994 survey of women who had abortions and sought counseling, finding 
they experienced a range of problems. These are the women who have had 
abortions, including increased use of drugs and/or alcohol to deaden 
their pain, recurring insomnia and nightmares, eating disorders that 
began after they had the abortion, suicidal feelings, and many even 
attempted suicide. This is a report they have cited.
  They went on to also cite who is at high risk for developing serious 
emotional and psychological problems following an abortion. They list a 
number of groups. One was women who had abortions after 12-weeks' 
gestation. That is certainly the case in partial-birth abortions where 
you have a gestation that would be over 12 weeks.
  People should look at this. I ask unanimous consent to have this 
printed in the Record at the end of my comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit No. 1.)
  Mr. BROWNBACK. We have two victims here: the child and the woman.
  I am also particularly concerned that the widespread acceptance of 
this brutal practice of partial-birth abortion has already 
significantly coarsened public attitudes toward human life in general, 
particularly toward the most vulnerable in our society, whether they 
are the unborn or old and infirm. This coarsening of public attitude 
over the past several years has made other assaults against the dignity 
of human life possible, assaults such as partial-birth abortion, 
euthanasia, assisted suicide, destructive embryo research, and now even 
human cloning where we would research on humans, we would patent a 
person and then research on them.
  Furthermore, new studies in groups are coming forward addressing the 
horrible impact, as I noted earlier, on women who have had abortions 
and what this abortion's impact is on the woman.
  We all have a duty, an obligation, as citizens of the United States 
to stand up against the moral outrage of abortion. Human life is 
sacred. It is a precious gift. Human life is not something

[[Page 22076]]

to be disposed of by those with more power. Yet one of the most extreme 
assaults against human dignity is made against some of the most 
innocent among us. Whether from the first moments of life, to the 
moments just before birth, a child is a precious and unique gift, a 
gift never to be given or to be created again.
  It seems, therefore, that in some measure this debate is about 
whether or not that child prior to birth is a child at all. That really 
is the central question. Is that child, before birth, a child at all? 
Is this young human a person or is it a piece of property? That is the 
real debate. One has to conclude this child is a child; it is not 
property. This harkens back to the slavery debate.
  I also point out there is new evidence on this, as well. We try to 
debate: Is the child in the womb a child or property?
  I note a news article that came out Sunday in this country in the 
Chicago Sun Times--and also in Australia in Sunday's Herald Sun--which 
reported that Dr. Stuart Campbell, professor and chair of the 
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in the Fetal Medicine Unit at 
St. George's Hospital in London, a man who pioneered 3-D ultrasound 
technology in 2001, said he has seen fetuses moving their fingers as 
early as 15 weeks' gestation, yawning at 18 weeks, and smiling and 
crying at 26 weeks. We are seeing this done at 3\1/2\ months.
  Doctors currently believe fetuses cannot feel pain until at least 12 
weeks' gestation when the fetus's nervous system is formed, but we are 
finding more and more, earlier and earlier, that what this child is 
feeling, seeing, and knowing, moving their fingers at 15 weeks--is that 
a child that moves those fingers or is it a piece of property? Is it a 
robot? Is it a blob of tissue or is it a child?
  What impact does it have on the mother if that child's life is 
terminated? At any point in time from that point forward, what impact 
does it have on the mother when that child's life is terminated? 
Imagine yourself, what impact does it have on you when your child's 
life is ended? What impact does that have when you back it up in time? 
It has a profound impact on the individuals involved. It has a profound 
impact on society. That is why this process must be ended. That is why 
we must stop partial-birth abortion. It is hurting everyone. It is 
hurting the society. It is hurting the people involved. It is hurting 
the child who is killed in this process. And it is hurting everyone.
  Elizabeth Cady Stanton, one of the women depicted in the Portrait 
Monument, foresaw this awful view of human life in a letter she wrote 
in October to Julia Ward Howe in October of 1873. She said:

       When we consider that women are treated as property, it is 
     degrading to women that we should treat our children as 
     property to be disposed of as we see fit.

  That was in 1873. That quote is applicable today. The Congress must 
speak against this degradation of human life. These are life issues of 
enormous consequence and they are issues by which history and eternity 
will judge us.
  Finally, I would like to close with a quote from Mother Teresa, one 
of my personal heroes. Her concern for the poorest of the poor and her 
service to them was above reproach. Her work is being carried on today 
in India and saround the world. I am sure it is going to be carried on 
for years to come.
  She once said this:

       Many are concerned with the children of India, with the 
     children of Africa where quite a few die of hunger, and so 
     on. Many people are also concerned about the violence in this 
     great country of the United States. These concerns are very 
     good. But often these same people are not concerned with the 
     millions being killed by the deliberate decision of their own 
     mothers. And this is the greatest destroyer of peace today--
     abortion which brings people to such blindness.

  And that is why this practice must be ended.
  Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, this practice is going to be 
ended. It is going to end this year. When this body passes this bill, 
when the conference finally meets, when the conference report comes 
back and the conference report is passed, when the President signs this 
into law, this practice is going to stop.
  It is going to be the point in time when we as a country start waking 
up and looking at the huge cost of taking these young lives, of what it 
has done to us, what it has done to the children, what it has done to 
the mothers involved, and what it has done to us as a society.
  But, thankfully, this procedure is going to end this year. I think 
then we as a country--and we are now--will start waking up, saying: It 
just isn't right to take this child's life. You end up with two 
victims, one dead and one wounded, in the process.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

     abortion hurts women--Medical and Psychological Talking Points

       1. 43% of American women will have at least one abortion by 
     age 45.
       2. In the U.S., over 140,000 women a year have immediate 
     medical complications from abortion.
       3. This includes problems such as: infection, uterine 
     perforation, hemorrhaging, cervical trauma, and failed 
     abortion/ongoing pregnancy.
       4. Abortion increases a woman's risk of breast cancer by 
     30%.
       5. Childbirth actually protects against cancer of the 
     reproductive system.
       6. After an abortion there is a higher risk of developing 
     cervical, and ovarian cancer.
       7. Abortion can lead to infertility, a serious long-term 
     complication that often goes undetected for many years.
       8. Abortion can lead to complications in future pregnancies 
     including: premature birth, placenta previa, and ectopic 
     pregnancy.
       9. In the 2 years following an abortion women have a death 
     rate twice as high as women who continue with their 
     pregnancies.
       10. A woman who undergoes an abortion has a suicide risk 
     six times higher than women who have given birth to a child.
       11. It is minorities who suffer from the greatest number of 
     serious complications and death after abortion.
       12. Psychological and emotional complications reported in a 
     1994 survey of women who had abortions and sought counseling 
     found that they experienced a range of problems including: 
     increased use of drugs and/or alcohol to deaden their pain, 
     reoccurring insomnia and nightmares, eating disorders that 
     began after the abortion, suicidal feelings, and many even 
     attempted suicide.
       13. Who is at high risk for developing serious emotional 
     and psychological problems following and abortion? Teenagers; 
     Women who already have children; Women who have abortions 
     after 12 weeks gestation; Women who feel pressured into the 
     abortion; Women struggling with value conflicts.
       This information is important for every woman to know, but 
     it is especially relevant for parents of teens because of the 
     impact abortion can have on a minor's emotional health, 
     physical health, fertility, and future pregnancies.


                               references

       1. Alan Guttmacher Institute 1994 study entitled: 
     ``Unintended Pregnancy in the United States.''
       2. This is based on a complication rate of 11% and assuming 
     the yearly abortion rate is 1.3 million U.S. women a year. 
     Most abortion advocates claim the complication rate is only 
     1%, but this is inaccurate when the data is analyzed. 
     According to the Royal College of Obstetricians and 
     Gynecologists in the UK, the immediate physical complication 
     rate from abortions is at least 11%, primarily infections 
     that can lead to a host of other problems including pain and 
     infertility. The UK statistics have been recently published 
     in January of 2001. See: Royal College of Obstetricians and 
     Gynecologists (UK). The care of women requesting induced 
     abortion: 4. Information for women. 2000.
       3. For an extended list of research studies documenting 
     these health risks and many others, please see Detrimental 
     Effects of Abortion: An Annotated Bibliography With 
     Commentary Ed. Thomas W. Strahan, published by Acorn Books, 
     Springfield IL,  2001.
       4. Brind J, Chinchilli VM, Severs WB, Summy-Long J. Induced 
     abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a 
     comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of 
     Epidemiology and Community Health 1996 Oct.; 50(5): 481-496.
       It is important to note that abortion advocates completely 
     deny these findings, this includes many researchers in the 
     U.S. medical community. But a careful study of international 
     literature indicates a strong correlation between abortion 
     and breast cancer. Much like tobacco companies in the past 
     have simply denied that cigarettes endanger the health of 
     their customers, abortion advocates simply deny any research 
     that indicates that abortion is harmful to women's health and 
     increases their risk for breast cancer.
       5. Albrektsen G, Heuch I, Tretli S, Kvale G. Is the risk of 
     cancer of the corpus uteri reduced by a recent pregnancy? A 
     prospective study of 765,756 Norwegian women. International 
     Journal of Cancer 1995 May 16;61(4):485-90, p. 485.

[[Page 22077]]


       6. La Vecchia C, Negri E, Franceschi S, Parazzini F. Long-
     term impact of reproductive factors on cancer risk, 
     International Journal of Cancer 1993 January 21;53(2):215-9, 
     p. 217.
       Albrektsen G, Heuch I, Tretli S, Kvale G. Is the risk of 
     cancer of the corpus uteri reduced by a recent pregnancy? A 
     prospective study of 765,756 Norwegian women. International 
     Journal of Cancer 1995 May 16;61(4):485-90, p. 485.
       Kvale G, Heuch I. Is the incidence of colorectal cancer 
     related to reproduction? A prospective study of 63,000 women. 
     International Journal of Cancer 1991 February 1;47(3):390-5, 
     p. 392.
       7. Frank P, McNamee R, Hannaford PC, Kay Cr, Hirsch S. The 
     effect of induced abortion on subsequent fertility. British 
     Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1993 June;100(6):575-
     80.
       Heisterberg L, Kringelbach M. Early complications after 
     induced first-trimester abortion. Acta Obstetricia et 
     Gynacologica Scandanavica 1987:66(3):201-4, p. 204.
       8. Barrett JM, Boehm FH, Killam AP. Induced abortion: a 
     risk factor for placenta previa. American Journal of 
     Obstetrics and Gynecology 1981 December 1;141(7):769-72.
       Rose GL, Chapman MG. Aetiological factors in placenta 
     praevia--a case controlled study. British Journal of 
     Obstetrics and a Gynecology 1986 June;93(6):586-8.
       Taylor VM, Kramer MD, Vaughan TL, Peacock S. Placenta 
     previa in relation to induced and spontaneous abortion: a 
     population-based study. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1993 
     July;82(10:88-91; p. 91.
       Michalas S, Minaretzis D, Tsionou C, Maos G, Kioses E, 
     Aravantinos D. Pelvic surgery, reproductive factors and risk 
     of ectopic pregnancy: A case controlled study. International 
     Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 1992 June;38(2):101-5, 
     pp. 101, 103.
       Luke B. Every Pregnant Woman's Guide to Preventing 
     Premature Birth. 1995 [foreword by Emile Papiernik], New 
     York: Times Books; p. 32.
       9. Reardon, David C., Philip G. Ney, Fritz Scheuren, Jesse 
     Cougle, Priscilla K. Coleman, and Thomas W. Strahen, Deaths 
     Associated With Pregnancy Outcome: A Record Linkage Study of 
     Low Income Women. Southern Medical Journal. Vol. 95. No. 8. 
     Aug 2002.
       This statistic is important to note because many of these 
     deaths are due to complications from the abortion and are 
     documented as such. Thus, the presenting cause of death will 
     be the complication, not the abortion that caused it.
       10. Gissler M, Kauppila R, Merlainen J. Toukomaa H, 
     Hemminki E, Pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland 1987-1994; 
     register linkage study, British medical Journal 1996 December 
     7, 313(7070):1431-4.
       11. Goldner TE, Lawson HW, Xia Z, Atrash Hk. Surveillance 
     for ectopic pregnancy--United States, 1970-1989. Morbidity 
     and Mortality Weekly Report, Centers for Disease Control 
     Surveillance Summary 1993 December; 42((SS-6)):73-85.
       Council on Scientific Affairs AMA. Induced termination of 
     pregnancy before and after Roe v Wade. Trends in the 
     mortality and morbidity of women. Journal of the American 
     Medical Association 1992 December 9;268(22):3231-9.
       12. The Post Abortion Review, 2, (3): 4-8, Fall 1994, 
     published by the Elliott Institute, PO Box 7348, Springfield, 
     IL 62791-7348. It is important to note that many in the 
     psychiatric community deny any serious emotional trauma after 
     an abortion, but this has happened under similar 
     circumstances before. It took years for the medical community 
     to recognize Post Traumatic Stress in Vietnam veterans; 
     ironically women who have undergone abortion often fit the 
     profile of someone suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress 
     according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV 
     (standard for diagnosis of psychiatric illness in the United 
     States).
       13. The Post Abortion Review, 2, (3): 4-8, Fall 1994, 
     published by the Elliott Institute, Springfield, IL. See also 
     Forbidden Grief: The Unspoken Pain of Abortion by Theresa 
     Burke, Ph.D, Acorn Books, Springfield, IL,  2002 for more 
     information on the emotional and physical pain women go 
     through after an abortion.
       Statistics and citations taken from a compilation of 
     studies in: Women's Health after Abortion: the Medical and 
     Psychological Evidence by Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy and Ian 
     Gentles. Published by the Toronto based de Veber Institute 
     for Bioethics and Social Research 2002. Page 52 makes a very 
     important note on this highly politicized issue: ``There is a 
     marked tendency in the North-American literature on abortion 
     for researchers to minimize their own findings. Those 
     interested in the subject are well advised to read the 
     numerical data and compare them carefully with the abstract 
     or conclusions, rather than relying on either the abstract or 
     conclusions alone. Comparisons are also recommended with 
     literature from European countries, particularly Great 
     Britain and the Scandinavian countries, where population size 
     and sophisticated medical linkage data bases make data 
     collection more accurate and comprehensive.''

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________