Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I understand Senator Frist will take some leader time and Senator Daschle has given me 4 minutes of his leadership time, so I will speak for about 6 minutes if that is all right.

Mrs. BOXER. I understand I have a minute, 51 seconds remaining.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield 4 additional minutes and retain the remainder of my time.

Mrs. BOXER. Fourteen.

Mrs. BOXER. Fifteen minutes, 20? I yield up to 20 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am going to read you the story of Viki Wilson. Viki is a pediatric nurse. She lives in California. Her husband Bill is an emergency room physician. The Wilsons were expecting their third child when they received a devastating diagnosis at 36 weeks of pregnancy. I hope every colleague will listen to this story and, for a moment, think about this couple and what they faced. Viki was married to an emergency room physician. They were told after 36 weeks of pregnancy, of looking forward to this baby, that a large portion of the brain was formed outside the skull and most of the baby's tissue was abnormal. They were told by several physicians, including geneticists and perinatologists that their daughter they named Abigail could never survive outside her mother's womb, and that the so-called healthy baby kicks that Viki had thought for sure she was feeling were, in fact, seizures caused by the pressure as the baby's head had lodged in her pelvis. Think about how you would feel if you were that father, if you were that mother, if you were that grandma, if you were that grandpa, if you were the mother of Viki or the mother-in-law or the father or the father-in-law or you were the brother of Viki or you were the brother- in-law or you were the sister or you were the aunt. They learned this pregnancy was doomed. They learned the baby they wanted so much could never live outside the womb. They learned the risks of this continued pregnancy to Viki, the very severe risks she faced. They decided this procedure that is being banned today was the safest and best procedure for Viki. They talked about it; they prayed on it; they discussed it with their family; they discussed it among themselves with their physicians. They brought in every specialist one can think about, and they decided this was the best thing for Viki's family and for her children and for her children she hoped to have in the future. The Wilsons held a funeral for Abigail, and a playground at their children's Catholic school is named in her honor. And then, very soon after, the Wilson family welcomed a baby son, actually through adoption. Is this the kind of person you want to harm? Is this the kind of woman you want to put at risk? Is this the kind of couple to which you are saying: Sorry, even if your doctors say Viki might have a stroke, Viki might be paralyzed, no can do; we can't help you because Senators playing doctor decided this procedure should no longer be a choice, an option for a woman in a severe and tragic circumstance. I have to tell you, I have looked inside my heart up and down. I do not understand how we move forward as a society, how we move forward as a compassionate country when we do something that can conceivably hurt thousands and thousands of women and thousands and thousands of families. We could have passed this bill in a nanosecond. Just make a health exception. It would have met the objections of the Court with the health exception and a little bit less vagueness on the procedure, and we would have done something that would have been important. But, oh, no, I guess in the end the women of this country just don't matter that much. I think this record is very clear. The physicians who know what they are talking about, who deal with these pregnancies every day don't want us to do this. The women, many of them very religious, who have been faced with this crisis tell us: Please, please make a health exception because if we didn't have this procedure, A, we might have died; B, we might have been paralyzed; C, we might have been made infertile; D, we might have had a stroke or embolism or damaged our nearby organs. Why are we doing this? There is no such procedure called ``partial- birth abortion.'' It is in every letter from the physicians. There is no such procedure. It is a made-up term to make this debate what it really is not about. It is a very sad day for us that we are banning a procedure that I have proven, by putting into the Record letter after letter from physicians, is necessary sometimes to save the life and health of a woman. We are banning this with no health exception. This is not the right thing to do. This bill was stripped of the supportive language of Roe v. Wade that this Senate passed twice--not once but twice--saying that Roe v. Wade should remain the law of the land. Oh, no, they were so radical in that conference committee, they kicked out that very simple statement where most Americans agree that Roe v. Wade, making this decision in the early stages of a pregnancy in private-- Government stay out of it; Senator Boxer, I might think you are really a good gal, but stay out of my private life. They are right. I don't deserve to be in it. Senator Harkin has just come to the Chamber. He is the one who had that amendment which was adopted by this Senate twice, and how proud I was to stand with him. I wonder if it is OK with my colleagues, since Senator Harkin has arrived, if I give him 10 minutes. Mr. President, can Senator Harkin take about 10 minutes? Does the Senator want more time?

Mrs. BOXER. I gave you 10 seconds to think about why we are banning something called partial-birth abortion when there is no such medical procedure. The answer is, it is a highly charged bunch of words. There is no such thing as partial-birth abortion in the medical literature; you either have a birth or an abortion. But it charges people up. It gives you a picture that is not accurate. This is what the Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health tell us: Physicians need to have all medical options available in order to provide the best medical care possible. It is unethical and dangerous-- There is the word again ``dangerous''-- for legislators to dictate the details of specific surgical procedures. Banning procedures puts women's health at risk. ``Risk,'' ``danger,'' ``jeopardy,'' and ``unconscionable'' are the words that go along with this bill. They are not my words. They are words of physicians who have lived their life to help women have babies. That is what they are about. Politicians should not legislate decisionmaking by doctors. They call it medical decisionmaking. To do so would violate the sanctity and legality of the physician-patient relationship. To falsify scientific evidence in an attempt to deny women their right is unconscionable. There it is. ``Unconscionable,'' ``dangerous,'' ``jeopardy,'' and ``at risk'' are the words we are being told. But we are going to vote for this bill because it is about politics. It is easy to say I cannot buy this procedure. We could have banned it completely. We could have banned all late-term abortion completely with a life exception, health exception. But, oh, no, I think the other side would rather have an issue than make progress. That is not just me talking, that is very anti-choice people who have said this is going to be overturned across the street in 5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent to print this letter from Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois. If he needs further time, I agree to an additional 5 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you. Madam President, I want to reply to what the good Senator has said, with great respect, when he says this procedure is outside the mainstream. I want to point out, I respect his opinion, but I think doctors who have gone into OB/GYN, if that is their field--I do not believe the American College of OB/GYNs--45,000 doctors--are out of the mainstream. I do not believe the American Medical Women's Association-- 10,000 female doctors--are outside the mainstream. Nor do I believe the American Public Health Association--thousands of doctors--are outside the mainstream. So although I totally respect the opinion of my colleague, and I would fight for his right to have it, and his right to believe what he does, I think it is a bit dismissive of the mainstream OB/GYN doctors in this country, all of whom have told us, please do not pass this ban that they have said is dangerous to women. They have said, to use their words, it is risky to women, and they are very upset about it. I did not want the Senate to believe these organizations back this bill, because they do not. We have put those letters into the Record. I thank you very much.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 2 minutes from Senator Daschle's leader time.

Mrs. BOXER. Would the Presiding Officer be so kind as to tell me when I have used 20 minutes?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Eileen and her husband sought the advice of medical specialists, but the prognosis grew worse with each additional test. Finally, the Sullivans, religious Catholics, made the decision they thought was most compassionate for their son, safest for Eileen, and most likely to allow them to have a healthy child in the future. Eileen had a D&X abortion in July of 1996. I will conclude by saying I don't think it is compassionate to take away the choice of a woman such as this who is grappling with her religion, ethics, and making a decision with her family to do what is right for her family and for this unborn child. I think it is such a statement that there is no respect for the people of this country, there is no value given to their values, their souls, their religion, to their way of dealing with tragedy. I don't understand how my friends from the other side of the aisle, who always talk about Big Brother interfering, could move into this area and turn their backs on the American families. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for just 1 more minute.

Mrs. BOXER. Well, my friend is right. I just hope we recognize, because I know the Supreme Court recognizes it, that if we turn our backs on the women of this country as we are going to do today, first, it will never hold up across the street in the Supreme Court--no way. Second of all, we are threatening the health of so many women. Before my friend leaves, I want to give him two brief stories. Eileen Sullivan of California--and these women are so courageous to tell the stories-- is a Catholic with 10 brothers and sisters. Eileen had long awaited her first child. She and her husband were devastated to discover, at 26 weeks of pregnancy, that testing revealed overwhelming fatal abnormalities in their son, including an improperly formed brain, a malformed head, no lungs, and a nonfunctioning liver. The severe anomalies were incompatible with life.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. I will use the 6 minutes and then the time will revert to my colleague from Pennsylvania. I thank my colleague and friend from New Jersey for coming to the Chamber to lay out so many of the unstated issues that revolve around this debate. The points he made today are important. Before he leaves, I want to ask him a question on my time. I know he is the proudest grandpa of 9, soon to be 10, we hope and expect. You have served for many years not only in public life but as a leader in business and leader of the community. We hear from the other side about the need to protect the vulnerable. My friend stands with me as a supporter of the Violence Against Women Act, a supporter of the Violence Against Children Act and the need to do everything we can for the most vulnerable, to protect them from environmental hazards. I find it interesting that they will talk on the other side and show pictures on the other side of fetuses before they are born. And the compassion, I don't doubt that for a minute. I have no doubt that my colleagues feel such compassion. Believe me, I do as well. Having given birth to two premature babies, I totally understand the love and compassion you give to the child you are carrying. But I want to say to my friend, isn't there something missing here from this discussion of compassion? Should we not show compassion for a woman who desperately seeks to have a child and is told in the 7th month, the 6th month, something has gone terribly awry, that the baby's head is so large, the brain perhaps is developing outside of the skull, there are other problems, that the doctor says, to spare this woman a terrible life-threatening illness or to spare her infertility, that he recommends or she recommends that this procedure that is now being outlawed is the only way to, A, spare the woman from these possible health consequences which are serious and long term, could even land her in a wheelchair, render her unable to take care of her other children, and to spare that fetus, if it were born, the worst nightmare of a brief and short life? This happens to women. Does my friend not see the compassion in working with this family in a way that would give the woman dignity, preserve her health, the fetus dignity? I will talk about this because we have pro-life women, very religious, who went through this to spare the indignity to the fetus, to spare the pain to the fetus, to spare their own health. Is there not compassion in that decision and in that choice?

Mrs. BOXER. I mean under the agreement.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time do I still retain?

Mrs. BOXER. Here is what we know so far. We have a bill that has no health exception. It bans a procedure doctors say is needed. We have a bill that looks just like the Supreme Court case, and the Supreme Court said it is unconstitutional. And in the course of the conference, the conferees on the other side threw out the language that supports the Roe v. Wade decision. This is a bad package for the families of America. I know the handwriting is on the wall that it will pass, but the issue is not going away. I yield to my colleague as much time as he may wish to consume, Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey. I thank him for coming over today.

Mrs. BOXER. We have different polls. But my friend from Alabama is totally correct. This is not about polls. He can prove in one poll that he is right; I can prove in one poll that I am right. The issue is in our hearts. We do not agree with each other. If you want to make a woman a criminal, make a doctor a criminal, come here, we will have a vote up or down on that. Do not chip away, chip away, chip away, and hurt women in the process. The Court has stated that this is unconstitutional, bottom line. On the other hand, my colleague said: our bill that bans this procedure is not violative of Roe because we have declared in the findings that the health issue is immaterial. Well, good luck. When you have doctors testifying, when you have nurses testifying, when you have health professionals testifying, when you have women testifying, ``We have had this procedure,'' because they knew they might die if they did not or they would be made infertile, and compare that to Senators or Congresspeople, I think the Court will look at the professional judgment of doctors because we are not doctors here. And we are certainly not God. So let's call it what it is. It is not compassionate to pass a bill today that turns its back on the health of women. That is not compassionate. And the Supreme Court, let's see what else they said about this particular philosophy that you are going to get in this bill and why they overturned the last one that did the same thing. Even if it only banned D&X, meaning the proposal my colleagues say they are banning, this ban would pose grave health risks. This is the Supreme Court: The record shows that significant medical authority supports the proposition that, in some circumstances, D&X would be the safest procedure. This is the Court, the same Court that is going to hear your ban that has no health exception: A statute that altogether forbids D&X creates a significant health risk. The statute consequently must contain a health exception. I ask my colleague if he is ready to speak because I am ready to yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. And I will not yield at this time.

Mrs. BOXER. No, you did not. I said, good for the parents for making the choice and standing up for the doctor who gave them another suggestion. Fine. That is what a pro-choice position is. That is why I am so much for Roe v. Wade. That is why I stand here as a mother, as a grandmother, as a Senator from a very large State, admitting, Senator, and admitting to all my friends in the Senate, in the Congressional Record for all times, that I am not a doctor and I am not God. I am a human being. I trust other human beings to make these decisions. I trust Samuel's family to make the decision they made. The doctor gave his opinion.

Mrs. BOXER. Senator, you did not listen to what I said, because you were talking to your staff, when I stood up.

Mrs. BOXER. I will not yield time because Senator Lautenberg is in a rush.

Mrs. BOXER. I yield for a short time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will you let me know when I have used 7 minutes and I will yield time to the Senator from New Jersey. I am very pleased to be joined by Senator Lautenberg. I will respond with my comments to the comments of the Senator from Kansas who was very eloquently talking about the most vulnerable among us. As the author, when I was in the House, of the Violence Against Women Act, as the person who offered the amendment which allowed abortion after rape in the House--and that passed for Medicaid patients--and as the author of the Violence Against Children Act today--and I hope my colleague will cosponsor that bill because it is a wonderful way to highlight the most vulnerable among us--the example the Senator talked about, the case of Samuel, illustrates why the pro-choice position is so much the right position--In that case, the doctor recommended an abortion but the parents made another choice. The parents acted and said to the doctor: We do not agree. So they had the right to choose what they wanted to do. And good for them. But if we legislate bans on this and bans on this--you have to have a child, you do not--and we turn into China or countries like Romania that said you shall have the babies, on the one hand, or you may not ever have a baby, on the other, then we lose the ability for families, with their God, with their conscience, with their doctor, to make the decision they want to make. The important thing is that the family have the choice. That is why I stand here today.