Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield the Senator another 5 minutes.

Mr. SANTORUM. Five additional minutes.

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield the Senator from Michigan 3 minutes.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Michigan for his statement and being here on the floor to add to the debate and for his terrific work that he has done on this issue in the past now 2 years. I thank the Senator very much. Mr. President, I do not have a speaker at this point. I ask unanimous consent that when I suggest the absence of a quorum the time come off the other side.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Indiana, who has done terrific work on this issue which deals with protecting children. He has been an outstanding spokesperson for a long time in the Senate.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, if you will notify me when I have 4 minutes remaining.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Indiana for his excellent work. I want to address a couple issues the Senator from California raised. One, she mentioned support of the American College of Gynecologists. I have 50 letters here from fellows of that organization who are outraged at the organization for the position they have taken. We have a group of over 500 obstetricians and gynecologists who have signed on saying they are supporting the ban on partial-birth abortions and are also outraged at the position taken by the board here in Washington that was not voted on by the general membership. So I just suggest that this, as the Senator from California noted but I want to reemphasize, is not speaking for all physicians, certainly not all obstetricians and gynecologists, because we have read plenty of statements from them as to why this procedure is never medically necessary. She went through her facts. Let me tell you the first fact. This is not about abortion. This is about infanticide. This is about taking a baby that is born, in the process of being born, four-fifths outside of the mother, moving outside of the mother and killing that baby. We can talk about abortion. I know the Senator likes to get it back to the issue of abortion. The reason we believe, as I just read a letter from 62 law professors, it is not governed by Roe versus Wade is because the baby now has rights. It is being born. So do not keep focusing back on this issue of abortion. This is about infanticide. If the Senate today does not muster up the moral courage for 67 votes, it will be validating infanticide--not the woman's right to choose, infanticide. As one of the listed facts, the Senator from California said the fact is this procedure is done by obstetricians and gynecologists acting in the best interests of the mother to save her life or health. That is not a fact, and we all know that. Even people who support the position of the Senator from California know that is not a fact, admit it is not a fact. It is very difficult to get engaged in a real debate when the other side keeps using misinformation about what is going on here. Ron Fitzsimmons, the director of an association of 200 clinics, said that 90 percent of the abortions done, partial-birth abortions done, are done on healthy mothers and healthy babies in the 5th and 6th months of pregnancy for birth control reasons. Now, that is not, as the Senator from California suggested, a procedure done by obstetricians and gynecologists. Let me make a parenthetical remark there. This procedure was not invented by an obstetrician or gynecologist. It was invented by a family practitioner who does abortions. Obstetricians and gynecologists do not do this procedure. This is not done in hospitals. It is done in clinics, not by, in many cases, obstetricians and gynecologists. So to suggest that this procedure is done by obstetricians and gynecologists acting in the best interests of the mother and that's the fact is not in fact the case. This is done by abortionists--some of whom are obstetricians, many of whom are not--who perform in clinics, not in hospitals, who do it on healthy mothers and healthy babies. Those are the facts. That is why this is such a troubling debate today. That is why we have seen the movement across this country and in the Senate today, because the alleged facts that the Senator from California was offering again as the truth muddy the waters a little bit. But now we know what the real truth is from people who support her position. But yet we keep hearing these repeated allegations that have no basis in reality anymore, but they still find themselves on the Senate floor as a defense for an indefensible procedure, and this procedure is indefensible. Mr. President, we have heard comments about women who suffered with a pregnancy that had gone tragic. Let me first say that my heart goes out to each and every one of the people whose picture we have seen displayed on the floor of the Senate. I know, I know personally the difficulty that these families face with a child that you hoped for and dreamed for and had something go wrong; that a life that you had hoped to be with and to mother and father would be cut short. I know what they went through. I am just suggesting that the fact that the women came to testify, not the doctors, tells you something about the medical reality of what occurred. You have not seen any of these doctors who did these procedures come to the U.S. Senate, the House, or anyplace in a public arena and talk about what they did, because they know that they would not stand the light of day in front of any peer review. In fact, none of these procedures is peer reviewed. None of them is peer reviewed. None of these cases has been peer reviewed, none of them. They would not open up to any discussion by other experts in the field as to whether they acted correctly. That is the problem, you see. We hide behind the emotion, and it is real, tragic, and I empathize, but we are hiding behind emotion when we are talking about the life and death of little babies. We owe it to them, we owe it to these mothers who are dealing with these tragic situations today to talk about the facts, to let the light shine in as to what are really the options, what is really necessary, not to hide behind pictures and emotional pleas that have no basis in medical fact, in medical practice. I will give you a counterexample. This is a little baby girl, named Donna Joy Watts, who was born with hydrocephaly, the same condition that some of the children of the people Senator Boxer shared had. Her mother and father, Lori and Donny Watts, refused to abort this child. The genetics counselor and the obstetrician suggested a partial-birth abortion for this little baby. They said she couldn't survive, she wouldn't live. She had to go to four hospitals--four places--just to get this baby delivered. They wouldn't deliver her baby. We worry so much about the right to choose. How about the right to choose life, to give your baby a chance? Well, Donny and Lori fought for this chance. This baby was born finally by cesarean section. And, by the way, the issue of future fertility, we hear that a lot, Lori and Donny now have another little baby. But this little baby was born and hooked up to IV's to give hydration to, water to, and for 3 days. These doctors, who will never come to testify before the Congress, all these doctors who recommend abortion, who never come to justify before a peer review panel what they do, called this little baby lying there breathing a fetus for 3 days. Do you want to know what some of the obstetricians and gynecologists think about little babies who are just not perfect? They called this baby a fetus 3 days after it was born. It is not a fetus, it is a baby. What they wanted to do was kill this baby by stabbing her in the base of her skull and suctioning her brains out, and Lori and Donny said no. Through a lot of hard work, a lot of pain, a lot of suffering, a lot of forcing them to treat her daughter because they wouldn't treat her for 3 days, 5\1/2\ years later, this is little Donna Joy Watts, who is in my office right now. She would have been up in the gallery of the Senate were it not for the objection of the Senator from California prohibiting her from being there. She is in my office and watching this debate. She is watching to see whether the U.S. Senate is going to allow other doctors to misinform their mommies and daddies so we won't have other little Donna Joy Wattses to be with us, to ennoble us, to give us pride in our culture and in our civilization, that we care even for those who are like little Donna Joy--who runs around and plays in my office, who colors with my kids--but just didn't have the chance. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I just suggest the American Medical Association and the other hundreds of doctors understand the point that seems to elude the Members of this Chamber. By outlawing this procedure they are, in fact, protecting the health of the mother, because this is an unhealthy procedure, this is a dangerous procedure. This procedure, as said by over 500 physicians ``is never medically necessary, in order to preserve a woman's life, health or future fertility, to deliberately kill an unborn child in the second and third trimester, and certainly not by mostly delivering the child before putting him or her to death.'' I will quote another obstetrician/gynecologist, Dr. Camilla Hersh: Any proponent of such a dangerous procedure is at least seriously misinformed about medical reality or at worst so consumed by narrow minded ``abortion-at-any-cost'' activism to be criminally negligent. What we are doing here is, in fact, advocating for the life health of the mother by banning a procedure which is a rogue procedure, not performed at hospitals, performed at abortion clinics, not even performed by obstetricians, invented by someone who is not an obstetrician. That is why the AMA wrote to me yesterday supporting H.R. 1122 as it now appears on the floor of the U.S. Senate saying: Thank you for the opportunity to work with you toward restriction of a procedure we all agree is not good medicine. In other words, it is not in the interest of the health or life of the mother to do this procedure. It is wrong to do this procedure. It is immoral to do this procedure because you are killing a little baby. You are killing a baby that is fourth-fifths born, that is moving outside of its mother. How can we accept that when there are other options available? As I suggested before, here is living proof of other options available: a little girl who is here today on Capitol Hill, who will be right out here by the elevators during that vote. I ask Members to go over and to look into her eyes, to talk to her, because if her parents would have listened to all the expert doctors who knew what was best for their child, she wouldn't be here today. She would have had this brutality, this violence, this vile procedure done on this innocent little girl who now walks and talks and writes notes--``Donna'' with a hand there, reaching out asking that this procedure not be made available, so little girls like her, little boys like her, be given a chance at life. The Senator from California said, these kids who are not well enough to make it. Who are we to decide whether they are well enough to make it? Who are we to say they should die because they are not perfect? Give them a chance. Give them the dignity of being born and brought into this world with love, not violence and brutality. Give them a chance. Give them a chance. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. Does the Senator from Michigan seek some time?

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, thank you.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, before I go into the details of the amendment, let me also enter into the Record a statement by Senator Bill Frist. I cannot emphasize enough how important he has been as the only physician here in the U.S. Senate in helping us in the debate here on the Senate floor and providing that expertise that is so necessary in these kinds of medical issues, and also in helping us work with the AMA to come up with some language that could garner their support. I quote Senator Frist's statement. He would have been here to announce this. But I understand we are going to be closing up shortly, and he is still on an airplane. As the only physician in the Senate, I am proud of the American Medical Association's decision to support the ban on partial birth abortions. This is the strongest medical confirmation yet that this so-called medical procedure, is brutal, inhumane, and medically unnecessary. As I said on the floor of the United States Senate, any provider who performs a partial birth abortion has violated the Hippocratic principle, ``First do no harm.'' The President has already been standing on shaky ground in his efforts to explain his intent to veto once again a ban of this grisly and unnecessary procedure. With these technical changes and the endorsement of the AMA, it's time for the President to do the right thing--it's time for him to sign this bill. Mr. President, let me go through the changes that are in the bill that we are going to amend tomorrow morning. We hope to get unanimous consent to amend it. These are technical changes, and we believe that, irrespective of your position on the bill, these are changes that can be supported. The first thing this bill does, as has been referred to, is to tighten up the language on what we mean by partial-birth abortion. There was some concern principally about a situation where the doctor would be delivering a baby with a normal delivery, but the baby would be delivered breech. And that happens on occasion. The baby is delivered in a breech position. The concern is that some complication may occur in the course of this breech delivery, and the doctor would be required, in order to save the mother's life, to perform some sort of procedure that would result in the killing of the baby. Those are always very terrible situations. But the AMA was concerned that, because the definition was not specific enough from their reading, some zealous prosecutor could come out and accuse the doctor, who has not performed an abortion--does not intend to perform an abortion--but performed a normal delivery and, because of a complication, that somehow he or she could be covered under this act. We have tightened up the language with mens rea, to use the legal term. That directs the mental state--as to what the doctor was doing when he was delivering the baby for the purpose of a live birth and is not doing an abortion. So we tightened that language up substantially to satisfy that. That kind of situation would no longer be covered under the act. Frankly, I don't believe it is covered under the original act. But this makes it crystal clear that it is not covered under the act. I think to the extent that we have made that clear and that it is positive to the extent that we have put in the requisite mens rea for a criminal statute, which arguably was somewhat vague in the original bill, we have now done that. We have tightened it up. This is a good, solid criminal statute as a result of that. Second, as was discussed in the AMA letter, the State medical boards, we understand that if the doctor is going to be charged in doing one of those procedures, there is going to be medical evidence presented. The doctor and his team are going to present their medical experts, and the prosecutor will present their medical experts. This gives us some medical expertise, if you will, that is not in either camp but gives us a peer review determination as to what they saw happen and what they believe happened. It will most likely result in as many people who agree with the physician as not. It is not something that we believe is a stacked deck one way or the other. We believe it is a legitimate peer review mechanism. It is admissible in court but not determinative. It is simply medical evidence to be used should the prosecution continue with the case. We think that is important. It certainly is important for the professional standards that the AMA and other State medical associations would like to see in their profession. So we have no problem with that. We believe it is legitimate medical evidence that would be otherwise included. So that is, again, a positive contribution to the legislation. The other change is really the ultimate of technical changes that was surplus language in the life-of-the-mother exception where we said basically twice that it was the only procedure necessary. We said it twice. You don't need to say it twice. You just say necessary. It was the only procedure available that is necessary to save the life of mother. We don't say ``necessary'' twice. So we eliminated the surplus language. Those are the three changes. They certainly do not go to the substance of the legislation. They are technical in nature. They are defined and solidifying in nature as a criminal statute and, I believe, a positive contribution. I believe eventually, whether it is in the next few months as a result of this bill being passed and either signed by the President or having the President's veto overridden, that this bill will end up in court. Someone will challenge the constitutionality after this legislation. My feeling is that this legislation not only has to be solid on the basis of abortion law, but also it has to be solid based on criminal law and how a criminal statute is drafted. I think what we have done with these changes is improve the language as a criminal statute. I think that is very important, and I would hate to go through the entire legislative process and have the courts say, ``Well, on abortion law you are fine, but on criminal law you are too vague, and we are throwing it out for that.'' That would be a disconcerting result, one that I do not want to see and one that I believe is greatly reduced as a result of the changes that we hope to make tomorrow in this legislation, and which we will make tomorrow. I have to say, finally, how excited I am that the AMA has stepped forward and supported this legislation. This is the association that is the most preeminent association that oversees medicine in this country. As Dr. Seward said, partial-birth abortion is not good medicine. As Dr. C. Everett Koop said, it is not medically necessary for the life and health of the mother to do this procedure. This is a procedure that is a rogue procedure. It should be an outlawed procedure. We are attempting to outlaw this procedure because it just simply goes too far. I am hopeful, with the support of the preeminent medical authority in this country, the American Medical Association, Members of this Senate will look long and hard now in these last few hours before the vote, which we are hoping to have scheduled tomorrow afternoon, they will look long and hard at the changes, at the evidence that now has been presented, the facts that have now been presented as a result of some of the admissions by the abortion industry as to what a partial-birth abortion is, when it is used, who it is used on, all of this new information that we have been presented in the Senate since the last vote a year ago, almost a year ago, and hopefully it is enough evidence and enough change in the statute that is being proposed, the bill that is being proposed, that we will get the requisite 67 votes. I know there are a half a dozen or more Members who have still not publicly announced what their position is on this bill. That is more than enough votes for us to get it to the 67 we need to override the President's veto. I ask each and every Member who is not committed, and, frankly, I would ask those Members who are committed in light of the evidence that has been presented, in light of the changes that we have made in this legislation, in light of the AMA's strong endorsement and support for this legislation, to take another look. I know it is very difficult for Members on this issue to walk outside of their camp of support. If you are a pro-choice Member, it is very difficult to walk outside of that camp and venture away from those groups of abortion-rights supporters who have supported you in your election and who by and large agree. But it takes a lot of courage to look at your friends and tell them when they are wrong. The AMA supports legalized abortion, and they have been able to look at their friends and say in this case you are wrong; this is not an approved medical procedure and we should not have it legal in this country. That took a lot of courage. I commend them for their courage. I just suggest that if the AMA can stand up to others in the medical community who believe abortion anytime, anywhere, under any procedure should be legal, they are willing to stand up to those within their ranks who hold that very extreme position, then I hope Members of this body who are not supposed to come here to argue extremist, irrational positions but here to represent what is in the best interests of this country will be able to look into the faces of the organizations that I know they seek support from on election day and with whom I know they find themselves in agreement on most occasions, look at them and say, you have gone too far this time; we have to draw a line somewhere on this issue; it is not an absolute right for anyone at any point in time under any method to kill their children, that we have to have limits. Even Senator Daschle and, to some degree, although minor, Senators Feinstein and Boxer have admitted there is some limit here as to what we can do, on what we should allow in the area of abortion. The AMA and other professionals in the field have stood up and said this is the line to draw. I hope Members have the courage to stand up and say this is where we draw the line. I commend Members who have done that already. I commend them for their understanding that, frankly, this is less about abortion and more about infanticide; this is more about when we take a baby that is out of the womb, being born, outside of the mother and, frankly, gratuitously kill that baby. We have gone too far. There is no medical reason that a baby four-fifths delivered, everything outside of the mother with the exception of the head, there is no reason to perform a procedure on that baby that kills it at that point. There is no medical reason to protect the life or health of the mother ever to kill the baby at that point. In fact, it is more dangerous for the mother to insert instruments, to puncture bone by stabbing the baby at the base of the skull. That is dangerous to the health and life of the mother. It is obviously very dangerous to the baby. That is not a safe procedure. You cannot argue that the baby sitting there in that position, that it is for the health of the mother to insert an instrument into the baby's skull. It is not. It can never be. So what we are saying is, whether it is partial-birth abortion or all length, give the baby a chance. Give the baby a chance. There may be cases, and we understand that--folks who have gotten up and argued to ban this procedure have always recognized that there are situations in which the health and life of the mother are in danger and that separation of the child from the mother is necessary to protect the mother's health and life. But it is never necessary, certainly not by doing this barbaric procedure, to kill the baby in the process. You have a baby four-fifths born with a tiny head that is inches away from that first breath. Let the baby be born. Give it at least a chance to see if that baby can survive. Why do violence to that little baby? There is no medical reason. Why protect a procedure that does violence unnecessarily to little babies who otherwise would be born alive? They may not survive long. They may only survive minutes or hours. But give them the dignity of being born and brought into our human community. Give them the dignity of not having violence be the only thing they know of this Earth. Give them the dignity of life and memory as a part of our human family. I am very hopeful that as a result of the endorsement of the AMA and other evidence that has come out, we can muster up the moral courage to say no to this procedure. I hope you can. I hope that anyone who is in the sound of my voice will call, write, fax, E-mail, pray, send any kind of communication they possibly can to Members of the Senate who are going to be voting here tomorrow on this legislation asking that they now look at the evidence presented, look at the changes in the legislation, look at the evidence that has been presented and make the right decision for these children, make the right decision for our culture. I thank the Chair. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to announce that in the last few days I have been working with Representative Canady in the House, with Senator Frist here in the Senate, and with the American Medical Association in trying to work out some changes to H.R. 1122, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which would satisfy some of the concerns that the board at the American Medical Association had with the legislation. I am very pleased to report that we have been able to reach some technical changes with the legislation that has gained the support of the American Medical Association. I will read for the Record and insert into the Record a copy of a letter that was sent to me just a very short time ago from P. John Seward, M.D., executive vice president of the American Medical Association. Dear Senator Santorum: The American Medical Association (AMA) is writing to support HR 1122, ``The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997,'' as amended. Although our general policy is to oppose legislation criminalizing medical practice or procedure, the AMA has supported such legislation where the procedure was narrowly defined and not medically indicated. HR 1122 now meets both those tests. Our support of this legislation is based on three specific principles. First, the bill would allow a legitimiate exception where the life of the mother was endangered, thereby preserving the physician's judgment to take any medically necessary steps to save the life of the mother. Second, the bill would clearly define the prohibited procedure so that it is clear on the face of the legislation what act is to be banned. Finally, the bill would give any accused physician the right to have his or her conduct reviewed by the State Medical Board before a criminal trial commenced. In this manner, the bill would provide a formal role for valuable medical peer determination in any enforcement proceeding. The AMA believes that with these changes, physicians will be on notice as to the exact nature of the prohibited conduct. Thank you for the opportunity to work with you towards restricting a procedure we all agree is not good medicine. Sincerely, P. John Seward, M.D. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 15, 1997, at 2 p.m. on the National Weather Service.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the African Affairs Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 15, 1997, at 10:30 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 15, 1997, at 2 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs would like to request unanimous consent to hold a hearing on sexual harassment in the Department of Veterans Affairs. The hearing will be held on May 15, 1997, at 9:30 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for an oversight hearing on ``SBA's Finance Programs--Part II'' on Thursday, May 15, 1997, which will begin at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a full committee hearing on ``Student Aid Delivery Systems: $320 million Too Much Money for Too Little Accountability?'' during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 15, 1997, at 10 a.m.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 15, for purposes of conducting a joint hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management and the House Resources Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health which is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. The purpose of this Hearing is to receive testimony on the release of the Columbia River Basin Environmental Impact Statement.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 15, 1997, to conduct a hearing to examine the report dealing with U.S. and allied efforts to recover and restore gold and other assets stolen or hidden by Germany during World War II.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 15, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. on spectrum.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of talk over the past several days about the issue of partial-birth abortion, about late-term abortion, about the need to have an option available should a pregnancy go awry, and in describing when a pregnancy goes awry they have described the need to have a health exception in cases where there is a fetal abnormality, where a baby is developing in the womb that is not perfect. Now we have heard all of the horrible accounts of Dr. McMahon performing partial-birth abortions on children because they had cleft palates or other very minor--Down's syndrome, and other minor, or not life-threatening maladies. That, in my mind, is an indefensible defense for a health exception. I found it absolutely astonishing that Members would have gotten up yesterday and talked about the need to have partial-birth abortion as an option to dispose of children who were developing in the womb with a defect. They did so at the same time, the same day, we passed IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the same day that people passionately got up on the floor and argued for the rights of the disabled to be educated, to maximize their human potential, and some 30 Senators who voted for that voted today to wipe out the ban on partial- birth abortion. Now, I find that absolutely incongruous. How can you fight for the rights of the disabled to be educated? How can you fight for the rights of the disabled under the Americans With Disabilities Act, which all of those Members, to my knowledge, those that were here, supported, back in 1990, I believe it was. How can you support that stand and say you care about the disabled, that you want to maximize their potential, that you want to treat them with dignity and give them civil rights, when you will not give them the most basic of civil rights, the right to live in the first place? If you survive the womb, if you survive Roe versus Wade, which allows you to be destroyed because you are not perfect--yes, Roe versus Wade, Doe versus Bolton, allow you to be destroyed because you are not perfect. I know that may click some sort of memory of people who remember what happened across the Atlantic some 50 and 60 years ago, that just because you were not perfect, you were not deserving to live. We have Members, standing here, arguing that we need to be able to have the option of killing a little baby because it is not perfect. They say, oh, that history that happened 50, 60 years ago, could never repeat itself. It cannot happen. Oh, how history tends to repeat itself, even here on the Senate floor. I find it absolutely amazing that people are not shocked by their own words, that they do not understand, as the Bible says, that a house divided against itself, that you cannot stand up on one side and argue for rights of the disabled at the same time saying they do not even have the right to be born in the first place, they are not going to be protected by our Constitution, they are not going to be protected by our laws. I will share with you tonight some stories, stories of people with disabilities, diagnosed in the womb. I will share with you some happy stories, and I will share with you some sad stories. But even in the sad stories you will find a silver lining, a lining that would not be there if it were not for someone who cared enough to treat their child with dignity and respect, cared enough to love them as fully as they loved any one of their other children. You heard me talk earlier today, yesterday, about Donna Joy Watts. One of the cases cited over and over again by people who want to create a health exception in the partial-birth abortion bill is that there are times when a baby's head has excess fluid, cerebral spinal fluid, and it is called hydroencephaly, water on the brain. Donna Joy Watts was one of the babies that was diagnosed with hydroencephaly, and another malady where the brain was actually growing outside of the skull. The doctors diagnosed her condition as fatal and told her mother and father they would have to abort her, and her mother and father said, ``At 7\1/2\ months we are not going to abort our child. Why not give her a chance to live?'' They said, ``no, no, we will not give her a chance to live because she will not live. It is best for you. Trust me, you will feel a lot less pain. You need to just get on with it.'' These were obstetricians, genetics counselors. She had to go four places-- four places--to get someone who would deliver her baby. Any of the four would have aborted her baby, but only one of the four would have delivered her baby. We are reaching the point in this country where it is almost easier to find an abortion than it is to find a doctor to deliver a child that will have complications. The fear of lawsuit, the fear of complications, and the stress associated with it are just creating the impetus to do abortions. Nobody can sue you for doing abortions. You sign a consent form. You give up your rights. You say, ``I won't sue. As long as you kill my child, I will not sue.'' So they don't get sued. No liability there. But if you work with the mother to deliver the child, then if mom believes you didn't tell her everything you should have, you get hit with a wrongful birth suit. In other words, ``My child is better off dead than alive'' kind of suit. What kind of society allows that? What kind of society would say we put in legal doctrine a suit that says my child is better off dead than alive? What a misunderstanding of life. Every child is perfect in the eyes of God; I hope in the eyes of the mother, but we have some to go that way. We have lots of people in the medical profession who certainly do not see it that way, and counsel for abortion. In fact, at every single turn, Donny and Lori Watts were hit with ``abort, abort, abort. Save yourself the trouble.'' She said no and he said no. They finally delivered her. This is what she looked like. It is a little Donna Joy, named after her daddy, Donna Joy. Oh, her little head is not perfect, and she had problems, serious problems. But she was born alive. For 3 days Lori Watts told me the medical professional at the hospital referred to her little baby, who weighed about 7 pounds, as a ``fetus.'' For 3 days after her birth, a ``fetus.'' For 3 days they wouldn't feed this baby because it was going to die. For 3 days they wouldn't drain the water from her head and put a shunt in it because she was going to die. And Donna Joy just wouldn't die. So Lori and Donny decided that they were going to threaten. Lori said in the paper that she would threaten the doctors if they didn't do something. So finally they did. And through a struggle, which I detailed yesterday, which I will not today, but through an incredible struggle of heroism her mom and her dad fed her. She had 30 percent of her brain. You often hear so much about you only use a small percentage of your brain. And if there is one place in the body we don't understand, we don't understand the brain very well. We don't understand how it really works and how it compensates for problems, whether it be by stroke or things like this. But Donna Joy had 30 percent of her brain. She had a deformed medulla oblongata which connects the brain to the spinal cord. She had no medulla oblongata. Her left and right side of the brain were not connected. They didn't talk to each other. She fought and she fought and she fought through incredible difficulties. Today, this is little Donna Joy Watts, who yesterday and today was in my office playing, talking to reporters, writing me notes, playing with my children, coloring books, acting like a little girl, walks with a little bit of a limp. She is a little bit behind for her age. But after eight brain operations and with 30 percent of her brain, she is an amazing story. Her parents were told to have a partial-birth abortion because her head was so large. They wanted to put those scissors in the base of this little girl's skull and kill her. And Lori and Donny said no. They could have taken the easy way out. I can tell you. When Lori told me of the times when she was a little baby of having to feed her, which took an hour and a half because she didn't have the muscles to hold the food in--it would just come right back up, she had no muscular control as a baby. So the food would come right back up. They thought she would die of malnutrition until Lori thought it out. She would put this paste, which was real heavy that would stay in her stomach, but it was drop by drop in the back of her mouth. It took an hour and a half to feed her. She would take an hour- and-a-half break, and another hour and a half to feed her, 24 hours a day, setting the alarm in the middle of the night, getting up to feed her child so the child would not die of malnutrition. It is hard. But little Donna Joy Watts is one of the great stories that ennobles all of us. Had Lori and Donny decided to kill, to let little Donna Joy die by aborting her, our society would be diminished. The inspiration that this little girl and her family has provided ennobles us all, calls us to a greater sense of commitment and love for our children and those who are not so fortunate to be perfect. Another story: This is a story I just got the other day. It is a letter written to me by Sandra and Joseph Mallon from Upper Darby, PA. I will read the story as she writes it to me. Dear Senator Santorum: My name is Sandra Mallon. I live in Upper Darby, PA with my husband, Joe, and our 5 month old daughter, Kathleen. Both Joe and I work outside the home--but Kathleen is the most important thing in our lives. I am writing in reference to the H.R. 872 and S. 5 bill currently being considered. This issue is very near to my heart; and I feel this is a crisis issue that I must discuss. My daughter was diagnosed with hydrocephalus, an abnormal accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid around the brain, at 23 weeks gestation. You may have heard the debate earlier about viability. At 22 weeks' gestation, a baby can survive. About 24 or 25 percent of babies survive outside the womb. At that time we were not given a positive outlook for our little girl. We were told first to abort--but that was out of the question. Then we were told the best case would be to expect a shunt operation and retardation; worse case would be death before or shortly after delivery. We decided to give our child every chance we could. We went to many doctors for the next four months--the news got a little better as the pregnancy went on. Kathleen was born on December 6, 1996--and she is our miracle baby. Though she has hydrocephalus, she is showing no symptoms. One month ago she underwent an operation to place a shunt, a tube which helps the fluid to pass through the brain in a safe and effective way. This is the most widely used treatment for hydrocephalus, and even so, most patients have to have their shunt revised (replaced) several times in their lifetimes. The alternative in most cases is death. Joe and I have many hopes and dreams for Kathleen--but mostly we want her to be a healthy, happy child. We want her to be given every chance in life to experience her world. Right now I want her to be able to play, jump, swim and maybe even ride horses. Unlike most families these every day activities could cause Kathleen to need a shunt revision. This scares me to death!! Right now there is technology and materials to help Kathleen should there be a reason. But if these bills do not pass my child could be in for pain and suffering which would slowly and painfully kill her. Don't let this happen to my Kathleen Marie. Silicone is the only material available which the body does not see or reject to make these lifesaving shunts. I can't stress how important this issue is to me and my family. Besides our immediate need to know Kathleen can continue to grow up as any other child. But the silicone is also used in many other biomedical devices (i.e. ear tubes, and pacemakers). So the S5 in the Senate and HR872 in the House would seek to control my access to raw material for shunts. I understand there are other issues wrapped up in the bill, and I believe personally that Product Liability and Tort Reform are important measures. If S5 and HR872 are not passed, it is a certain death sentence for Kathleen and every other person affected by hydrocephalus. I ask you to look at the picture of Kathleen. Tell me that you will help her. Don't wait too long Senator, people will die. I am looking forward to your response to this issue of life and death importance to me and my family. These are two wonderful stories of children who would not be termed ``viable,'' could be aborted late-term because it was a medical complication, and these children were deformed. This is the kind of health exception that many want to allow so we can kill children just like this. But we know there is another way, a way suggested by even people who perform abortions like the doctor at the Medical College of Pennsylvania who says that after 23 weeks, the second or third trimester, it is not necessary to kill a baby. It may be necessary to separate the mother from the child. But it is never necessary to kill a baby, even one that has an abnormality. In fact, doctors have told me they are not aware of any abnormality in and of itself that is a threat to the woman's health or life that cannot be remedied by a separation--not an abortion, not the deliberate killing of the baby, but by separation. In fact, most abnormalities don't require separation. You can deliver later in term, at term. Not all stories end as happily. I want to share some stories with you of people that went through very tough decisions, and some that, frankly, didn't have very tough decisions but went through heartaches when it came to a child who had a problem in the womb. Let me first share the story of Jeannie French. Jeannie has been very outspoken. I shared her story last year, but it bears repeating. My name is Jeannie Wallace French. I am a 34 year old healthcare professional who holds a masters degree in public health. I am a diplomat of the American College of Healthcare Executives, and a member of the Chicago Health Executives Forum. In the spring of 1993, my husband Paul and I were delighted to learn that we would be parents of twins. The pregnancy was the answer to many prayers and we excitedly prepared for our babies. In June, five months into the pregnancy, doctors confirmed that one of the twins, our daughter Mary, was suffering from occipital encephalocele--a condition in which the majority of the brain develops outside of the skull. As she grew, sonograms revealed the progression of tissue maturing in the sack protruding from Mary's head. We were devastated. Mary's prognosis for life was slim, and her chance for normal development non-existent. Additionally, if Mary died in utero, it would threaten the life of her brother, Will. Doctors recommended aborting Mary. But my husband and I felt that our baby girl was a member of our family, regardless of how ``imperfect'' she might be. We felt she was entitled to her God-given right to live her life, however short or difficult it might be, and if she was to leave this life, to leave peacefully. When we learned our daughter could not survive normal labor, we decided to go through with a cesarean delivery. Mary and her healthy brother Will were born a minute apart on December 13, 1993. Little Will let out a hearty cry and was moved to the nursery. Our quiet little Mary remained with us, cradled in my Paul's arms. Six hours later, wrapped in her delivery blanket, Mary Bernadette French slipped peacefully away. Blessedly, our story does not end there. Three days after Mary died, on the day of her interment at the cemetery, Paul and I were notified that Mary's heart valves were a match for two Chicago infants in critical condition. We have learned that even anacephalic and meningomyelocele children like our Mary can give life, sight or strength to others. Her ability to save the lives of two other children proved to others that her life had value--far beyond what any of us could every have imagined. Mary's life lasted a total of 37 weeks 3 days and 6 hours. In effect, like a small percentage of children conceived in our country every year, Mary was born dying. What can partial birth abortion possibly do for children like Mary? This procedure is intended to hasten a dying baby's death. We do not need to help a dying child die. Not one moment of grief is circumvented by this procedure. In Mary's memory, as a voice for severely disabled children now growing in the comfort of their mother's wombs, and for the parents whose dying children are relying on the donation of organs from other babies, I make this plea: Some children by their nature cannot live. If we are to call ourselves a civilized culture, we must allow that their deaths be natural, peaceful, and painless. And if other preborn children face a life of disability, let us welcome them into this society, with arms open in love. Who could possible need us more? I will now share a more personal story. A comment was made in this Chamber on several occasions in the last debate and unfortunately again in this debate that Members who speak on this issue have no right to speak on this issue because they cannot experience what the women who stood with President Clinton when he vetoed this bill experienced. Well, that is not true. I will read from an article I wrote about what happened to me and my wife and our family. On September 26, 1996, the Senate voted to sustain President Clinton's veto of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. I led the fight to override the veto on the floor of the Senate. Central to the debate was the assertion by opponents of the ban that this procedure was necessary later in pregnancy in cases when a severe fetal defect was discovered. I was told that I could not understand what these women, who experienced this procedure, had gone through. ``It had never touched your life,'' one Senator said. This is a story of how just one week after that vote, it did. We had been through the joyous routine before--the technician would turn out the lights, spread gel on Karen's growing mid-section, and then right there on the screen in front of our eyes we would get the first glimpse of our baby--a fuzzy, black and white picture that told us all was well. This time, however, was different. Sitting in the darkened room, listening to the background buzz of the machine, we saw a large, dark circle on the screen, and we saw the technician's demeanor change. Everything seemed fine--arms, legs, head, spine--but the woman with the instrument was strangely quiet, examining and re-examining the dark circle. We had brought along our three children, ages 5, 3, and 1-- Elizabeth, Johnny, and Daniel--to this appointment because we wanted them to be able to have a glimpse into the still, perfect world of their unborn baby brother. We now feared that they might get a glimpse into something else. The technician left, giving way to a doctor who repeated the earlier routine, mumbling something about a ``bladder.'' Finally, we were coldly given the verdict: ``Your child has a fatal defect and is going to die.'' It's not that the world stopped, nor that it moved in slow motion, it was just that the world had changed. Suddenly, our child whom we loved, prayed for, dreamed about, and longed to meet was diagnosed with a life threatening condition. Through our tears erupted the most basic of all parental instincts and emotions--we were going to save our child. After the initial shock, I took the kids out into the hallway to the phone and called Dr. Scott Adzick. Six months earlier, I had gone to Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and seen a world I never knew existed--a world of Dr. Adzick's creation--a world of surgery and care for children still in their mother's womb. I remembered his amazing skill and how I sensed an aura of peace and a certainty of purpose surrounding his mission. I frantically described what had transpired and asked if he could help. Before he peppered me with questions, he calmly reassured me that all was not lost. He had seen cases like this before and knew immediately that it had to be post- urethral valve syndrome. Scott's principal concern had to do with the absence of fluid in the amniotic sac. What he told us failed to lift our hopes. The absence of fluid meant that the baby likely had a complete obstruction of the urinary tract--in short, a very rare, severe, and extremely problematic condition. Not typically understood is that the element comprising the amniotic fluid encompassing the baby during development is the baby's urine. The fluid not only provides a barrier of protection from outside trauma, but it is necessary in the development of the baby's lungs. Without it its lungs would not develop enough for him to survive outside the womb. In addition, the baby's enlarged bladder would so compress the internal organs--particularly the kidneys--that they would cease to function. Kidney failure would mean near- certain death shortly after birth. Dr. Adzick arranged for tests to be done the next day in Philadelphia at Pennsylvania Hospital. The initial results did not look good. Seated in front of our second sonogram machine in as many days, Dr. Adzick and Dr. Alan Donnefeld described our son's kidneys as not positive. Dr. Adzick told us that though he, too, was discouraged, there were one or two occasions where he had seen bad kidneys have sufficient levels of function, enabling a baby to survive until a transplant soon after birth. We adjourned to a supply room next to the treatment area. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss options. Dr. Donnenfeld took the lead, saying that things were grave, and presenting us with three options. ``Your first option is to terminate the pregnancy.'' As the word pregnancy left his lips the room instantly went dark. The doctor quickly reached up and turned on the light that was on a timer. Through nervous and awkward laughter I said, ``I guess that answers your question.'' We knew that abortion was a legal option, it just wasn't a sane one. It was inconceivable to us as parents to kill our baby because he wasn't perfect or because he might not live a long life. While we couldn't look into his eyes or hold him in our arms, he was no less our child than our other three children. And we loved him every bit as much. He was our gift from God from the moment we found out Karen was pregnant. In our mind, from that time on our job as parents of this tiny life was to do everything we could to nurture him through life. Karen and I have this saying, ``life is about being there,'' and this was our chance to be there for our baby. The second option was to do nothing. In this case our son would live only as long as he was in the womb. While in the womb our baby's lungs and kidneys were not necessary for him to survive--Karen was performing those functions for him. There was no increased threat to Karen as a result of his defect. The third option would entail several tests and testaments that could put Karen at risk. Karen's immediate response was to do whatever it took to save our son, no matter what the risk to her. Our son went through two days of tests to determine kidney function. If there was very poor or no kidney function there would be no point in proceeding further--he would not develop enough in the womb to survive outside. The first day the results were so bad that we discussed whether it was worth going through a second painful day of tests for Karen. Dr. Adzick said we needed a miracle to get those kidneys to work better. We prayed more than I can remember for our son, who we named that day Gabriel Michael, after the great archangels. The next day our prayers were answered with a miraculous improvement; the chances for success were not just okay, but kidney function very good. We could now do the surgery that would save his life. For both of us, this crisis was not so much a ``faith check'' as it was a time of reassurance. No matter what happened, we knew that God held us--and held Gabriel Michael--in his hands. What that knowledge there is a peace beyond human understanding. The bladder shunt procedure, to drain the urine into the amniotic sac in an effort to create the proper fluid environment for Gabriel, was scheduled for Tuesday with Dr. Bud Wiener at Pennsylvania Hospital. Dr. Wiener had done more of these procedures than anyone else on the east coast and had pioneered the plastic tube that would be used to drain the urine. Next came the surgery. The idea that surgery on a child in only its 20th week of life inside the womb could work boggles the mind. And watching Dr. Weiner at work was something to behold. He guided the shunt into place, though more slowly than he would have liked, but it was a success. As we left the hospital, we worried about whether the shunt had worked, and whether the longer than usual procedure might have put Karen more at risk. Two days later, Karen began feeling both chills and cramping--the cramping was the beginning of labor and the chills were a sign of an infection in her womb. Our worst fears had become a reality. Hoping desperately that it was food poisoning or the flu, Karen fought desperately to hold it all together. A call to the doctor was met with an order to rush to the hospital. We were in Pittsburgh at home. There another doctor performed another sonogram. What we saw was perhaps the single worst and single best things of our lives. The fuzzy picture on the screen showed an active baby--arms and legs moving freely in a sac of amniotic fluid. But the infection persisted. Karen was seized with horrible chills. Huddled under nearly a dozen blankets her body temperature soared to 105. By this point there was little that could be done. Intra-uterine infections are untreatable as long as the source of the infection--the amniotic sac--is in place. Unless the sac and thereby the baby were delivered, Karen would eventually die, and Gabriel Michael with her. Here again the doctors told us that abortion was a legal option, but we knew there was another way. This way gave our son the love and respect he deserved and to Karen and me the gift of a precious few hours with our son. Karen was given an antibiotic which reduced the fever and made her comfortable. She clung to the baby with all her might, but nature was relentless. Soon the labor intensified--the body had identified the source of the infection. She did everything she could to delay the inevitable. I tried calling everyone I knew to see if there was something else that could be done. There was no answer to be found. I thanked God for the presence of Karen's father, Dr. Ken Garver, a physician whose specialty is in genetics counseling, prenatal diagnosis of birth defects, and Monsignor Bill Kerr who helped guide us through this time. We knew the end was near so we tried to pack a lifetime of love into those few hours. I put my hands on Karen's abdomen--we prayed and we cried. We also talked to Gabriel to let him know how much we loved him--how much we will miss him, how much we will miss mothering and fathering him and how his brothers and sister will miss his presence. Within hours of 12:45, our son was born. He was a beautiful creation--a small, pink, package of joy and sorrow, hope and questions. We bundled him up, put a little hat on his head, we held him, sang to him, cried for him. He was too small to make a sound but he spoke so powerfully to our hearts. His eyes never opened to see his mommy and daddy, but he allowed us to see, in him, the face of God. Two hours later, he died in my arms. We tried to make Gabriel's short life, short time on Earth, filled with love, only love. And we told him that soon he would be experiencing something that we are striving for. God would be bringing him to be with Him in heaven. Finally, we pledged to him that we would rededicate ourselves to joining him someday. The next days were no less of a blur than the ones that led up to them. We buried our son later that day, next to other members of our family, and we prayed to God to give us understanding. This is our story, the irony finding ourselves confronted with a baby with a fetal defect when only the few days before, the absence of such had disqualified me from the debate on partial-birth abortion. It was in the eyes of many truly overwhelming. On two occasions we, too, could have chosen the option to abort. We knew that Gabriel's life would probably be measured in minutes and hours, not in years and decades. We chose to let Gabriel live and die in the fullness of time--being held and loved and nurtured by two parents who loved him dearly. We wouldn't have traded those 2 hours with our son for anything in the world. And we know he wouldn't have either. In the midst of the debate that fall, disgusted by and worried about the gruesome descriptions of abortion, one of the Senators said that a medical procedure was bloody and that it was just the nature of the event. The Washington Post described what happened next: Republican Senator Rick Santorum turned to face the opposition and, in a high, pleading voice, cried out, ``Where do we draw the line? Some people have likened this procedure to an appendectomy. That's not an appendix,'' he shouted, pointing to a drawing of a fetus. ``This is not a blob of tissue. It's a baby. It's a baby.'' And then, impossibly, in an already hushed gallery, in one of those moments when the floor of the Senate looks like a stage set, with its small wooden desks somehow too small for the matters at hand, the cry of a baby pierced the room, echoing across the chamber from an outside hallway. No one mentioned the cry. But for a few seconds no one spoke at all. Maybe it was a freak occurrence. It was a baby, a visitor's baby that was crying in the hallway as the door to the floor opened and a few seconds later closed. A freak occurrence, perhaps, or maybe a cry from a son whose voice we never heard but whose life has changed ours forever. Mr. President, I am using the words of my wife: Accepting partial-birth abortion as our only alternative to a difficult birth or a potentially disabled infant is to thwart two of our strongest human impulses: the impulse of love and the impulse of memory. All of us are united by our need to love and by our need to remember and be remembered. Giving life to and caring for a sick infant--for however brief a period--allows us to express these uniquely human impulses. Rick and I were blessed with the time to offer the fullness of our love to our baby, and we have the peace of knowing that he felt that love. Gabriel Michael joined our family forever. He has not been obliterated. Gabriel was known and will always be remembered. His memory will live with us forever. I believe that every human being should be remembered by somebody. Memory helps to anchor us to each other; it locates us not only within a certain time and place, but within a family and within a community. It is one of the measures of the value we place on each other. And the tragedy of infants who are destroyed and forgotten should haunt us all. There is another way. You heard me quoting doctors all day about the other way, that there is no need to kill a baby. You may need to separate the mother from the baby, but there is no need to kill the baby. I do know that. I have experienced that. And I, as I said, would not trade one moment, one second. What we are debating here is infanticide, not abortion. We should have the moral courage to stop infanticide in the U.S. Senate. We should be able to muster up enough support out around America to send a message, loud and clear, to every Member in this Senate, that we will not stand for it any longer. The children who are victims of partial-birth abortion are not here to speak for themselves. So we must do that. And so I ask you on their behalf that you don't subject anyone else in America to this procedure. I plead with you on their behalf to stop the murder. I ask the President to look into his heart and see if he can't understand and feel the disruption that this procedure is causing to our culture and to our civilization. I ask every Member of the Senate to do the same. I think, if you do, the decision will be easy. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM

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