Mr. President, to comment directly on the Senator's motion to recommit, she cites statements by Members of the Republican leadership concerning the practice last session of repeatedly bringing bills…
Mr. President, to comment directly on the Senator's motion to recommit, she cites statements by Members of the Republican leadership concerning the practice last session of repeatedly bringing bills to the floor without having gone through committee. The bills we were referring to included a comprehensive energy bill, a bill about that thick, and the agriculture reauthorization, which was another rather thick and complicated piece of legislation, all brand-new material. The prescription drug plan, roughly $300 to $400 million in new Government spending, and a brand-new entitlement, never went through committee. And a whole host of other pieces of legislation. We are talking about major, complex, lengthy, pieces of legislation.
The corporate responsibility bill was dramatically changed and a whole list of others that came to this floor. Members were justifiably concerned that these rather extensive and expensive and complex pieces of legislation should have had some review at the committee level.
None of these measures, prior to their being placed on the floor of the Senate, had been on the floor of the Senate before, had not had any kind of consideration in any body.
Compare that to the legislation before the Senate. The legislation before the Senate is the same subject matter we have debated on the floor on four previous occasions. There have been two extensive Judiciary Committee hearings on this piece of legislation and there has been wide discussion both on the floor and off the floor about this particular procedure.
The Senator from California argues we should have this bill go before the Judiciary Committee now because it is a changed bill. These are her words: ``It's a changed bill.'' Earlier in her discussion she said this bill does not meet constitutional muster because it is identical to the bill we passed previously. So if it is identical, how can it be changed? If it is identical, why do we have to go back? If it is not identical, you can at least make the point we need to go back.
I make the argument the underlying issue we are dealing with here, the issue of banning this procedure, has not changed at all. Some of the legislative language has changed, but the Senate floor is eventually going to handle this issue anyway and is perfectly competent to review this legal language and make a determination on their own as to whether they believe this meets the constitutional standard as set forth in the Carhart decision. I don't believe it is hard. There is a unique expertise within the Judiciary Committee to deal with something that eventually we have to deal with on the floor. There is a lot of information written about this subject area, and it has been fully and openly debated on the Senate floor.
It is a very narrow issue. This is not a Medicare prescription drug plan. This is not a comprehensive energy strategy. This is not an agriculture reauthorization bill. This is not a corporate responsibility bill. This is a very narrow single issue. We are talking about the difference in this case between maybe 20 or 30 words. I don't think we need a Judiciary Committee hearing and markup for 20 or 30 words on a bill we have debated four times on the floor of the Senate. We are perfectly capable of handling it.
That leads me to the second issue, which is the issue of constitutionality the Senator from California brings up as a reason to commit this legislation back to committee.
Let me address those issues. First, the issue of vagueness. The Senator from California quotes the U.S. Supreme Court in saying, ``its language makes clear''--its language being the bill's language in Nebraska--``that it also covers a much broader category of procedures.'' As a result of that, the possibility with the language in the Nebraska statute covering procedures other than partial-birth abortion, the Court found it to be vague.
We have responded to that. We have responded to that with a much more detailed definition. Let me read the operative parts of the definition to show the difference in language in how we have responded to this concern. In S. 1692, which was virtually identical to the Nebraska statute, the definition was:
An abortion in which the person performing the abortion
deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers some
portion of
an intact living fetus until the fetus is partially outside
the body of the mother.
Let me repeat that:
. . . some portion of an intact living fetus until the
fetus is partially outside the body of the mother.
The Court said there are other procedures done, late-term abortion procedures that are done, that in the process of doing that procedure, a portion of the body--maybe an arm or a leg or an appendage, may actually come outside of the mother while the child is still alive. So what they are saying is as a result of that, we could be banning this other procedure. In the course of doing another abortion procedure that is legal, not barred by the legislation before us today, that could occur.
We have addressed that issue. They clearly point to that particular example. We have changed the language by saying 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 a breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk''--not an arm, not a hand, not a foot, not a leg--any part of the fetal trunk, which means, of course, the feet, the legs and the trunk ``past the navel, is outside the body of the mother.''
So we are not talking about performing a D&E, where the baby is killed in utero and dismembered and taken out a piece at a time. We are not talking about that procedure. We are talking about a procedure where--if we can get the chart so I can graphically show what we are talking about--there is no other procedure that could possibly be covered.
I ask those who are opponents of this bill if they can name for me another procedure where the child would be arms, legs, and trunk outside of the mother, all but the head. That is the procedure we are talking about here. No other medical procedure as defined in the medical literature has a baby in this position. Period. Period. There is no vagueness here. We are clear about this procedure.
We are very clear that the child is delivered in a breech position and then, if we put the previous chart up, these 8-inch long scissors-- we can see the scissors are about as long as a human hand and the baby is roughly as long, maybe slightly longer than a human hand. This baby at this point is roughly, I believe, 24 weeks, which is roughly the time, 20 to 26 or 27 weeks, when the vast majority of these partial- birth abortions are performed.
I know the Senator from California said her constituents saw these pictures and they couldn't look at them. That is why we are trying to ban this procedure. Because this is horrific. You cannot look at it and not be affected.
The Senator from Washington, the day before yesterday, said that banning this procedure is an extreme measure. I would like to know what her definition of extreme is. Banning this procedure is an extreme measure. I asked her what she thought about the fact that 70 percent of the American public wanted to ban this procedure. Under my definition of extreme, it does not equate to 70 percent support of something being considered extreme. But she held fast. She said the reason it is 70 percent support is because they do not understand really what this procedure is all about.
I want to juxtapose that statement to the statement of the Senator from California who said the people in her State could not even look at the pictures. I suggest to you, what if every single American were forced to sit in front of a television set, or, worse yet, were required to come into an abortion clinic--these are not performed at hospitals; they are just performed at abortion clinics. What if every single American were required to come in and watch this occur to a little baby, to stand and watch a physician who is trained to heal, who is trained to save lives, who is trained, as the Senator from California said yesterday, to ``first do no harm,'' remove a 20-week to 26-week, 27-week--in some cases unfortunately later than that--little baby from its mother.
This is the part I just find chilling. Imagine yourself, close your eyes and imagine yourself in this abortion clinic watching this little child. I have witnessed the birth of our seven little children. I see these little people emerge miraculously, incredibly, from the birth canal, from their mother into the loving hands of a doctor whose job it is to heal, whose job it is to nurture and take care of that child.
But in this case those hands are not there to heal. These are not healing hands. They look like it, don't they? They have the gloves on, don't they? They are sterile, aren't they? But they are not healing hands. No, these hands are not there to heal this little child. Those hands are there to grasp that little child who is alive; who is alive. By definition, under this bill, this is not a partial-birth abortion, because it says ``delivers a living fetus.''
So, if this child is not alive, this procedure is not barred. This procedure is only barred if this baby is alive.
So you have hands of a doctor trained to heal, grasping a living child whose arms and legs are extended, whose heart is beating, whose nerves are sensing, whose brain is attempting to understand what is going on, and he's grasping this living being.
When you hold something that is alive, when you have it in your hands, whether it is a little rabbit, guinea pig, or little puppy, there is a feeling. There is a sense you have when you are holding something that is alive. This doctor is holding something he or she knows is alive and is 3 inches from being born, 3 inches from constitutional protection. This doctor is not there to heal. He is there to take these scissors, long, narrow scissors that come to a point at the end--they are called Metzenbaum scissors--his job is to do this blindly, because this is not done with a sonogram. This is not done where the doctor can see inside of the mother through a medical device. No, this is done blindly. The doctor is feeling, reaching his hands in to find the spot, the lethal spot, the soft spot here at the base of the skull, that soft spot in this little baby where he takes this sharp instrument and blindly thrusts it into this baby's skull.
As our majority leader said yesterday, it is a dangerous procedure for mothers. It is a blind procedure. It is done in an area of the body that is very susceptible to injury. It is a very lush area of the body. There is no protection for the mother. As the Senator from Tennessee yesterday said, those scissors could slip because it a blind procedure. They could perforate a uterus, or they could lead to incompetent cervix. They could lead to a variety of harm that other late-term abortion procedures do not do.
Not only is this lethal for this baby but it is dangerous for the mother. According to the doctor who designed this procedure, he said-- again, this his testimony--that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome. His words: Never medically necessary. He personally designed the procedure and said often that the reason he designed this procedure was not because it was healthier for women, not because it was safer for women, and not because it was a better, more scientific way of doing this. This procedure is not taught in a single medical school in the country. It is not taught in a single hospital in the country. It is not, to my knowledge, performed by any obstetrician. It is performed by abortionists who are not board certified in obstetrics. But they are certified in destruction. That is what this procedure is. This is not a procedure to preserve the health of mothers. The doctor who designed this procedure said he designed this procedure because the other type of abortion, which we do not ban in this legislation, takes 45 minutes. This takes 15 minutes. In his words--not mine--``I can do more abortions in a day.''
Those scissors are thrust into this little baby's skull.
Again, you are in this room. Close your eyes. You are in this room, and you are watching this baby whose arms and legs are moving, who is alive, who but for this act that is being perpetrated upon it, would be born alive. That is not to say it would live substantially longer after birth; depending on its gestational age, maybe or maybe not.
We have cases the Senator from Ohio talked about where mothers who had partial-birth abortions or were to have partial-birth abortions-- remember how this procedure works. You can go in and present yourself to the abortionist. The abortionist gives you a pill and
sends you home for 2 days. That is the reason it only takes 15 minutes of his time--because he sends you home with medication to dilate your cervix over a 2-day period of time and you present yourself again for the procedure. At that point, it only takes 15 minutes of his time. There are all sorts of complications which I will not get into right now.
Having dilation over a 2-day period of time could lead to women's inability to carry children long term after their abortion. In two cases in Ohio, women delivered children because their cervix dilated too quickly, which induced labor. It resulted in the delivery of two children, both of whom lived. One did not survive because she was too premature. The other lives today but was selected for this procedure.
Go back to the room again. You are watching this doctor with these hands that are holding a living child. The child fits, as you can see, very comfortably. The entire trunk and the body of the child fit into this physician's hand. The body is moving. But he finds the spot and thrusts the scissors into the base of the skull.
Nurse Brenda Shafer was assisting on a partial-birth abortion. By the way, she was not pro-life. She was working in an abortion clinic. But when she saw this and saw--her description--the arms and legs of the child shoot out like when you hold a little baby and you let it fall a little bit. The baby will react like that and shoot its arms and legs out, not knowing what is going on and not understanding what is being done to it because their ability to understand is limited to that. This baby doesn't have any time to understand because in that moment in which these little girl's or boy's arms spasm out like that, the baby is dead.
But the procedure doesn't end, the insult doesn't end, because the doctor then takes these scissors and pulls them, causing the scissors to pull the skull open--to break the skull apart so he can create a hole in the baby's head big enough for a suction catheter to be inserted into the base of the baby's brain.
They turn on this vacuum suction tube. Then they suction the baby's brain contents out--the cranial contents out. Because of the softness of the baby's skull, the skull collapses and the baby is then delivered dead.
As our majority leader, the doctor from Tennessee, said yesterday, the only advantage he can possibly conceive of for this procedure is that it guarantees the baby is dead before it is delivered.
We are not vague about the procedure we are describing. The court should not be under any misunderstanding about what we are attempting to bar. The language in this legislation is not really identical. If I were arguing for the plaintiff--that is their job. Their job is to go out and present the best argument they can. My guess is they will argue that it is not legally identical, and they will have three or four other arguments in the alternative that this court will not buy. That is the job of the lawyer representing their client.
Our job as Senators is to protect the decency of our society. It is to stop unnecessary brutality to the weakest among us--to stop procedures that are harmful to the health of mothers. There is not one physician who has testified who has said this procedure is the safest or is the best.
I ask this question again: As I repeated the last 3 days and I have asked for 7 years on this floor, give me a procedure, give me a case study where a partial-birth abortion is indicated, where it is necessary--this is the term, by the way, that the Supreme Court used as Senator Boxer's chart shows--where it is ``necessary and appropriate medical judgment for the preservation of the life or health of the mother''--where it is necessary. There is not one case, not one instance in 7 years when it has been brought to this floor, or to the floor of any State legislature, the floor of any courtroom, any hearing room. Not one case has been brought where it has been argued, because of the particular medical circumstances, it is medically necessary for this brutality.
Why? Because this isn't taught in any medical school. It isn't done in any hospital. It isn't done by any obstetrician. This is a rogue procedure for the convenience and economic benefit of abortionists and abortion clinics. Of course, it is not medically necessary. It is not even medically recognized. It is dangerous to the health of mothers.
Let me quote from the findings in the bill. By the way, this is all from congressional testimony. I understand the Senator from California wants us to commit this back to committee for congressional hearings. Here are the definitive hearings we have had on this legislation:
Those risks include, among other things: an increase in a
woman's risk of suffering from cervical incompetence--
As I said before, you have a 2-day period where the cervix is dilated. That leads to a variety of different risk factors, including infection, that could lead to cervical incompetence.
As the Senator from Tennessee said yesterday--the only physician in the Senate, who has delivered his share of babies--you do not put these kinds of instruments through the opening where the cervix is without having some consequence or potential consequences to the ability, long term, for a mother to carry a child.
As a result of cervical dilation making it difficult or
impossible for a woman to carry a subsequent pregnancy to
term; an increased risk of uterine rupture--
Why? because of those scissors we showed you before, that suction catheter, if not properly placed, could cause a lot of damage.
abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus
as a result of converting the child to a footling breech
position--
Now, remember, any of you who have gone through the birth of a child--whether as a mother or a father or a relative--who have experienced the birth of a child, one of the things you always worry about is, is the child in the right position before delivery? Is the child in the right position? What is the right position? Well, head down.
What is one of the greatest fears of a mother and a father when they go in to deliver a baby? If the baby is not in the right position, and the delivery might have to be what? Breech. Breech deliveries are dangerous. They are potentially life threatening to the baby and could be very harmful to the mother.
What does this procedure deliberately do? It delivers the baby in a breech position. And:
a procedure which, according to a leading obstetrics
textbook, ``there are very few, if any, indications for [the
breech position] other than for delivery of a second twin;''
and a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to
the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base
of the . . . child's skull while he or she is lodged in the
birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding,
brings with it the threat of shock, and could ultimately
result in maternal death.
Now, you have to ask a question, folks. Why are there people across this country in some of those organizations that are ``abortion rights organizations,'' and some Members here in the Senate coming here to argue to maintain the legality of a procedure which is a rogue procedure--not according to Rick Santorum, but according to the AMA, according to a variety of different organizations that are out there that are physician-oriented organizations. It is a rogue procedure--not taught in medical schools, not done in hospitals, not done by obstetricians--designed by abortionists for the convenience of the abortionist, that is a greater risk.
I show you a chart with Dr. Hern's comment. I show you a comment of an abortionist who does late-term abortions. In fact, he doesn't just do them, he is ``the'' expert in America. As they say, he wrote the book. This man wrote the book. He is the author of standard textbooks on abortion procedures, abortion practices, and performs many third- trimester abortions. This is what he said:
I have very serious reservations about this procedure . . .
you really can't defend it. I would dispute any statement--
listen--
any statement that this is the safest procedure to use.
This is not someone who supports my side of the argument, by the way. But what he is suggesting is, this is the least safe. In fact, we have umpteen medical organizations and physicians' testimony, saying: Well, you know, we want to keep it as an option. Many of these groups say: And we don't want doctors to have any restrictions on their right to practice. But, no, there are safer procedures, certainly.
But the evidence is overwhelming. This is the least safe procedure. This is the most dangerous procedure to the health of a mother. So it is the most dangerous. And it is never medically indicated, never medically necessary.
So, again, why? Why do you oppose this? Of all the alternatives, it is the most dangerous to the health of the mother. So it is dangerous to the health of the mother, and it is never medically indicated. Well, then, why would you support keeping it legal?
What is so important, what value that you hold, what thing is so precious that would require you to come here and defend a procedure that is never medically necessary and more harmful to women than other alternatives? What is it? It is not women's health. No, no, no, it is not women's health, because this is the most dangerous. And this is not medically necessary. So what is it?
Well, as the abortion rights groups have said, this is an assault on the right to an abortion. This procedure is an assault on the right. I would argue, most people do not even believe you could have abortions at this stage. When you look at this little, fully formed, living child, most people in America cannot imagine that abortions are performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies at this point in pregnancy, because the other side has said, for years: Well, Roe v. Wade only allows first-trimester abortions. They are limited afterwards. Wrong. Wrong--healthy mothers, healthy babies.
How do we know? Well, Ron Fitzsimmons, who is the director of the organization of abortion clinics in America, said: I lied through my teeth when I said this was performed in rare circumstances only to protect the health of the mother, on children who are deformed or mothers who are in danger. I lied through my teeth, he said. He said: We all know that these abortions are performed on healthy mothers and healthy babies. The vast majority--his quote--the ``vast majority.'' We have better than a vast majority.
The State of Kansas, the only State in the Union that tracks these kinds of abortions, requires a reason for the abortion on the form the doctor has to fill out after he performs it. In Kansas, there were 182 partial-birth abortions in 1 year--in a State the size of Kansas. How many were for the health of the mother? How many were because the mother's life was in danger? How many were because the mother's future fertility was in danger? How many were because the mother was in danger of grievous medical injury, physical injury? How many were because this was medically necessary? How many? None. Zero. The reason given for all 182 brutal executions at the hands of a physician: mental health. They had to check a box somewhere: ``mental health.'' Well, they have to say a health reason. You can't do it for no reason. But mental health, of course, is fear, anxiety, stress--certainly things we should be concerned about, but I do not believe at this stage in pregnancy a sufficient reason in the American public's eyes to do this.
Is stress a reason for this? Is this a justification in the eyes of the American public? Seventy percent--I daresay if we had every American in the room when one of these procedures was performed, God, I hope at least 95 percent would agree it was not justified.
This is an evil in our midst. One of the great things I believe about America and about my colleagues is when they see evil, they have the courage to stand up and fight it. This is the face of evil. Those hands, those healing hands are a corruption of medicine that we cannot allow to continue.
Please vote against this motion to commit, this motion to delay the banning of this procedure that could save some little baby somewhere in America from having to go through this.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. President, to address a few issues the Senator from California spoke about, I made a comment about her calling this bill identical, and she said she did not call it identical, that she called it legally identical.
I quote from the unofficial record from 6:51 p.m. Monday on the floor of the Senate, the Senator from California: The Supreme Court said in an identical bill, it is far broader than just one procedure--identical bill.
The Senator from Illinois just repeatedly said this is the exact same bill, exactly the same language--``identical bill.'' The Senator from California said that is correct. So she is saying this is an identical bill, and then she suggested we need to send it back to committee because we need hearings because it is a changed bill. Which is it? Is is a changed bill or an identical bill?
It is not an identical bill, I concede that point to her. It is different. The language is substantially different. The Senator from California said: We meant to cover more than one procedure with this language.
Why would we want to do that? The Supreme Court said: The reason we are striking down your language is that we believe it covers more than one procedure. So we are going to craft language so the Supreme Court can come back and say, well, it covers more than one procedure?
Maybe my colleagues think we are not serious about banning this procedure. Let me assure them, I am serious as a heart attack about banning this procedure, and we have crafted language to do just that, and only that.
The language is different. It is not identical to the Nebraska statute. The Nebraska statute said, as the previous bill we considered on the floor, that a partial-birth abortion is performed in which the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally:
delivers some portion of an intact living fetus until the
fetus is partially outside the body of the mother.
The new language says:
deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living
fetus until, in the case of a head presentation, the entire
fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case
of a breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk--
That means the arms, legs, trunk--
past the navel is outside the body of the mother.
Now, that is substantially different. It is not an identical bill. It is much more specific, to address the very issue the Court wanted us to address in the Stenberg v. Carhart case. So we are very clear. This is not vague, and this is an honest and sincere attempt to meet the constitutional strictures of the Supreme Court decision.
I will address Senator Durbin's and Senator Boxer's point on some of the special cases, but the Senator from Minnesota is in the Chamber and I yield 10 minutes to him.
How much time remains?
I yield to the Senator from Illinois 7 minutes.
I thank the Senator from Illinois for his support both here on the floor and things that we have done off the floor to get support for this legislation. He has been one of the champions. I appreciate his support as well as that of the Senator from Minnesota, his very heartfelt support for this legislation and the very touching personal story he related to the Senate.
How much time is remaining on both sides?
Mr. President, just to reiterate, I do not believe we should support the motion to commit. As I stated before, this is a piece of legislation we have had on the Senate floor. This is the fifth debate on the floor of the Senate. The Judiciary Committee has held two hearings and reported the bill out.
It is not exactly the same. As I said before, it is not identical. We have addressed issues of health and vagueness, but the substance is the same. We are talking about the same thing. We are talking about changing roughly 20 words in the statute. I think that is a small enough change for Members of the Senate to digest without the Judiciary Committee going through and giving its opinion.
The Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch, came to the floor and addressed the issues. Other members of the Judiciary Committee have been here and done likewise, many of whom are cosponsors of this ban.
I believe this is, frankly, going to delay consideration of this legislation. It will not have any impact or import in the long run to our deliberations. I think Members of the Senate are fully able to make this decision at this time being well versed after this debate.
We have had a good debate over the last 3 days. We will continue to do so, prior to passage. I think it is time to move forward. I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing the motion to commit.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. President, I want to make four quick points. I had three and a half points as reasons to oppose the amendment, but now I have a full-fledged four reasons because of the modification that was just submitted.
No. 1, this amendment is in the form of a substitute, so the underlying partial-birth abortion statute is gone. We do not ban partial-birth abortions under this procedure. It is gone. This procedure remains legal in the law of the land. This Durbin amendment is a substitute. If you want to ban partial-birth abortions, you cannot vote for the Durbin amendment because it eliminates the ban. That is No. 1.
No. 2, it talks about this is a postviability ban. The problem with that is--there are many problems--No. 1, viability is not defined in the legislation, and it is solely up to the discretion of the abortionist performing the procedure.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the chart that I have on survival rates.
And even up to 32, 33 weeks, you still have a 1, 2, 3- percent chance where the baby would not be viable. So you have up until 32, 33 weeks to basically say the child is not viable. If that is the case, this statute is not operative. You cannot even come in under it. There is nothing. The statute does not exist. All you have to do is say it is not viable. So you create an exception that swallows up the entire ban. That is No. 2.
No. 3, even if, by some point, the abortionist will say it is viable, and then proceed with an abortion--which I cannot imagine any physician, in their right mind, doing; but assuming they would say it is viable and proceed with an abortion--they just have to say there is a risk of grievous injury to her physical health. The operative word here is ``risk''--a 1-percent risk, a .5-percent risk, a .001-percent risk--any risk.
Now, ``risk'' is, again, not clearly defined and is open. What this statute does say is it is subject to a second opinion from a doctor. Great. The problem is, there is no penalty anymore. That was half a problem because I thought the penalties were rather weak. Now, with the elimination of any potential prosecution under perjury, there are no penalties.
The Senator from Illinois says there could be a losing of your license. Well, that is not what his substitute says. It says the State has to develop procedures and requirements for what would happen if these things are violated. It does not say license revocation. It does not say that at all. It says they have to develop standards. And it could be suspension for a day for the first offense, 2 days for the second offense--half a day--it could be whatever the State would require it to be. And for the second offense, it is not that it must be revoked, it is not a must. It is an either/or. They could assess a fine. And the fine could be a dollar. It says up to $250,000, but it could be a dollar.
So now, having removed any criminal sanction, you are left with it being completely open-ended, with potentially no consequence for someone not telling the truth in this circumstance.
There are a whole host of other reasons this amendment does not work. But this amendment is fatally flawed. It was poor, in my opinion, as a substitute. But now it does not even have the criminal sanctions as even one potential hope for getting maybe some very late, third- trimester abortions banned. So I just suggest, while I understand why the Senator from Illinois modified his amendment--to try to get more folks to be supportive of his amendment--in so doing, he guts whatever is left of this amendment to actually ban any abortions in this country. As a result of that, I strongly oppose the amendment.
Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. President, I want to review what the Senator from Louisiana said with respect to abortion. I think the Senator from Louisiana expressed her view as to what Roe v. Wade means. I sincerely believe that she feels that way. She would like the law to be that way, and I think most Americans would like the law to be more toward her direction than where it really is.
The law is pretty clear--Roe v. Wade and the companion cases--that in fact the right to an abortion is, in America today, at any time for any reason.
That is what happens. You can cite the case in Roe that talks about the issue of viability, but there was the Doe v. Bolton case that was decided with it; it was read together.
In Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled abortion could be performed after fetal viability if the operative physician judged the procedure necessary to protect the life or health of the woman. That is where we come down, health of the woman. Under Doe v. Bolton, the health of the woman is anything--is anything. The Senator from Ohio just read this, and I will read it again:
Medical judgments may be exercised in light of all
factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, the
woman's age--relevant to the well-being of the patient. All
these factors may relate to health, and this allows the
attending physician the room he needs to make his best
medical judgment.
There is simply no restriction there. There is no limitation there, and there are people on the Court today who have interpreted that decision consistently with that no limitation. In fact, I would argue the Court is going even further in that direction. There is some scary language--this is the Carhart case--there is some downright scary language in this decision. I just wish the public understood how absolute this right is, how unfettered this right is, and how absolutely resistant the pro-abortion side is at keeping that pure right in place--unrestricted, unfettered right in place. But we are going even further than that.
We have a case here where we have two Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg, in a concurring opinion-- thank God it is not the majority opinion--but in a concurring opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court, this is what Justice Stevens says, and this is what the Senator from Louisiana was saying:
The liberty clause--
Oh, how words can be twisted.
The liberty clause in the fourteenth amendment includes a
woman's right to make this difficult and extremely personal
decision, makes it impossible for me to understand how a
State has any legitimate interest in requiring a doctor to
follow any procedure other than the one he or she reasonably
believes will best protect the woman in her exercise of this
constitutional liberty.
Do you know what this means? This means he can do anything he wants, any procedure, none of them reviewable. That is why we had to pass a bill last year called the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Why? Because Justice Stevens, one of the nine imperial Judges on the U.S. Supreme Court, unelected, had decided that if a doctor
wants to deliver a live baby and then kill it, that is a procedure. Do you know what. Justice Stevens said that if that is what the doctor believes, fine. That is how far we are going. That is the corruption of this entire issue of abortion. It is just so corrosive that it takes people who see words such as ``liberty'' and turns them into murder. Liberty means now murder, in the eyes of Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg. Oh, this is such a caustic issue that just corrodes the essence of the spirit of America.
Senator Durbin--I have said it repeatedly--I believe in good faith is trying to put some restriction in place to what has gone off. By the way, Justice Stevens, unfortunately, and Justice Ginsburg are not alone. You have Peter Singer, whom the New Yorker magazine calls ``the most influential living philosopher''--the most influential living philosopher. As you will hear these statements, you may wonder, no, this is just some kook. No, Professor Peter Singer, distinguished chair, where? Princeton University. Peter Singer has argued that when the death of--what he argues--I will not quote him. I will submit this for the Record so there will be plenty of quotes in here because I do not have much time.
What he argues is that a child once born should be allowed to be euthanized up until--he has updated his opinions here. He believed it was only waiting 28 days after birth before deciding whether the baby has rights, but now he has said that is an arbitrary figure and it should be--``Oh, I think it should be somewhat short of 1 year but the point is not for me or anyone else to say, it should be up to the parents and, of course, the doctor.''
You say this is crazy, allowing a parent or society, in the case where the parent is not there, to euthanize a child; that is crazy. I can guarantee, go back 50 years and maybe there were debates on this floor that thought abortion would be a crazy thing and that could not happen in our society; we could not have 1.3 million abortions.
I heard the Senator from California, and I hear this over and over: We want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare. Twenty-five percent of all pregnancies in this country end in abortion. By anybody's estimation, is that rare? Twenty-five percent, is that rare? Forty- seven percent of abortions in this country are a woman's second abortion or more. Is that rare? Is there something corrupting our society here?
I understand the Senator from Illinois is trying to get at least some piece of it, but he fails. He fails. He fails on four counts, and let me quickly go through them, and more actually, the Senator from Ohio listed a few more.
Four major counts: No. 1, there is a substitute. It eliminates the ban on partial-birth abortion. Most partial-birth abortions are done in the 20- to 26-week area where there is a question of viability. You have--and I entered those in the Record--you have up to 75 percent viability at the time of 26 weeks. But, again, it is a substitute that eliminates all previous viability abortions. No. 1.
No. 2, it does not define viability, and it leaves it up to the doctor to determine what is viable. If the doctor says this child is not viable, there is no review, and as soon as you say it is not viable, the statute does not apply. So all you have to do, if you want to have an abortion, is say it is not viable; nobody has to review it and the statute is not operable.
No. 3, risk of grievous injury to the physical health of the mother. Again, it uses the term ``risk.'' It does not say how much risk. It can mean any amount of risk--one-half of 1 percent risk.
We have Dr. Warren Hern, who wrote the textbook on third-trimester abortions, the leading expert in this country, saying:
I have very serious reservations about this procedure. You
really can't defend it.
He also has a quote that says he would certify that every pregnancy has a risk of grievous physical injury to a mother--every pregnancy. What if he makes that statement and it is not true? What happens? The Senator from Illinois had criminal penalties potentially for perjury. Those are now removed from the bill. There is no criminal problem with that physician or the other physician who has come in to look at this from having any criminal sanctions.
What are the sanctions? He could lose his license. Not really. The State has to promulgate regulations under this statute to suspend or revoke a license. It does not say they have to revoke it or say how long the suspension is. It could be 1 day. I suspect in States such as New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, where abortions are overwhelmingly supported, you could have 2 hours of revocation, or something like that. It would be a ridiculous standard.
The bottom line is it mandates no revocation or suspension of license of any weight, and even at that, it is revocation or suspension or a fine up to $100,000 in the first case, $250,000 in the second, but it could be a dollar.
Again, there is no floor in the amount of money. So there really is the potential for no consequences in a lot of States, or maybe even in most States. It is a substitute. If one is against partial birth, they cannot be for this amendment. If it is understood that viability kicks one out of this statute to begin with, and it is only the decision of the doctor that determines viability and there is no review of that, that makes this statute basically inoperable, I would argue, for every abortion that is done in America.
Then if one gets in, there is the risk question, which again nullifies, really, any weight on the physician because risk can mean such a small amount of risk to make it almost inconsequential. Finally, there is no penalty if all that does apply.
So I suggest that while I believe the Senator from Illinois was trying to do something to attack what I described as an unfettered right to an abortion is the preeminent right in America--
I thank the Chair.
I move to table the Durbin amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. President, we have debated this issue on the floor of the Senate for the fifth time. The issue is the same. There is a slight variation in the language of this bill--some 20 words. I think the Senate is perfectly capable of dealing with these changes and to address the issue of vagueness. I don't believe that after two hearings of the Judiciary Committee, after having gone through the committee on a couple of occasions and being debated here now for the fifth time, we need to commit this bill back to committee.
It has been asserted on the floor by the Senator from South Dakota that we are bypassing the committee, as was complained about in the past. I would just say that we are bypassing the committee on a bill that is this size with 20 different words--not this, which is the energy bill that bypassed the committee last year or the agriculture bill that bypassed the committee last year or on the prescription drug bill.
This has 18 titles in it.
I think there is a fundamental difference between asserting bypassing a committee with a bill which has been on the floor on five different occasions and one that is a brandnew piece of legislation with 18 titles and some 400 or 500 pages.
The Senate is ready to vote. The issue is well known. I hope we defeat the motion to commit and proceed to finish the bill in a timely manner.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. President, the facts are as evidenced from the Judiciary Committee hearings, which basically have not changed. The facts are the same. The procedure that we are attempting to ban is riskier and has a greater likelihood of causing all those things than the alternative procedures which are taught in medical schools, done in hospitals, by obstetricians. This is not done in hospitals, not done by obstetricians, not taught in medical schools.
This is a rogue procedure that was designed for one reason. The abortionist who designed it said why. It was designed so he could do late-term abortions in 15 minutes as opposed to 45 minutes, so he could do more in one day; that is, all of these health risks are, in fact, bogus. It is a riskier procedure.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the Boxer motion to commit, Senator Harkin be recognized to offer an amendment, the text of which is at the desk, provided that there be 2 hours 30 minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual form, prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.
I further ask that following the disposition of the Harkin amendment, Senator Feinstein be recognized in order to offer an amendment, the text of which is at the desk, provided that there be 2 hours for debate, equally divided, in the usual form prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.
I further ask consent that following the disposition of the Feinstein amendment, the bill be read the third time, with no intervening action or debate. I finally ask consent that at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, provided that the bill has been read a third time, the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, again with no intervening action or debate; provided further that any second-degree amendments to the aforementioned amendments be relevant to the first degree.
I further ask unanimous consent that following that vote, the Senate proceed to executive session and vote on the confirmation of Calendar No. 53, Thomas Varlan, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District, with no intervening action; further, that following that vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate proceed to a period for morning business until 11:30 a.m., with the time equally divided in the usual form.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that at 11:30 a.m., the Senate resume consideration of the Estrada nomination in executive session and the time until 12:30 p.m. be equally divided in the usual form, with a vote on the motion to invoke cloture occurring at 3:30 p.m.
The Harkin and Feinstein amendments will be voted on this afternoon or this evening potentially, and tomorrow morning a vote on final passage as the first order of business when we reconvene.
Yes, ``further that.''
We can accept that.
I am fine with giving him an up-or-down vote.
I thank the Senator from Nevada. The Senator hit the nail on the head, the head on the nail, whatever the case may be. The fact is, the Senator from Nevada has been very cooperative. This is not an extraordinary request. Even though I rather would have a motion to table, I am glad to accommodate the Senator. I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Before I make a statement, I encourage Members who have statements on this amendment or on the bill--we have roughly 2 hours of time remaining to debate this amendment, but obviously I encourage anybody who has statements on the bill itself to come down. Senator Kennedy is in the Chamber, Senator Harkin and myself. So there is ample opportunity and time. There is not much of a wait.
Does the Senator from Massachusetts wish to proceed?
The Senator from Massachusetts needs a couple of minutes before he is ready. Therefore, I yield 2 or 3 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina for a statement.
I say to the Senator from South Carolina, I appreciate the comments.
The Senator from Iowa read the famous clause out of the Casey decision, determining one's own concept of meaning of existence, of the universe, of the meaning of the universe, of the mystery of human life. The Senator from South Carolina hit the nail on the head. If everyone has their own right to decide what life is, what existence is, what the universe means--if we are not bound at all by any kind of societal norms, if we have the right to decide all these things, the kids who rushed into Columbine had it right because they said: I am law. My view of the world is what counts and that is all that counts. That is what this clause says: What I say goes.
That is what this clause says. That is where we are. That is where the line of cases have taken us. It is simply about our brute force, our positive rights. Society does not matter; it is what we want. The Congress should not be involved in this. It is what you want.
That is not the country that our Founding Fathers put together. That is not the Constitution they drafted. That, by the way, is why the right to abortion is not written in the Constitution.
This is a slippery slope we are heading down. In deference to the Senator from Massachusetts who is in the Chamber, I will define that slope momentarily.
I yield the floor.
I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.
Will the Senator yield for a question?
Yes. The Senator from New York said that the women she had in her office who had late-term abortions--you characterized it that they would be ``forced to carry their children to term'' if this bill passed. Do you stand by that statement?
So you believe if this legislation passes outlawing partial-birth abortion, no late-term abortions would be available?
OK. I suggest that the Senator from New York examine the language. It is very clear that this is one particular kind of abortion we have addressed, and we have addressed the vagueness, as put forth by the U.S. Supreme Court. And there are other techniques available for abortion that are late term in nature, and this bill would in no way stop other abortions. In fact, the previous speaker on the Democrat side, Senator Kennedy, made that very point. He made the point that this will not stop abortions.
I respect your feelings and I also respect Senator Kennedy's. You both oppose the bill and you have opposite opinions on this issue.
I thank the Senator. I gave her an opportunity to answer, and I have a couple more questions. No. 1, you suggested that this procedure was extreme. Does the Senator know the most recent Gallup polls--the polls consistently have shown that the banning of this procedure is supported by anywhere from 65 to 75 percent of the American public? What is your definition of ``extreme''?
So you would suggest that something that is supported by--you are going to maintain your
comment that something that is supported by 70 percent of the American public is extreme?
So you don't think the American public understands this issue well enough to be able to form a judgment--I think that is what you are saying--even though we have debated this issue and it has been very much in the literature across America now for 7 years. There have been referendums in States and wide debate. You just don't think the public understands it. I beg to differ with you on that. I think I could stipulate that something that has the support of 70 percent of the public is, by definition, not extreme. So if you don't agree, that is your position, and I respect that.
The other thing you said was the chart I had up is ``deceptive.'' I am very curious about how you came to that conclusion. Is it deceptive because it shows a perfectly formed baby?
Is the Senator aware of Ron Fitzsimmons who runs the Association of Abortion Clinics? He has said, when the argument was made by many of the people Senator Boxer and Senator Murray and yourself referred to, who came forward and talked about this being medically necessary or necessary because of complications late in pregnancy--Ron Fitzsimmons said he lied through his teeth when he gave that argument? That was his term. He said, ``I lied through my teeth'' that this was the case. He said it is a dirty little secret, and we all know--those are his terms--that late-term abortions are performed, and the vast majority of late-term abortions are performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies.
So do you believe it is deceptive to put before the American public the typical case of where a partial-birth abortion is performed, or would it be more deceptive to try to convince the American public that this is done for medical reasons, or on sick babies in the majority of cases, when it is not true?
Which would you say is more deceptive?
I will challenge you to find anyplace in the record over the last 7 years where I said that was never the case. I have never said there are not difficult cases. What I have said repeatedly, because I wanted to be truthful with respect to the factual situations with which we are presented on the issue of late-term abortions and the instances in which partial-birth abortions are used--I refer the Senator to the State of Kansas where they have to report the reason for a partial-birth abortion; 182 were done last year, or the year before, and of those 182, none--zero--were done because of a problem with the child or a physical problem with the mother. They were classified as mental health.
So I suggest to the Senator that those in the abortion industry themselves say this is the typical procedure on the typical baby. There may be--and there are--a small number of cases that are late-term where you find out the child within the womb has a fetal abnormality and may not live. I just suggest--and you used the term--where is the brainless head? Where are the lungs outside the body? I will just say I will be happy to put a child with a disability up there. But, frankly, I don't see the difference in my mind--and I am not too sure the public does-- with respect to that being any less of a child.
It is still a child, is it not? Maybe it is a child that is not going to live long, but do we consider----
In a moment. Do we consider a child that may not live long, or may have an abnormality, to be less of a child? Is this less of a human because it is not perfect? Have we reached the point in our society where because perfection is so required of us, that those who are not perfect don't even deserve the opportunity to live for however long they are ticketed to live in this country?
Are we saying we need these kinds of infanticides to weed out those who are not going to survive or those who are not perfect, and that somehow or another we have to have a method available that we only allow perfect children to be born? If that is the argument, I am willing to stand here and have that debate. If that is what you want us to show, I am willing to stand and show that.
I suggest this is the typical abortion that goes with partial-birth. That is exactly what the industry says is the case. If the Senator would like me to find a child that has a cleft palate, I can do that. That doctor from Ohio performs a lot of abortions. He says he did nine in one year because of that. If she would like me to show a case of spina bifida, I can do that. That may be a reason someone has to have a late-term abortion.
I would be happy to show those, but those are the exception rather than the rule, and I think it is imperative----
I will be happy to. It is imperative upon us to present the standard, the predominant case in which partial-birth abortions are done, and that is what we are doing. I will be happy to yield for a question.
Fine.
No, if----
I understand the Senator's point. I guess my point in rebuttal is that if you want to create a separation in the law between those children who are perfect and those children who are not----
Please, let me finish. If a child is not perfect, then that child can be aborted under any circumstances. But if that child is perfect, we are going to protect that child more. I do not think the Americans with Disabilities Act would fit very well into that definition. The Americans with Disabilities Act--of which I know the Senator from Iowa has been a great advocate, and I respect him greatly for it--says we treat all of God's children the same. We look at all-- perfect and imperfect--as creatures of God created in his image.
What the Senator from New York is asking me to do is separate those who are somehow not the way our society sees people as they should be today and put them somewhat a peg below legal protection than the perfect child. I hope the Senator is not recommending that because I think that would set a horrible precedent that could be extrapolated, I know probably to the disgust of the Senator from Iowa, certainly to me.
No, I do not have an exception in this legislation that says if you are perfect, this cannot happen to you; but if you are not perfect, yes, this can occur. The Senator is right, I do not.
I certainly respect the difference of opinion the Senator and I have on the underlying issue of abortion. Again, I think people can disagree on that. I, frankly, do not agree there should be a difference between children who are ``normal,'' in society's eyes--I do not know what that means anymore, what a society sees as normal--and those who happen to have birth defects, severe or not. I do not believe we should draw distinctions.
To liken a ban on a brutal procedure such as partial- birth abortion to the forced abortion policies of China is a fairly substantial stretch, and I do not accept that as an analogy. I do not think it holds up under any scrutiny.
With respect to the other issue, let the record speak for itself.
On the Senator's time. I have been more than generous on my time.
I thank the Senator from Iowa.
I appreciate that. Again, that is a good open item for debate. I would suggest that most Americans--and that is why this debate the Senator from Iowa has brought up is so important--do not understand what the breadth of health exception means. I suspect most Americans understand when they hear health exception, they believe there is some imminent danger to the health of the mother. Of course, that is not what Doe v. Bolton says.
Doe v. Bolton talks very broadly of health. I will be happy to give the actual language. Doe v. Bolton is very broad on health to include everything from emotional and mental health to familial health, age of the mother. It is as broad a term--in fact, the courts have interpreted it to mean anything. It is an exception that, frankly, swallows up any limitation, restriction on abortion.
Does the Senator from Iowa have a question?
Yield on mine. If I need time, I will let the Senator know.
Anencephaly is no brain, just a brain stem.
If I can respond to the Senator from Iowa, the Senator from Iowa brings up a very valid point. We reviewed this over and over in previous years, and I will address it again.
No. 1, there are cases where late in pregnancy there are health considerations that may cause the child to have to be separated from the mother. There is no question about that. The question is, Is there a need for this procedure? First off, is there a need for an abortion? I think most obstetricians would tell you, no, there is no need for an abortion, but there is a need for separation.
Separation can be through a normal delivery. It can be through a cesarean section. So separation is necessary; abortion is not necessary.
The point I am making is this procedure is never medically necessary. I have repeated that over and over, and I have asked the Senator from California and the Senator from Washington, and many others, if they can come forward with a case where this procedure is medically indicated, medically necessary. They have not come up with a case because there are none.
There may be cases that the Senator from Iowa has discussed where there may be a need for separation, but I would argue not necessarily for abortion. If there is such a case--and I am not that much of an expert to know that because I am focused on this procedure solely, but if there is such a case for abortion, then the answer would be there are other, safer--this is what I underscore--procedures done in hospitals, by obstetricians, who are trained in medical schools.
This procedure is done not by obstetricians, not in hospitals, not by doctors trained in medical schools.
I ask the Senator, if it was his daughter, would he want to send her to someone to have this procedure who is not an obstetrician, not in a hospital, someone who is not trained in medical schools or would he rather have her go to a board-certified obstetrician in a hospital and have a procedure that is taught in medical schools and has been peer- reviewed?
What would the Senator prefer?
I understand the Senator from Iowa. I would say if the Senator wants his daughter to go to the hospital and have an obstetrician give her the best procedure she wants, let me assure the Senator she will never have this procedure, because this procedure is not done by obstetricians and hospitals. It is not done.
I suggest to the Senator what we are doing is getting rid of a rogue procedure that has been demonstrably testified to that this is contraindicated. The AMA: Bad medicine. Their term, not mine.
I am saying this is a rogue procedure that is outside the medical arena. This is outside the standard of care.
The Senator knows about the issue of standard of care. He is involved greatly in health issues as the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee on Appropriations. I know he cares deeply about that and he knows the issue of standard of care.
Nowhere in the literature is this considered to be standard of care. As a result of that, I make the argument--in fact, I have made the argument--that this procedure is not healthy to women and as a result should be banned because it is the least safe procedure, and it is not appropriate.
I will answer one more question and then I would like to speak.
No, I am not going to support the amendment of the Senator, but I would like an opportunity to speak.
Madam President, how much time is remaining on each side?
Madam President, first, I say again that in many of these difficult cases, if not all of them, to my knowledge--and I would be curious to hear if there is a case I am not aware of where there needs to be a separation of the mother from the child. I am not aware of any case, and I would certainly be anxious to hear any testimony to the contrary where separation necessarily means abortion. Separation does not necessarily mean abortion, and there are other ways to protect both the health of the mother and the health of the child. As a society, I think if that is possible, then that should be our preference.
Let me go back and talk about the overall issue of Roe v. Wade and where we have come as a result of that. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Maybe the biggest problem I have with Roe v. Wade was that abortion was a matter that was decided by the people and by its elected representatives. It was, as every other issue is in America, decided in the public square, decided by this kind of debate.
I think this is wonderful. I think the people need to hear this. We do not get enough debate on the issue of abortion. It has sort of been put away in a corner. Why? I would argue this is the great moral issue of our time. It parallels very closely the issue of slavery back in the early 1800s, and the reason is because it is really the same issue.
The slavery issue was: Here is the African American, here is the black man and woman, and what we said in this country was we could look at this person, we could see this person, but under the Constitution it was not a person. We said this individual, this human being, was not conferred personhood under the Constitution. That is what slavery was all about. As a result, that person was property. What all of us knew to be a human being became property, and we had to fight a war to eventually overturn that.
Where are we with the issue of abortion? The child in the womb is not considered a person under the Constitution. Now, we can see it in a sonogram. That is one of the things that makes partial-birth abortion such an important debate because the baby can really be seen. One can see this is a human being; it is nothing but. But according to the Constitution, this child is not a person.
It is the same debate. It is the same argument. William Wilberforce in England, when he fought to overturn the slave trade, put together a poster. It was a picture of a black man. Underneath the picture, it said: Am I not a man?
I would simply say, look at this chart and under this picture could we not say: Am I not a child?
According to Roe v. Wade, according to the law of this great land, the answer to that question is, emphatically, no, and look what we can do to you.
Why? Because you are property. You are like the slave. You have no rights.
How we have twisted our Constitution, which is based on life and liberty. What is first, liberty or life? Think about that. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Do we think the Framers sort of just threw those words together? Do we think they could have said, happiness, liberty, life, they sort of played around and said, which one of these is the right one? Did they put them in order for any reason? We can bet they put them in an order for a reason.
Can someone have liberty without life? No. There is no way possible, if one does not have the right to life, that they can have any liberty.
Can someone have true happiness without liberty? No. Life is a prerequisite to liberty. But what have we done in the case of Roe v. Wade? We have taken life and liberty and we have flipped them.
In Roe v. Wade, the Court put liberty ahead of life, and said the rights of a woman, liberty--this is the liberty clause, this is the grounds from which Roe v. Wade was derived. Of course, the right to abortion is not in the Constitution. But where does it come from? It comes from the what clause? The liberty clause.
So we took liberty and moved it ahead of life. What are the consequences of that? Obviously, we know what the consequences of that are for the child. What are the consequences of that for all of us? The consequences of that for all of us are that now one's freedom to do what one wants trumps someone else's right to exist.
In this case, it is just this little child in the womb. But if we set this precedent, which we have, that my right to my liberty trumps another's right to life--the Senator from New York talks about the slippery slope. Oh, what a slope we are on now. The Senator from New York talked about, you did not show the deformed child. Well, there is a guy in Princeton, NJ, by the name of Peter Singer who talks just about that issue. He talks about the deformed child. And what does he say? He says Roe v. Wade has it right. They put liberty in front of life, and that is right because some people are not worth having around. Yes, that is what he says. Is this guy a kook? Is this guy some sort of flake who is out there in the ether? No. He is a professor. Is he a professor at XYZ State University at Blackwater, PA? No. He is at Princeton University--a ``distinguished'' chair at one of our great universities.
What does he say? He writes: I should think it should be somewhat short of one year.
What does he mean, ``somewhat short of one year''?
Somewhat short of 1 year after birth that we should be able to--what? Kill these little deformed children who happen to be born. Why? Well, because they are not really useful. Their life doesn't mean much. Our liberty means more than their life. Here again, moving life in front of liberty. Oh, what a tangled web we weave.
This is the product of Roe v. Wade. This is the product of the Court taking from us who understand ordered rights--that rights are put in order for a reason. Our Founders had it right.
Those who proclaim the virtue of abortion as a right said this would be a blessing to our society. They said: This would be a great blessing. So many positive things will happen. Divorces will come down. Spouse abuse will come down. Infant abuse will come down. Child abuse will come down. Abortions, of course, will go up, but the benefit is domestic violence will go down, teen pregnancy will go down, infanticide will go down, abandoned children will go down. And of course, none of them did. None of them did. Quite the contrary. All of them have at least doubled since 1973 as a percentage.
So this nirvana that getting rid of these--because, see, they argue that since we are going to get rid of 1.3 million children--25 percent of all pregnancies end in abortion--since we are going to get rid of all these unwanted stresses in people's lives, problems in people's lives, then people will be better off, people will be happier, people will be more free; people won't do bad things because they won't have this stress that complicates their life.
But is that the lesson that people learn? No. Sadly, people are much smarter than that. They learned from the leaders of our great country that the value of life was diminished. And they learned from our great country that their personal liberty was more important than your life. Their liberty, their rights, trump you. That is what they learned.
As I mentioned earlier, that is why the two guys ran into Columbine, toting their guns and shooting people, screaming, ``I am the law,'' because that is what Roe v. Wade taught us. They taught us we can put down our neighbor, just like in the early years of this country we could put down the black man and woman.
We are on a very dangerous practice. I know we will celebrate and affirm Roe v. Wade. Our colleagues will support it because it is the law of the land and it is well accepted. I accept the fact that in this body I am a voice in the wilderness. But I will speak. This is not the most popular thing to come and talk about. These halls are not filled with people who want to speak on this issue. I understand, this is a tough one. You make a lot of people mad when you get up and talk about abortion because it is personal. I know. It is personal. But we have to step back.
I thank the Senator from Iowa for giving us an opportunity to step back and look at what we are doing, look at what we have done, and look at what may come of us if we do not turn away and give back to the people.
I was at a briefing the other day, and someone talked about the Iraqis and said: We are worried about them transitioning to democracy because historically they like being ruled. And I thought to myself: Just like Americans on abortion. They like being told what their position should be. They like the Court taking it and ruling. They do not want to have to think about it. They know they do not like it, but they do not want to talk about it, think about it, vote. They want someone else ruling for them. It is easier to give someone else your rights and let them make decisions for you. It makes your life a lot simpler.
I argue it is not making your life much better. No, what Roe v. Wade has done is separate the person, the human being--and there is no doubt, from the moment of conception this is a genetically human organism. It is human, fully human. Nothing is added. It is fully human. And it is, by definition, alive. How do we know? Because the definition of life is something that metabolizes, and this clearly is metabolizing. It is human life.
What did Roe v. Wade do? It took away the instantaneous bonding of human life and human person under the Constitution. It separated them. I repeat this for emphasis. It separated the human person from the human being. That precedent is now the law of the land. And you know what happens with precedent in this country; it is followed. Today for the unborn, tomorrow for--watch out. Watch out.
I remember in one of the early debates on this bill, I got an e-mail from a man from London who said he was sitting there watching the debate, hearing people talk about all these people with disabilities who needed to be destroyed through partial-birth abortion. Not because the mother's health was in danger--because they just were not perfect. He said: I am sitting in my wheelchair as a disabled man with spina bifida, knowing that they are talking about me. They are talking about me.
Today the child in the womb. Tomorrow?
I yield the floor.
Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Kansas.
Madam President, I want to address a couple issues and then make a closing argument.
One issue I want to address is the point Senator Boxer made, that there were 5,000 deaths of women because of abortions prior to Roe v. Wade.
Let me give a quote from the former medical director of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, NARAL:
How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was
illegal? In NARAL, we generally emphasized the frame of the
individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke
of the latter it was always ``5,000 to 10,000 deaths a
year.'' I confess that I knew that the figures were totally
false and I suppose that others did too if they stopped to
think of it. But in the ``morality'' of our revolution, it
was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our
way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding
concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within
reason that had to be done was permissible.
So, obviously, it was not just used to get the law eliminated. It continues to be used to substantiate the law's existence. And what does this law do? It does many things. Let me summarize by mentioning two.
It takes from the American people the people's legitimate right to determine this crucial, moral issue. It was usurped from the people by fiat--not elegantly, I would suggest, but inelegantly by nine Supreme Court Justices, who decided to lord over the States and their elected representatives of the people their version of the world, their world view, their hackneyed interpretation of a constitutional liberty.
That is what happened with Roe v. Wade. It took from the people rights to decide their own fate, and rested it in an unelected body, at that time of nine old men. That is one thing Roe v. Wade did.
The second thing it did is it took a page, unfortunately, from our past, a page we thought we had learned a lesson from; and that is the page of the history of slavery.
Slavery was a situation in our country where we got our priorities out of whack. Our Founding Fathers said, we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Ordered for a reason, for without life there is no liberty; without liberty, there is no happiness. They didn't say happiness, life, liberty; liberty, life, happiness. No, they are ordered for a reason. Life is a prerequisite to liberty.
But in the case of slavery, we put the liberty of the slave owner ahead of the life of the slave and turned the slave into property. We put the rights of the white person in America above the life of the black man or woman. We learned our lesson in a very painful way, but we didn't learn it well enough. The old saying: If you don't learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it. Here we stand, arguing this repetition of history and just like in this Hall, 150-plus years ago, people from areas of the country argued that this was not a reordering or a misordering of liberty. And so they do again today.
What we have done is put the liberty rights of people ahead of the life right of the unborn child. We have misordered our liberties. The pain that it has showered across the land of 40-plus million abortions and countless other maladies that have gone on, horrible social consequences result from that. We need to get our liberties back to where our Founding Fathers put them, where our Creator put them: Life, liberty, happiness. First among them is the right to life.
I know I will not be successful in this debate, but I hope my colleagues listen to the consequences of putting ordered liberties out of order. If you do that, the consequences to our society long term, the precedent we set with this constitutional case will poison the well of judicial decisions for many years to come. Today, it is the unborn child. Tomorrow and tomorrows after, it may be you.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
