[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5624-5634]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION ACT OF 2003--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

[[Page 5625]]


  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me return now to the debate in regard 
to the partial-birth abortion ban.
  Let me thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, for 
his unending and unwavering and tireless efforts to put a permanent end 
to this horrific partial-birth abortion procedure. In the time we have 
served together in this body, he has never given up hope that Congress 
and this country would put an end to this barbaric procedure.
  This Senate, this Congress, and this country must ban a procedure 
that is inhumane, that has absolutely no medical purpose, and that is, 
quite simply, morally reprehensible.
  During the course of the debate on S. 3, the bill to ban partial-
birth abortion, we will hear repeated descriptions of the barbaric 
nature of this procedure. I ask my colleagues, as difficult as it is, 
to listen to the description. There may be many arguments during this 
debate, but the description of what this procedure is will not be 
argued. There is no debate what it is. There is no debate about what 
takes place during a partial-birth abortion. I submit to my colleagues 
that the more you know about this procedure, the worse it is. The more 
you know about it, the easier it will be to vote to ban it.
  We will hear repeated descriptions of this barbaric procedure. It is 
a procedure in which the abortionist pulls a living baby feet first out 
of the womb and into the birth canal except for the head which the 
abortionist purposely keeps lodged just inside the cervix. As Senator 
Santorum explained, the abortionist then punctures the base of the 
baby's skull with a long scissors-like surgical instrument and then 
inserts a tube into the wound removing the baby's brain with a powerful 
suction machine. This causes the skull to collapse, after which the 
abortionist completes the delivery of the now dead baby.
  Mr. President and Members of the Senate, those are the essential 
facts. I can think of nothing more inhumane and indifferent to the 
human condition. Yet every year the tragic effect of this extreme 
indifference to human life becomes more and more apparent. It troubles 
me deeply that this is happening across this country and that it is 
happening in my home State of Ohio. In fact, it happens within 20 miles 
of my home.
  I would like to take a few minutes now to talk about two particular 
partial-birth abortions that occurred in Ohio. They were two typical 
abortions--typical except for the way they turned out. These two 
tragedies that I am going to describe illustrate the gruesome facts and 
the evils of this procedure and show what can happen when it does not 
go according to the way the abortionist plans. Let me explain.
  On April 6, 1999, in Dayton, OH, a woman entered the Dayton Medical 
Center to undergo a partial-birth abortion. This facility was and is 
operated by one Dr. Martin Haskell, one of the main providers of 
partial-birth abortion in the Nation. Usually the partial-birth 
abortion procedure takes place behind closed doors where it can be 
ignored--its morality left outside. In this particular case, the 
procedure was different. There was light shed upon it. This is what 
happened. This is why light was shown upon it.
  This Dayton abortionist inserted a surgical instrument into the woman 
to dilate her cervix so the child could eventually be removed and then 
killed. This whole procedure usually takes 3 days.
  The woman went home to Cincinnati expecting to return to Dayton for 
the completion of the procedure in 2 or 3 days. In this case, her 
cervix dilated too quickly, and as a result shortly after midnight she 
was admitted to Bethesda North Hospital in Cincinnati.
  The child was born. A medical technician pointed out that the child 
was alive. But apparently the chances of survival were slim, and after 
3 hours and 8 minutes the child died. The baby was named Hope.
  Mr. President and Members of the Senate, on the death certificate, of 
course, is a space for cause of death--``Method of Death.'' There it 
was written in the case of Baby Hope, ``Method of Death: Natural.'' 
That, of course, is simply not true. There is nothing natural about the 
events that led to the death of this tiny little child because Baby 
Hope did not die of natural causes.
  Baby Hope was the victim of a barbaric procedure that is opposed by 
the vast majority of the American people. In fact, the Gallup poll 
conducted in January of this year shows that 70 percent of the American 
people want to see this procedure permanently banned because the 
American people know it is wrong. They feel strongly about it. And we, 
as a Senate, and as Members of Congress, I believe, should be listening 
to the American people.
  The death of Baby Hope did not take place behind the closed doors of 
an abortion clinic. That death took place in public--in a hospital 
dedicated to saving lives, not taking them.
  This episode reminds us of the brutal reality and tragedy of what 
partial-birth abortion really is. Because what it really is is the 
killing--the killing--of a baby, plain and simple. And almost to 
underscore the inhumanity of this procedure, 4 months later it happened 
again, again in Ohio, with the same abortionist. This time, though, 
something quite different occurred.
  Once again, in Dayton, OH, this time on August 18, 1999, a woman who 
was 25 weeks pregnant went in to the same Dr. Haskell's office for a 
partial-birth abortion. As usual, the abortionist performed the 
preparatory steps for the barbaric procedure by dilating the mother's 
cervix. The next day, she went into labor, and was rushed to Good 
Samaritan Hospital--again, not what was expected. Again, the procedure 
normally takes 3 whole days. But she was rushed into labor.
  But this time, however, despite the massive trauma to this baby's 
environment, a miracle occurred. And by the grace of God, this little 
baby survived. So she now is called ``Baby Grace.''
  I am appalled by the fact that both of these heinous partial-birth 
abortion attempts occurred in this great country of ours, and occurred 
in my home State of Ohio.
  When I think about the brutal death of Baby Hope and then ponder the 
miracle of Baby Grace, I am confronted with the question, Why can't we 
just allow these babies to live?
  Opponents of the ban on this procedure argue that this procedure is 
necessary to protect the health of women. And yet, the American Medical 
Association has said this procedure is never medically necessary. In 
fact, many physicians have found the procedure itself can pose 
immediate and significant risk to a woman's health and future 
fertility. Clearly, the babies did not have to be killed in the Ohio 
cases I cited, no. The two babies I cited were both born alive. One was 
able to live and one tragically died.
  Why, Mr. President, why, Members of the Senate, does the baby have to 
be killed? Why?
  Opponents of this legislation say this procedure is only used in 
emergency situations--you will hear those words used time and time 
again: emergency situations--when women's lives are in danger. And yet 
it seems very strange that in an emergency, a 3-day procedure would be 
used and the mother would be sent home. If it was truly an emergency, 
why would the doctor pick a procedure that would take 3 days? Why would 
the woman consent to a 3-day procedure if it was truly an emergency? It 
is not an emergency. And the testimony we have heard, the testimony 
that has been taken in our committee in the past, has clearly indicated 
this procedure is never medically indicated--never medically indicated.
  Nevertheless, even abortionists say the vast majority of partial-
birth abortions are elective. Dr. Haskell, the Ohio abortionist, said 
this:

       And I'll be quite frank; most of my abortions are elective 
     in that 20-24 week range.

  This is Dr. Haskell. Let me quote him again:

       And I'll be quite frank; most of my abortions are elective 
     in that 20-24 week range.

  ``Elective.''
  Opponents of this bill say this procedure is necessary when a fetus 
is abnormal. I do not believe the condition of a fetus ever warrants 
killing it. I do not

[[Page 5626]]

believe that. But even abortionists and some opponents of this ban 
agree that most partial-birth abortions involve healthy fetuses. And 
that is what the statistics clearly show.
  The inventor of this procedure himself, the late Dr. James McMahon, 
said:

       Gee, it's too bad that this child couldn't be adopted.

  Opponents of this bill contend that the partial birth procedure is 
rare, yet a report released just this past January suggests the number 
of partial-birth abortions has, in fact, tripled, accounting for an 
estimated 2,200 abortions in the year 2000.
  I have heard it stated on the floor that is just a small fraction of 
the number of abortions that are performed in this country every year. 
That may very well be true. Still, statistics would indicate, if we 
believe the previous statistics, that is a significant increase in the 
number of partial-birth abortions. And still, whatever the total number 
of abortions is in this country, that is still 2,200 abortions that 
occurred in this very barbaric manner in 1 year.
  I would again call my colleagues' attention to the description of 
this procedure. And again, I remind my colleagues that no one--no one--
will come to this floor and deny what a partial-birth abortion is. No 
one will come here and say what Senator Santorum has said, what I have 
said, what Senator Brownback will say, what any of us are saying about 
what this procedure is really like, is a lie or is not true. It is what 
it is, and no one can deny it.
  And so 2,200 of these children had to suffer that agony of a partial-
birth abortion. That is what the facts are. And there are many people 
who believe it is underreported. But we know of at least that many.
  Opponents say a ban on partial-birth abortion violates Roe v. Wade, 
and they conclude it must be unconstitutional. But, as anyone who has 
read that case knows, Roe declined to consider the constitutionality of 
the part of the Texas statute banning the killing of a child in the 
process of delivery. Moreover, the Supreme Court again declined to 
decide this issue in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
  Again, I ask, why does the baby have to be killed? Why?
  Opponents say this bill is unconstitutional because it does not have 
a health exception. But the American Medical Association itself has 
stated:

       There is no health reason for this procedure.

  ``There is no health reason for this procedure.''

       In fact, there is ample testimony to show that all of the 
     health consequences are more severe for this procedure than 
     any other procedure used.

  The AMA has also said:

       The partial delivery of a living fetus for the purpose of 
     killing it outside the womb is ethically offensive to most 
     Americans and physicians.

  I ask my colleagues who wish to continue to allow this heinous act, 
again, why does the baby have to be killed? Why?
  Mr. President and Members of the Senate, why do babies, 3 inches away 
from their first breath, have to die?
  Something is terribly wrong. With the advent of modern technology, we 
can sustain young life in ways we could not just a few short years ago. 
We sustain children much younger than the children who are being killed 
in partial-birth abortions, and they are in hospitals throughout this 
country. Most of us on the Senate floor have seen these children. And 
we have seen people, very gallantly, in hospitals fighting to save 
their lives every day.
  Unfortunately, we have created more and more savage methods of 
killing our young at the same time we are creating wonderful ways to 
try to continue to keep children alive and save lives.
  I think we are really destroying ourselves by not admitting as a 
society that partial-birth abortion is an evil against humanity. I 
believe there will be more and more horrible consequences for our 
Nation if we do not ban this cruel procedure.
  As Frederick Douglass stated more than 100 years ago:

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

  Mr. President, we must stop and ask: To what depths has the American 
conscience sunk? When it comes to abortion, is there nothing to which 
we will say: Enough, enough, no, stop; we will not tolerate this. At 
this point, we will draw the line. At this point, we will go no 
further.
  Partial-birth abortion is a very clear matter of right and wrong, 
good versus evil. It is my prayer that there will come a day when my 
colleagues, such as Senator Santorum and the rest of us who have fought 
this battle, won't have to come to the floor and talk about partial-
birth abortion. Nobody wants to talk about this. But until that day 
comes, when this procedure has been outlawed in our country once and 
for all, we will have to continue to come to the floor and talk about 
it. Now is the time to ban this very evil procedure. It is the right 
thing to do.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the question asked very eloquently by my 
friend is: How low have we sunk? I say pretty low, when we have a bill 
before us that doesn't even have an exception for the health of a 
woman. I get caught up in my throat when I think about it. Women like 
Viki Wilson, women who are religious, women who desperately want 
children, women who were told, as she was--and I will read her story--
that if she didn't have a procedure outlawed in this bill, she could 
never have a child again, and worse. So I think we sink pretty low when 
we write a bill that doesn't even have an exception that has been the 
law of this land since 1973 in a Supreme Court case that is still 
upheld, which says, yes, we can act to limit abortion, but we always 
have to make an exception for the life and the health of a woman. That 
is my position.
  I have said on this floor, along with many of my pro-choice 
colleagues who are Democrats and Republicans, we would ban all late-
term abortions, except for the life and health of the woman. My view is 
anyone who comes to this floor to ban a medical procedure that could 
save the life and health of a woman and doesn't have that exception, is 
sinking very low. It shows a lack of respect for women, a lack of 
respect for their lives, their future ability to have children, to love 
children, and for their future as healthy women.
  I will show you a list of problems that could develop in women if 
they don't have the procedures that are banned in this bill. Show me 
that list of what could happen. This comes from various physician 
letters, which I will ask to print in the Record later in the debate. 
This is what can happen to women if there is no health exception in the 
bill, which there is not. There are 15 pages of findings, but no health 
exceptions.
  The Supreme Court already ruled on this very same bill--the Nebraska 
law--and sent it back and said you cannot come to us with a bill that 
doesn't make an exception for the health of a woman. Why? Because they 
see that a woman could hemorrhage and die; a woman's uterus could 
rupture and she could die; a woman could get a blood clot and she could 
die; she could have an embolism and she could die; she could have a 
stroke and she could die; she could have damage to nearby organs and, 
in some cases, she would have to live paralyzed.
  How low have we sunk that we cannot make a exception for the health 
of a woman? Pretty low. Pretty low. When I started this debate, I made 
the point that there is no such thing as partial-birth abortion. It is 
a phrase that is used by the proponents of this bill in order to 
essentially make abortion illegal one procedure at a time. Every one of 
my friends who is on the floor time and time again, if you ask them, 
they will be honest and they will say they don't like Roe v. Wade; they 
don't think abortion should be legal; it ought to be criminalized. This 
is the way they are going--one procedure at a time.
  By the way, if you read the Supreme Court case--put up the chart that

[[Page 5627]]

shows what the Court said. We are talking about more than one procedure 
banned, although our friends will tell you it is one procedure. Look at 
what the case says.
  First of all, there is no health exception. I will go to this chart. 
The Supreme Court said in the Nebraska case, a legally identical bill:

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

  So let there be no mistake, those voting for this bill are not just 
outlawing one procedure, but many procedures, which fits right into the 
agenda of my friends who are here tonight and who will be here in the 
next several days debating with us, because they want no abortion--even 
though, if you ask the American people, should a woman have a right to 
choose, should Government stay out of that private decision, a vast 
majority will say yes, because it is out of respect for women to make a 
decision with their physician and with their God. It is a decision that 
has a lot of components to it, one they discuss with their families. It 
is a tough decision. But I don't personally think any Senator ought to 
be put in the bedroom of any of our people making these decisions, or 
in a doctor's office.
  If my daughter had a problem pregnancy and her health was threatened, 
just as Viki Wilson's was, I don't think that I would go to a U.S. 
Senator--not even the one who is a doctor, because he is a heart 
surgeon. If she had a heart problem, absolutely. I think it is 
important to see what the American Medical Association says about this. 
I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that they are very 
holier than thou about this and they have every right to their 
opinions. They do not know more than doctors. It is not their job to 
protect the life and health of women. They don't even know what they 
are talking about. Listen to the AMA. The AMA, American Medical 
Association, has previously stated their opposition to this bill:

       We oppose legislation that would criminalize a medical 
     practice or procedure. Since S. 3 includes a provision that 
     would impose a criminal penalty on physicians performing 
     intact dilation extraction, the AMA does not support this 
     bill.

  Even though they don't like the procedure, they would not support 
this bill. The letters I have had printed in the Record from practicing 
OB/GYNs--those are the doctors women go to. They don't go to ``Dr. 
Santorum,'' they don't go to ``Dr. DeWine,'' they don't go to ``Dr. 
Boxer,'' they don't go to ``Dr. Murray;'' they go to their OB/GYN.
  What do they say?

       We urge you to stand in defense of women's reproductive 
     health and vote against S. 3, legislation regarding so-called 
     partial-birth abortion.

  There is no mention of the term ``partial-birth abortion'' in any 
medical literature. There is no such term, I say to my friends. 
Physicians are never taught a technique called ``partial-birth 
abortion'' so, therefore, they are unable to medically define it. What 
is described in the legislation, they say, could ban all abortions.
  Why don't my colleagues just come out and say, ``Let's ban all 
abortions''? Let's have that debate. You lose it, at least with the 
American people. I do not know how the votes line up here. We are going 
to have a chance to vote on whether to overturn Roe v. Wade. We are 
going to offer that up. We will have a debate about that. Let's see 
where people stand on that one. But to do it in this way, making up a 
term and doing it in a way that is so vague that the Supreme Court 
basically says it covers a much broader category of procedures, is 
absolutely a fraud on the people. I do not know what else to call it. 
The Supreme Court said in an identical bill it is far broader than just 
one procedure.
  What did it say about the health of a woman? It also said:

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

  In other words, there is no health exception in this bill. Senator 
Santorum added 15 pages of language, but the operative part of the bill 
makes no exception for health.
  Let's be clear on what we are talking about. First of all, a partial-
birth abortion, which there is none, is a vague term which could ban 
all abortions and many abortions. There is no health exception 
whatsoever in the bill. Without a health exception, if a doctor fears a 
hemorrhage or a uterine rupture, or a blood clot or an embolism or a 
stroke or damage to nearby organs or even paralysis, it is not enough 
for my friends on the other side. How low have we sunk--I want to talk 
about that. If your daughter is told if she does not get this 
particular procedure, she may be paralyzed for life and you will not 
make an exception, how far have we sunk? I think that is a fair 
question.
  The debate we are having is not the real debate. The real debate is 
outlawing abortion completely and doing it one procedure at a time and 
making people think this particular procedure, A, is real, which there 
is no such thing as a partial-birth abortion--it is not in any 
dictionary; it is made up--and B, making them think you really are 
banning one procedure when the Supreme Court said, no, there are many 
procedures and maybe all abortions are banned.
  So why not come here like a man--and I say ``a man'' because it is 
the men on the other side who brought this to us. Maybe we will have 
some women debating it tomorrow, but so far we have seen the same men 
come down here, and they are saying they are after this partial-birth 
abortion when we know every one of them wants to ban all abortions, 
does not believe in a woman's right to choose, wants to criminalize 
women who would have an abortion, criminalize doctors, and have a 
constitutional amendment to make it illegal.
  I remember those days. Women died during those days. How low have we 
sunk? Women were made infertile in those days. All the points we see 
here--serious health consequences of banning safe procedures--all of 
that I remember in those days. Finally, the Supreme Court got 
enlightened in 1973 and said: Government, keep your nose out of this; 
it is a health issue; and if you legislate to clamp down on abortions 
in the late term--which, by the way, I agree with, but always have a 
life and health exception so we do not force women into a situation 
where they can lose their ability to function for their families.
  Let's put Viki's picture up again. I will tell you her story. She 
says:

       I urge you to oppose S. 3. I understand this bill is very 
     broad and would ban a wide range of abortion procedures. Mine 
     is one example of the many families that could be harmed by 
     legislation like this.
       In the spring of 1994, I was pregnant and expecting 
     Abigail, my third child, on Mother's Day. The nursery was 
     ready and our family was ecstatic. My husband, Bill, an 
     emergency room physician, had delivered our other children 
     and he would do it again this time. John, our older, would 
     cut the cord. Katie, our younger, would be the first to hold 
     the baby. Abigail had already become an important part of our 
     family.
       At 36 weeks of pregnancy, however, all of our dreams and 
     happy expectations came crashing down around us.

  This is Viki. She says:

       My doctor ordered an ultrasound and detected what all of my 
     previous prenatal testing had failed to detect. Two-thirds of 
     my daughter's brain had formed outside her skull. What I 
     thought were big healthy, strong movements were, in fact, 
     seizures. My doctor sent me to several specialists. We were 
     in a desperate attempt to find a way to save her.

  ``A desperate attempt to find a way to save her,'' and yet my 
colleagues come down here and make everyone believe that these women 
who have had this procedure were callous about it. ``A desperate 
attempt to save her.''

       Everyone agreed she would not survive outside my body. They 
     also feared that as the pregnancy progressed before I went 
     into labor, she would die from the increased compression in 
     her brain. The doctors feared that my uterus might rupture in 
     the birthing process, rendering me sterile. The doctor 
     recommended against C section because they could not justify 
     the risks to my health.

  What were the risks to her health? Let's look at it again and again 
and again. What could have happened to Viki if she had to live under 
this cruel law that has no health exception? She could have 
hemorrhaged. Her uterus could have ruptured. She could have had blood 
clots, an embolism, or a

[[Page 5628]]

stroke. She could have become paralyzed. Her organs nearby could have 
been damaged.
  When people come down here and say ``how low have we sunk,'' I agree: 
How low have we sunk to have a bill come before this body with a name 
that is not even a real procedure, that could outlaw a broad range of 
procedures, and that makes no exception for a woman's health and could 
consign her to live the rest of her life, if she survives it, in a 
horrific situation which could be so detrimental to her other children.
  I see my colleague has come to the floor. I am not going to go on 
much longer because I have a lot more to say on this and a lot more 
cases to share with my colleagues tomorrow. We have pictures and 
pictures and pictures of women and their children, women who are deeply 
religious, women who tried every way to save their pregnancy, women who 
wanted to live to try to have another child.
  Is that a crime? Is that being made a crime? Yes, it is being made a 
crime. I feel heavy in my heart that with all of the issues that face 
us, 250,000 troops--talk about killing. I have 5,000 National Guard on 
the border of Iraq, with another couple of thousand having been 
notified. I have young people over there, people who have left their 
families, who are going to face God knows what, and we are debating a 
procedure that would be banned, which does not even make an exception 
for the health of a woman such as Viki, and the many others I will 
bring to light.
  It is so callous. We have children who are uninsured who cannot even 
get medicine. We are not talking about that. We have the most 
unemployed people we have seen in decades, the worst economy we have 
seen in 50 years. The stock market plunged again today, and people have 
to work another 5 or 10 years because their dreams are gone. And we are 
talking about banning a procedure without making a health exception. I 
am amazed.
  Debate it we will, and we will offer amendments to try to bring 
health to women, to children, and to women who are pregnant. We hope 
our friends will be as eloquent in supporting those as they are 
eloquent tonight.
  We will have the chance to speak out on Roe v. Wade and see how many 
of our colleagues really support a woman's right to choose, as the 
Supreme Court laid it out, in the early stages of a pregnancy. And, 
yes, in the later stages one may not have an abortion unless it is to 
save the life and health of a woman. That is the law.
  This will set a dangerous precedent. It will send a message that the 
health of the mother does not matter. Every time I put up a picture, my 
friends will say, because they did it last time, oh, these women, they 
could have had it, there is no problem with them. Wrong. These women 
have come to us and told us they had the procedure that my colleagues 
want to ban, and had they not had it, they might not have lived to tell 
the tale or they would have had serious adverse health consequences.
  So how low have we come? That is for the people of America to decide. 
As far as I am concerned, anyone who comes to this floor and puts 
forward a bill that is so callous as to say that if a woman's health is 
threatened and she could suffer one of these terrible consequences, she 
cannot even have a procedure that her OB/GYN says she needs to have--it 
is callous, and I am going to speak out against it. I hope we will 
finish this in due course, have a good debate and move on, but we will 
be heard on our side. We did not bring this up, but we will be heard.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Ohio is in the 
Chamber so I will not speak very long. I do want to very briefly 
respond to my friend and colleague from California, if I may. I know we 
will have ample time the remainder of the week to debate this issue. 
She is an excellent debater, and I look forward to the chance of 
continuing this dialogue and this debate as we go forward. I do want to 
respond very briefly to a couple of her comments.
  Quite candidly, listening to my colleague from California, I almost 
get the impression that partial-birth abortion does not exist in this 
country or that no one could really define it or even know it when it 
exists. That is not true. The fact is that people know what it is. They 
know it takes place. It is counted, at least in one State. There are 
providers who say: I provide partial-birth abortion. So it is defined, 
and it is defined very specifically in this bill.
  Senator Santorum has worked very hard to have a definition that is a 
precise definition, and I might say that it is a more precise 
definition, a better definition, a definition that conforms to what the 
Supreme Court has said, a better definition than the previous bill 
taken up on the Senate floor. It is taking into consideration what the 
Supreme Court has said. I will read a portion of that definition to my 
colleagues.

       As used in this section, 1, the term ``partial-birth 
     abortion'' means an abortion in which, A, the person 
     performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally 
     vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a 
     head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the 
     body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, 
     any part of fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of 
     the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that 
     the person knows will kill the partially delivered living 
     fetus; and, B, performs the overt act, other than completion 
     of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.

  Then it continues on and defines physician, et cetera. But that is 
the key part. That is a very precise definition. So I would reject the 
argument that this is vague. It is not vague. It is very well 
understood.
  Turning to another point my colleague from California made, that has 
to do with the health of the mother, we had the opportunity to listen 
to a great deal of testimony in the past, and we have also had a lot of 
people who have talked about this issue. We will have the opportunity 
to debate this tomorrow and the days after. I am not going to quote a 
lot of people tonight because of the time, but the testimony has been 
very clear that this is not ever medically indicated. It is not 
something that is done in an emergency. One does not perform a 
procedure that takes 3 days in an emergency; something else is done. An 
emergency is not a 3-day procedure. Make no mistake about it, all the 
testimony has been that the partial-birth abortion takes 3 days. That 
is not an emergency procedure. It simply is not.
  Let me quote former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop:

       Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to 
     protect a mother's health or her fertility. On the contrary, 
     this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.

  Dr. Warren Hern, OB/GYN:

       I have very serious reservations about this procedure. You 
     really cannot defend it. I would dispute any statement that 
     this is the safest procedure to use.

  The physicians Ad Hoc Coalition For Truth said the following:

       Given the many potential risks the procedure entails the 
     mother, far from being medically indicated, partial-birth 
     abortion is actually contra-indicated.

  Dr. Pamela Smith, OB/GYN, said the following:

       Partial birth is, in fact, a public health hazard in 
     regards to women. Medically, I would contend, of all the 
     abortion techniques available to a woman, this is the worst 
     one which could be recommended in the situation of a mother's 
     health.

  Dr. Dominic Casanova, OB/GYN:

       This procedure is totally unnecessary and dangerous. If it 
     becomes necessary to evacuate a uterus beyond 20 weeks 
     gestation, there is a recognized standard method taught in 
     all OB/GYN training programs which involves another 
     procedure.

  It goes on and on. I will not take the Senate's time tonight. We will 
have an opportunity tomorrow to debate this. This is not medically 
indicated. The testimony has been abundantly clear. This is not a 
procedure that is ever used for the health of the mother.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I take a minute to rebut my friend before I listen to my 
colleague from Ohio. I find it very interesting that because a 
procedure

[[Page 5629]]

could take 3 days, it is not an emergency. If my daughter is undergoing 
a procedure and on the third day she dies, because perhaps something 
went wrong, she was in an emergency, even though it took 3 days. If 
someone has cancer and rushes into the hospital and it may take some 
intensive work over a period of days to save their life, the procedures 
used there are used because this is an emergency. To say it is not an 
emergency because it took 3 days to try to save a woman's life is, on 
its face, counterintuitive.
  I say again, my friend, with all due respect, absolutely knows this 
procedure he wants to ban without exception for health, he knows it is 
not the safest procedure.
  Well, I don't know what medical school he went to. Listen to the 
physicians. They are writing to us. They are stating over and over 
again, don't tie our hands; we may be forced to use this procedure. 
Don't tie our hands; a woman can suffer irreparable harm.
  I would love to believe in everything my friend----
  Mr. DeWINE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. I'm sorry?
  Mr. DeWINE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. I will.
  Mr. DeWINE. Does the Senator from California dispute Dr. Haskell's 
statement that the vast majority of these abortions are elective?
  Mrs. BOXER. I have not read what my friend is reading from. I wonder 
whether he has read what the obstetricians and gynecologists----
  Mr. DeWINE. Can my colleague answer that question?
  Mrs. BOXER. Send it over to me. I will be glad to. You are asking, do 
I agree with this doctor. I don't know who he is. I am telling you what 
I am agreeing with. I agree with the OB/GYN, the women physicians, the 
physicians who were dealing with these difficult pregnancies all the 
time.
  But I am happy--the time is mine, if I might, I say to my friend.
  Mr. DeWINE. You will not yield for another question. I understand.
  Mrs. BOXER. I didn't say I would not yield for another question.
  I asked you to send over the letter to which you are referring so I 
can answer the question with intelligence. I have not seen the letter. 
I am not asking my friend to comment on the OB/GYN because I don't know 
that he has seen it. I don't think that is right to do in an 
intelligent debate. I am happy to look at it and at that time I will be 
happy to answer the question.
  We have a situation where we are being told by doctors over and over 
again, thousands of doctors, 45,000 doctors, that they may well have to 
use this procedure. All they want is a health exception. My friends are 
not interested in giving us a health exception. They will have a chance 
to vote it down because we will offer up an exception that talks about 
the terrible things that can happen to a woman. If they want to vote it 
down and say no, that is fine. They have to live with that. That is 
fine.
  I don't want to have to face a Viki Wilson. I don't want to have to 
face the women who have told me this procedure that they want to ban 
saved them. I don't want to face them when they are sitting in a 
wheelchair and paralyzed or suffering from a stroke because my friends 
decided we were sinking so low that we would fight for an exception for 
health. Imagine. Just imagine.
  I rise tonight, and I will do so at every turn, because the facts 
simply are not on the side of those who want to get this through the 
Senate and outlaw a set of procedures the court said--by the way, my 
friend argues that the bill took care of the problem; it is very 
specific.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a legal 
analysis by the Center for Reproductive Rights which says very clearly 
that this bill is legally identical to the one that the court found 
unconstitutional.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                               Center for Reproductive Rights,

                                    Washington, DC, March 6, 2003.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: On June 29, 2000, in Stenberg v. 
     Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court held 
     that Nebraska's sweeping ban on abortion--misleadingly 
     labeled a ban on so-called ``partial-birth abortion''--was 
     unconstitutional. I was one of the attorneys who represented 
     LeRoy Carhart, M.D., the Nebraska physician who challenged 
     the ban in that case.
       In Carhart, the Court held that Nebraska's abortion ban was 
     unconstitutional for two reasons. First, the Court held that 
     the ban did not prohibit only one type of abortion procedure, 
     but instead outlawed several methods, including the safest 
     and ``most commonly used method for performing pre-viability 
     second trimester abortions,'' Carhart, 530 U.S. at 945, and 
     therefore constituted an undue burden on women's right to 
     choose. Second, the Court held that the Nebraska ban was 
     unconstitutional because it failed to include an exception 
     for women's health. The Court noted that ``a State may 
     promote but not endanger a woman's health when it regulates 
     the methods of abortion'' and that ``the absence of a health 
     exception will place women at an unnecessary risk of tragic 
     health consequences.'' Carhart, 530 U.S. at 931, 937.
       The new federal bill (H.R. 760, S. 3) contains the same two 
     flaws. Like the Nebraska law, the federal bill fails to limit 
     the stage of pregnancy to which the bill's provisions apply, 
     so the ban could criminalize abortions throughout pregnancy 
     (nor just post-viability or ``late term'' abortions, as the 
     bill's sponsors often claim), and the definition of ``partial 
     birth abortion'' in the bill is broad enough to criminalize 
     numerous safe abortion procedures, including the safest and 
     most commonly used method for performing abortions early in 
     the second trimester, the D&E method (not just one abortion 
     procedure, as the bill's sponsors misleadingly imply). 
     Moreover, the federal bill fails to limit its prohibitions to 
     abortions involving an ``intact'' fetus, fails to explicitly 
     exclude the D & E technique or the suction curettage abortion 
     method from the law's prohibitions, and fails to include 
     definitions of key terms such as ``living'' or ``completion 
     of delivery.'' Like the Nebraska law, the federal bill also 
     fails to include the constitutionally mandated health 
     exception. Therefore, the federal bill is unconstitutional 
     for the same reasons as the Nebraska law struck down in 
     Carhart.
       Because the U.S. Supreme Court has already struck down 
     legislation containing the same constitutional flaws 
     contained in the new federal bills, these bills can only be 
     seen as a direct attack on the Supreme Court's decision, on 
     the safest and most common abortion procedures in the second 
     trimester, and on the protection for women's health that have 
     been consistently reaffirmed throughout three decades of 
     abortion jurisprudence.
       Please feel free to contact me with any further inquiries.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Priscilla Smith,
                                                         Director.

  Mrs. BOXER. My friend did say, and I appreciate that, that he heard a 
lot of witnesses come forward to talk about this. That was a couple of 
years ago. For some reason, they have the time to do this but they did 
not have the time to send this bill to the Judiciary Committee where 
they could have looked at this issue.
  This is an amazing situation. We had a Supreme Court that argues that 
the Stenberg case, the legally identical bill to this, is 
unconstitutional on its face on two grounds--no health exception and a 
very vague definition. Here it is. Unconstitutional. This is what the 
Supreme Court said in a legally identical bill, and I have just placed 
in the Record a letter from the attorney who argued that case. She read 
the Santorum bill and says it is legally identical to the case that was 
declared unconstitutional. This is what the Court said. 
Unconstitutional because it put an undue burden on women because the 
definition is vague. Undue burden--very important words. You cannot put 
an undue burden on a woman because abortion under Roe is legal and in 
the late stages it is not legal if the State says it isn't, except for 
life and health. But it puts an undue burden because we don't know at 
what stage the woman is going to get this abortion and whether this 
procedure applies to it or not.
  No exception to protect a woman's health, that is the one that breaks 
my heart. After all of this, the Court sending it back, please make an 
exception for women's health, my friends do not even have it in their 
heart to make an exception for a woman's health. I find it difficult. 
So S. 3, the bill before us, and Stenberg are legally identical 
according to the lawyers who won the case.
  I argue the life exception is very narrow. It does not just say you 
can use it

[[Page 5630]]

if a woman's life is threatened. It says the woman has to have this 
preexisting condition. I argue that.
  But clearly my purpose tonight is to say to my friends on the other 
side, as we offer these amendments on women's health, be with us; as we 
offer these amendments on children's health, be with us; as we offer 
these amendments on prenatal care, be with us. Because you care about 
children, that is why you are here. So be with us. Be with us on these.
  I say be with us on Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade is a modest decision 
that said to government, take your nose outside of privacy. You cannot 
make a decision in an early stage of a pregnancy. Be with us on that. 
Be with us if we suggest that the Judiciary Committee ought to take a 
look at this in light of the Stenberg case. We offer our hand to you. 
Be with us when Senator Durbin offers a health exception. If you care 
about women and their families, be with us when we say make an 
exception if a woman is told she could be paralyzed if she does not 
have this or be prepared to face the consequences if this does become 
the law of the land and the Supreme Court does change. It is bringing 
pain and suffering to a lot of our families in America.
  We will give you the chance to offer up these amendments. We look 
forward to joining with you. We hope we will win a couple here. We have 
a few people already on your side of the aisle who are pro-choice who 
are going to be with us on some of these amendments. We hope we can 
expand that. We hope we can have a good vote on the health exception. I 
think we are getting close to winning that one. That would be a good 
day for women.
  Just remember the most important thing of all: This is about real 
people, real women like Viki. She is just one. These are religious 
women, caring women, loving women, who wanted these babies more than 
anyone could say but who knew if they didn't have the procedure that 
you want to ban, they could well die, be made infertile, have a blood 
clot, be paralyzed. We can't do this to women. We should not do this. 
We should respect women.
  We should act as Senators, not OB/GYNs. I think it is important.
  In closing, I want to say my friend, Senator Santorum, when I was out 
of the Chamber, said: Well, Senator Boxer said we should not ban 
procedures, but she voted to ban a medical procedure that would have 
allowed women's genitals to be mutilated.
  I just want to set the record straight. You are darned right I did. 
That is not a medical procedure; that is torture. That is torture. We 
are talking here about a medical procedure which doctors say is 
necessary to save the life and health of a woman in certain abortions. 
That's quite different. So I wanted to set the record straight.
  This debate is emotional. This debate is difficult. There is no doubt 
about it. But I am so proud to stand tonight, to call on my friends to 
be honest about what their true goal is. If it is to ban one procedure, 
then name it in the bill. They do not do that. It is vague. Therefore, 
according to the Court, it could ban all abortion. That is what the 
Supreme Court said.
  If that is what they are about, then be man enough to come over here 
and say they believe abortion should be banned, and then let's have at 
it and talk about the right of families, of women, to make a decision 
like this--with their doctor, with their God, with their conscience, 
with their family. But I say: Not with their Senator. I don't think I 
have that right. I have more humility than that.
  I try hard to be a good Senator. I try hard. I come here, I try to 
fight for the American dream for people. I fight for children, fight 
for families, fight for jobs. God knows we have trouble in this land. 
We have troubles in this land. Retirements are up in smoke. People are 
being forced to work longer and harder. I mean, there are a lot of 
issues that adversely impact on children and their families. But we 
will stand here and we will have a point/counterpoint as long as they 
want to do that.
  I thank you and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me just briefly respond on my own time 
now and maybe lay a little foundation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time. The Senator from Ohio has 
the floor.
  Mr. DeWINE. Let me lay a little foundation for my previous question 
that I asked my colleague from California. I will send over to her the 
quote from Dr. Haskell. But to explain to her who Dr. Haskell is, Dr. 
Haskell is probably the foremost--I would say notorious--partial-birth 
abortion provider in this country. He operates in my home State, near 
my hometown. He operates in Dayton, OH. He performs many partial-birth 
abortions.
  The quote I have is as follows. I will read the quote that I have. 
Dr. Martin Haskell indicates he:

     . . . routinely does this procedure on all patients, 20 to 24 
     weeks pregnant, except on women--

  He gives some exceptions.
  He further states:

       And I'll be quite frank. Most of my abortions are elective 
     in that 20 to 24-week range.

  My only point to my colleague was that most partial-birth abortions 
are elective. I think that has been, frankly, the testimony of most of 
the witnesses we had. I don't think it is really a disputed issue. That 
was the only point of my question.
  I want to return briefly to the issue of medical necessity. I would 
like to maybe quote a couple more experts who have testified in front 
of Congress in the past.
  Dr. Pamela Smith, Medical Education Director of Mount Sinai Medical 
Center in Chicago, has testified in front of Congress. Here is what she 
has said.

       So, for someone to choose a procedure that takes 3 days, if 
     they are really interested in the life of the mother, that 
     puts the mother's life in further jeopardy.

  Members of the Senate, those are not my words. Those are the words of 
Dr. Pamela Smith.
  Dr. Nancy Romer, Chairman of OB/GYN and professor at Wright State 
University Medical School in Ohio, had this to say:

       There is simply no data anywhere in medical literature in 
     regard to the safety of this procedure.

  Again she was talking about the partial-birth abortion. I continue to 
quote Dr. Romer.

       There is no peer review or accountability of this 
     procedure. There is no medical evidence that a partial-birth 
     abortion procedure is safer, or necessary to provide 
     comprehensive health care to women.

  Finally, Dr. Donna Harrison, a Fellow of the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, put it most simply:

       This is medical nonsense. It is a hideous travesty of 
     medical care and should be rightly banned in this country.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Partial-Birth 
Abortion Ban Act. I am grateful to the Senator from Pennsylvania, and 
my colleague from Ohio, the senior Senator from Ohio, for their 
courageous fight to stop this barbaric procedure. Any of us who have 
listened to them cannot help but be moved by their eloquence in regard 
to the importance of banning this procedure.
  This tie that I have on is one that was given to me last week. It 
says, ``Stop Violence Against Women.''
  I wish those of us who are opposed to this procedure would have had 
ties made saying, ``Stop Violence Against Babies.''
  It is even difficult to talk about because it is a gruesome 
procedure, but we need to remind Members of the Senate that this is a 
procedure that is not done on an emergency basis. It is a little bit 
difficult for me to talk about it because last week my daughter 
delivered our fifth grandchild, a little baby girl, Emily Elizabeth.
  The way the procedure goes is that a woman goes through 2 days of 
doctor visits to get dilated; 2 days to get dilated. On the third day, 
the baby is positioned for delivery in the birth canal. The doctor then 
pulls the living baby feet first out of the womb and into the birth 
canal, except for the head which

[[Page 5631]]

the abortionist purposely keeps lodged just inside of the womb. The 
doctor punctures the base of the baby's skull with a surgical 
instrument such as long surgical scissors or a pointed hollow metal 
tube called a trochar.
  He then inserts a catheter into the wound and removals the baby's 
brain with a powerful suction machine. This causes the skull to 
collapse, after which the doctor completes the delivery of the now dead 
baby.
  I can't understand how anyone can support this ghastly procedure or 
cannot support it being illegal.
  There are some who say it is hard to believe we are even talking 
about the question on the floor of the Senate. In an editorial today, 
the Washington Post called our debate in the Senate on this subject 
``pointless.'' I have also heard my colleagues take the floor and 
state, Have we no other priorities that take precedence over this? What 
priority is more important than human life? It is hard for me to 
believe anyone would say we should not even discuss this procedure that 
kills a human being. It should have been banned years ago. I am glad we 
are moving early in the 108th Congress to go forward with something 
that should have been done many years ago.
  The subject of partial-birth abortion is not a new one for me. Eight 
years ago in 1995, Ohio was the first State to pass a partial-birth 
abortion ban. The bill prohibited doctors from performing abortions 
after the 24th week of pregnancy and banned completely the dilation and 
extraction procedure we call the partial-birth procedure in this bill, 
the one I just described.
  The bill allows late-term abortions to save the life of the mother. 
The women seeking abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy were 
required to undergo tests to determine the viability of the fetus, and 
if the fetus was deemed to be viable, the abortion would be illegal.
  I am glad the Senator from Ohio pointed out the language in this bill 
has been carefully drafted. It is not ambiguous. I have heard the 
Senator from California say this should have gone to the Judiciary 
Committee. The fact is this has been discussed on the floor of the 
Senate since 1994.
  While I was Governor, I watched the partial-birth abortion ban make 
its way through the 104th and 105th Congresses, only to be vetoed by 
President Clinton. It has been around a long time.
  After I arrived in the Senate in the 106th Congress, I gave a speech 
in support of banning partial-birth abortion and, quite frankly, 
lobbied some of my colleagues to support it. The bill passed both 
Chambers of the Senate and the House. It made it to conference but 
never came out of conference.
  I have listened to my colleagues quote statistics and spout off facts 
about medical necessity and the health of the mother. We can all quote 
different statistics, but the bottom line is there is no need for this 
procedure. My colleague from Ohio has spoken to that very clearly. Most 
of these partial-birth abortions are elective. They take 3 days to 
complete. If a mother really needs an abortion, she has alternatives 
available to her that are not as tortuous as partial-birth abortion.
  It is interesting to note that in January 2003 the Alan Guttmacher 
Institute, which is affiliated with Planned Parenthood, published a 
survey of abortion providers, showing that the number of partial-birth 
abortions more than tripled between 1996 and 2000. Why is the 
occurrence of such a procedure that is never medically necessary 
increasing? One of the main reasons we do not need these late-term 
abortions is thanks to the technology available today. It is better 
than it has ever been before. We can identify problems very early in 
the pregnancy so abortions can take place earlier. Women today are 
being encouraged to come in early in the first trimester for the 
various tests they need so that if an abortion is acceptable to them, 
they can have an early abortion while the baby is still not viable 
outside the womb. In fact, to date, the technology is so sophisticated 
that if they find there is something wrong with a baby, they can go in 
through surgery and correct it in the womb.
  I want to make it clear to those who believe in abortion and who face 
that tremendous decision in terms of whether they are going to deliver 
the baby, that there are other procedures available. The victims of the 
partial-birth abortions are human beings. I find it interesting that 
they are sometimes called ``living fetuses.'' They are living human 
beings. Whether they are called ``babies'' or ``fetuses,'' no one seems 
to dispute the fact that they are living. In fact, they are human 
babies and they can feel pain. When partial-birth abortions are 
performed, these babies are just 3 inches away from life and, for that 
matter, seconds away from life.
  I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to stand up against what I 
refer to as ``human infanticide.'' This is not Roe v. Wade. I suspect 
that when the vote is taken on the floor of the Senate, there are going 
to be many people who will support partial-birth abortion who label 
themselves as pro-choice and pro-abortion. When this legislation passed 
in Ohio back in 1995, it passed overwhelmingly in both houses, and 
there were pro-life and pro-choice and pro-abortion people who 
supported this legislation. This is not an issue of Roe v. Wade. This 
is an issue of banning a procedure that is gruesome and is not 
medically necessary.
  In the State of the Union address this year, President Bush again 
pledged to support the legislation and said, ``We must not overlook the 
weakest among us. I ask you to protect infants at the very hour of 
their birth and end the practice of partial-birth abortion.''
  I urge my colleagues to vote to ban partial-birth abortions in the 
United States of America and end this national tragedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ohio yield the floor?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, my friend talked about the joy of 
childbirth. He is so right. I have a magnificent grandchild. I have two 
beautiful children, a boy and girl. They were both premature. It was 
very scary, and they made it. It was wonderful. I absolutely can say 
there is no greater joy in my life. As I stand here today, it is 
because I am pro-children. I am pro-family. I am for healthy families. 
I am for women not having to face a situation where they could be 
paralyzed for life if a certain procedure is banned.
  My friend says it is not about Roe v. Wade. Nothing could be further 
from the truth. None other than the Supreme Court said on an identical 
bill in Nebraska that, in fact, it was against Roe v. Wade--that 
because there was no exception for the health of the mother in which 
you have the same situation here. You have salutary language in 
findings. But the operative language makes no exception for health. 
That is against Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade was a very carefully crafted 
bill that has withstood time since 1973. Even this Supreme Court, which 
is new, as we well know, and to the right, has supported Roe very 
recently.
  It says to me, if you look at the case that just came down, you have 
two problems with this bill that goes against Roe: No health exception. 
Everyone agrees there is no health exception. The fact is that the 
terminology used is very vague. Therefore, it puts an undue burden on a 
woman because it could ban all abortion procedures.
  Having said that, it seems to me puzzling why this bill didn't go 
back to the Judiciary Committee. I will tell you why. It is not as if 
nothing has changed since we looked at this the last time. Everything 
changed. The Supreme Court said the partial-birth abortion ban, as the 
Senator calls it, was unconstitutional in Nebraska because they had no 
health exception and it put an undue burden on women because the 
definition is vague. That has not been cured here.
  This is going to go right back to the Supreme Court. I am sure the 
President will sign this bill because he definitely said he is looking 
forward to doing that. And it will go to the Court, and I believe it 
will be struck down because it hasn't met the problems the Court found.
  It is puzzling to me why we wouldn't send it back to the Judiciary 
Committee to discuss the problems the

[[Page 5632]]

Court found with a legally identical bill. I have had printed in the 
Record a letter from attorneys who say, in fact, this is a legally 
identical bill.
  I want to close tonight for my part and talk about another case 
because my friend was very eloquent, and I appreciate his eloquence 
about children and families.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Will the Senator from California yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. I certainly will.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Do you agree this issue has been debated on the floor 
of the Senate for a long period of time?
  Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely, it has been, but not since the Supreme Court 
case which struck down a legally identical bill. That is why I believe 
it should go back to Judiciary.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Is my colleague from California aware of the fact that 
those of us who want to ban this procedure believe the language in this 
bill is not vague and that it will sustain a test in the Supreme Court 
of the United States?
  Mrs. BOXER. With all due respect to my friend, we have a Judiciary 
Committee that is supposed to make those judgments. So I am sure you 
think it is fine. You thought the other one was fine, the Stenberg 
case. You thought the Nebraska case met the Roe v. Wade requirements as 
well. You were wrong and you were faulty.
  So I believe if there is sincerity here--this isn't about politics or 
whatever--it is really about meeting the constitutional requirements of 
Roe, it should have gone back.
  But I agree with my friend, sure, it has been debated quite a bit, 
but not since this latest case.
  Mr. VOINOVICH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from California yield for a 
question?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Will the Senator yield the floor back so I can make 
a----
  Mrs. BOXER. I am not going to yield the floor back to you, but I am 
happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. The question I would ask, again, is that those of us 
who have had a concern about this for many, many years have studied the 
language quite carefully. I particularly have because of the fact that 
we had two partial-birth abortion statutes that passed in Ohio, and we 
were looking at what the Supreme Court was going to do with the 
Nebraska case.
  I must say to you we have looked at it as carefully as we can. We 
believe the language that is in the bill is not vague. We believe it 
will stand up to a test in the Supreme Court, and that to go back to 
the Judiciary Committee, quite frankly, would just delay the real 
issue; that is, whether we have enough votes on the floor of the Senate 
to ban partial-birth abortions.
  Mrs. BOXER. Was that a question?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I think that was a statement.
  Mrs. BOXER. Let me say to my friend, I appreciate his sincerity. I do 
not question it for one minute. But I also have studied this. I also 
have cared about this, because I care about women who I am going to be 
talking about here tonight, and many of whom have come to see me in 
California and here. They are begging me to fight this because it does 
not have a health exception. Even though my friend thinks you have 
written it in a way to have a health exception, it isn't in the bill.
  Here is another story about Claudia Crown Ades, who, in 1992, was in 
the 26th week of a desperately wanted pregnancy. Claudia and her 
husband, Richard, were told, after an ultra-
sound, that their son had a genetic condition called trisomy 13. His 
anomalies included extensive brain damage due to a fluid-filled 
nonfunctional brain and a malformed heart with a large hole between the 
chambers. He also had developed liver, kidney, and intestinal 
malformations. He did not have normal blood flow.
  They were told his condition was incompatible with life. She was told 
if she did not have this procedure she could suffer a number of 
problems, which I have talked about before, that we have been told by 
doctors can occur if the procedure is not available.
  Her loving family got together, and they decided to have this 
procedure. It saved her. She did not have to suffer the potential of 
having a hemorrhage, a blood clot, an embolism, stroke, or paralysis.
  So I know my friend worked hard on this bill. I am just saying, it 
would not take that much effort to get the Judiciary Committee to take 
a look at it since the stakes are so high for the women of this country 
to outlaw a procedure, to not have a health exception, and to have such 
a vaguely drawn phrase about a procedure that is a nonexistent medical 
procedure. It was given to a procedure that I have already put in the 
Record.
  Maybe my friend did not hear me, but several physicians, representing 
45,000 OB/GYNs, say there is no such thing as this, and that these 
procedures could be far more than one.
  So I am going to close my statement here tonight.
  Does my friend have a question?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I do have a question.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am glad to yield for a question.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. What is puzzling to me--the question is, you have 
pointed out some unusual cases that----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators are reminded that they will address 
questions through the Chair and not address each other in the first 
person.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Would the Senator from California agree that the 
technology today, in terms of the delivery of babies, in the 
ascertaining of a problem that a baby or a delivering mother would 
have, has improved substantially over what it was in 1994 when we first 
started the debate on this legislation?
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank God, we have had so many advances. In my own family 
we had a circumstance where we were very fearful we were going to lose 
a pregnancy of one of my children. And because of these incredible 
advances, she held on, and long enough to have a healthy baby.
  What a miracle that is. That is the reason why I support banning all 
late-term abortions across the board. I think that is consistent with 
Roe. But for the life and health of a woman, which always must be, it 
seems to me, considered in a civilized country, we need to make sure 
women are not facing these kinds of serious problems.
  So yes, I say to my friend, I could not be more excited about the 
incredible progress we have made.
  Does my friend have another question?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I do.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. If you agree that the medical technology today is 
better than it was in 1994, can you explain to me why the Alan 
Guttmacher Institute, which is an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, 
published a survey of abortion providers, showing that the number of 
partial-birth abortions more than tripled between 1996 and 2000? 
Wouldn't you think there would be less partial-birth abortions because 
of the technology that we have, less cases like the ones you have 
presented here before my colleagues in the Senate?
  Mrs. BOXER. Let me say to my friend, he keeps referring to partial-
birth abortions: ``There would be less partial-birth abortions.'' I 
would defy my friend to show me where there is a list of so-called 
partial-birth abortions. Because there are none. This is a made-up 
term. I will read to you again--because having a debate about partial-
birth abortion, I do not know that you take care of these women on a 
daily basis, as do physicians, but I want to answer my friend.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. I would like to answer my friend's question. He is asking 
me a question, whether I disagree with the premise. The premise is, 
there is a procedure called partial-birth abortion. Physicians are 
telling me--and I believe them, I hate to tell you, over you, because 
this is their life's work. These are OB/GYNs. They are saying, there is 
no such technique as partial-birth abortion.
  Reclaiming my time, I am going to conclude in this way: I have shown 
you a couple of cases. My friends say: Oh, they are a couple of 
anomalies. There are many more I am going to share--many, many more--
many more photographs, many more stories, compelling

[[Page 5633]]

stories of loving, religious, caring families that made a decision 
based on the facts as they were laid out, so that a woman could live 
and be a mother to her other children, so she could go on with her 
life, where she could have been in a circumstance where she could have 
absolutely been in peril for her whole family for the rest of her life.
  I think we have a lot of power here in the Senate. That is why I am 
so proud the people of California sent me here. And my friend feels so 
proud the people of Ohio sent him here, as my friend, who is sitting in 
the Chair, feels so proud the people of Nevada sent him here.
  We work hard to get here. And I do not shrink from responsibility. I 
am very happy to take on whatever responsibility that I have.
  I do not see it in the Constitution that I should outlaw a medical 
procedure that doctors are saying to me is necessary to save the life 
and health of a woman.
  I think that harms families. If my friends would like to offer a 
health exception, we would have a lot of support. Dick Durbin will do 
that. I hope a lot of you will join us.
  I will conclude my remarks because this is what I really think about 
this. I don't think this about my friends who are on the floor, but I 
think if you look around for the past 2 years, you see what has 
happened to women who want to exercise their right to choose, their 
right to family planning, and you see what has happened to women in 
this country. So I am going to conclude with the chart that will go 
through what has happened to women's rights in this country in terms of 
a right to choose, which is so important, it seems to me.
  First, we have a situation where the administration says pregnant 
women won't be eligible for health benefits; their fetus will--not 
them. Keep in mind what we have here. This is a circumstance where we 
have a bill that will outlaw a procedure that doctors tell us they need 
to save the life and health of a woman. Put that into perspective with 
what has been happening lately to women's rights. So a woman is ignored 
by this administration. They are going to give the prenatal care to the 
fetus, not to the woman. What does that say about women, by the way? We 
are not entities; we are just here to exist. People can look right by 
us. That is not right. That in and of itself is an insult, a lack of 
respect, it seems to me, for women.
  Pushing legislation recognizing an embryo as a person with rights 
separate and apart from the woman's: Again, what does that say about 
women?
  Moving legislation forcing some young women to make reproductive 
health choices alone, and criminalizing caring adults who help them: 
That will hit us soon in this debate.
  Attempts to block women's access to RU486, a drug proven safe and 
effective by the FDA, which will avoid abortion procedures: We have 
trouble with that. By the way, women all over the world have this, and 
we have fought hard to get our women to have nonsurgical abortion, 
which is safer. It has been a fight. So far we have won it. It is under 
attack.
  Attempts to block access to emergency contraception: We are going to 
have a chance to vote on that during the course of this debate.
  Denial of Roe v. Wade's protections to Federal employees; low-income 
women who rely on the Federal Government for their health care; poor 
women who live in the District of Columbia--in other words, women, 
including U.S. servicewomen, who pay out of their own pocket for a 
procedure cannot even use a Federal facility, with our women abroad, in 
difficult places all over the world--again, a lack of respect.
  Why am I bringing this up now? Because I see what we are doing here 
as a continuation of what I would call a basic assault on a woman's 
right to choose, which I consider to be a fundamental right that has 
been articulated in Roe v. Wade and stands for respect of a woman.
  We have seen starving funding for family planning programs, and 
international family planning is basically impounded by this 
administration, $34 million. That money can save, by the way, tens of 
thousands in abortions. If a woman has family planning, she will 
hopefully plan her family and not be in a circumstance where she might 
seek an abortion. Tell me how that makes any sense. I don't really see 
it.
  Attempts to channel taxpayer funds to deceptive crisis pregnancy 
centers that intimidate and withhold information from women; pushing 
legislation to gag doctors from providing abortion referrals; placing a 
gag rule on international family planning providers; push for youth 
programs that censor discussion of contraception benefits; censorship, 
then revision of medical information on Government Web sites about 
condoms, and the unproven ``link'' between abortion and breast cancer; 
attempt to fund Federal research on the unproven link between abortion 
and breast cancer; key Cabinet appointments who oppose the 
constitutionally protected right to choose; campaign to pack courts 
with judges hostile to women's rights; refusal to hold perpetrators of 
violence, intimidation, and harassment at reproductive health clinics 
responsible for their illegal acts; refusal to act on international 
women's rights treaty. I am involved in that, the convention to 
eliminate all forms of discrimination against women. We are standing 
with countries such as Angola because somebody says that may mean we 
support a woman's right to choose. Heaven forbid. So we cannot even 
sign onto a treaty. It is stunning to me; enactment of 335 antichoice 
State measures into law since 1995.
  So what I am suggesting to you is there is an agenda here--and this 
is part of it--to ill-define a procedure so it could, in fact, relate 
to more than one. The court says it could effectively ban all abortion, 
without really saying they are doing that and not having a health 
exception, so that women could face all kinds of horrible problems. It 
is just part of this campaign, if you will, this assault that I see 
happening, that I feel is very sad for the women in this country.
  This is the 21st century. We should allow women to make very private, 
very difficult choices, as long as these decisions are in accord with 
the guidelines sent down in 1973.
  I will close by saying that Roe v. Wade is a very logical, moderate 
position. It says in the very beginning of a pregnancy that a woman has 
a right to choose to have an abortion, without the interference in that 
decision by government. Then it says after that time, government cannot 
come in and put in restrictions--but always an exception for the life 
and health of the mother. I think that is a balance.
  The problem with this bill, it bans procedures--and maybe all 
procedures--many procedures, except some that are very dangerous to a 
woman, and procedures that could be used at any stage of abortion. That 
is what the court said, and it makes no exception for her health. I 
argue the life exception is very narrowly drawn, but we don't have time 
to go into that tonight.
  Thank you very much. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I reiterate the fact that this is not 
an issue that gets to the basis of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. 
Wade. I predict that just as in the past on the floor of the Senate, 
there are going to be people supporting the outlaw of this gruesome 
procedure, which is not necessary, who are very much pro-choice, pro-
abortion, and who will probably have amendments on the floor of the 
Senate, a sense of the Senate, in terms of Roe v. Wade and many of the 
people who will vote to sustain Roe v. Wade will be some of the same 
people who will vote against this procedure because they understand how 
gruesome it is.
  I point out one other fact. You just cannot give the back of the hand 
statistics from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is a very 
respected institute, which is an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, that 
published a survey of abortion providers showing--these are abortion 
providers, OK--showing that

[[Page 5634]]

the number of partial-birth abortions more than tripled between 1996 
and 2000.
  So this procedure is not one that is being practiced in some of the 
examples that my colleague from California has presented on the floor 
of the Senate but, rather, has become a regular procedure in the 
offices of many OB/GYN doctors in this country--a procedure that is not 
necessary.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this much-
needed and long-overdue measure. There is no place in a decent nation 
for the barbaric practice known as partial-birth abortion. Senator 
Santorum's measure is the only one the Senate is considering that will 
put an end to it once and for all.
  Every abortion ends the life of a tiny boy or girl, but only partial-
birth abortion involves the destruction of life at the moment when a 
child is being brought out of the womb--and he or she is just inches 
from under the full protection of our laws. Partial-birth abortion 
blurs the line and does so in such a way as to further erode the 
sanctity of life.
  The legislation Senator Santorum has proposed should avoid the 
constitutional problems that five Supreme Court Justices found in 
Nebraska's statute in the Stenberg v. Carhart case. Specifically, it 
addresses the concern that the partial-birth abortion procedure might 
be necessary to protect the health of the mother by incorporating as 
findings the view of the American Medical Association and the 
overwhelming majority of physicians that there is no circumstance where 
the health of the mother demands this procedure. It also contains a 
more specific definition of the partial-birth abortion procedure, in 
response to the Stenberg decision.
  This revised definition ensures that, once we pass this bill, it will 
no longer be permissible in America to--and here I quote the language 
of the bill itself--``deliberately and intentionally vag-
inally deliver a living fetus until, the entire fetal head is outside 
the body of the mother and then kill the baby as happens in a typical 
partial-birth abortion.''
  There is no doubt, in contrast, that the substitute measures that the 
Senate is considering will permit the continued use of this 
unconscionable procedure. To secure the approval of the radical, pro-
abortion lobby, the authors of such measures inevitably draft their so-
called ``bans'' in such a way as to permit ``health of the mother'' 
exceptions that effectively negate the restrictions. Again, the 
testimony of the mainstream medical community makes it clear that 
``health of the mother'' is a red herring in the partial-birth abortion 
context, and I trust that any measure containing such an ``exception'' 
will be soundly defeated.
  It is simply not possible to seek cover politically while 
substantively protecting the most unscrupulous abortionists. The 
American people overwhelmingly favor enactment of a real partial-birth 
abortion ban. Despite the predictable efforts to obscure what is really 
a very clear issue--how we wish to treat the most vulnerable members of 
our human family--they will soon have it.

                          ____________________