Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I want to make sure the Senator understands the question. I have not been asking about medically necessity. The quotes you have given me have said that it ``ought to be the best.'' Another quote was ``may be the best.'' I have not asked for someone's opinion on what ought to be or what could be. What I have asked for is an example. I wanted a fact circumstance to be provided as to where this would be the best, this would be appropriate, this would be medically indicated. Not in any of the letters I have seen entered into the Record, or in any testimony, has anybody come forward with a factual circumstance that would support the general statements that it ``may be.'' Well, it may be a lot of things, but the point is, there are no examples that support the ``may be.'' All I have asked for--and I have not received a response--is an example for us to look at, to have peer-reviewed, and to determine whether there is in fact a situation that has heretofore not been put in the Record, which is an example of a medical condition that would indicate a partial-birth abortion would be indicated to deal with as the best alternative.

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the fact is, Viki Wilson testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in November of 1995. Viki Wilson, as the Senator from Illinois said, was in her ninth month of pregnancy when she received an abortion. According to Mrs. Wilson's testimony, the death of her daughter Abigail was induced inside the womb: My daughter died with dignity inside my womb, after which the baby's body was delivered head first. At this Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator Hatch suggested to Mrs. Wilson that her abortion was not a partial-birth abortion as defined by the bill. Mrs. Wilson responded: It is true, if you take it verbatim. You know, my daughter did die in the womb. That is not an example, No. 1, of partial-birth abortion because she did not have one and, No. 2, that she is not a medical professional. She is a registered nurse, and as my wife is a nurse, my mom is a nurse, please do not get me wrong, nurses are wonderful health professionals, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for them. I love them personally. To suggest that in her testimony, which you just heard--and it was not a partial-birth abortion, but even if it was, to suggest that her testimony was somehow a decision by the medical community or a physician putting forward a case by which the physician said this was the best option, this was medically necessary, and that other options were less desirable, this just does not make the case, which I keep coming back to the point that the case has not been made. Some of my colleagues say: Why do you keep asking this question? Someone is going to come forward with something. After 7 years, you figure out no one is going to come forward because there are no cases, and no medical professional worth their salt would come forward and say something they know is not true because they are going to be reviewed by umpteen obstetricians and gynecologists who will come forward with the medical peer-reviewed research that indicates this procedure is not medically indicated, that it is not necessary, and it is not in the best health interest of the mother. It is brutal, and as the Senator from Tennessee, our leader, said today, the only advantage he can think of to a partial-birth abortion is the certainty of a dead baby. That is the advantage. It is that you know by thrusting those scissors into the base of the skull and feeling--because the doctor has the baby in his or her hand. I just find it to be remarkable, from the standpoint of a physician who can hold a live baby who would otherwise be born alive, a baby who could survive outside the womb, in many cases, and while holding that child, take the sharp, long Metzenbaum scissors and thrust it into the base of the baby's skull. I know many people have felt living beings die in their presence, whether it is a pet or a variety of different living animals, and the feeling when life rushes out, you know it. You feel it. The baby is moving. All of a sudden, as Brenda Shafer, the nurse who testified, said, the baby's arms and legs spring out, tensing up because of the shock to the system and then falling limp. Life evaporated, leaving this little child. And then to take those scissors and open them up-- open them up--to stretch out the base of the skull, as the Senator from Tennessee described, to rupture the cranial cavity, to create a hole big enough to insert a suction catheter. Why? Why is this procedure needed? I keep coming back to the question. It has not been answered because there is no answer. That is why the health exception is not needed, because it is outside the scope of Roe v. Wade, and we have clarified the other problem the Supreme Court noted, which is the vagueness of definition. We have a much more detailed definition. It cannot be confused. The Senator from California keeps coming to the floor and suggesting other medical procedures would be covered by this current definition. Again, I ask the Senator from California to come to the floor and tell me what procedure would be covered by this definition. So far, the answer to that has been silence. On the two points the Court had trouble with the Nebraska statute, there has been no response. I suggest there is no response because we have solved these problems, and that is why this legislation is constitutional. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I pay tribute to the Senator from Ohio who was in the Chamber until about this hour last night laying out very clearly, very succinctly, the legal, moral, ethical, and medical evidence as to why this procedure should be banned and why this Senate should feel comfortable, from all of those perspectives, in passing this legislation. He has done an outstanding job, a thorough job. He has been an invaluable ally in the Senate in making the case, hopefully convincing case, to hopefully a clear majority of our colleagues, that we should proceed, maybe as early as tomorrow, in passing this legislation. I thank the Senator from Ohio for his outstanding work and his obvious commitment to this cause. I wanted to respond to the Senator but I got sidetracked. The Senator from Illinois mentioned something at the end of his talk, and I focused on that and I forgot to respond to a couple of other points he made with respect to his amendment. I focus on the two problems, again, and respond to his defense of his amendment. He defended his amendment and spent the entire time talking about the grievous physical injury, grievous injury that could result, that would be the exception for his ban on late-term abortions. I have concerns because of the issue of risk, and I don't want to repeat that. But what he did not talk about, as big or if not a bigger hole in this legislation, is the whole issue of viability. I believe the Senator--and I will check the record on this, and if I am wrong, I apologize. I believe the Senator from Illinois suggested that the physician certify that a child is not viable, and if there was a determination that the child was viable, he could lose his license. I don't see that in the legislation. I don't see a second doctor overseeing the issue of viability. It is clear from the reading of the language that the second doctor can review the risk of serious injury but is not responsible under the legislation for reviewing the issue of viability. So we have, again, before we even get to the issue of injury or health risk, we have the issue of the abortionist determining whether the baby about to be aborted is viable. Since most partial-birth abortions and most abortions, generally, occur prior to viability, and most abortions, even late-term abortions, occur in the 20th, 26th, 27th week, very few occur 30-plus weeks where viability rates are very high. We are talking here about giving the abortionist, certainly in the case of partial-birth abortions, an unreviewable decision that even in the cases of 35 weeks there may be--I have not looked at the literature because it is, I agree, a rare circumstance--I suggest there are probably some instances where you can conclude the child is not viable for some reason, even at that stage. What the Senator from Illinois has done is create a standard of viability that is not reviewable, and certainly with the case of partial-birth abortions, and I know his amendment purports to cover more than that, it covers even a very small subset of those abortions that we are talking about.

Mr. SANTORUM. The condition is not a reviewable condition.

Mr. SANTORUM. Look, this procedure is not done in hospitals. So all I suggest is there are other safer, peer-reviewed procedures that can and are used on a routine basis by a physician----

Mr. SANTORUM. Excuse me, there need not be an exception, but you are arguing these compelling cases and they are compelling because they are talking about women going through very difficult decisions, but there is no medical reason to do this procedure. There are other procedures available and safer. There are better procedures for abortion available. I am not talking about C-sections, but other abortion procedures that are better.

Mr. SANTORUM.--which is a standard D&E, which is the most common late-term abortion performed at hospitals, taught in medical school, and peer reviewed. This is not Rick Santorum talking. This is not the Senator from Tennessee talking. This is a variety of obstetricians. The point is, they are giving a reason for keeping this procedure legal that is a red herring. This procedure is not taught in hospitals. It is not performed in hospitals. It is not done by advanced perinatologists who run into difficult pregnancies. Why? Because it is not safe. Why? Because there are better methods. What we are trying to do here is protect women's health. We hear so much passion here about protecting women's health. We have a procedure that has been demonstrably proven is dangerous to women's health; that there are other procedures that are safer. Why are we not concerned about women's health when we want to keep a procedure legal that is unsafe? Are we really concerned about women's health, or are we really concerned about eroding, chipping ever so slightly at this oracle of abortion in America? This is trying to stop something that is unsafe for women, that is obviously brutal for children, and is simply not necessary to protect the health of a woman. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SANTORUM. One, you make it sound like the doctor who diagnosed the fetal abnormality was the one who performed the abortion. In fact-- I am reading her story--the diagnosis was made by a perinatologist and the abortion was performed by an abortionist in a clinic, not the same person.

Mr. SANTORUM. The point is that this is not done in hospitals. This is done in abortion clinics. This is not a procedure that was developed to protect the health of the mother. This was a procedure that was developed so the abortionist could do multiple abortions and do more of them at the same time. The case we are laying out here--and by the way, we are arguing a case of where you have a fetal abnormality which, by the way, is less than 1 percent of the abortions that are performed.

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, a couple of points on the Murray amendment: No. 1, this amendment puts conditions on the receipt of enhanced SCHIP dollars. In order to get the enhanced match, a State must first expand eligibility up to 185 percent of the Federal poverty level with the regular Medicaid match rate. In other words, we will force States which are already facing tough budgetary times--and they are pounding on our door because of the cost of Medicaid already--to expand Medicaid before they are able to receive the benefits of this enhanced match. I do not think this is going to accomplish what they want to accomplish anyway. We are going through the process right now in the budget to deal with this issue. Senator Nickles has already said this is going to be dealt with in the budget. We will have a full discussion about this next week. That is the proper place for this discussion, not on this amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM. Without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. I reclaim my time.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Durbin amendment. The Durbin amendment is virtually identical to the amendment we voted on 3 years ago, I believe it was. It adds simply nine words at the beginning of the amendment. It says: It shall be unlawful for a physician to intentionally abort a viable fetus unless the physician prior to performing the abortion----. And then adds these words---- including the procedure characterized as a partial birth abortion. And then it goes on. The only difference between that amendment and this amendment are the words ``including the procedure characterized as partial-birth abortion.'' So all of the operative language that seeks ostensibly to ban certain abortions is the same. What are the problems I have, and hopefully the majority of Senators have with this ban? No. 1, it only limits--the partial-birth abortion amendment is limited to postviability abortions. As we have discussed here over and over, the fact that babies who are delivered in a partial-birth abortion, partially delivered, are of gestational age that is in excess of 20 weeks and would otherwise be born alive, that doesn't necessarily mean that they would necessarily survive long-term or ``be viable.'' Viability means not that they wouldn't be born alive, but they would have a reasonable chance of survival. That is a very subjective thing. There is no definition of viability, no standard set in this legislation, and it is purely the abortionist's determination as to whether the child being aborted is viable or not. We have survival rates of infants born at different gestational ages. Senator Frist, earlier today, went through some of those. I will review them. Prior to 23 weeks, a child being delivered at that time has a small chance. There are probably single digits or less at 21 weeks; 22 weeks maybe high single digits. I don't have those numbers but that is my recollection from years past debating this. When we get to 23 weeks, you have a survival rate of about a third; 24 weeks, two-thirds; 25 weeks, almost three-quarters; 26 weeks, 90 percent. But in each one of these cases, even though there are increasing survival rates, you have a great deal of subjectivity of an abortionist being presented with a baby to determine whether this baby in utero is viable. It is purely subjective. All the physician has to say is: Well, I don't think it is viable. So this just doesn't apply. There is no ban at all. Since most partial-birth abortions are in the 20-to-26 week range, there is ample opportunity, ample opportunity for the doctor to say in every instance: Well, I just didn't think it was viable. There is no penalty. There is no criminal sanction. There is no peer review. There is nothing. So this is a ban without a ban because it leaves it completely to the subjectivity of the physician to determine viability. But that is only half the problem. The other half of the problem is these words. It says: It shall be unlawful for a physician to intentionally abort a viable fetus unless the physician prior to performing the abortion, including partial-birth abortion, certifies in writing in the physician's medical judgment, based on the particular facts of the case before the physician, the continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life---- Hear the operative words---- or risk grievous injury to her physical health. Substantial risk? A little risk? One percent risk? Half of 1 percent risk? Is it .00001 percent risk? Risk is not defined and risk can mean any risk. It can mean the slightest risk. As Dr. Warren Hern, who is the author of the standard textbook on abortion procedures back in May of 1997, said in response to a question on this amendment: ``I say every pregnancy carries a risk--'' not just of grievous physical injury--``of death.'' Every pregnancy carries a risk of death. I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman's life and could cause grievous injury to her physical health. He was talking about life and death. We are talking about her physical health, grievous injury to her physical health. That is the second part. The fact is, risk not being defined is the open door. The analogy was made by someone that if you have a law that says no dog may be shot except where there is a risk that the dog in question may bite, then any dog can be shot because there is always a risk a dog is going to bite. Any abortion can be performed because there is always a risk. Since we don't quantify the risk, since we don't define the risk, risk is whatever a doctor wants it to be. I bet you will not find one obstetrician, and certainly not one abortionist, who will make the claim that there is no risk associated with the continuation of a pregnancy. It is by definition a risk to the mother. The most healthy pregnancy involves some element of risk. So this amendment--I am not questioning the intent of the Senator from Illinois. I know he went at this and worked, together with the Senator from Maine and others, to try to come up with a good-faith attempt to put a bill together that would be effective. But this doesn't do it. This simply leaves open both the issue of viability and who determines it. There is no peer review, no second-guessing to the abortionist, and then risk as an open question meaning any amount of risk. I believe you will not find any doctor who will say there is not a risk. Of course, there is a risk. The point is not risk, the point is, Is this procedure medically necessary? I keep coming back to this issue over and over again. Please present me with a case, with a case, a factual circumstance where this procedure would be medically necessary and where other abortion procedures could not do, not just as good a job, but a better job. Every health organization out there that I am aware of has said this is bad medicine, this is not practiced, this is not used to protect the health of the mother. We keep trying to grab for a health-of-the-mother exception when the health of the mother is not at issue here. If we were concerned about the health of the mother, then we would not be doing the procedure. We would not be allowing a procedure that is unhealthy; that takes a mother who obviously is under some duress or she wouldn't be at an abortion clinic. She is under some either mental or physical or some sort of angst that she wants to terminate her pregnancy. This is not a decision that people come by easily. What the doctor in the case of a partial-birth abortion does is give her a pill and send her home for 2 days. Come back to me in 2 days. And we have cases that we are aware of, the Senator from Ohio spoke about this yesterday, where children have been delivered in the interim because the cervix dilated too quickly, too much, and the baby was delivered. In one case that we are aware of the baby lived. But they send these mothers home for 2 days. The doctor who designed this procedure said the reason he designed this procedure is because it only takes 15 minutes out of his day to do and the other abortions that are peer reviewed, that are taught in medical schools, that obstetricians and gynecologists do--not that physician who is not an obstetrician who came up with this procedure or most of the practitioners, if not all of them that I am aware of who do this procedure, to my knowledge, I am not aware that any are obstetricians. I could be wrong on that but the ones who have come before the Congress, the ones I have seen cited in articles and testimony who have done these, none of them have been obstetricians. They are abortionists who make money doing abortions. And they came up with a great way to make more money, to get patients in and out quicker. That is great for them, but it certainly does not take into much account the health consequences to women. If you look at the AMA, and every physician group that has come forward, none of them are seeing this is superior medicine. None of them say this is to the benefit of women's health. I hear so many of my colleagues talk about women's health, women's health, women's health. Where are they when we are trying to ban a procedure that is contraindicated for the health of women? Where there are other, safer, better procedures that are available for the health of women, and yet they stand foursquare against women's health, foursquare for the option that is the most dangerous. And it is never medically necessary. So you have to ask yourself a question. If you have a procedure that is the most dangerous procedure and that is the most unhealthy for women, why would you continue to support it if it is not medically necessary? Not one case has ever been voiced at any hearing or in any debate on the floor of the Senate or on the floor of the House. One has come forward and said: This is why. Here is the case. This is why this is the best procedure. No one--no doctor, no Senator, no Congressman, no layperson--has come forward and said, this is it, this is the reason. So we have no medical need. But we do have overwhelming definitive evidence that this procedure is the most dangerous to the health of women. Yet there are those who will come to the floor and proclaim their allegiance to improving women's health who want this procedure made legal for the people who designed it so they can make more money doing abortions in 15 minutes as opposed to 45 minutes--and do it in a way that is just brutal. This is another quote from Dr. Hern: I have very serious reservations about this procedure. You really can't defend it. I would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use. This is an abortionist who wrote the textbooks on abortions. He authored the textbooks on abortion procedures. He does late-term abortions regularly. He is the expert. He continues to do them. What professional in the field says you can defend it? Why would people come to the floor of the Senate to defend the procedure that is indefensible, that is never going to be necessary, and that is harmful to women? Why? Why would you do that? Because you want to create options. Why would you want to create an option that is harmful to women? I understand people come in all the time saying we can't restrict the doctors. Of course you can restrict the doctors if what they are prescribing is harmful and if there are safer procedures to use. We darned well better proscribe it. We have to. We have an obligation to. You have folks who are abortionists saying you can't defend it. Yet here we are defending it. Why? Why are some Members so dug in to protect a rogue procedure that brutalizes and executes a child 3 inches away from constitutional protection? I had a debate several years ago on this issue. If a child was somehow delivered--3 inches from the crown of the baby's head, from the nape of the neck to the crown of its head--had actually gone through the cervix and the child was separated from the mother, they wouldn't argue that you then could kill the child. What is it that would allow this procedure? You heard the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist, talk about all of the complications and all that could go wrong with the blind procedure in an area of the woman's body that is very susceptible to injury, and where these other abortions are performed under controlled conditions with sonograms and you can see everything that is going on. In this case, it is a blind procedure with a sharp instrument in an area that is very vulnerable to injury. Why? Why would people continue to defend a harmful procedure, the least safe procedure done only by abortionists, only in abortion clinics, not taught by schools and not done by obstetricians? Why? To protect women's health? No. For medical necessity? No. Why? That is a question I think needs to be answered. What is so sacred here? What is so valued? What is it that is very deep inside this opposition, that is so important that we are willing to risk the health of women who are told by their doctors this is safe and who listen? The doctor-patient relationship is important. There is a sanctity to it. But you know what. Not every doctor lives up to that. Many of the people who come here and argue for partial-birth abortion will be here in a few weeks arguing that doctors aren't worthy in many cases of our support and are against medical malpractice. These doctors who do bad things to patients should be hammered. What about these doctors who perform indefensible procedures that risk the health of women? Why aren't we going after them? Why are we protecting them? What is it? What is it that is so important that we are going to risk women's health when there is no medical necessity to do this? Where? It is contraindicated. We know the answer to that question, don't we? We can't even come close. We can't even approach abortion as a right in this country because it is the supreme right. Anything that even approaches mentioning the word ``abortion'' irrespective of the consequences to women, God knows irrespective of the consequences to the children, we simply preserve this right above all rights. OK. Maybe we have to argue for a procedure that is dangerous. Maybe we have to argue for a procedure that is going to hurt women. Maybe we have to argue for a procedure that is never medically necessary. Maybe we have to argue for a procedure that is not done by obstetricians even though we are talking about obstetrics here. We have to bite the bullet on this. Yes. But do you know what. We are going to keep the barbarians away from the gates. We are going to keep these people away from this absolute right of abortion. Whether it costs a few women their lives, or it costs the health or reproductive future of women, you know, it is worth it. We can't erode this right. That is what it is all about. That is what it is all about. It is not about women's health. There is not one physician in this country who has come and testified that this is about women's health because it is not. The AMA says it is not. The obstetrician organizations say it is not. No one argues that this is the best procedure. The expert on third-term abortion said it. He is on this side of their issue, by the way. But at least he will make the claim that he is for women's health, and he will do so honestly, which is something that has not been done by many of the outside ``experts'' who have argued to keep this procedure legal. I have chart after chart. I will bring them out later. I have six charts going through the history of partial-birth abortions and showing the absolute fabrication put forth by those against this ban. Oh, the anesthesia would dull the pain. Then another person testified that the anesthesia and the cervical block would kill the baby and there wouldn't be a live delivery. The anesthesiologists around the country went into panic. Women were hearing about it and they would be afraid with their delivery if they took anesthesia--that there would be a cervical block and their child would die. They had to backtrack from that. The list is long. The facts stand. The reason this bill has gotten over 60 percent of the Senate, when probably 40 to 45 percent of the Senate is pro-life, is because this is, as the doctor from Colorado said, an indefensible procedure. So why? Why are we here? We are here because the Supreme Court defended the indefensible. They defended the indefensible. We have responded to the Supreme Court. I hope the Justices read this Record because I am talking to you. I want you to read every time over the last few days where I asked somebody to come forward with a health exception, where there is a medical necessity for the health of the mother to use this procedure. Read it. Observe the silence. I understand the Justices' feelings on the issue of abortion. It is evident from your decisions. It is obvious from your position. But you can't ignore the facts. Don't ignore the facts, because they are clear. They are as clear as the sound of the people coming forward with their examples. It is crystal clear. There is no sound and there is no reason for a health exception. Take the obligation you have seriously because I can tell you, the Members of this body do. We take our constitutional obligations dead seriously. The weight of evidence is not just overwhelming, it is dispositive. Listen. Learn. Decide justly. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. Let me finish, and I will be happy to yield as I have continually. The fact that a child in utero is going through a crisis does not equate that the mother is going through a health crisis. There are lots of mothers of babies with multiple defects who carry that child to term or do things to try to help that child in utero survive. One does not equate to the other. The case of Vikki Stella--and I am just reporting--I understand the fact she was carrying a child with multiple disabilities. My heart grieves for her and for all women who have to go through such difficult pregnancies. It is horrible to find out that a child you want may not live long after birth. It is as compelling a story as you can present to me. The point is, the answer does not have to be the death of the child.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Nevada for his cooperation, and I appreciate the good work. We are making good progress. I encourage Members who have statements they would like to make on the bill, there will be time in the debate of the Durbin amendment tonight to make those statements, and we encourage Members to do that. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Murkowski be added as a cosponsor to this bill, S 3.

Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator from Illinois just said the statute does not apply if the physician certifies it is not viable. So the statute does not apply if the license is not on the line. But your statute does not say that. You may want to say that, but it does not say that.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the Murray amendment, Senator Durbin be recognized in order to offer an amendment regarding health exceptions. I further ask unanimous consent that following the debate this evening, the amendment be temporarily set aside; provided further that when the Senate resumes consideration of S. 3 beginning at 9:30 tomorrow morning, Senator Boxer be recognized in order to offer a motion to commit; further, there be 2 hours equally divided in the usual form, and that following that debate the motion be temporarily set aside and the Senate resume consideration of the Durbin amendment for 1 additional hour of debate, equally divided. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Durbin amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Boxer motion to commit; provided further that no amendments be in order to either the motion or the amendment prior to the votes, with 4 minutes equally divided prior to the second vote.

Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. SANTORUM. We have been reviewing the one amendment. Has the Senator submitted all the other amendments? Only one amendment has been submitted, to my knowledge.

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, if I may respond very briefly, there is no evidence in any record, nor did she give any testimony, that this was a crisis pregnancy. Second, there is ample testimony and overwhelming evidence that this procedure is never necessary for the life or health of the mother. It is never used in a 3-day procedure. I won't go into great detail. That is the reason we have malpractice laws in this country. Doctors make very bad decisions and give bad advice to patients. It happens all the time. In this case, it happens with frequency. But there is dispositive, overwhelming evidence that the advice she was given was wrong. Because someone gives advice doesn't mean it is correct advice. She got bad advice and, unfortunately, it resulted in a heinous act being perpetrated in this case. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I ask the Senator from California this. She keeps making the statement and I want to make sure I give her an opportunity to substantiate this statement. The statement is made repeatedly that obstetricians and gynecologists around the country are saying that this is medically necessary to preserve the health of the mother. Has one of those obstetricians or gynecologists submitted a circumstance by which this would be the case? And where have they said this is the case? I am asking. If the Senator from California is going to make a statement that obstetricians believe this is medically necessary to preserve the health of a mother, substantiate the statement. For 7 years I have asked this question. Seven years. It has been asked at hearings and in a variety of different forums. I understand why the OB/GYN association opposes this ban because they do not like anything that criminalizes their behavior. I understand that. I am sure anybody who does behavior outside the bounds of morality and, therefore, potentially criminal, would like laws that do not stop them from doing what they want to do. I understand why people do not want constraints on their actions, but we have laws because we believe there are certain actions that are so morally reprehensible that we want to prohibit them and at which we want consequences directed.

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask the question, as I have repeatedly: Provide for me an instance, a circumstance, a medical situation in which this procedure would be necessary to preserve the health of the mother. That is what I am asking. Give me a circumstance where this would be necessary and there would be no other procedures available. Give me a circumstance where this would be the best procedure.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I just want to make sure the Record is correct because the Senator said Republicans were in charge at that time.

Mr. SANTORUM. I just want to make sure the Record is correct.