Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. So you don't think the American public understands this issue well enough to be able to form a judgment--I think that is what you are saying--even though we have debated this issue and it has been very much in the literature across America now for 7 years. There have been referendums in States and wide debate. You just don't think the public understands it. I beg to differ with you on that. I think I could stipulate that something that has the support of 70 percent of the public is, by definition, not extreme. So if you don't agree, that is your position, and I respect that. The other thing you said was the chart I had up is ``deceptive.'' I am very curious about how you came to that conclusion. Is it deceptive because it shows a perfectly formed baby? Is the Senator aware of Ron Fitzsimmons who runs the Association of Abortion Clinics? He has said, when the argument was made by many of the people Senator Boxer and Senator Murray and yourself referred to, who came forward and talked about this being medically necessary or necessary because of complications late in pregnancy--Ron Fitzsimmons said he lied through his teeth when he gave that argument? That was his term. He said, ``I lied through my teeth'' that this was the case. He said it is a dirty little secret, and we all know--those are his terms--that late-term abortions are performed, and the vast majority of late-term abortions are performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies. So do you believe it is deceptive to put before the American public the typical case of where a partial-birth abortion is performed, or would it be more deceptive to try to convince the American public that this is done for medical reasons, or on sick babies in the majority of cases, when it is not true? Which would you say is more deceptive?

Mr. SANTORUM. In a moment. Do we consider a child that may not live long, or may have an abnormality, to be less of a child? Is this less of a human because it is not perfect? Have we reached the point in our society where because perfection is so required of us, that those who are not perfect don't even deserve the opportunity to live for however long they are ticketed to live in this country? Are we saying we need these kinds of infanticides to weed out those who are not going to survive or those who are not perfect, and that somehow or another we have to have a method available that we only allow perfect children to be born? If that is the argument, I am willing to stand here and have that debate. If that is what you want us to show, I am willing to stand and show that. I suggest this is the typical abortion that goes with partial-birth. That is exactly what the industry says is the case. If the Senator would like me to find a child that has a cleft palate, I can do that. That doctor from Ohio performs a lot of abortions. He says he did nine in one year because of that. If she would like me to show a case of spina bifida, I can do that. That may be a reason someone has to have a late-term abortion. I would be happy to show those, but those are the exception rather than the rule, and I think it is imperative----

Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to. It is imperative upon us to present the standard, the predominant case in which partial-birth abortions are done, and that is what we are doing. I will be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. SANTORUM. Fine.

Mr. SANTORUM. I certainly respect the difference of opinion the Senator and I have on the underlying issue of abortion. Again, I think people can disagree on that. I, frankly, do not agree there should be a difference between children who are ``normal,'' in society's eyes--I do not know what that means anymore, what a society sees as normal--and those who happen to have birth defects, severe or not. I do not believe we should draw distinctions.

Mr. SANTORUM. To liken a ban on a brutal procedure such as partial- birth abortion to the forced abortion policies of China is a fairly substantial stretch, and I do not accept that as an analogy. I do not think it holds up under any scrutiny. With respect to the other issue, let the record speak for itself.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I want to make four quick points. I had three and a half points as reasons to oppose the amendment, but now I have a full-fledged four reasons because of the modification that was just submitted. No. 1, this amendment is in the form of a substitute, so the underlying partial-birth abortion statute is gone. We do not ban partial-birth abortions under this procedure. It is gone. This procedure remains legal in the law of the land. This Durbin amendment is a substitute. If you want to ban partial-birth abortions, you cannot vote for the Durbin amendment because it eliminates the ban. That is No. 1. No. 2, it talks about this is a postviability ban. The problem with that is--there are many problems--No. 1, viability is not defined in the legislation, and it is solely up to the discretion of the abortionist performing the procedure. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the chart that I have on survival rates.

Mr. SANTORUM. And even up to 32, 33 weeks, you still have a 1, 2, 3- percent chance where the baby would not be viable. So you have up until 32, 33 weeks to basically say the child is not viable. If that is the case, this statute is not operative. You cannot even come in under it. There is nothing. The statute does not exist. All you have to do is say it is not viable. So you create an exception that swallows up the entire ban. That is No. 2. No. 3, even if, by some point, the abortionist will say it is viable, and then proceed with an abortion--which I cannot imagine any physician, in their right mind, doing; but assuming they would say it is viable and proceed with an abortion--they just have to say there is a risk of grievous injury to her physical health. The operative word here is ``risk''--a 1-percent risk, a .5-percent risk, a .001-percent risk--any risk. Now, ``risk'' is, again, not clearly defined and is open. What this statute does say is it is subject to a second opinion from a doctor. Great. The problem is, there is no penalty anymore. That was half a problem because I thought the penalties were rather weak. Now, with the elimination of any potential prosecution under perjury, there are no penalties. The Senator from Illinois says there could be a losing of your license. Well, that is not what his substitute says. It says the State has to develop procedures and requirements for what would happen if these things are violated. It does not say license revocation. It does not say that at all. It says they have to develop standards. And it could be suspension for a day for the first offense, 2 days for the second offense--half a day--it could be whatever the State would require it to be. And for the second offense, it is not that it must be revoked, it is not a must. It is an either/or. They could assess a fine. And the fine could be a dollar. It says up to $250,000, but it could be a dollar. So now, having removed any criminal sanction, you are left with it being completely open-ended, with potentially no consequence for someone not telling the truth in this circumstance. There are a whole host of other reasons this amendment does not work. But this amendment is fatally flawed. It was poor, in my opinion, as a substitute. But now it does not even have the criminal sanctions as even one potential hope for getting maybe some very late, third- trimester abortions banned. So I just suggest, while I understand why the Senator from Illinois modified his amendment--to try to get more folks to be supportive of his amendment--in so doing, he guts whatever is left of this amendment to actually ban any abortions in this country. As a result of that, I strongly oppose the amendment. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. SANTORUM. Yes. The Senator from New York said that the women she had in her office who had late-term abortions--you characterized it that they would be ``forced to carry their children to term'' if this bill passed. Do you stand by that statement?

Mr. SANTORUM. Yes.

Mr. SANTORUM. Anencephaly is no brain, just a brain stem.

Mr. SANTORUM. On the Senator's time. I have been more than generous on my time.

Mr. SANTORUM. So you would suggest that something that is supported by--you are going to maintain your comment that something that is supported by 70 percent of the American public is extreme?

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. SANTORUM. I am fine with giving him an up-or-down vote.

Mr. SANTORUM. On the Senator's time.

Mr. SANTORUM. I say to the Senator from South Carolina, I appreciate the comments. The Senator from Iowa read the famous clause out of the Casey decision, determining one's own concept of meaning of existence, of the universe, of the meaning of the universe, of the mystery of human life. The Senator from South Carolina hit the nail on the head. If everyone has their own right to decide what life is, what existence is, what the universe means--if we are not bound at all by any kind of societal norms, if we have the right to decide all these things, the kids who rushed into Columbine had it right because they said: I am law. My view of the world is what counts and that is all that counts. That is what this clause says: What I say goes. That is what this clause says. That is where we are. That is where the line of cases have taken us. It is simply about our brute force, our positive rights. Society does not matter; it is what we want. The Congress should not be involved in this. It is what you want. That is not the country that our Founding Fathers put together. That is not the Constitution they drafted. That, by the way, is why the right to abortion is not written in the Constitution. This is a slippery slope we are heading down. In deference to the Senator from Massachusetts who is in the Chamber, I will define that slope momentarily. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the facts are as evidenced from the Judiciary Committee hearings, which basically have not changed. The facts are the same. The procedure that we are attempting to ban is riskier and has a greater likelihood of causing all those things than the alternative procedures which are taught in medical schools, done in hospitals, by obstetricians. This is not done in hospitals, not done by obstetricians, not taught in medical schools. This is a rogue procedure that was designed for one reason. The abortionist who designed it said why. It was designed so he could do late-term abortions in 15 minutes as opposed to 45 minutes, so he could do more in one day; that is, all of these health risks are, in fact, bogus. It is a riskier procedure.

Mr. SANTORUM. OK. I suggest that the Senator from New York examine the language. It is very clear that this is one particular kind of abortion we have addressed, and we have addressed the vagueness, as put forth by the U.S. Supreme Court. And there are other techniques available for abortion that are late term in nature, and this bill would in no way stop other abortions. In fact, the previous speaker on the Democrat side, Senator Kennedy, made that very point. He made the point that this will not stop abortions. I respect your feelings and I also respect Senator Kennedy's. You both oppose the bill and you have opposite opinions on this issue.

Mr. SANTORUM. Yield on mine. If I need time, I will let the Senator know.

Mr. SANTORUM. Yes, ``further that.''

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, March 13; I further ask consent that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of Calendar No. 19, S. 3, the partial-birth abortion bill, as provided under the previous order. I further ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes morning business, the first 20 minutes be equally divided between Senators Hagel and Dorgan, with the remainder of the time until 11:30 a.m. to be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.