Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, when a bill that deals with a medical procedure comes before the Senate, that in itself is very rare. When a bill comes before the Senate that bans a medical procedure that many women have stated saved their lives, preserved their fertility, stopped them from having a severe health impact, I think it is important to turn to the people who know the most about this, and that is the OB/ GYNs who choose, as their way of life, delivering children, who get their satisfaction in their work by staying close to a pregnant woman and seeing her through a pregnancy. Hearing Senator Frist's comments is very interesting to me, but I have to say I have read his bio, and there is nothing in here about delivering babies. Maybe he did when he was in school or as a resident. But what we are talking about here is OB/GYNs. What do they think? Why is that important? Because that is their life. Let me tell my colleagues what the OB/GYNs say: Partial-birth abortion does not exist. They are not the only ones who say that. The fact is the Supreme Court said that. They said the bill is so vague; it made up a term, ``partial-birth abortion.'' There is no such thing as partial-birth abortion, a very emotional term. But what we are talking about is a procedure that is used in a situation where any other procedure might cause grave harm to the woman. Now, the AMA does not support S. 3. I hope Senator Frist is aware of this. He is busy talking, which is fine, but I ask unanimous consent that the AMA statement that says they do not support S. 3 because it includes a provision that would impose a criminal penalty on physicians be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. Coma, stroke, hemorrhage, brain damage, infection, liver damage, and kidney damage.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I would like to submit for the record a letter from the University of California, San Francisco, Dr. Felicia Stewart, in which she says very clearly that this bill: . . . fails to protect women's health by omitting an exception for women's health; it menaces medical practice with the threat of criminal prosecution; it encompasses a range of abortion procedures; and it leaves women in need of second trimester abortions with far less safe medical options: hysterotomy and hysterectomy. The proposed ban would potentially encompass several abortion methods. She goes on: If the safest medical procedures are not available to terminate a pregnancy, severe adverse health consequences are possible for some women who have underlying medical conditions. And she says here is what happened to them: Death, infertility, paralysis----

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield.

Mrs. BOXER. I assume I am answering on my friend's time.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for an answer to the question?

Mrs. BOXER. I yield the floor at this time.

Mrs. BOXER. I know that most politicians--and we are all included-- think we really know a lot, and we are really pretty smart, and we have to work hard at our jobs, and we feel confident and comfortable in our work, but when we start doing things such as this--outlawing a medical procedure that OB/GYNs tell us is necessary to preserve the health of a woman, and when we start telling women such as this woman here, and others I have shown, that they don't know what they are talking about, they were not in crisis, this isn't an emergency--I actually heard someone on the floor today say this isn't an emergency situation if it takes 3 days. Well, let me tell you, it may take 3 days because of these complications that we are talking about. These are very complicated, difficult situations that are delicate. If it takes 3 days, it is because it is delicate. I have to say, if we wind up banning this procedure--which, by the way, the way the bill as written is unconstitutional because the lawyers who have fought the previous case said it is legally identical to the case that the Supreme Court said was unconstitutional--and it is upheld because of a change in the Court, or whatever, we are going to find some tragedies that we are going to bring to the floor. I don't want to see that day come. Doctors take an oath to do no harm. I wish we can take that same oath to do no harm. Roe v. Wade was a very important decision. It said in the first few months of a pregnancy, before viability, a woman has a right to choose what she wants to do with the pregnancy. That is Roe. After viability, we all support restrictions--but always with an exception for the life or the health of the mother. This bill is so radical, it has no exception for health. The women I have brought to you have told me they could have suffered any one of these on this list of problems. How we can stand here on the floor, when physicians are telling us these are the problems--the hemorrhages, blood clots, strokes, paralysis--that could result If this particular method is banned, it seems to me we are doing harm. We are doing harm to the women of this country. I would like to see us finish this bill. I would like to see these amendments pass. Senator Murray's amendment is so important. They are so important because what they will do if they pass and are signed into law is make abortion rare because it is talked about in every aspect of contraception being available to women. That is what we ought to be doing so we don't have to have this debate on abortion.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for an additional 3 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. That your constituent needed in order to spare her son horrific health consequences. And the fact that somebody would say that is not a crisis, when you have described the status of this pregnancy, is stunning to me. I know people around here have big egos. I don't doubt that. We all have----

Mrs. BOXER. My friend has put it in a very stark way--that what is happening in this Chamber, and as my friend, Senator Murray, has eloquently pointed out, as we are amassed to go to war in Iraq, as we have a building crisis in North Korea, as we have the worst economy I have seen in decades, what is on this floor is banning a procedure that your constituent--is she yours?

Mrs. BOXER. I have listened to my colleagues, and I would appreciate it if they would hear a story of a woman named Coreen Costello, because if this procedure were to be banned--and I see that Dr. Frist has left the floor--this woman could have died. But they leave the floor, and that is their prerogative. This is what Careen Costello writes: We are Christians and we are conservative. We believe strongly in the rights, value and sanctity of the unborn. Abortion was simply not an option we would ever consider. This was our daughter. Instead, we wanted our baby to come in God's time and we did not want to interfere. We chose to go into labor naturally. It was difficult to face life knowing we were going to lose our baby but it became our mission to make the last days of her life as special as possible. We asked our pastor to baptize her in utero. We named her Katherine Grace. Another ultrasound determined Katherine's position in my womb. It was not conducive for delivery. Her spine was so contorted it was as if she was doing a swan dive, the back of her feet almost touching the back of her head. Her head and feet were at the top of my uterus. Her stomach was over my cervix. Due to swelling, her head was already larger than that of a full-term baby. I say to my friends, this is real life. This is a situation of a woman who never, ever wanted an abortion. She said: As my condition worsened, we again considered our options. Natural birth or induced labor were not possible. We considered a cesarean but the experts felt the risk to my health and my life were too great. We have a bill before us that makes no exception for the health of the woman. I was in the Chamber yesterday. We had a very tough debate, and the question was asked, How low can we sink? I have to say, when we hear stories such as this, that happen to real people--and if this were our daughter or our wife or our aunt, would we not say, save her life and her health? The bottom line is this: This woman had the procedure that would have been banned with this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. She concludes: Losing our daughter was the hardest thing we have ever experienced. It has been difficult to come to Washington and relive our loss. And it's ironic that I, with my profoundly pro-life views, would be defending an abortion procedure. God knows I pray for the day when no other woman will need this procedure, but until there is a cure for the cruel disorders that can affect babies, women must have access to this important medical option.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I want to take 5 minutes to thank my friend from Washington, Senator Murray, for her extraordinary leadership on women's health. The fact that this amendment is being debated is very encouraging to me, because when people stand up and say we want to prohibit a procedure that doctors tell us, OB/GYNs tell us is absolutely necessary in some cases in order for a woman to have her life saved or her health preserved, that is not something we should be doing here. We are not physicians; we are Senators. What we would be doing is making sure that every woman in this country, when faced with a very difficult life-threatening or a health- threatening pregnancy can make decisions based on the best advice that she can get, the best science, because if we look at these families-- and I have been showing these portraits of real women. This is a woman who, in her own words, said, ``I am a conservative pro-life Christian.'' Those are her words. She said, ``Abortion, to me, is something unthinkable.'' Yet she said in her own words, far more eloquent than mine, that had she not been able to have the procedure that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to ban, she might not have been able to bear another child. In fact, the possible health impacts of her not being able to have the procedure have been spelled out by physicians. I am so happy to see my friend from Illinois in the Chamber because he is going to be offering an amendment to make sure that if this bad law moves forward, there is an exception, so that women won't hemorrhage, won't have uteruses rupture, won't suffer blood clots, won't have embolism or strokes, or won't suffer damage to nearby organs or have paralysis. Can you imagine us doing something that could lead to a woman--like this beautiful woman and the others I have talked about having to suffer one of those consequences--being ripped away from her family?

Mrs. BOXER. In conclusion, in my last minute, I have told this story because what we are about to do, unless we adopt several of the amendments we will be offering, would mean that another woman such as this, another beautiful family such as this, might find that the woman has life-threatening illnesses if, in fact, she cannot have the procedure: hemorrhaging, uterine rupture, blood clots, embolism, stroke, damage to nearby organs, paralysis. This is what physicians tell us happens to women. So my colleagues have a picture, and that is fine, although I have to say I hope the pages who feel a little queasy on this will not be forced to stay in the Chamber, but we are dealing with a circumstance that affects real people and these are the things that can happen to these women. I believe we have to have a voice, and the Murray amendment should pass because the Murray amendment would mean that women can have access to contraception and that abortion would become safe, legal, and rare. I yield the floor back to Senator Byrd, who I believe has the time.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Today, Senator Ensign and I are introducing the Invest in the U.S.A. Act of 2003 along with Senators Smith, Allen, Enzi, and Bayh. This economic stimulus legislation would create a one-year incentive for corporations to bring the profits they have made overseas back to the United States and invest them in creating jobs. The act lowers the effective corporate tax rate on the foreign earnings of American companies from 35 percent to 5.25 percent for one year. By lowering that rate for one year, we will encourage companies to bring an estimated $135 billion from abroad back home to invest in the United States. Getting this capital into the domestic economy is particularly necessary in light of the difficulties firms are having raising money in this tough economy. By making this capital available for domestic investment, we will minimize the spending cuts that companies have been announcing for the coming year. The Invest in the U.S.A. Act would constitute a true economic stimulus by encouraging investment and job creation right away in such activities as worker hiring and training, research and development, and new plants. Our proposal is also fiscally responsible, unlike other proposals that fail to give the economy the shot in the arm it needs. It will result in job creation rather than deficit creation by enabling a tremendous amount of investment in our economy in the short term with only a small cost in the long term. For Government, the funds brought back to the United States will generate $4.1 billion in revenues in the first year and is expected to cost $3.9 billion over 10 years. I want to thank Senator Ensign for his active, engaged leadership on this legislation. I particularly appreciate Senator Ensign's focus on ensuring that these funds will be targeted at creating jobs and stimulating our economy right away. Mr. President, we will work hard to ensure that the provisions in this act are included in any economic growth package that the Senate considers because our workers need the opportunities it would create and our economy needs the capital it would generate.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Today, Senator Ensign and I are introducing the Invest in the U.S.A. Act of 2003 along with Senators Smith, Allen, Enzi, and Bayh. This economic stimulus legislation would create a one-year incentive for corporations to bring the profits they have made overseas back to the United States and invest them in creating jobs. The act lowers the effective corporate tax rate on the foreign earnings of American companies from 35 percent to 5.25 percent for one year. By lowering that rate for one year, we will encourage companies to bring an estimated $135 billion from abroad back home to invest in the United States. Getting this capital into the domestic economy is particularly necessary in light of the difficulties firms are having raising money in this tough economy. By making this capital available for domestic investment, we will minimize the spending cuts that companies have been announcing for the coming year. The Invest in the U.S.A. Act would constitute a true economic stimulus by encouraging investment and job creation right away in such activities as worker hiring and training, research and development, and new plants. Our proposal is also fiscally responsible, unlike other proposals that fail to give the economy the shot in the arm it needs. It will result in job creation rather than deficit creation by enabling a tremendous amount of investment in our economy in the short term with only a small cost in the long term. For Government, the funds brought back to the United States will generate $4.1 billion in revenues in the first year and is expected to cost $3.9 billion over 10 years. I want to thank Senator Ensign for his active, engaged leadership on this legislation. I particularly appreciate Senator Ensign's focus on ensuring that these funds will be targeted at creating jobs and stimulating our economy right away. Mr. President, we will work hard to ensure that the provisions in this act are included in any economic growth package that the Senate considers because our workers need the opportunities it would create and our economy needs the capital it would generate.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Was that a question?

Mrs. BOXER. Let me say to my friend, I appreciate his sincerity. I do not question it for one minute. But I also have studied this. I also have cared about this, because I care about women who I am going to be talking about here tonight, and many of whom have come to see me in California and here. They are begging me to fight this because it does not have a health exception. Even though my friend thinks you have written it in a way to have a health exception, it isn't in the bill. Here is another story about Claudia Crown Ades, who, in 1992, was in the 26th week of a desperately wanted pregnancy. Claudia and her husband, Richard, were told, after an 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?

Mrs. BOXER. I am glad to yield for a question.

Mrs. BOXER. Thank God, we have had so many advances. In my own family we had a circumstance where we were very fearful we were going to lose a pregnancy of one of my children. And because of these incredible advances, she held on, and long enough to have a healthy baby. What a miracle that is. That is the reason why I support banning all late-term abortions across the board. I think that is consistent with Roe. But for the life and health of a woman, which always must be, it seems to me, considered in a civilized country, we need to make sure women are not facing these kinds of serious problems. So yes, I say to my friend, I could not be more excited about the incredible progress we have made. Does my friend have another question?

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. That is fine. I just wanted to know if we were going to be here for an hour or two. Thank you.

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I want to ask my friend how long he intends to speak tonight? I will not object.