Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

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 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 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.

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 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----

I'm sorry?

I will.

I have not read what my friend is reading from. I wonder whether he has read what the obstetricians and gynecologists----

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

I certainly will.

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.

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.

I am not going to yield the floor back to you, but I am happy to yield for a question.

Was that a question?

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 ultrasound, 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?

I am glad to yield for a question.

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?

I am happy to yield.

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.

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 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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the time from 11 to 12:30, the time for the Democrats be divided with Daschle, 10 minutes; Leahy, 10 minutes; Kennedy, 10 minutes; Durbin, 5 minutes; Schumer, 5 minutes; and Reid, 5 minutes.

Mr. President, in a great Nation such as ours, we are fortunate to have democratic values and institutions so American citizens can openly and freely voice their opinions and attempt to influence government policies. The abortion debate has been a divisive one for our Nation for many years. People on both sides of this issue feel strongly and have argued, demonstrated, and protested with emotion and passion.

We all recognize that the issue is not going to go away anytime soon. One side will not be able to suddenly convince the other to drop its deeply held beliefs. But there is a need and, I believe, an opportunity for us to find common ground and take steps toward a goal all of us share; that is, reducing the number of unintended pregnancies in America.

I believe it is both possible and necessary for us to come together and enact effective legislation that will prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the number of abortions performed, and address unmet health needs of American women.

We cannot only find common ground, but also commonsense solutions in the women's health amendment that Senator Murray and I have offered this morning. Our amendment will help to reduce the staggering rates of unintended pregnancies and reduce abortions. Our women's health amendment will also improve access to prenatal and postpartum care for pregnant women.

Specifically, our amendment will: No. 1, end insurance discrimination against women. Let me say that this amendment was offered many years ago by Senator Snowe and me. I express my appreciation for her tireless efforts, for working with us in ending insurance discrimination against women. The Senator from Maine has been a stalwart in this regard.

No. 2, our amendment will improve awareness and understanding of emergency contraception and ensure that rape victims have information about and access to emergency contraception.

Lastly, it will promote healthy pregnancies in babies by allowing States to expand coverage for prenatal and postpartum care.

This is really unbelievable, but it is true: About half of all pregnancies in our country are unintended and about half of those will end in abortions. We must work together on this public health problem. It does not have to be this way. Most of these unintended pregnancies and resulting abortions can be prevented.

One of the most important steps we should take to prevent unintended pregnancies is to make sure that American women have access to affordable, effective contraception. I have been in a number of debates on this issue about contraceptive use. I can remember on a national radio program a woman called in from Texas. She said: I am now pregnant with my fourth child. I have diabetes. She went on to outline the many problems she would have having this baby. But she did say that the reason she is pregnant is because she and her husband could not afford prescription contraception. They tried other things that didn't work, and, as a result, she was going through this pregnancy.

What our amendment is all about is allowing women to have the choice to have contraceptives that work. Insurance companies, as the Senator from Washington so well outlined, provide money for all kinds of things. Why not contraceptives? It would be cheaper and certainly save a lot of money and aggravation in the long run.

As a result of medical innovation and pharmaceutical research, there are numerous forms of safe and highly effective contraception that are available by prescription. If used correctly, they would greatly reduce the rate of unintended pregnancies. However, one of the greatest obstacles to the usage of prescription contraception by American women is their cost.

The woman who called in to the national radio show is only one example. There are all kinds of examples of people who have insurance and do not have access to, for example, the pill--which is so effective in preventing women from becoming pregnant.

We know that women, on average, earn less than men. Yet they must pay far more than men for health-related expenses. According to the Women's Research and Education Institute, women of reproductive age pay 68 percent more in out-of-pocket medical expenses than men. Why? A lot of reasons, but one is due to their reproductive health care needs. Because many women cannot afford to pay for the prescription contraceptives they would like to use, many go without it, resulting in unintended pregnancies. Far too often that is the case.

This week is Cover the Uninsured Week--a major effort by a coalition of groups from all over the country to raise awareness to one of the fundamental problems of our society. About 44 million Americans lack health insurance. In addition to the 44 million, many other Americans are underinsured. The number who have no health insurance includes women and children. Most of the families affected are working families.

This is a tragedy that demands our attention. We have tried to get their attention, but we have not done very well. The high cost of prescription contraceptives is not only a problem for the millions of women without health insurance, it is also for millions of women who have health insurance because even having a plan that includes a prescription drug benefit does not

guarantee that the prescription drugs you rely on are included.

Such is the case for a majority of women in this country who are covered by health insurance plans that do not provide coverage for prescription contraceptives. As a result, women are forced to either do without contraceptives or to bear this expense out of pocket. This is unfair to women and unfair to families. It is bad policy that causes additional unintended pregnancies, adversely affecting women's health.

As I indicated earlier, I have been trying since 1997 to remedy this, and we have accomplished a few things. We have been able to get women who work in the Federal sector to have their insurance cover this, but we have been unable to get it for the rest of the country. That is too bad.

Today, as part of our women's health amendment, we are again proposing commonsense legislation that has received bipartisan support in the past. The Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act, or EPICC, as we call it, requires insurance plans that provide coverage for prescription drugs to provide the same coverage for prescription contraceptives.

The woman in Texas--I cannot adequately convey to you the desperation in this woman's voice when she called in saying: I am a sick woman. All I needed was the ability to have a prescription where I would get a contraceptive that would work, but I didn't, and I am pregnant. It is going to affect my health adversely, and I don't know what will happen to the baby. I cannot convey in words the desperation, the concern in this woman's voice.

We are not asking for special treatment of contraceptives--only equitable, fair treatment within the context of an existing prescription drug benefit. This legislation will help increase the playing field a little bit for women. They spend more for their health care costs. This will help a little bit. Making contraception more affordable and available will enable more women to use safe and effective means to prevent unintended pregnancy. I hope that is a goal we all share. I believe it is.

Contraceptive coverage is much cheaper than other services. As the Senator from Washington pointed out, it is certainly cheaper than performing an abortion; it is cheaper than sterilizations and tubal ligations, and most insurance companies routinely cover these.

The Federal Employees Health Benefits Programs, which has provided contraceptive coverage for several years as a result of an amendment we offered on the floor, shows that adding such coverage doesn't make the plan more expensive. In fact, it saves money. Unintended pregnancies cost society money, cost families money.

As I indicated, this was first introduced by Senator Snowe and me 6 years ago. We have been working across party lines and across the ideological spectrum to gain support in the Senate. It had 44 cosponsors last year in the Senate.

This is commonsense, cost-effective legislation that is long overdue. Promoting equity in health insurance coverage for American women, while working to prevent unintended pregnancies and improve women's health care, is the right thing to do. We should also take additional steps that would improve women's health and further reduce unintended pregnancies.

Our amendment would increase the awareness and availability of emergency contraception, an important yet poorly understood form of contraception.

I have never said this publicly, and I will not use her name, but she knows who she is. A very good friend of mine who worked for me for many years--she started off in high school as a runner in my office. She came to me one day, and I knew something was wrong. I said: What is the matter?

She looked at me with tears in her eyes and said: I was jumped last night.

I never heard that term before, but she was driving through a rough neighborhood and they stopped her car and she was raped--a teenager, Mr. President. I didn't know what to do or say. I called my wife's gynecologist/obstetrician, who is a friend of mine, and I said: Doctor, here is the situation . . . will you see her?

He said: Of course, I will see her.

So she went to him. She didn't become pregnant, but that is fortunate. Now, I wished, then, we had the ability to have emergency contraception. It would have relieved everybody's mind and made everybody feel better. I will never forget that. That was a traumatic night in her life, to say the least.

We have made progress since then--scientific progress--to make problems like that one something that can be dealt with. She would not have had to come to someone like me, her employer, and be humiliated by telling some one older than her about the problem. But she was one of the fortunate ones. She had somebody she could come to, and I had the opportunity to send her to my wife's gynecologist.

So, in effect, our amendment would increase the awareness and availability of emergency contraception, an important, yet poorly understood form of contraception. Approved for use by the FDA, emergency contraception pills work to prevent pregnancy, and they cannot interrupt or disrupt an established pregnancy. That is a scientific fact.

A woman could use emergency contraception in an emergency, such as if she had been raped and doesn't want to become pregnant.

The availability of an emergency contraception is particularly important for women who survive sexual assault, like my friend.

It is difficult to imagine the physical, psychological, and emotional pain that a woman who is raped endures. In addition to the violent attack to which these women have been subjected, they must also consider the possibility that in addition to the trauma of the rape, they could become pregnant as a result.

Compassion is a word we have heard a lot from political leaders in recent times. Actions speak louder than words. Surely, I acknowledge-- and I think we should all acknowledge--it would be compassionate to make emergency contraception available to women to prevent them from becoming pregnant by the rapist who brutalized and traumatized them.

It would be compassionate to make emergency contraception available to a woman to prevent her from becoming pregnant by the rapist who brutalized and traumatized her.

I hope we can all agree on this legislation which would require hospitals receiving Federal health dollars to provide information about emergency contraception and make it available to sexual assault survivors when they are being treated in the emergency room.

Simply put, emergency contraception should be made available in every emergency room in America. Women who have been raped should be informed of all their options, including learning about emergency contraception. If they choose emergency contraception, it should be made available to them. It should be a choice.

Women who have been raped should be informed of all their options, including learning about emergency contraception, and if they so choose, it should be made available to them.

EC, emergency contraception, has been studied extensively and has been regarded as a safe and effective method to prevent unintended pregnancies.

Once I was on a radio show talking about my contraceptive coverage legislation. Someone called in and said: I think it is awful, and I am opposed to contraception of any kind. Mr. President, that is a person's right. Some people do not believe in contraception, and that is their right. Nothing in our legislation forces a woman to take any form of contraception. That should be a choice of a woman who has a health plan or a woman who has been raped. That is all we are saying.

EC has been studied extensively and regarded as a safe and effective method to prevent unintended pregnancies, I say again. Its use has been recommended by leading American authorities, including the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and it has been approved by the Federal Food and Drug Administration.

It is believed this would prevent hundreds of thousands of pregnancies and likely hundreds of thousands of abortions in America each year. Unfortunately, however, emergency contraception remains, for the most part, a well-kept secret. Most of the women who would benefit from it and would use it

in an emergency to prevent an unintended pregnancy are unaware of its existence or do not know where to get it, where it is available. Even many health care providers do not understand what it is, how it works, and who could use it.

To reduce unintended pregnancy by raising awareness of emergency contraception, Senator Murray and I are proposing in this amendment to authorize $10 million in funding for the Centers for Disease Control and the Health Resources and Services Administration to develop and distribute information about emergency contraception to public health organizations, health care providers, and the public. This would prevent hundreds of thousands of unintended pregnancies and, of course, abortions.

These are just some of the simple, but I think necessary, steps we can and should take to prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce abortions.

To further improve the health of women and children, we should give States the option of covering pregnant women in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, called SCHIP, for the full range of their health needs, including prenatal, delivery, and postpartum care.

A number of years ago, a couple of neonatologists came to visit me. They were Nevadans. One was with a public hospital in southern Nevada. They had a number of messages. They wanted to see if we could get money to build a neonatal unit there. We have done that at the University Medical Center in southern Nevada. It is wonderful to go there and see those babies being saved because of modern technology.

Another message they wanted to deliver to me is that children are having children, and many of these children having children come to the emergency room--and they have never seen a doctor--to deliver the baby. They have never seen a doctor. It happens all the time. They were saying: We need to do something to allow these children to have a place they can go to get the care. Why don't they get care? There are a lot of reasons, but mainly it is a money situation.

I think this amendment is wonderful, and I like this part of our amendment very much, but I personally believe every woman in America, whether it is the wife of a billionaire or a woman who is on welfare and has nothing, and is 12 years old or 14 years old, should all be able to have free prenatal care. Every woman in America should be able to have free prenatal care. It would save this country so much money.

These doctors told me when they came to visit me that there are many million-dollar babies who, because of lack of prenatal care, are born with all kinds of problems. Had they had some prenatal care--some of these girls do not realize they should not smoke or take dope. They do not know. These are kids. If they had a place to go for prenatal care-- there are grown women who need advice and counseling as to what should and should not be done during pregnancy.

I really believe all women should have free prenatal care. There should not be means testing. I think every woman should have free prenatal care in our country. We would save so much money as a society by doing that. That is another battle down the road some other day.

This amendment would give States the option of covering women in the State Children's Health Insurance Program for the full range of their health needs, including prenatal delivery and postpartum care. The mortality rates for infants and for mothers remain alarmingly high in the United States. We can, we should, and we must reduce these rates by extending coverage for prenatal care and pregnancy-related services. Unfortunately, the administration imposed a regulation last year that allows the fetus to be insured through SCHIP but excludes--excludes-- the mother from coverage. Let me say that again. Through an administrative fiat, regulation, order, mandate, this administration imposed a regulation last year that allows a fetus to be insured through SCHIP, but excludes the mother of that fetus from coverage. Try to logically figure that one out. This is illogical, I think it is shameful, and I think it is absurd.

It, in effect, punishes women and certainly does not improve their health care. In any case, how can one claim to care about the health of an unborn child and not provide for the health and needs of his or her mother? The administration's policy means pregnant women are not covered during their pregnancy for medical emergencies, accidents, broken bones, mental illness, cancer, or even lifesaving surgery. Only procedures considered medically necessary for the fetus are covered. No postpartum care, of course, is included.

Remarkably, Health and Human Services Secretary Thompson tried to defend this policy by suggesting--listen to this--that the regulation which explicitly denies postpartum care is more comprehensive than legislation which provides full coverage including postpartum care. That is what he said. Do not try to figure out what it means because I cannot. This strains the credulity of anyone reading this and studying this situation. It flies in the face of common sense. We cannot have healthy babies if we ignore the health of the expectant mother. So States should be able to provide pregnant women with a full range of health services through SCHIP.

We should embrace these measures to protect the health of women and babies, prevent unintended pregnancies, and reduce abortions.

I am very happy to work with the distinguished Senator from the State of Washington, who is always on the cutting edge of things that relate to being compassionate and caring about people. It is an honor to join with her in helping us find common ground, commonsense solutions and show some compassion.

Let us find common ground. Let us agree on commonsense solutions and let us show compassion. There are four elements of this amendment. I hope we will move on and pass this unanimously. I do not know how anyone could oppose these commonsense amendments, but time will only tell.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Let me say, through the Chair, to the Senator from Pennsylvania, the manager of this bill, the majority leader asked Senator Daschle and I to try to do something to move this legislation along. In good faith, we have narrowed the number of amendments to seven or eight that we have offered. The reason Senator Murray and I did this amendment is we thought we would get all the prevention issues out of the way quickly.

The point I am trying to make to my friend is that we are going to offer these together or separately. We are going to have votes on these amendments one way or the other. That is why we have asked that there be no second-degree amendments. Everyone should understand that we will come back and reoffer these.

In good faith, we are trying to move this legislation along. There is no effort to stall or to delay in any way. In good faith, we are trying to work this out with the other side. I only say this because the Senator said the committees wanted to look this over. Senator Murray and I are going to get a vote on these four issues. We would like to do it all at once. That would be the best way to do this. I want to make sure the leader hears from us what we are trying to do.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

We resume today the debate on the issue of partial- birth abortion and Congress's fourth attempt to ban this procedure. There have been comments in the past about some of the descriptions we have used on the floor as to whether they are accurate, and whether some of the charts we have used are medically accurate charts. Some suggested in the line drawings we had depicted a fetus that was larger than the size of most in partial-birth abortions. In working with people from the medical community, we have come up with more realistic drawings to depict the actual procedure so people can graphically understand what is described in this legislation.

I will read the description in the legislation and show how the chart behind me is representative of this description. We have tightened the definition. The reason we tightened the definition was in response to the U.S. Supreme Court that found the original definition in the congressional bill, which is similar to the one in Nebraska, was unduly vague, and, therefore, unconstitutional because of vagueness. We have taken further steps to make sure that by banning this procedure we are not including any other procedure that is used for late-trimester, late-term abortions.

Let me read what is in the legislation today and then go through the charts to show how that comports with this definition.

(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 . . .

Now, I break from the text as to what partial-birth abortions are. The procedure itself is done in a breech position, but there may be a case--and this is what we are taking into consideration, here, the presentation--where the doctor makes a mistake and cannot deliver the child for some reason in a breech position. As I know, having been the father of seven children, you do not want a breech delivery. That is a dangerous delivery. That is not a normal delivery.

To authorize or to start a delivery in breech is a higher risk to the mother, No. 1. No. 2, for purposes of this procedure, that is what is described, that is what the doctors have said is the procedure which they would recommend. But there are always, in these medical procedures, chances for things to go awry so we take into consideration that if for some reason during this procedure the head is presented first, that will still be covered.

or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the

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.

Now, that is the description that is in the bill.

Let me show graphically the process by which this abortion takes place. This is a picture of a fetus inside the mother's uterus with the gestational age of roughly 24 weeks. The gestational period is 40 weeks for normal development. We are talking about now 24 weeks, or better than halfway through the pregnancy. That is when the vast majority of partial-birth abortions occur. In fact, all of them occur after 20 weeks. Most of them occur 22, 24, 26 weeks.

In the first picture we see the baby in the womb, in the normal fetal position. What has happened before this procedure occurs is the mother presents herself to the abortionist. And the abortionist, in making a determination to do a partial-birth abortion, gives the mother a medication to dilate her cervix so this procedure can then be performed. This dilation occurs over a 2-day period. The woman presents one day, the next day she stays at home, and the third day she arrives at the abortion clinic.

I use abortion clinic advisedly because this procedure is not performed in hospitals. It is not taught at medical schools. It is done solely at abortion clinics. The doctor who created this procedure testified that the reason he created this procedure was not because this was a better medical procedure for women. This was not designed for women's health. He said, and I am quoting him, he designed this procedure because other late-term abortions, when women presented themselves into his office, took 45 minutes. He could do this procedure in 15 minutes. Therefore, he said, he can do more abortions; he can make more money. So the person who designed this procedure, the person who put the medical literature out on this procedure is very clear as to why he designed this procedure. It is quick. It is easier for him. And he can make more money because he can do more abortions in a day.

So the mother, having been presented at the abortion clinic 2 days before, takes this drug. We heard from the Senator from Ohio yesterday, Senator DeWine, of instances where mothers in Ohio, two cases-- remember, this procedure was invented by a doctor in Ohio--two cases from a Dayton abortion clinic where the mother was given medicine to dilate her cervix and in two separate cases, because of the dilation, labor was induced and two different women delivered babies. One named Baby Hope lived 3\1/2\ hours and was not given medical treatment. I don't know all the facts as to why. Maybe it was an assessment that the child was too premature to live. The second baby, Baby Grace, was born and survived as a result of the live birth.

So we are talking about children here. This is very important. We are talking about this little infant here, this fetus, that would otherwise be born alive. The definition of the bill, I repeat one more time, of a baby delivered in a breech position:

. . . any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside

the body of the mother for the purposes of performing an

overt act that . . . will kill the . . . fetus.

You cannot kill a fetus if it is not alive. So this is a very important part of this definition. When the baby is delivered, the baby must be alive. If the baby is dead, we are not talking about an abortion because the baby is already dead. We are talking about a living fetus, living baby.

The first step now, the women presents herself, the cervix has been dilated, the physician goes in and grabs the baby's foot and begins to pull the baby into the birth canal in a breech position. Again, I repeat, no one preferably delivers a child in a breech position. It is just not what is medically recommended, but in this case we have the child being presented in a breech position.

Again, you can see the size of the baby in relationship to the size of the hand of the doctor. Some will say, well, that baby is much bigger than a baby. This is a blown-up chart. Of course it is bigger. Look at the size of the child relative to the size of the hand of the physician who is performing this abortion. You will see the size is about the size of the hand, 8, 9 inches in length, which is roughly the size of a child at that gestational age.

The child is pulled through the birth canal and presented.

Remember, here is the child outside of the mother as described in the bill, outside of the mother beyond the navel. The child is alive. The child is alive and is being delivered in this breech position. But the child is alive at this point in time.

But for what I am going to describe in charts 4 and 5, this child could be born alive. It would be born alive. It had the potential to survive. But that doesn't occur in the case of the partial-birth abortion.

What happens next is the abortionist takes a pair of sharp scissors and, probing with their fingers to find the base of the baby's skull, the softer point here, below the bone that protects the brain, finds a soft spot and thrusts a pair of scissors into the base of a living child's head who would otherwise be born alive.

One of the nurses who testified before Congress said she witnessed a partial-birth abortion and she witnessed the reaction of a child who was killed by one of these procedures and she said she saw the child's arms go out, flinch like a baby would do if you dropped it--sort of let it go. They let their arms and legs sort of go out. That is what this little child will go through as a result of this procedure.

Can this child feel pain? Most assuredly. Its nervous system is developed. In fact, going back to the first chart, when the doctor is reaching in to try to grab the leg, as has been described in testimony, the child tries to get away from the instrument that is grabbing its foot. The scissors are thrust into the base of the skull. That very well may kill the child. I don't know. In some cases it probably would. Probably in most cases it would.

But we are not done yet. We have to add insult to the injury. The doctor takes a suction catheter and, through the hole which is now in the base of the child's skull, he inserts a suction tube, and with that suction--tube he turns it on and suctions out the baby's brain. It collapses the baby's skull.

For those of you who have held newborns, you know that their skull is very soft, pliable. So without anything inside, it has been suctioned out through force, the baby's head collapses, and the rest of the baby can be delivered.

This is a procedure that is barbaric. It is barbaric. On a little baby who would otherwise be born alive--and if there is any question about that, I point to you Baby Hope and Baby Grace, who were ticketed for partial-birth abortions but were delivered prior to that.

What we have suggested in the Senate now, for the fourth Congress in a row, is that a procedure that was developed by a doctor who testified that the reason he developed this procedure was that he could do more abortions, make more money, is not medically necessary under any circumstances.

I have a quote here from Warren Hern. Warren Hern is a noted third- trimester abortionist. He has written books on late-term abortions. He does a lot of them. When he says, ``I have very serious reservations about this procedure . . . you really can't defend it . . . I would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use . . . '' this isn't Rick Santorum who has trouble with abortion, period--I admit that--this is someone who does abortions. This is someone who does late-term abortions. As I said, Dr. Warren Hern is the author of the standard textbook on abortion procedures. We have a situation where this procedure was designed simply so they could do more late-term abortions quicker.

There is plenty of evidence--I will get into this later--that this procedure has profound, long-term health consequences to women. This is not, as Dr. Hern says, the safest procedure for women.

There is no case--and I am going to underscore this 100 times, and I challenge anyone who opposes this legislation--anyone: If you are on the floor of the Senate, listening back home, listening--if anyone here, anyone across America, anyone around the world--and I want the Supreme Court to hear this--anyone can present to me a case, a factual situation where a partial-birth abortion is medically necessary vis-a- vis other types of abortions, if you can present to me one case, I will be shocked. That is because I have been asking this question for 7 years here on the floor of the Senate, outside, to groups--the folks who agree with me, the folks who disagree with me.

I have asked one question: Tell me why this is medically necessary. Tell me why, when even abortionists say it is not medically necessary, where no medical school in the country teaches this procedure, tell me why we have to keep this brutality of killing a child literally inches away from being born, why we have to keep up this brutality that is done purely so doctors who are abortionists can make more money, legal in America.

I ask again, anybody who comes here to the floor to debate this issue, who says we need a health exception, give me one case--one case. Seven years I have asked this question. Seven years I have asked this question. One case. Never has anyone even tried to put one together here on the Senate floor.

I am hopeful the Senate will act on this bill. I am happy the minority whip, Senator Reid, has given us a list of amendments so we can proceed in an orderly fashion on this legislation.

I see the Senator from Washington is here to offer her amendment. I certainly want to give her the opportunity to do that. I am looking forward to debate, not only on these amendments but to have a really good, honest debate--I underscore the word ``honest.'' There has been a lot of information--I will go through that, too--that has been put out by people who oppose this ban, everything from saying the anesthesia kills the baby to on down the line. There has been a lot of information that has been erroneous that has been put out by the other side.

I am looking forward to a good, honest debate on this issue. I hope we can get an overwhelming vote in the Senate to ban a procedure that is horrific, brutal, and never medically necessary for any purpose. It is only necessary so we can have abortionists who do late-term abortions earn more money, and that isn't a good reason to allow this barbaric procedure to proceed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we have roughly 10 minutes before we proceed to a debate on the constitutional role of the Senate in the advise and consent process. I do not have a sufficient amount of time to respond to all of the comments made by my colleagues from Washington and Nevada. We are looking at the amendment. We may have some amendments to it. My understanding is there are two jurisdictional pieces to this amendment. One is in the Finance Committee. The other is in the HELP Committee. We are still getting feedback from those committees.

My understanding is that some of these provisions have been offered at the committee level previously and the chairmen of those respective committees are letting us know what they would like to do.

I am happy to yield for a question.

As the Senator from Illinois knows, this is the fourth Congress in which this legislation has been considered. It has gone through committee in previous Congresses. As I mentioned before, there are some changes to this legislation, but the basic underlying procedure that we attempt to ban is one that is very familiar to the Senator from Illinois and very familiar to other Members. It is obviously familiar to members of the committee. While this is a bill that, again, I would argue has some differences in it that are important from a constitutional perspective, this is an issue very familiar to every Member of the Senate and there was not really a sense that this was one that needed to go through the process again.

Yes.

I will get the answer to the first question. I do not have the answer, but I will get that, No. 1. No. 2, this is different than the Nebraska statute. In fact, it was drafted in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in the Carhart v. Stenberg case.

To the other question, have there been hearings conducted about it, the answer is, no, there have not been hearings in the Senate. I do not know whether the House has conducted hearings on this language or not, but I can certainly find that out.

We are making the case and we will continue to make the case, and I assume those who oppose this legislation will make their case, as to the constitutionality of this legislation in its amended form that was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. I will go through those arguments repeatedly. I do not have time now because we only have about 5 minutes and I do have some other things I want to say.

Clearly, we believe we have addressed the issue of health. The Supreme Court, in the Carhart v. Stenberg case, took the record of the lower court. The lower court found that the health exception was needed based on the record, and the U.S. Supreme Court took the findings of fact from the district court and applied the standard that they would apply to this case, that the district court was clearly erroneous in coming to that decision. They did not find that standard to be met and so they accepted the underlying premise.

Congress has, on repeated occasions, made findings of fact in preparation for review by the courts, and in a vast number of these cases, the courts have been very deferential to Congress, as a body, that gets into much more detail through the process of hearings. We have had numerous hearings about this procedure in both the Senate and the House.

So while the Senator from Illinois has asked if we have had any recent hearings, we have had plenty of hearings on this issue and plenty of hearings about the medical necessity of this procedure. I ask the Senator from Illinois or any Senator who opposes this legislation, please come to the floor and present one case where this procedure is medically necessary. I do not think we need any more hearings. All I need is one case where this procedure would be medically necessary. In 7 years, no one has come to the floor of the Senate, no one has come to a hearing, no one has come before a hearing, no one has come anywhere, publicly, privately or otherwise, and presented a case where this is medically necessary for the health of the mother. So if there are no cases where it is medically necessary for the health of the mother, it is by definition outside of the rubric of Roe v. Wade. Now, that is a finding of Congress. That is a finding of Congress that is continuing to be substantiated by the inaction of those who oppose this to come up with a case.

Sure, I am happy to yield.

I certainly respect the desire of the Senator from Nevada to get votes on these amendments, and we may well be able to accommodate that in a clean fashion directly, but I do not know the answer to that. I am still waiting to hear from the chairmen who have just seen this amendment a few minutes ago, to get a sense as to whether they believe there are some things that can be done to improve upon this recommended language.

The second point, in response to the Senator from Illinois, is the issue of vagueness. That was the other issue with which the Supreme Court dealt. We have come up with a much clearer definition.

The Senator from Washington said this is a deceptive amendment, that this language is very broad language and it does not limit it to a partial-birth abortion. I ask the Senator from Washington, or the Senator from California who was on the floor last night with the same argument, if they could describe a procedure that would be banned by the language in this bill. Give me another procedure and give me the definition of that procedure and tell me how that procedure would be banned by this bill.

The Senator from Washington brought in a case which certainly is a very distressing case, one that I can relate to on a personal basis, of a child who was discovered in utero with a fetal abnormality. The abortion performed on that child was done at 16 weeks. It was not a partial-birth abortion and under this legislation would continue to be legal. So we did not restrict at all the procedures that are done in any hospital in this country, because hospitals do not do this procedure. Abortion clinics do this procedure.

As I have said many times, they do it for one reason: the convenience of the abortionist to do more abortions in a shorter period of time. The doctor who developed this procedure developed it, in his words, so he could do more late-term abortions. He said this procedure takes 15 minutes. The other one takes 45. So he could do more abortions in 1 day. That does not strike me as one that was developed for medical necessity or to protect the health of women, but to protect the pocketbook of an abortionist, and that is not the kind of medicine that we should confirm or affirm in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

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 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.

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.

Will the Senator yield?

Does the Senator from California dispute Dr. Haskell's statement that the vast majority of these abortions are elective?

Can my colleague answer that question?

You will not yield for another question. I understand.

Mr. President, let me just briefly respond on my own time now and maybe lay a little foundation.

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.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. I want to spend a few minutes discussing the underlying bill, and then later have an opportunity to come back and talk specifically about some amendments that will be coming to the floor.

I will in part be talking about the procedure as a medical procedure, and also discuss some of the myths that surround the very specific procedure that is defined in this particular bill.

I rise to speak on this particular issue with a deep passion not only for the protection of life but also for the ethical practice of medicine.

Before coming to the Senate, I had the opportunity to study and practice medicine for 20 years. Although I am not an obstetrician, I have delivered many babies in the past. I have had the privilege, as a cardiovascular surgeon, to operate on a number of premature infants born probably about 3 or 4 weeks later than the infant--or the fetus, in this case--that is depicted in this picture, about 3 weeks after that.

I do speak as a surgeon and a board-certified surgeon. This is a surgical procedure. I have had the opportunity to do thousands of surgical procedures as well as mend the hearts and vascular systems on babies this size.

As a surgeon, let me say that there are certain ethical bounds to the application of surgical procedures, and these are bounds that in a moral sense should never be crossed by a surgeon. It is interesting that the people who developed this procedure, and its loudest proponents, are not surgeons but practitioners, and they are not board certified in a field that would be consistent with performing procedures such as this. That is important because people have this image that once recognizing there are hundreds and indeed thousands of these procedures, in all likelihood, performed every year, that you would have certified surgeons performing them, but that is not the case. For the most part, general practitioners are performing these procedures.

From a medical standpoint, I took an oath to treat every human life with respect, with dignity, and with compassion. Abortion takes life away, and partial-birth abortion, this particular procedure, does so in a manner that is brutal, barbaric, and morally offensive to the medical community.

I will not concentrate on the politics of partial-birth abortion, but talk a little bit about the disturbing facts of partial-birth abortion as a surgical procedure, a procedure that clearly should and must be banned.

The fact is that partial-birth abortion is a repulsive procedure. The procedure is straightforward in description; people have seen the various charts. This depicts a late stage in that particular procedure. It begins, as described by its greatest advocate, by, inside the uterus, manipulating the fetus and turning the fetus around so it can be delivered feet first, delivering the feet through the uterus and through the cervical canal to the position that is depicted in this particular diagram, and then taking scissors which are about 8 inches long, called Metzenbaum scissors, and thrusting them into the back of the base of the skull. Then, because that opening is not sufficient to drain the brains from the fetus itself, it requires a forcible opening of the scissors. If you were to take a regular pair of scissors-- although the Metzenbaum scissors are longer--forcibly opening those scissors so the end of the scissors will split the skull wider so the brain can be evacuated and other contents within the skull.

Once the skull is allowed to collapse because of the evacuation of the brain and the intracranial contents, the skull itself collapses. And you can see how large the skull is to actually come through the cervical canal and through the birthing canal. It is necessary at this late stage because, as you can see, this, if born now, would be a premature infant. I will come to what the survival is if at this stage this fetus was actually delivered alive instead of dead.

The thrusting of the scissors into the base of the skull and the cranium itself takes this living fetus and kills the fetus itself. One of the problems is at this late stage in development, the neurological system is fully developed, fully developed to the point that with cervical blocks, which is the type of anesthesia typically used, or as is described by the father to this procedure, the fetus itself will feel that pain of thrusting the scissors in the back of the head.

This particular procedure is most commonly performed between 20 and 27 weeks. That is in the second trimester of pregnancy. People ask how far developed the fetus is. Pictorially, that gives you a pretty good idea of how well developed the fetus is. But to put that in perspective, 20 to 27 weeks, that is when most of these are performed. If you look at the early side of that, between 20 and 23 weeks, if that fetus was not killed but was just delivered at that point in time, overall survival today is about 30 to 50 percent. If you go to the period of 24 to 25 weeks--remember, this procedure is performed between 20 and 27 weeks--overall survival if the fetus had not been killed by using the scissors, the survival rate would be around 60 to 90 percent.

So these are premature infants. That is why people such as Senator Moynihan, who used to be in this body, call it the equivalent of infanticide, because these are performed at a time where if the infant were not killed, the infant would be delivered and although, yes, premature, would have better than a 50/50 percent chance of survival.

So when you hear about the procedure itself and you listen to the description, it is hard to imagine a more

grotesque treatment or tortuous treatment of what, if delivered without being first killed, would face a fighting chance of being a healthy human being.

Partial-birth abortion exists today. The procedure is performed in America every day. That is the reason this body, I believe strongly, must act and act with a ban to put a stop to this morally offensive procedure that is a fringe procedure, that is a rogue procedure that is being applied each and every day. We must stop it.

The reason I describe--it is worth looking at these pictures--this procedure in detail is not to shock. That is not the purpose. It really is to inform. The description I gave you is a typical medical way of describing the procedure itself. I will say, being a physician and being board certified, it is my responsibility not to shock but to depict the procedure as spelled out in the bill, a very specific procedure as it really is, the reality of the procedure itself.

It is critical that we debate this in terms of that framework of reality, no matter how disturbing the reality is.

There are a number of arguments by people who say, no, we should allow this procedure, as morally offensive and repulsive as it is, to continue.

I would like to take some of those myths. I will present them as myths because that is what they are. First, some say that partial-birth abortion may be necessary to preserve the health of the mother. That is not true. Never has partial-birth abortion, the specific procedure that is described in the bill itself, never has it been the only procedure or the best procedure available in the case of a medical emergency. You have to remember that this procedure takes 3 days. In fact, the alternative procedure--I am not an advocate of the alternative procedure that is accepted within the medical community--does not take 3 days. So when you are talking about medical emergencies and people say, it is the best alternative out there, that is not true. It is a dangerous procedure.

The only advantage I can see of partial-birth abortion--which is a disturbing advantage; therefore, I wouldn't call it an advantage or a benefit--is the guarantee, by the thrusting of the scissors into the brain and evacuation of the brain, of a dead infant.

Still, in the remote chance--and I argue hypothetical, because I have not been able to talk to anybody today who has said partial-birth abortion would be required to save the life of a mother because, remember, it takes 3 days. When you have procedures that are within ethical bounds, accepted by the medical profession and taught in medical schools, you have alternative procedures. But in the remote chance--again I argue hypothetical--the ban would not apply if it were to save the life of the mother.

Second, some would say that partial-birth abortion is the best option to preserve the health of the mother. I argue, no, it is a dangerous option. Let me paraphrase an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, published on August 26, 1998. There are ``no credible studies'' on partial-birth abortion that ``evaluate or attest to its safety'' for the mother. Partial-birth abortion, as described in the bill, is more dangerous to the health of the mother than the alternative procedures. There is a much greater danger.

The cervix itself is right here on the chart. This is the uterine cavity. You see the size of the head and the instrumentation of the hand and the instruments, which expand the cervix, which is the smallest part of the bottom of the uterus. When you overextend and expand that, you come to what is called cervical incompetence. This comes to the health of the mother long term, because cervical incompetence can have longstanding side effects to the mother.

Right here, those are the Metzenbaum scissors. It looks like a suction device. You can see those are about 8 inches long. Metzenbaum was the person who first described these scissors. The blunt instrumentation is done blindly. You cannot see. What you are doing is putting two fingers down, pulling down on the shoulders, putting the scissors on the top, and feeling this little indentation and thrusting inside. It is all done blindly--the manipulation of the two fingers and the manipulation of turning the fetus itself, as well as putting in the blunt instrument of the scissors. Once you insert the scissors that deeply into the uterus blindly, forcibly into the skull, if it doesn't go into the skull, it perforates the uterus.

The alternative procedures today--again, I am not supporting third trimester abortions and, to me, they are all repulsive. But it is important for people to know the alterative procedures don't involve the Metzenbaum scissors. It is done with an injection into the heart itself directly, or guided by ultrasound, very carefully controlled. It is not this blind procedure.

Comparing the various procedures is important because we keep hearing from certain people that this is the safest, or will be the safest or best alternative. It is simply not true. It is more dangerous. There is the danger of infection because of the increased manipulation that is required in this procedure itself, secondary to the performance of this procedure.

The third myth is the medical community--I was jotting notes when people were saying it infringes on the doctor-patient relationship. It says specific medical procedures that should not be banned by Congress. You know, first of all, that is not true. As a physician, you don't like big government coming in and telling you what you can and cannot do. Most people in life don't like Government intruding into their lives. And that doctor-patient relationship being as special as it is, you don't want Government coming in and saying yes, no, come in with that procedure. I feel the same way, generally. But as I opened up, I said there are certain ethical bounds and, yes, as a profession, we take certain oaths. One of them is the Hippocratic oath of doing no harm. But there is a certain ethical boundary and framework that, no matter who or what you are, you never go outside. But we have people going outside those ethical bounds. I argue that they are hurting women, when alternative procedures that are much safer are available. Thus, we must put a stop to that. And because it is performed every day, and it is outside of the ethical bounds, we are obligated to redefine those bounds in this particular case.

The bill says this is a rogue procedure that is never medically necessary and is condemned by the medical community. It has absolutely no place in the doctor-patient relationship. This is where the myth comes in, because that relationship is built on trust. That is the whole essence of the relationship between a woman and her physician, or a patient and a doctor. That trust has got to be built on moral behavior. What makes medicine a profession is this body of professional ethics, coupled with the specialized knowledge; and this goes outside the bounds of that framework of ethics, of morality.

Thus, I argue that this procedure, performed as it is across this country today, is offensive, is repulsive to this whole concept of the doctor-patient relationship, which is built on trust and moral behavior. This procedure is not moral.

People have made comments, ``Where is the AMA?'' There have been statements that the AMA does not oppose partial-birth abortion, or does. Let me just say the American Medical Association has supported this ban in the past. They oppose this specific procedure in this bill better, I would say, because it is more specifically defined than in the past bills; they oppose this specific procedure.

People say, well, the AMA is not out there saying this is the greatest bill on earth today. That is because it goes back to what I said, that they don't like the idea of anybody coming in and telling a professional what to do and what not to do. Let me leap back to what I said, and then I will go back.

The people who invented the procedure are not surgeons. They are not board certified. They operate outside the peer-reviewed literature. You cannot really go and find--because it is not accepted--this particular procedure in the peer-reviewed literature, which shows a certain amount of acceptance and respect in the mainstream community. It is simply not there.

The fourth myth I want to comment on is that some say making these specific techniques of partial-birth abortion a crime would make performing all late-term abortions almost impossible, and it would discourage doctors from performing legal abortions in all circumstances. I put this second to last

in terms of the myths. I oppose abortions, but for those people who believe in abortions, it is important for them to know this is a myth. I can say that because in the bill, the partial-birth abortion is very specifically and tightly worded and described, so that the ban, or the prohibition, would be just on the techniques that were described earlier and that have been pictorially described on the floor of the Senate--that is, the partial-birth abortion procedure.

There are alternative procedures, and I also find those offensive; but some people do not find them offensive. Those would still be legal. So this idea that a very tightly worded ban on a specific procedure, which is a subset of other types of procedures that are done, would stop, would make all abortions illegal, is simply not true. Again, I come back to those alterative methods are safer.

The fifth and last myth is that some say partial-birth abortion is accepted as mainstream medicine. That is not true. This is a fringe procedure. It is not found in the common medical gynecological textbooks, obstetrics textbooks that our medical students are taught with today. It is not taught in medical schools or surgical residency programs. It is outside the mainstream. If one looks at all the obstetrics and gynecologic residency programs, only 7 percent provide routine training for even mainstream third-trimester or late abortions. That is only 7 percent. To the best of my knowledge, none--none--in the residency programs teaches or would teach this specifically described partial-birth abortion procedure.

Today's doctors are simply not trained with this procedure--yet we have people performing it--because it is dangerous, because it is a rogue procedure, and because it is outside the mainstream of generally accepted medical and surgical practice.

I will mention one last time, the most prominent practitioners of partial-birth abortions are not trained obstetricians, but are general practitioners. Partial-birth abortion is an affront to the safe and reputable practice of medicine.

The question often arises as to how often these abortions, using this technique, are performed. It is hard to get good data, but if we look at the data that is provided and that we can collect, it is not as uncommon a practice as one might think.

In 1996, the research arm of Planned Parenthood asked doctors for the first time a question on partial-birth abortion. The question produced an estimate at that point in time, 1996, that 650 such abortions were performed using this technique annually in the United States. The same survey found that in the year 2000, over 2,200 partial-birth abortions were performed in the United States--2,200 deaths purposely caused by this technique, by this rogue procedure. That is why we have this call to action which we have debated on this floor now in this Congress and, indeed, in the last Congress and in the Congress before that.

An interesting side piece of data is that Kansas, the only State that requires separate reporting for partial-birth abortions, in 1999 said 182 procedures of partial-birth abortion were performed on viable fetuses. Of interest to all, 182 of those procedures were performed for mental health reasons, but not for physical health reasons--not for physical health reasons. It is important to understand because we have an exclusion for life of the mother, but none of those was performed for life of the mother. Why? Because there are alternative procedures that are safer and quicker and less invasive for the mother.

A vast majority of Americans support a ban on partial-birth abortion. Their will was reflected in the 104th Congress and in the 105th Congress, and in both of those Congresses the House of Representatives passed this ban and the Senate passed this ban. Sadly, both of those efforts were vetoed by President Clinton.

Today, partial-birth abortion remains the law of the land, and we are going to change that. It is going to be changed in this body, and hopefully we can complete this bill tomorrow night and then move to the House of Representatives and then a bill will be sent to the President which I expect will be signed.

Partial-birth abortion is a morally offensive procedure. It is time to ban it. We as a society respect human life far too much to let it be ravaged in such an inhumane way: a living infant partially delivered, stabbed with 8-inch scissors, emptied of the contents of its skull, and then pulled from its mother dead. Never has this procedure been the only or the best one available to protect the health of the mother. In fact, as I pointed out, partial-birth abortion carries a greater risk of doing harm. That is why this procedure is morally offensive to doctors, not only as individuals but as professionals.

In closing, I ask my colleagues, as we debate this bill, that we do so with the barbaric reality, with the brutal reality of this heinous procedure in mind, and not be sidetracked by the myths of partial-birth abortion, especially that would in any way imply that this is an accepted mainstream medical procedure. It simply is not.

Instead, we need to ask one simple question: Does partial-birth abortion carry the danger of doing unnecessary harm to a mother, to an infant, and to our conscience as a nation that values the sanctity of human life? The answer is yes. That is how I will vote, and I urge my colleagues to vote the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will yield.

Mr. President, I will find out shortly how the distinguished Senator from West Virginia did vote.

Mr. President, I am informed that in the 106th Congress, the Senator from West Virginia voted yes to ban this procedure.