Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Madam Speaker, I just want to clarify three misstatements of fact that were just made. Number one, the ban on partial-birth abortion never puts a woman's fertility at risk. That is number one. Number two, this bill does allow in the instance of the life of a mother, if it is at risk, a partial-birth abortion to be done. We do not think that is ever the case, and I know that as a physician never to be the case, but we allow that under the law. Finally, if a child has a terminal defect, what could be better than having it be born and loved rather than killing it?

Mr. COBURN. Madam Speaker, let us clarify for the American public, the vast majority of all partial birth abortions that have been performed in this country have been for the elective termination of a late pregnancy, not associated with fetal malformations, not associated with a malformation or an inconsequence of reproduction, but associated with elective termination of viable children.

Mr. COBURN. Madam Speaker, what we are talking about is infanticide. We have seen the debate as something other than that. There is nothing in this bill that denies any woman access to quality care or life- threatening care or reproductive care. I understand that is the debate we are using to say that we believe any baby at any time ought to be able to be terminated. But there is no difference between this procedure and infanticide. As to the question of Roe versus Wade, the Supreme Court said they did not know when life began. Well, the fact is, as we determine death in this country as an absence of brain waves and an absence of heartbeat, and at 41 days post last menstrual period, every fetus, female and male, have a heartbeat and a brain wave.

Mr. COBURN. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. COBURN. No, I did not say that. I said the partial-birth procedure is a question of infanticide. There are lots of mistakes of reproduction. Never is it necessary to use the partial-birth abortion method to solve that problem.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, regrettably, Reuters this last week reported that several members of the U.S. Supreme Court, on a recent trip to Europe, announced that they would be willing to consider legal arguments based on decisions of the European Court of Justice. Justice Breyer said that American lawyers ``may cite an EU ruling in our court to further a point.'' Justice O'Connor said that she might cite decisions of that court in her future opinions. Now, I certainly would not want to discourage these Justices from learning all they can about the laws and customs of our European neighbors. As a matter of fact, I would hope all of the members of the Supreme Court will continue to learn as much as they can. Like the rest of us, their knowledge is limited, and wisdom will come from greater and expanded learning. But I would respectfully remind all of the Justices of the Supreme Court that it is their sworn duty to apply the U.S. Constitution, as written, and the laws of the United States, as written, to the cases that come before them. It is not to bring about some sort of global convergence between the American system of ordered liberty under law and some other system, whether from Europe or elsewhere. I appreciate the interest of the Justices in comparative law, but I would urge them to keep the distinction in mind.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is confusion about this issue, and if I may, from my experience, please lend some of that to our body, one; and, number two, also relay that I had a conversation with the gentlewoman from New York, and I do understand what her intention is and I do understand the intention of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). She has an honorable request. She won that in her committee, and it should be honored in that way. But let me clarify for this body that, in fact, the diaphragm is not an abortifacient; that oral contraceptives are not an abortifacient; that morning-after pills, in fact, are; that IUDs are, in fact, abortifacients. Now, there is not a medical question about how they work, and there is not a medical question about how oral contraceptives work. Their intention is to prevent ovulation or to prevent penetration of a sperm. That is not an abortifacient. And there is no question in the medical community about how they work. So I would ask this body that if, in fact, we feel we want to make a decision based on what the request of gentlewoman from New York really is, that we supply oral contraceptives to women in this country, that we accept the Smith amendment to that, and we can qualify and solve this problem and this will go through. If, in fact, not, then we will see we will have an extended debate on whether or not the bill will make it. An honorable amendment was brought forth in the committee. An honorable amendment to the gentlewoman's amendment is now offered. The clarity cannot be any clearer than what I have stated. The Smith amendment does not limit oral contraceptives, it only limits those things that are considered abortifacients.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the portion of the bill beginning on page 38 line 15 and continuing through line 21 of the same.

Mr. COBURN. This is, I believe, to be unauthorized and legislating on an appropriations bill.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just like to make one medical technical comment: Intrauterine hydrocephalus today is treated, it is treated effectively in all the centers throughout the country. Abortion is not the answer to intrauterine hydrocephalus; a shunt is. We are very successful, we do it routinely, and, in fact, what it sounds like is this Federal employee got terrible advice because, in fact, when I am encountering that same situation, my patients have a shunt placed in their baby while they are still in their mother's womb and do not have hydrocephalus at birth, and, in fact, that, therefore, is not a good example of why we should be doing that.

Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. First of all, we just heard some significant misstatements of fact. These companies did not violate the law. In fact, the law was changed in the midst of them carrying out their right to carry on a business. And the fact that the administration, who changed the law, concurs that this is a fair and proper thing to do, would also counter the argument that this is something that they did not agree with when, in fact, it was carried out. So although I can understand the gentleman's lack of understanding of firearms and understand their feelings on firearms, which I respect totally, we should stay with the facts. These are not bad Americans. They are Americans doing things totally within the limits of the law. And to characterize them as someone other than that is unfair.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, this point of order is raised on the basis that these are unauthorized projects. They have never been authorized. Number two, they are legislating on an appropriations bill. I would further State that it is difficult for us to be building $600 million worth of buildings when our children owe $6 billion and that perhaps a better use of this money might be in paying the interest on the national debt.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the portion of the bill beginning on page 42, line 3, and continuing through page 44, line 10 ending with the semicolon.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the portion of the bill beginning on page 42, line 3 and continuing through page 44, line 9 on the basis that these are unauthorized, and they are legislating on an appropriations bill.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I stand corrected. It is 15 through 19.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is confusion about this issue, and if I may, from my experience, please lend some of that to our body, one; and, number two, also relay that I had a conversation with the gentlewoman from New York, and I do understand what her intention is and I do understand the intention of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). She has an honorable request. She won that in her committee, and it should be honored in that way. But let me clarify for this body that, in fact, the diaphragm is not an abortifacient; that oral contraceptives are not an abortifacient; that morning-after pills, in fact, are; that IUDs are, in fact, abortifacients. Now, there is not a medical question about how they work, and there is not a medical question about how oral contraceptives work. Their intention is to prevent ovulation or to prevent penetration of a sperm. That is not an abortifacient. And there is no question in the medical community about how they work. So I would ask this body that if, in fact, we feel we want to make a decision based on what the request of gentlewoman from New York really is, that we supply oral contraceptives to women in this country, that we accept the Smith amendment to that, and we can qualify and solve this problem and this will go through. If, in fact, not, then we will see we will have an extended debate on whether or not the bill will make it. An honorable amendment was brought forth in the committee. An honorable amendment to the gentlewoman's amendment is now offered. The clarity cannot be any clearer than what I have stated. The Smith amendment does not limit oral contraceptives, it only limits those things that are considered abortifacients.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Again, I would give the gentlewoman the same answer: If somebody applies for a drug that is intended to do chemical induced abortion, and that is what they are asking for an NDA for, then it would apply. If it is not intended for that, it would not apply. And so therefore any drug that has any other use that might be beneficial and under consumer protection, the charge of the FDA, would be recognized as a legitimate NDA application. Point of Order

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, the first point I would make is there are two obstetricians in this House, and neither of us would terminate a baby and take that life unless it depended on the life of the mother. There is no question. We know a lot about life. We get to see it. We get to see a lot of death. So to answer the gentleman, there are two obstetricians in this House, and we would not take the life of the baby any time unless there is a cause in the life of the mother at risk. Number two, let us not confuse what this issue is about. This is about whether the Federal Government is going to spend money to figure out how to kill babies. That is what it is. It is not anything else. Should we be in the business of spending Federal tax dollars to facilitate the death of children? It is not any other than that. We can say it is, we can skirt around all the other issues, but this is about whether or not we are going to have an institution of this government which is charged with protecting life spend its resources to take life.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a couple of points that have been made. When discussing 486, the words ``safe'' and ``effective'' have been used. I want us to think about what those words mean. Safe and effective for whom? They are not safe for women. They cause tremendous pain, tremendous discomfort, tremendous risk for blood transfusion, tremendous risk for instrumentation, and tremendous risk to the remaining fetuses and children who will be born outside of that complication. The other thing that was said, and words tell us a whole lot, what was said is if we cannot use this medical form of abortion, it is a limitation on contraception. That was made in an earlier statement, which tells us exactly what people mean. Abortion is a method of contraception in this country. The taking of innocent human life is used as a method of contraception. I would make two points. The Supreme Court said they did not know when life began. But we know when life ends in this country, when there is not a heartbeat and there is not a brain wave. Well, there is a brain wave at 41 days post-conception, and there is a heartbeat at 26 days post-conception, before most women know they are pregnant. There is no question, life is present when RU-486 will be applied. Should the government be in the business be of killing unborn babies? I think not.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?