Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I only wish he would stay here longer than he plans.

Mrs. BOXER. No, I do not.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I have.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes. I have authored a bill called the Children's Environmental Protection Act which would, in fact, strengthen our laws. There are very few cosponsors, I might add, from the other side of the aisle. But it is a good law and would protect our children from hazardous waste and toxic waste and make sure our standards are elevated, because, when a child breathes in dirty air and soot and smog, et cetera, it has a much worse impact than it does on a full- grown adult.

Mrs. BOXER. I can only say to my friend, we see an enormous amount of passion, which I think, in the end, puts women in danger. It goes against the basic right of privacy and the basic dignity of women and their families in their to make a personal decision. We see a lot of emotion to end those rights. But we do not see the same intensity of emotion--we do not even get the votes of those people--to make sure our children who are living beings, who are going to school, have the protection they deserve to have.

Mrs. BOXER. I did.

Mrs. BOXER. I saw the horror, yes.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. Again, my friend is evoking images I don't think anyone in America will ever forget, of those children grasping the hands of those policemen in the hopes of being saved.

Mrs. BOXER. They are real TV images of children escaping gun violence.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I say to my friend, I think those are images that are in everybody's mind.

Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely.

Mrs. BOXER. My friend is right. There is not one obstetrician or gynecologist in this Senate, yet we see the pictures used, the cartoon figures of a woman's body--which I find rather offensive. The bottom line is, we were not elected to be doctors, but we were elected, it seems to me, to be tough on crime and to stop crime and to do what it takes to protect our citizens. My friend from New Jersey has been a leading voice in that whole area. I do not know how many months it has been since the Vice President broke the tie there, when my friend had a very important amendment up to close the gun show loophole so people who are mentally unbalanced and people who are criminals can no longer get guns at a gun show to shoot up kids and shoot up a school.

Mrs. BOXER. That is correct. No exception for health.

Mrs. BOXER. I am aware and it is a tragedy.

Mrs. BOXER. The irony of this issue is right there. I say that the leading voices in this Chamber on this issue are the same voices that we hear against any type of sensible laws to protect our children that deal with gun violence. Interestingly, in my State, gunshots are the leading cause of death among children. It is a supreme irony.

Mrs. BOXER. Anyone who believes in the basic right to choose and the basic decision in Roe, which protected a woman's health, is opposed to this Santorum bill. Let me read into the record a few groups, and I will not even name women's groups; I will name other groups: The American Public Health Association opposes this bill; the American Medical Women's Association opposes this bill; the American Nurses Association opposes this bill; the Society for Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health opposes this bill; the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposes this bill; and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice opposes this bill. I say to my friend, women's groups who support a woman's right to choose see this as chipping away at the right of a woman to make a decision with her God and her doctor and her conscience. They oppose it as well as the medical and religious groups.

Mrs. BOXER. It is absolutely about the right to privacy and respect of the woman and her family.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, and I want to say in my State we have a law. A procedure done in the late term must be done inside a hospital. We have received a letter from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists who work in hospitals all over this country and have said this procedure that the Senator from Pennsylvania wants to ban is, in certain instances, medically necessary. We have the most prestigious group of doctors from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists saying banning this procedure is dangerous. That, in fact, even with the changes that the Senator from Pennsylvania made, it is so broadly worded it allows most abortions. There is still no health exception. My friend is absolutely right. These procedures, and abortions in general, are done by physicians.

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this letter is from Stanley Zinberg, vice president, clinical practices, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecology. This is a new letter: . . . I would like to clarify that there are rare occasions when intact D&X is the most appropriate procedure. In these instances, it is medically necessary. The very words that some Senators said were not present in this debate are suddenly present in this letter. The doctors are telling us that the procedure that many Senators are voting to ban without making a health exception is medically necessary on certain occasions. I will conclude with these remarks in the next few minutes by addressing something that has been very upsetting to me as a human being. Forget that I am a Senator. We have heard from people who would have to go through this procedure a series of stories that could break your heart. They decided, because they believed it was in their best interests, in the best interests of the fetus they were carrying, and in the best interests of their families, they decided after consulting their spiritual counselors that it was the right thing to do for their families. The Senator from Pennsylvania wants to outlaw this option, this choice. But, worse than that, he calls these stories anecdotes. He says: Do not listen to anecdotes. But yet he cites his own experience and doesn't call it an anecdote. He calls it a tragedy. I have to say I hope we would apply the same kind of language to all Americans as we do to our own families. These are stories. Let me share some with you. Tiffany Benjamin: Genetic tests revealed that her child had an extra chromosome. Doctors advised her that her condition was lethal. No one could offer hope. They determined the most merciful decision for their child and the family would be to terminate the pregnancy. She says, ``Although three years have passed for us, the depth of our loss is vivid in our minds.'' She says to every Senator who would outlaw this procedure, ``We are astounded that anyone could believe that this type of decision is made irresponsibly and without a great deal of soul searching and anguish. These choices were the most painful of our lives.'' Is that an anecdote? That is a true life experience of a woman who says to us, please don't ban a procedure that is medically necessary. Coreen Costello, a registered Republican, describes herself as very conservative. She made it clear that she is opposed to abortion. She was 7 months pregnant in 1995 with her third child. She was rushed to the emergency room, and an ultrasound showed something seriously wrong. The baby had a deadly neurological disorder, had been unable to move inside her womb for 2 months. She goes on. The doctors told Coreen and her husband that the baby was not going to survive, and they recommended terminating the pregnancy. The Costellos say this isn't an option for us: ``I want to go into labor.'' She said: ``I want my baby to be born on God's time. I did not want to interfere.'' They went from expert to expert. And the experts told her labor was not an option. They considered a cesarean section. But the doctors said the health risks were too great. In the end, they followed the doctor's recommendation and Coreen had an abortion. She says now they have three happy, healthy children, and she since then has had a fourth. She writes to us: ``This would not have been possible without the procedure.'' She says please give other women and their families this chance. Let us deal with our tragedies without any unnecessary interference from the Government. Leave us with our God. Leave us with our families. Leave us with our trusted medical experts. I could go on and on with these stories, these real-life tragedies. They are not anecdotes. They are not stories that are made up. They are not rumors. They are real people who have gone through this. I daresay we ought to listen because they are people who count. They are telling us to stay out of their private lives. Stay out. If anyone wants to make a decision about their family, please, that is their right. I would do anything in my power to fight for anybody's right not to have an abortion if that is their choice. I am as strongly for that. However, I think it is an insult, an indignity, a slap in the face of the women and the families of this Nation for government to tell them what to do in these tragic moments.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this letter is from Northwestern University Medical School signed by Marilynn Frederiksen, M.D., Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, who says: I have reviewed Senator Santorum's amendment. It would apply to all second trimester procedures. It does not narrow the definition . . . [and] would effectively ban the safest and most common form of second trimester abortions. I say to my colleagues, if you were looking for a fix on the constitutionality, it isn't here. Again, I repeat that if you believe in the Constitution, if you believe in the right of privacy, and if you believe in following court precedent, a woman's health must always be protected. Under this law, as modified, the woman's health isn't even mentioned. It is possible she could be paralyzed. All kinds of horrible things could happen. She could be made infertile. And, yet, no exception. We have another letter that I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we finally have reached a point where the Senator from Pennsylvania and I have a strong agreement; we are urging everybody to read the record of this debate. I do hope the American people will read the record of this debate, and they will find out who stands for the mainstream view on the issue of a woman's right to choose and who stands for the extreme view on a woman's right to choose. The extreme view is overturning Roe v. Wade, which, from 1973, has protected the right of a woman to make a personal, private, moral, spiritual decision with her family, her doctor, her God, her advisers. That is the mainstream view in America. That is the law of the land. The Senator from Pennsylvania is right that it is the law of the land because the Supreme Court found a right of privacy in the Constitution and said that, yes, women count. We have a right to privacy. So, please, read the record. We voted on the issue of Roe v. Wade and by a thin, small margin--the vote was 51-48--we said don't overturn Roe. That is a dangerous vote. Forty-eight Members of this body want to criminalize abortion, make it illegal, go back to the days when women died--5,000 women a year. This is the first time this Senate in history has ever voted on that landmark decision, and 48 Senators don't trust women; 48 Senators want to tell women what to do in a personal, private, religious, moral decision. So, yes, I do hope the people of this country will read the Record because the Record is complete on this issue. We heard from the other side that we don't care about Roe v. Wade; we are not going to overturn it. We don't want to do anything about it. We just want to talk about this one procedure. And many of us on this side of the aisle said it is a smokescreen, and we tested it today. What did we find out? The leaders of this ban, which has been called unconstitutional by 19 courts, also voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. I hope the families of America read this Record. It is very clear about who stands where. Let me tell you the difference between the two sides. It is not so much about how we feel on the issue because that is a personal matter. I have given birth to children--the greatest joy in my life. I have a grandson--a new joy in my life. I have one view; the Senator from Pennsylvania has another. Let me tell you the difference. It is who decides. I respect the right of the Senator from Pennsylvania to make that decision by himself with his wife, with his family. He does not respect my right, or your right, or the right of anyone in America to be trusted to make that decision. He wants to tell you what to do. I didn't think we were elected to play God or to play doctor. I thought we were elected to be Senators. I thought we were elected to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land. Yes, this Record is full. It is important. It ought to be reflected upon. Our votes ought to be scrutinized. I agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania. Every word that was spoken here ought to be looked at. Every single time we engage in a conversation ought to be reviewed. I think it is important. I also think it is important to understand that this modification that was sent to the desk--we had no objection to the Senator from Pennsylvania rewriting his law. That is his right. I don't have a problem with it. It does not do what the Senator from Pennsylvania says it does. The Senator from Pennsylvania says his new language addresses the objection of the Eighth Circuit and of the other courts that have ruled on his law that has been enacted in many States as unconstitutional on its face. In the short period of time we have had to send out his new language, we have heard from the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy. The letter is in the Record. It says: The proposal continues to preclude any procedure at any gestational age of a pregnancy. Court after court--including the unanimous Eighth Circuit--has held that such an approach unduly burdens the right to abortion. That is the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy. The general counsel of the Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the very group that deals with bringing life into the world, the very group of doctors we go to when we are ready to have our families and to help us have our families, says about this new language, upon review of it, that the language does not address the issues addressed by many States and Federal courts, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Senator may say he has met constitutional objections. But those who deal with this law, who deal with it every day, say it does not. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you. (Mr. GORTON assumed the chair.)

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.