[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11274-S11276]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to speak 
on the issue that we will be debating at some length tomorrow, partial-
birth abortion. My understanding is we have reserved a considerable 
amount of time for debate tomorrow.
  I think it is important we have that debate. Clearly, we are heading 
toward perhaps one of the most difficult, but most important, votes in 
the U.S. Senate, difficult because it deals with an issue of such 
immense consequences that I think it is important that each Senator 
focus very clearly on the issue at hand.
  This is not another one of those issues where I think anybody can 
just simply say, ``Well, I'm pro-life.'' ``I'm pro-choice.'' ``What is 
the pro-life vote?'' ``What is the pro-choice vote?'' ``Tell me what 
that is and I'll vote and walk off the floor and go on with my 
business.'' In my opinion, whether you are of the pro-life persuasion 
or the pro-choice persuasion, this issue deals with something of even 
greater consequence than that issue which is of extreme consequence. 
But this deals with something beyond the normal discussion that has 
taken place on the issues that would be categorized under the ``pro-
life, pro-choice'' issues.
  The President's veto of legislation passed by the Senate and passed 
by the

[[Page S11275]]

House of Representatives banning partial-birth abortions, except in the 
case where the mother's life is jeopardized, forces us, I believe, to 
confront a fundamental question of whether we will have a society that 
is civilized or one that is uncivilized.
  It is of such great importance and such consequence that I urge every 
Senator to examine carefully the facts--not the rhetoric--but the facts 
surrounding this issue. Facts that were--at least information that was 
purported to be fact during the original discussion of this issue have 
now fallen to new information, information that has indicated to us 
that we did not have all of the facts at hand when we made that 
original vote. Hopefully, that will cause some Senators to reconsider 
their vote. It certainly has caused some of those who have examined the 
subject and written about the subject to reconsider their position.
  Richard Cohen, who less than a year ago, during the time of debate on 
the partial-birth question, wrote an article which was published in the 
Washington Post, and probably in other periodicals around the country, 
justifying his conclusion that the partial-birth abortion procedure was 
justified.
  But after examination of what he called ``new data about this type of 
abortion,'' he wrote a second article in which he admitted to having 
been misled by the data supplied by, and I quote his writing, ``the 
usual pro-choice groups.''
  Ruth Pabawer, writing for the Sunday Record in New Jersey, after 
extensive investigation determined that ``interviews with physicians 
who use the method''--that is the method of partial-birth abortion--
``reveal that in New Jersey alone, at least 1,500 partial-birth 
abortions are performed each year--three times the supposed national 
rate.''
  It was stated on this floor a number of times, and has been repeated 
on this floor a number of times, that we are talking about a very rare 
procedure, one that is used primarily, and almost exclusively, in cases 
of extreme health distress or extreme risk to the life of the mother; 
that it is performed roughly around 600 or so times a year on a 
national basis.
  Yet, a respected reporter writing in New Jersey has concluded after 
her investigations that at least 1,500 partial-birth abortions are 
performed each year in that State alone, and that most of those 1,500 
abortions are not performed in situations or instances when the life of 
the mother is at stake, not even performed for medical reasons, but 
simply performed because the mother-to-be of that child has changed her 
mind; that circumstances are different, that there has been some 
indication of a problem but, in most cases, not even that, merely a 
change of mind as to whether or not that child was a wanted child. And 
so the abortion is performed.
  If we extrapolate the 1,500 in New Jersey out nationwide, we are 
talking about several thousand, if not tens of thousands, of these 
procedures occurring every year. This is data that was not available to 
us when we discussed this issue on the floor previously.
  Mr. President, it was the Washington Post that reported that it is 
possible, and I am quoting, ``and maybe even likely, that the majority 
of the partial-birth abortions performed are performed on normal 
fetuses, not on fetuses suffering genetic or developmental 
abnormalities. Furthermore, in most cases where the procedure is used, 
physical health of the woman whose pregnancy is being terminated is not 
in jeopardy. In virtually all cases, there are alternative ways to 
perform the abortion safely.''
  This is only part of the evidence that has been supplied to us and 
provided to us that was not available when we debated the issue 
earlier. I suggest this new data is something that every Member of the 
Senate ought to very carefully consider, because if a decision to 
support a procedure, a medical procedure, which, as Senator Moynihan 
has suggested, really borders on infanticide--taking a child, sometimes 
five, six or even more months of gestation, a child that, if born, 
would, in most instances, easily survive, easily be nurtured to 
complete health--if that happened at that stage, then we clearly would 
have a situation that would require no medical procedure, no abortion 
procedure.
  Yet, that child is, under partial-birth abortion, almost born, is 
within 3 inches and 3 seconds of birth and then killed, terminated. 
That life is terminated. The heart is beating, the brain is 
functioning, the body is complete, the child is ready--even though it 
might be premature--it is ready to become a functioning member of the 
human race, of the human society. Yet, that child, and I will talk more 
about this tomorrow, that child is then subjected to generally a probe 
or scissors punctured into its brain, a suction tube inserted through 
that hole, its brains sucked out of its skull, the skull then collapses 
to allow the abortion then of the dead child.
  That is the procedure we are talking about. It may have been 
justified in some minds on the basis that this was a rare procedure. It 
may have been justified in some minds on the basis that this procedure 
was necessary to save a mother's life. We now know that that is not the 
case. We now know that in most instances of partial-birth abortion, 
that no such situation is reality. Rather, we now know that these are 
simply done as a feasible, medically feasible means of terminating the 
life of the child.
  This Nation has, in its history, always sought to expand the circle 
of those who deserve equal rights under the Constitution, and deserve 
to be a part of this civilization. We have fortunately--and too late--
but still fortunately shed the discomfort and disgust we once had, or 
at least some had, for people of different color, and we have brought 
them into the full civil rights of the Constitution and of people in 
this Nation.
  We have extended those rights to people of the other gender, women in 
terms of their rights and ability to vote. Our impulses have extended 
rights to those who are disabled. The Americans With Disabilities Act 
extends those rights. But the history of civil rights in this country 
has been an ever-widening circle of inclusion.
  Yet, for the most defenseless in our society, for the smallest, the 
weakest of our society, we refuse to extend that right. And in this 
situation, in the case where the child is clearly beyond the age of 
viability, under any definition, when birth of the child simply means 
an extended hospital stay until the child is a little stronger and able 
to go home, with his or her mother, we have a situation where, in most 
instances, for the sake of convenience that child's life is terminated.
  But, Mr. President, I do not mean to imply that this is a matter of 
numbers, that even if there were only 660 abortions performed on an 
annual basis that that would justify that procedure. Because even if 
one abortion were performed using the medical procedures used in 
partial-birth abortions or performed at the age of the child which 
these abortions are performed, even if there was only one, we ought to 
have this debate on the Senate floor. And we ought to have this vote, 
because this is a procedure that it is now clear is a procedure that 
takes the life of a living human being, a human being fully viable, 
fully capable of living on its own.
  If this procedure were performed in another country, I would guess 
that we would be down here debating the human rights of that country, 
and there would be amendments offered to deny trade, to deny foreign 
relations, to reach out and call out these unspeakable procedures that 
are taking place in nations around the world.
  If this were a procedure that was being performed during conflict, in 
a war, we would have people standing on this floor arguing and debating 
and offering amendments calling for war criminal trials against those 
who were performing the procedure. And yet, here we are standing on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate, and calling this a choice, a medical 
procedure, chosen by a woman in consultation with her doctor. And those 
of us who believe that this procedure should not be performed are being 
labeled as those who attempt to interfere with that choice.
  Mr. President, I will have a great deal more to say about this 
tomorrow as we engage in our full debate. But I hope again that each 
Member would avail themselves of the new information that has come to 
light about this procedure, about the number of times that it is 
performed, about why it is performed, and would think through very 
carefully about the consequences of allowing this procedure to 
continue,

[[Page S11276]]

the consequences to us as a society, as a civilization, and what it 
says about a society that, under the mantle of law, allows such a 
procedure to take place. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

  Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

                          ____________________