Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Yes, I would be happy to. In fact, I shared with the Senator from Nebraska yesterday an amendment to the bill that I think directly is on point with what the Eighth Circuit decision had concern with, which is the vagueness of the definition, that it could cover more than one abortion. I think this refinement of the definition makes it crystal clear that we are only talking about this one procedure. As I said to the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, when she was going through the Eighth Circuit decision earlier, the Eighth Circuit said our problem with this is it includes too much. Obviously, if you take the logic of that, they would probably not have a problem if it did not include too much.

Mr. SANTORUM. I have.

Mr. SANTORUM. Two comments. First of all, the definition of ``partial-birth abortion'' is very clear. It requires an intent to do an abortion. So if you were going in, and you were having a delivery, and the delivery is breech, for example, that would not be covered under this. It is very clear. There is no court in the land, that has reviewed this, that has suggested that anyone who is in the process of delivering a child for the purpose of a live birth is covered under this definition because you have to have the intent to have an abortion. If there is no such intent, then you are not covered under the act.

Mr. SANTORUM. She was in the process of delivery, and they had to do something?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, first off, I thank the Senator very much for his interest in an honest and open debate. I agree, this is one of the critical issues we have to address, and the courts have confronted this question of undue burden. Underlying that are two issues; one is the center point: Is this medically necessary. Second, are there alternatives to this procedure so as not to have an undue burden. That gets into a couple issues. Let me address the medical necessity issue. I will present the evidence as best I can that supports, we believe, the fact that this is not medically necessary. We have, of course, the AMA which said it is not medically necessary. That is the American Medical Association. They have said in a letter and stand by it that this procedure is not medically necessary. We have C. Everett Koop, obviously someone who has a tremendous amount of respect in this country, who has written directly this is not medically necessary. We have an organization of 600--actually more than 600--obstetricians and gynecologists, many of them members of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, many of them fellows, who have written without any hesitation this procedure is not medically necessary and is, in fact, dangerous to the health of the mother. They go one step further: It is never medically preferable, not only medically necessary. On the other side of the issue--and I am trying to present it, and I know the Senator from California will present her side--what is used is the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology policy statement on the issue. Several years ago, they put together a select panel, and the select panel reviewed the procedure to determine whether there were cases in which it was medically necessary to perform this procedure. They came forward with a statement. This is what their statement said: [We] could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman . . . They went on to say--and this is where the Senator from California will come in and say, see, that is not the whole story, so I will go on. It says: An intact D&X-- Partial-birth abortion-- however, may-- May-- be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision. We have asked the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology to provide us an example of where this procedure may be the best procedure because what they say is it ``may.'' For 3 years we have asked them to provide us a factual situation where, in fact, this ``may'' would come into play, and they have not done so. In fact, we have letters, and I would be happy to share them with you; there are dozens--in fact, there is a whole stack--from obstetricians and gynecologists throughout America who take issue with this statement, saying there are no circumstances where this would be the most appropriate procedure. Dr. Frist addressed that issue last night. He went through the medical literature and talked about it. I have asked him to come over, if he can, because I think, as a physician, as a surgeon, he may be better to answer this question than me.

Mr. SANTORUM. For another 10 minutes, and then I am going to be gone.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, what I want to do is give an opportunity for other Senators who have amendments to come to the floor and offer their amendments during this time so we can move forward on the bill, with the expectation we can finish the bill sometime today. Also, if any Senator has a statement on either side of the issue, this is a good opportunity to come down and make their statement about the bill or about any amendment that has been offered to date. I hope we will use this time fruitfully and not delay the Senate any further in acting upon this very important measure. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside. Obviously, we have a vote locked in at 2 o'clock. I ask unanimous consent that it be set aside.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield.

Mr. SANTORUM. The word ``intact'' is used in this context to refer to the living fetal organism rather than a fetal part that has been removed from a fetus. Because of the use of the word ``intact,'' a person performing a partial-birth abortion would not fall under the prohibition that the law provides if, for example, he or she delivers a dismembered fetal arm or leg. To fall under the prohibition, the abortionist would have to deliver a living fetal body, functioning as an organism. The use of the word ``intact'' is not, however, meant to allow the killing of a partially born fetus merely because some nonessential body part is missing. An abortionist cannot cut a toe of the fetus off before partial delivery and then claim in defense that the fetus killed after the partial-birth abortion was not intact.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, while I have a few minutes, I want to continue building the record, not from Rick Santorum, not from other Senators who are not experts in the field, but building the record from physicians, obstetricians, and experts who comment directly, fellows of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, an organization that the other side uses as defense. Again, this defense is a paper bag that simply needs to be tested. It is a facade. It will collapse. It will be punched through. Let me strike a blow. This is a statement of Dr. Don Gambrell, Jr. M.D., with the Medical College of Georgia, again, a fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. He is a clinical professor of endocrinology and OB/GYN. First sentence right out of the block: Partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to protect a woman's health or fertility. You have heard several other comments I have made about obstetricians who have said the exact same sentence. Think about who is saying this. This is an expert. We have 600 such physicians. The American college itself, who is against this bill, said it is never the only option. So they even agree it is not the only option. What they say is, it may be preferred. But they give no case; in 3 years, they have given no case. Their own members say it is never medically indicated--never. He underlined the word ``never.'' This is a doctor at a medical college. By the way, I have reams of letters here, all from physicians, all from obstetricians from all over the country who say the same thing. Think about this he is a doctor. For a doctor to say ``never,'' put it in writing and stand behind it--in this case, this was submitted as testimony to the House of Representatives in Atlanta, GA--to put this in sworn testimony, to be able to stand up and, without flinching, to lead off, first sentence, ``never medically necessary.'' What do we have on the other side of this medical necessity debate? I will read it one more time. The only factual evidence that supports the other side is this statement: The select panel could identify no circumstances under which this procedure would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. They agree with us: Not the only option; it is not an undue burden; there are, in fact, other procedures that can be used that are as safe. But they go on to say, however, it ``may be the best or most appropriate procedure.'' It ``may be.'' Here is one of their members--by the way, there are at least five, six dozen members, their members, who have written, who have said ``never,'' letter after letter after letter after letter after letter, ``never.'' What did they respond to their own members? A deafening silence. Their own members have asked: Give us a for instance. What has been their response? Nothing. Then we are to defeat a bill based on no evidence and an assertion that it may be, without a shred of evidence to support that ``may be.'' We have mountains of evidence, of expert opinion, of specific indications, of, as I just read from Dr. Hersh, where she went through specific abnormalities and said, not appropriate, not appropriate, not appropriate, not appropriate. Why these abnormalities? Because they were all the abnormalities listed in their anecdotes, in their case histories, that said ``requires'' a partial-birth abortion or is a preferable procedure to perform under these circumstances. Again, experts on the record under oath--never. Now they go further than that. These people say not only is it never medically indicated, it is contraindicated. It is more dangerous to do this. I want Members to know, when they walk to this floor and vote on this bill this time, A, the medical evidence is crystal clear: Never medically necessary to protect the health of the mother. And anybody who walks outside this Chamber and asserts that is doing so against 100 percent of the record before us. By the way, that won't stop people. It won't stop anybody. But look at the record; look at the facts. Anybody who walks out of here and says, I am opposed to this because it is unconstitutional, it is vague, it may cover more of this abortion, and it is an undue burden because of that, read the modification that has just been sent to the desk and adopted. It is crystal clear that no other abortion is banned by this bill now. I don't believe it was before, but if you had any doubt, it is not now. Senator DeWine and I entered into a colloquy that specifically listed instances and other abortion techniques used that are not covered by this bill. We explain in legal and medical detail why they are not. We say to the courts, that is not our intention; it is not covered. Here, legally and medically, is why it is not. If you want to walk out here and tell your constituents that you voted against this because we needed to protect the health of the mother, ``check strike one, not true.'' You can say it. You might get away with it. But it is not true. They don't have a shred of evidence to say that it is. They will put up pictures and tell stories about difficult decisions. Every one of those cases have been reviewed and every single one of them, experts in the field, 600 of them have said, not true. You may walk out this door and tell your constituents that I need to vote against this because it bans other procedures; it would be an undue burden; it would prohibit a woman's right to choose. Not true. It does not ban any other procedures. If it conceivably did, by some distortion of the words, which is what I think the courts have done, we make it crystal clear. This bill, the new bill, the first time any Member of this Senate will be voting on this particular bill be careful, be careful, because all of the trees you can hide behind in the game of abortion politics are being cut down at the base. In fact, there aren't even stumps left to hide behind. There is no medical evidence to support what they suggest. There is no constitutional argument on undue burden left with this new bill. So if you want to support this procedure, look your constituents in the eye and say: I believe abortion should be done at any time, at any place, in any manner, anyone wants to do it, and that includes 3 inches from being completely born and being protected by the Constitution. If you want to say that, then you are telling the truth; then you are being honest. If you want to say anything else, then you are hiding behind what was a truth. It is gone. There is no protection. You will have to look your constituents in the eye and say: I am not concerned about the dividing line between what is protected under our Constitution and what is not; I am not concerned that this is a slippery slope, where if the head is not born, you can kill the baby, but if the foot is not born, you can't, and it doesn't concern me at all; it doesn't set a double standard at all; it doesn't cause a problem in our society where a baby 3 inches away from life can be executed. It doesn't bother me, America. I want you to know that, constituents. This doesn't bother me. It doesn't bother me that all of the reasons given by the other side as to why this procedure should be kept legal are because of disabled children who were either not going to live long, or live long with a disability.

Mr. SANTORUM. So if you want to look your constituents in the eye and say: I am not concerned that we need to draw a bright line, and that the examples being used as to why this procedure should be kept legal-- and the stories and the cases to legitimize this procedure all involve deformed babies; they all involve babies who were not perfect in someone's eyes--if you want to look at them and say we need to keep this procedure legal because of these cases, then you need to look them in the eye and say: Well, I don't mean what Dr. Singer says, that killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. But if you say that, then you have to look them in the eye and say: By the way, I want this procedure to be legal to kill healthy children with healthy mothers because that is how 90 percent of these abortions are done. So if you can look in the eyes of constituents and say a 25-week-old baby who is from a healthy mother, a healthy baby, which would otherwise be born alive, that may in fact be viable, can in fact be delivered, all but the head, its brains punctured and suctioned out, and that is OK in America, and that doesn't bother us, and that doesn't create a slippery slope and create a cultural crisis--if you can look in the eyes of your constituents and tell them that, then come down here and vote no. Vote no, and you can do so with a clear conscience; you can do so with a clear conscience as to what you are saying. I don't know about other aspects of your clear conscience, but know what you are doing because anybody who will take the time to read the Record of what happened over the last 2 days will have no doubt as to what you are doing. I know most folks don't read the Record. But you have, you listened, and your staff listened. You know the facts. You know what is at stake. You know the right thing to do.

Mr. SANTORUM. I hope the Senator will.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be a vote on the Harkin amendment at 2 o'clock.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I move to table amendment No. 2321 and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. SANTORUM. Today, Baby Phoenix lives in Texas with her adopted parents. The doctor who performed this abortion has since lost his license. That was not the last victim of partial-birth abortions. Baby Hope, the second known survivor, survived an abortion attempt which began in the clinic of Dr. Martin Haskell who has been up here and has testified, who is one of the inventors of the procedure, who, in fact, testified in court cases. By the way, when he testified in those court cases and was asked the question, Is partial-birth abortion ever used to protect the life of the mother? The answer was no--from the inventor of the procedure. Is partial-birth abortion ever necessary or is it the only option available to protect the health of the mother? The answer by Dr. Haskell: No. Baby Hope's biological mother underwent a dilation phase of a partial-birth abortion. What happens is: You present yourself to the doctor. The doctor gives you pills to dilate your cervix. In 3 days, you come back to the abortion clinic. Your cervix is dilated, and they can perform the abortion. She dilated too quickly. She went to a hospital and was admitted for abdominal pain. The woman gave birth as she was being prepared for an examination. This was the point at which the hospital personnel first learned she was in the dilation phase of a partial-birth abortion. On April 7, Baby Hope was born in the emergency room. She was 22 weeks old. An emergency room technician who was asked to remove the baby from the room noticed she was alive. Neonatal staff were called to examine her, and doctors did not believe the child's lungs were developed enough to resuscitate her, so they did not put her on life support. Hospital staff wrapped the baby in a blanket. The ER technician named the baby Hope and then rocked and sang to the little girl for 3 hours 8 minutes of her life. Hope's death certificate lists the cause of death as extreme prematurity secondary to induced abortion. Ironically, the manner of death listed on the death certificate is ``natural.'' They do not talk about these cases. The 22-week-old baby girl died tragically, but she touched the hearts of the people whom she touched in her life. If this partial-birth abortion procedure had been performed, she would have died a violent, barbaric, painful death. A third case, Baby Grace. Four months after Baby Hope's death, another baby survived a botched abortion, again at Dr. Haskell's abortion clinic in Dayton, OH. Baby Grace was born August 4, 1999--just a couple of months ago. Once again, the child's biological mother went into premature labor as a result of the dilation phase of the partial-birth abortion. As in the case of Baby Hope, the mother went to the hospital and delivered the baby. In this case, the child was between 25 and 26 weeks old. Baby Grace is still alive. She is being cared for at a hospital as a premature baby. The Montgomery County, Ohio, Children Services Board has temporary custody of her and plans to put her up for adoption. Baby Grace is living proof of the horror of partial-birth abortion. She is not a footnote in case law. She is a real baby who would have died. You do not hear anyone talking about those cases. What this amendment does has nothing to do with the underlying bill. The underlying bill is about banning a barbaric procedure that crosses the line of civility in America; at least I hope so. Let me assure you, if we do not draw that line, we will be having debates here, I hope with all my heart, when I am not here, about whether killing children is OK if they are not perfect in our eyes. We are 3 inches from having that debate right now. It is only a matter of time before those inches fade away. It is irrelevant, really, isn't it, whether it is 3 inches or not. God bless America. The Senator from Ohio, I understand, wants to be recognized. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, let me respond to the comments of the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, about the constitutionality. The central point is that most of the cases have focused around the definition. I think she accurately described the concern some of the courts have, and the issue on vagueness, and that this procedure being outlined, partial-birth abortion, is not adequately defined so as not to outlaw other abortions at that time. The interesting part of the argument is that you presume with the argument that it outlaws more than this. I think you can make the logical assumption that the courts might accurately only include this procedure, and that it would be constitutional, but what makes it unconstitutional is that it applies to more than this procedure. In a sense, arguing for the unconstitutionality of this, if we were able to better define what a partial-birth abortion is in this legislation, we would make it clear that it does not ban any other type of abortion. Then the presumption I hear from the Court's own reasoning is that it would be constitutional. I think we need to look at that very carefully. In a sense, in making their argument, they leave open the possibility that banning a particular procedure--as long as it doesn't ban all procedures or more than one procedure--the courts would be receptive to the constitutionality of such a piece of legislation. We are working right now with other Members to see if we can come up with a better definition, a more clear definition, one which would clearly pass constitutional muster with respect to vagueness. I am encouraged. I think it is helpful that the Senator from California put the reasoning in the Record, because I think the reasoning clearly points to the fact the procedure itself could, in fact, be banned under Roe v. Wade. But the fact that the procedure is being defined in such a vague manner as to include other procedures is the reason they are finding it unconstitutional. I think it creates an opportunity for us to craft in the eyes of the courts that have reviewed this to date a constitutional piece of legislation that does not create an undue burden on women because it only bans one particular procedure and not others. I see this as an opportunity. I thank the Senator from California for laying that out. I think that is an important point of debate. We will get to that later in this debate as we get down to the end when we provide what I hope to be some technical amendments to correct this problem. I find it interesting--I talked about it yesterday--what we are talking about now is Roe v. Wade. While I and others have stood up here time and time again and have said this is not about Roe v. Wade, one of the reasons we are bringing this bill to the floor is because we believe this is outside of the scope of Roe v. Wade's restrictions on Congress' right to limit abortion. I can go through the long list of that. One, obviously, is the Texas Roe v. Wade case itself. It was brought before the Supreme Court. In that decision, part of the appeal was to strike a Texas law that prohibited killing a child in the process of being born. It is a Texas statute that was under review by the Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade decision. The Supreme Court let stand the Texas law that prohibited the killing of a child in the process of being born. That is exactly what we are attempting to prohibit in the partial-birth abortion amendment. To make the argument we are trampling on Roe v. Wade with this bill, when the case itself upheld a law that said you couldn't do that, in other words, kill a child in the process of being born, I think is stretching Roe v. Wade far beyond its own face of what it actually did. Again, it is a distortion that is not surprising. I understand why if you don't think you have the arguments on the merits you try to change the subject. That is what this vote is about today. It changes the subject. They want to turn this into a debate on abortion. This is not a debate on abortion. This is a debate on infanticide. This is why people on both sides of the abortion issue in both Chambers support this ban--because it is less about abortion and very much about infanticide. I am not going to say much about the underlying amendment we are talking about--the Harkin amendment--but have a couple of comments about Roe v. Wade. You hear so much about first trimester, second trimester, third trimester, the State has an interest, and the State can do this. I remind you that Senators who are talking about these restrictions and about the second- and third-trimester have never in their lives voted for any of those restrictions. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land today. For all the rhetoric that is around, it is there. You can have an abortion at any time, anywhere, and any place as long as you can find an abortionist to do it. Period. There are no restrictions. In reality, there are no restrictions. All you have to do is find an abortionist who will say the health of the mother is at stake and you can have an abortion. I had a chart up here yesterday. We can get it. I will put it back up. Warren Hern wrote the definitive textbook on abortion and said, I will certify that with every pregnancy there is a risk of grievous serious physical health to the mother; injury to the mother. What you have is, in fact, no restriction. In fact, that is what occurs today. There are no limits on abortion in America. That is why one in four children conceived in America die through abortion. One in four. One in four. So your chances of surviving in the womb are 75 percent once you are conceived. Once you are born, your chances of surviving the first 5 years are 99.9 percent. If you can make it through to be born, you are probably going to be OK. But the biggest risk to children's health in America is abortion. Roe v. Wade promised a lot of things. When people came up and argued about Roe v. Wade, they promised a lot of wonderful things would happen to women and to women's health and to children and to child abuse. The promises were made. Look at the debate. There would be a reduction in child abuse because there would be less unwanted pregnancies. I don't think we have to look up a whole lot of record to see that child abuse has not been reduced since Roe v. Wade. In fact, it is over double since Roe v. Wade. There would be a reduction in divorce. I don't think that needs any comment. Obviously, it did not happen. There would be a reduction in spousal abuse. Obviously, that did not happen. We would lower poverty among children. Obviously, that did not happen--all the promises that this would be a better world if we just got rid of these children who weren't wanted, that life would be better. What we found as a result of Roe v. Wade is a desensitizing of our appreciation for life, and all the promises have turned into disasters. Now we are faced with a world where we have reached the point in America that a child who is 3 inches away from being protected by Roe v. Wade, being protected by the Constitution can be executed--executed, brutally executed by a partial-birth abortion. The reason this is an issue I feel so passionately about is not because I believe we will reduce the number of abortions in America. We will not. I will say that categorically. This bill will probably not reduce the number of abortions in America with its passage. Hopefully, in the debate we will touch some hearts but in its passage we will not. This is not an attempt to infringe on a woman's right. This is not an attempt to change or overturn Roe v. Wade. That is why I reject the Senator's amendment as irrelevant. This bill attempts to draw a bright line between what is and is not protected. At least we should be able to draw the line so when a child is in the process of being born, it is too late to have an abortion. It is too late. I asked the Senator from California this question: You allow an abortion if the child's head is inside the mother? You can then kill the baby? I said: What if the baby came out head first and the child's foot was inside the mother. Would you still be allowed to kill the baby? She said: Absolutely not. A pretty clear line, isn't it, depending on which way the baby is born as to whether you can kill the baby. We get to the slippery slope, and this is what concerns me for our culture--if we can kill a baby that is moving, one can see the baby, the abortionist is holding the baby in his or her hands, the baby is moving, and then they take a pair of scissors at the base of the skull and jam it into the back of the baby's head and suction the brains out. This is where humanity has arrived in the United States in 1999. In the greatest deliberative body in the world, we can stand here and debate this is a proper procedure in America; this is legal in America; this is ethical in America; this is moral in America. This is not a debate about abortion. This is a debate about who we are as a society. I know the abortion sides have lined up and want to make this an abortion line, where we draw the line in protecting humanity. If we don't draw it here, the next logical step is easy. From the New Yorker magazine last month, the September issue, an article by Peter Singer. Peter Singer is a philosopher --pop philosopher, I guess--who was just hired at Princeton University. What does Peter Singer say? I will read part of the article. Viewers will say that guy is a whacko, this guy is out there on the fringe; he is at Princeton University, but he is out there on the fringe. No one can make this credible argument in America today. I argue that 40 years ago no one could make this credible argument that this procedure would be legal. But here we are. Put on your seatbelts, ladies and gentlemen. We are in for a ride, and the roller coaster is going down. I don't see the bottom yet. Let me describe how far down the roller coaster we can go when it comes to civility in America, when it comes to respect for life in America. Peter Singer: Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all. I remind everybody of these anecdotes I have talked about that have offended so many. What are the stories about? The backbone for the defense of this procedure given by the Senator from California, the Senator from Iowa, the Senator from Illinois. What is the subject of these tragic stories? In every instance, in every instance, these were pregnancies that had gone awry, where, in the course of fetal development, the infant became disabled, a problem developed--whether it was trisomy, hydrocephaly, some abnormality occurred, some disability occurred in the baby. Is there an argument on any of these cases that the health or the life of the mother was endangered by carrying the baby itself? The answer is no. In none of these cases is the issue brought up that the health of the mother was jeopardized by carrying the baby. In all of these cases the point was made, the baby is going to die anyway or the quality of the baby's life is not going to be good; killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. We see how the slope gets slippery. We don't hear from the other side in defending partial-birth abortion--the cases of healthy mothers and healthy women. They are not used to defending this procedure. However, 90 percent of the partial-birth abortions are healthy mothers and healthy babies. They don't use those as an example because they are not sympathetic examples to those who are within the sound of my voice. People won't sympathize with a healthy mother and healthy baby-- aborting a baby late in pregnancy, killing her healthy baby. People don't see a rationale for someone to do that. The folks here know when people hear about a deformed baby being killed, they are OK with that. Think about what they are doing by bringing these cases up. Think about what they are presuming people are thinking when they use disabled children as a legitimate reason to be killed under this procedure. They are assuming that America doesn't care as much; they assume they are not as worthy as a normal, healthy baby. Do you know what. They are right. Absorb that, America. They won't use healthy mothers and healthy babies to defend this procedure because people will have no sympathy for that, people have no tolerance for that. Throw up a disabled child as the object of this execution, and then it is OK; then there is sympathy. What a slippery slope when killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. And you say that is outrageous. They are using it now to justify this position. It is not outrageous; it is today in America. It is the reason for this procedure to be kept legal. Open your eyes and see what they are doing. Open your eyes and see where we are headed. Dr. Peter Singer: When the death of a disabled infant will lead to a birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing a hemophiliac infant had no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him. We will see family pictures of a mother and father who had a partial- birth abortion now being shown with another new baby. They will say, see, it is OK because this other baby is happy. This is not craziness that is going to happen in the future. This is the roller coaster, folks, we are headed down. This debate should point Americans in the direction as clear as my finger is pointing to Senator Voinovich that we are headed toward Peter Singer's world. Two or three Senators have quoted the oft-quoted paragraph out of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. They use that to legitimize what they are doing. Let me read something for you. I want you to think about the logic behind what they are saying here. Listen, America. This is an abortion case. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. I am going to paraphrase that. I am going to use the words of somebody who all of you know because of some things that he did in the last year. I am going to use the words of Eric Harris, who wrote before he killed 13 children at Columbine: When I say something, it goes. I am the law. What this says is very simple: You are the law. What you say goes. You have the right to define, again ``one's own concept of existence,'' one's own concept of the ``meaning of the universe and of the mystery of life.'' What I say goes. Fredrich Neitzsche would be proud of us all for this debate. Peter Singer is proud, I am sure, of this debate today being put forward in defense of something that he supports, the killing of little children if they are not perfect like you and me. Remember, you will not hear one word, you have not heard one word in three debates, in 5 years--you have not heard one word about the normal, healthy baby being killed by this procedure. You have not heard one word about a normal, healthy mother having one of these abortions. They will not use that case even though over 90 percent of the abortions that occur with partial birth are those cases. They use the ones that tug at your heartstrings. Having lost a baby, they tug at mine. I know the pain of what these men and women who suffered through pregnancies that went awry--I know what they suffered through. I do not demean them when I talk about their cases. They are real and they suffered. But to use--and I emphasize the word ``use''-- these cases to justify the killing of a baby, to use abnormal children--abnormal to whom, I might add? Disabled to whom? Imperfect to whom? Not to me. My son who died was not perfect in the eyes of this world, but he was perfect to me. He was perfect to my wife. Most important, he was perfect in God's eyes. To abuse these cases, to pull at your heartstrings, to legitimize killing children 3 inches away from being born is beneath the dignity of the Senate and feeds into Peter Singer's view that ``killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.'' Peter Singer takes it even further. I said he supports this procedure. I am sure he does, but he thinks this is probably not the best way to go. Here is what he thinks. You say this is absurd, Senator? Listen: If a pregnant woman has inconclusive results from amniocentesis, Singer doesn't see why she shouldn't carry the fetus to term. Then, if the baby is severely disabled and the parents prefer to kill it, they should be allowed to. That way, there would be fewer needless abortions and more healthy babies. In defense we almost do that with partial-birth abortion, don't we? We deliver the baby, get a chance to see the baby, and then we kill the baby. We have case after case now, several cases, of botched partial- birth abortions where babies who were to be aborted ended up being born before the doctor could kill the baby. There are three cases I am aware of, two in the last few months, where little children were born; not fetuses, not products of conception--which I think is another term that is used to dehumanize what is a living human being. Is there anybody in the Senate or within the sound of my voice, any Senator, who would disagree that a fetus or baby inside the mother is a living human being? I do not think there is any question that is a living human being. But we try to dehumanize it by using ``fetus,'' ``products of conception.'' In the case of a partial-birth abortion, you are talking about at least a 20-week-old living human being that is delivered feet first outside of the mother except for the head and then killed. The justification, the stories, the ``cases,'' all involve disabled children--never healthy children. Let me tell you about some healthy children who were to be aborted using a partial-birth abortion. The first known survivor was a girl born in Phoenix, June 30, 1998, known as Baby Phoenix. The little girl was accidentally born as a result of a botched partial-birth abortion. How does a partial-birth abortion work? How could it be botched? You present yourself to the abortionist. The abortionist says you are past 20 weeks. By the way, when you are past 20 weeks and you deliver a child, the baby will be born alive, so we are talking about the delivery of a living baby. That baby may not survive for a variety of reasons, but the baby will be born alive, this little baby. This baby's mother did not want this baby to be born alive, so she went to an abortionist after 20 weeks and the abortionist said: Fine, we are going to do a partial-birth abortion. Were there health concerns with this baby? Was the mother in physical problems? Was the baby physically deformed? The answer in both cases: No. Could she get an abortion after 20 weeks? The answer was yes. Let me tell you how much after 20 weeks you can get an abortion in this country. Based on the sonogram performed at the abortion clinic, Dr. Biskind believed baby Phoenix to be 23 weeks, at least that is what he says. During the actual abortion procedure, the doctor realized the child was much older. He stopped the partial-birth abortion and delivered a 6-pound, 2-ounce baby girl. Baby Phoenix was actually 37 weeks. Both the 17-year-old biological mother and child were healthy. This was an elective abortion. You don't hear the other side talk about elective abortions and healthy mothers and healthy babies, do you? Do you? There is no sympathy for them. Oh, but it is OK, it is all right. We have sympathy if the baby is not perfect--in our eyes. In our eyes. Following delivery, Baby Phoenix was sent to a hospital across the street for treatment. She suffered from a fractured skull and cuts on her face as a result of the attempted abortion. Amazingly, there was no apparent brain damage. In October of 1997, by the way, the year before this happened, a Federal court struck down Arizona's law that would have prevented this brutality in the first place. (Mr. ALLARD assumed the Chair.)