Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, several comments have been made about what the minority leader's legislation attempts to do, postviability abortions, and that ours doesn't do that. That is correct. That was never the intention of the bill. What our bill does is stop the infanticide. We have had a change in the debate here. We have had a debate about the late-term abortion. But what we have been debating--maybe the other side didn't realize it--here is stopping the killing of children, ``infanticide.'' That is not my word. The Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, says this looks like infanticide. This baby is outside of the mother, a fully formed little baby. That is what this debate is about. We have gotten off track here a little bit and tried to talk about late-term abortions and trying to define it. I think you heard the Senator from Tennessee define how this doesn't do anything. But that is one. The Senator from South Dakota said you have the same procedures, as far as doctors determining life of the mother in partial-birth abortions. The difference is there is no certification procedure in the partial- birth abortion--none. By giving a certification procedure in your bill, you raise that as a standard that is dispositive. We do not do that in this bill. We leave that up to a judge and a jury. In the case of the Daschle bill, as I said before, the executioner is the judge and the jury. In our bill, that is not the case. So there is a substantive difference in how we deal with this. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Tennessee. I hope that we have opposition to the Daschle amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on or in relation to the Daschle amendment at 7 p.m. and that the time between now and then be equally divided between Senators Santorum and Daschle.

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from New Hampshire who, I might add, while we have had many speakers come to support this partial-birth abortion legislation--this time in effect we have 42 cosponsors on this legislation--when the bill first came to the U.S. Senate, Senator Smith, and, frankly, Senator Smith alone, was standing, debating this issue and defending this position. He was a crusader and someone who stood out when few were willing to speak up. And he is truly the champion of this legislation. It is an honor to yield whatever time he would like to talk about it.

Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator is yielded such time as he may consume.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, a couple of comments before I yield to the Senator from Arkansas. I want to repeat what was stated by George Will in a column talking about the Daschle amendment. He said, ``The Daschle amendment is a law that is impossible to violate.'' All these things sound really wonderful. We have these real tough definitions; real tough except for the fact that you can't violate the law because you are giving all of the authority to the doctor to determine whether he breaks the law, or she breaks the law. Wouldn't you love to have a law where you are the self-enforcer of the law? You have to call it yourself because, once you sign that certification, it is a conclusion. You cannot be second-guessed. What doctor is going to say, ``Oh. I aborted this baby, and it would have been viable''? First of all, no second-trimester baby is ever going to be viable by any doctor doing an abortion. They just won't because there is still a percentage that aren't, and they will just say, ``It is not viable.'' They will sign a certification saying it is not viable. Next, they will sign it saying there is a health problem. Like Dr. Hern said, you can't get away from the fact that the people who are doing these abortions-- most of the folks who do them--do them for a living. They are not going to call it on themselves--that there really wasn't a health exception. They are not going to say, ``That is the reason I did this. I did this abortion wrong.'' What we have here instead of a judge, jury, and executioner is executioner, judge, and jury. As far as I am concerned, George Will is absolutely right. This is a law that cannot be violated. As tough as all of this sounds, as persuasive as some of his arguments that they really care about limiting abortions, it will not stop one abortion. At least what the underlying bill does is outlaw a procedure that is so far outside of what our country should permit, and at least take the step in the right direction of providing some sense of humanity to those little children. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for his excellent statement and for his tremendous defense of the unborn, particularly on this particular issue. He has been a partner in providing information to Senators on the facts, the real facts of what has gone on here on the issue of partial-birth abortion. I want to address a couple of things the Senators from California talked about in closing my remarks. The Senator from California said that conditions could differ; that there is always a chance that something could happen. I will just refer again to the quote from over about 500 physicians, including many people who deal in the area of maternal fetal medicine, perinatology, people who deal with high-risk pregnancies. The experts-- we hear so much about we are not the experts. I am not the expert. I am talking about the people who are the experts. This is what the experts say. They don't equivocate. Senator Frist read from the head of obstetrics at Vanderbilt University, one of the most prestigious universities in our country. He agrees with this comment: While it may become necessary, in the second or third trimester, to end a pregnancy in order to protect the mother's life or health, abortion is never required--i.e., it 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 or third trimester, and certainly not by mostly delivering the child before putting him or her to death. What is required in the circumstances specified by Senator Daschle-- Boxer-Feinstein-- is separation of the child from the mother, not the death of the child. It is never necessary. According to doctors, not Rick Santorum, according to doctors who practice in this speciality, hundreds of them, it is not necessary, you don't have to kill the child. Let's use your own common sense. Use our own common sense. Here is this procedure. You have dilated the cervix over 2 days, you brought the baby into position feet first, you have taken it out of the womb, you have taken it out of the uterus, out of the birth canal, the baby is completely out of the mother's uterus, birth canal, except the head. Tell me what health reason of the mother requires you to kill this baby? These babies are very small. You can see the hands of the physician compared to the size of this baby. This baby can fit in the palm of your hand. Why do you have to kill this baby? There is no reason, as these doctors just said, that you cannot at least give this baby some chance, some chance of living. Why? In fact, the argument is made by several doctors who have written me that by puncturing the base of the skull like that in a blind procedure--you cannot see the area where you are inserting these scissors--that you risk, obviously, missing, causing damage, you risk--and this is graphic, but it, again, was written to me by several physicians--the splintering of the skull can cause problems. I know this is graphic stuff, but this is reality. This is what they want to keep legal, and they believe that this protects the woman's health. I guarantee you this does not protect the woman's health. There is no reason at this point to kill this baby, but they insist upon having that choice. This is the choice right here. It is not a choice. It doesn't have to be a choice. It is not me saying it doesn't have to be a choice, it is doctor after doctor, specialist after specialist saying it doesn't have to be a choice. Their legislation pretends to bar third-trimester abortions, postviability abortions with a narrow health exception, they suggest. What they say is that it comports with Roe versus Wade. We know what Roe versus Wade and Doe versus Bolton say that health is anything-- mental health, depression, the mother is young. Those are all reasons approved by the courts to allow an abortion any time--any time--for any reason. Those are all legitimate health reasons. They continue to be health reasons. They say we don't want elective abortions. Let me tell you what Dr. Warren Hern said--again, Dr. Warren M. Hern, author of ``Abortion Practice,'' what I am told is the definitive textbook on abortions who does second- and third-trimester abortions, said it yesterday in the Bergen County Record, and I will repeat it: I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman's life and could cause grievous injury to her physical health. The Boxer-Feinstein amendment does not say anything about physical health. This is the Daschle amendment he is referring to, which also does not do anything. But there is never a case, according to Dr. Hern, where he cannot do an abortion and claim physical health. He says it again, just in case he was misquoted, in today's USA Today: I say every pregnancy carries a risk of death. What this amendment does is nothing. If you want to stop partial- birth abortions, vote against the Boxer-Feinstein amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I see a lot of Members here and I will keep my remarks brief in order to give them an opportunity to speak. But I, too, just want to get in a couple of points in response, and a comment. First the comment. That is, I very much appreciate what the Senator from South Dakota has stated. I respect his opinion. I respect the fact that he is trying to make an effort to deal with a very serious issue, and that is abortion in this country, moving toward making it much more rare. Certainly, I do not doubt his intentions at all. I know this is an issue that not only he is struggling with, on the issue of partial- birth abortion, but other Members who I have talked to and who I have heard from directly and indirectly. This has been an issue that has been a very difficult issue for people to deal with. We are looking for answers and looking for different ways. I respect the effort of the Senator from South Dakota to do what he believes is right. I hope, and I would just offer this--while I do not agree in the assessment of the Senator from South Dakota as to what his bill does, we have an honest disagreement on that. And I think it is one. I think it is simply a disagreement on what he believes his bill does. He believes it does some things. I will argue as to why I don't think it does what he says it does. Two people can reasonably disagree on that. And we will have that debate here today at length. I will say that I certainly am open to working with the Senator from South Dakota, and anybody else in this Chamber, after this day is done and this issue is behind us, and hopefully it will be behind us soon, to look at other ways that we can get at these very, very prickly issues. We can do it in a way that can be bipartisan. The people who are generally concerned about unborn children--I know the Senator from South Dakota is. So I just want to start, having said that, and just address the two points which I see are the flaws in his legislation, as well-intentioned as I believe it is. The Senator from South Dakota referred over and over again to how these different procedures that are not banned by the partial-birth abortion ban, H.R. 1122--he kept saying this is no ban, this is no ban. I suggest, as carefully as the Senator tried to construct this amendment, that in fact his bill is no ban either. It allows for two determinations to be made, two issues to be left to the discretion of the doctor, which creates the loophole by which not one single abortion will be banned under this procedure. I do not say that lightly. I say that with the very strong conviction that what will happen as a result, if this bill were to become law and signed by the President, there would not be one less abortion done in this country. There would not be one abortion banned in this country. The reason I say that--and I will talk about two particular areas. I will be brief. I will get into this in more detail later, because I know there are people who want to speak. I am going to be here. They have things to do. I will talk first about the health exception. I showed the quote today from Dr. Warren Hern. Again, Dr. Hern is an authority on abortion procedures and techniques. He has written ``Abortion Practice,'' Warren M. Hern. This is the definitive textbook on teaching abortion. He does second- and third-trimester abortions. He does them from all over the world. He instructs doctors through his book and directly on abortion practice. This is what Dr. Hern said yesterday to the Bergen County Record: I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman's life and could cause grievous injury to her physical health. Dr. Hern, who does second- and third-trimester abortions, was commenting on the Daschle amendment. This is one of the leading people in this field. I just suggest that Dr. Hern, while I could not disagree more with what Dr. Hern says, the fact of the matter is that he can stand there and, in good conscience, say that to not only the Bergen County Record, but to USA Today--he repeated the statement in case there is no validity to the original statement, a different quote, similar in nature--that any pregnancy could be a threat and could cause grievous injury--I know this is the language the press keeps honing in on, ``grievous injury'' to physical health. Here it is. I have a lot of other things I am going to say about health and why the health exception, as drafted in this amendment, is a very broad loophole and will not restrict abortions. The fact that the doctor is the one to certify, what does that mean? That is pretty much current law. The doctor certifies when there is a health reason to do an abortion, and we say we are going to ban these, but the doctors determine when there is an exception. I use the example of recently in the Congress, we banned assault weapons. We said we were going to make assault weapons illegal, but we are going to give the person selling the gun the ability to determine what an assault weapon is. That is what we have done with the Daschle amendment. It has given the person performing the abortion certification dispositive, conclusive authority to determine what is a health reason. I agree that is what Roe versus Wade says, but the fact that the Daschle amendment parrots that shows that there will be no change in the way doctors view this issue. There will be no change. The second issue is the issue of viability, and I think Senator Daschle points up very accurately the progress we have made since Roe versus Wade in the area of viability, but, again, the only way you can for sure determine whether a child is viable is to try to save the child. There is no way that a doctor can look into the womb of a mother and say this child will survive and this one will not. You cannot do it. They might have guesses, but we have cases of children surviving at 22 weeks, 21 weeks, not many, very few, maybe only singular cases. But how do we know unless we deliver the baby alive, and births after 20 weeks are almost certainly alive if you deliver the baby without doing anything to it. The heart is beating. Unfortunately, they gasp for breath. They will be alive, but you never know whether they are going to survive until you try. So to suggest that the doctor can then define viability by knowing in advance whether this baby is going to survive, you cannot do that. What you end up doing is, again, leaving the doctor absolute discretion, even at times--I think we are now up to the point at 26 weeks you are into roughly 80 percent survival, but you can still say, ``Twenty percent don't survive, and I make a determination this is one of the 20 percent.'' It is a reasonable judgment call. There is no way you can second-guess it, because there is no way to know for sure. You have, literally, up until 26, 27--you can go on, there is not 100-percent certainty survival of viability until well into pregnancy, until maybe even in the 35th week where you have 100-percent chance. So the doctors can always say, ``This was one and I certify it, it is conclusive, it is dispositive,'' as it is under Roe versus Wade. I am not saying he is changing current law, but by applying current law, codifying current law, he accepts the exception to the overall ban which nullifies the ban, and so what we have is a ban that does not do anything. Again, I say to the Senator from South Dakota, I appreciate the effort he put behind trying to address this issue, but it does not accomplish what was intended. I feel bad about it. I wish I could stand up here and say this is something that is going to make a positive impact. Look, if I felt that this was going to do something to stop children from being aborted, I would sign up right now, but I don't believe that it will. I am willing to work in the future if we can come up with something that will save children's lives, count me in. I will say that I was not approached on this compromise. I was not asked for my input as the sponsor of the bill that is on the floor. That is the prerogative of the people who drafted the amendment. That is certainly within the realm of Hoyle around here. But if we truly want to reach out and try to work on something across the chasm, which unfortunately is a chasm that has been breached somewhat on the issue of partial-birth abortion, I am happy to say that maybe as a result of partial-birth abortion, we are beginning to see that there are real problems out there, even those who support abortion rights. So I hope, while I have to stand and speak against this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against this, because not only does the Daschle amendment create a ban that has no limits to it, there is no ban, the Daschle amendment wipes out the partial-birth abortion ban. So it wipes out the underlying legislation. In a sense, whoever votes for Daschle votes against banning partial-birth abortions because under the Daschle amendment, not one partial-birth abortion will stop. Not one. So if you vote for this amendment, you vote against the underlying bill and replace it with something that, as well-intentioned as it may be, does nothing to limit late-term abortions, the fifth, sixth month and beyond. I had to rise in opposition. I respect the Senator from South Dakota. I look forward to engaging further in this debate. I yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield the Senator from California 25 seconds.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I have shown this picture. This is a real picture, a real person, and there are other real persons who have been through this threat of partial-birth abortion and survived it and made the choice of life. This is not a hypothetical situation; it is a real situation. I suggest to the Senator from Illinois that the question I ask--I asked a question. I asked a question. I did not make a statement. I asked whether a child, to be delivered, would it be up to the doctor and mother to kill the child? The difference is a matter of 3 inches, and you have affirmed that 3 inches makes the difference as to whether that child is protected or not protected, and I think that is a very, very close line that you are drawing, one that is, I think, very destructive of our culture. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. SANTORUM. I want to clarify a point. Dr. Haskell, who developed this procedure, testified that the drawings were accurate, and I am quoting him, ``from a technical point of view.'' So these drawings are not cartoons. They are accurate drawings of a procedure that Dr. Haskell has invented. The point I am trying to make, and I think she answered the question, and I think she answered it correctly, and that is if the child was delivered, completely delivered, you would not be able to kill the child. The point I am trying to make, look how close we are drawing this line, a matter of a few inches of a baby's skull. Those 3 inches determine whether you can live or die. Is that really what we want in our society? Is that really the standard that we want to develop as to when life is worth living, or life should or should not be protected?

Mr. SANTORUM. So you are saying the difference between being able to kill a child and not kill a child is the distance of the child's head? That is the difference?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, before I yield to the Senator from Iowa, I have a question for the Senator from Illinois, a question I asked in previous debate, and I will ask again. That is, during the process of partial-birth abortions, if the baby that is being brought out in this fashion would for some reason have its head slip out because all that is left inside of the mother is a very small head, if that head would slip out, would it still be up to the doctor and the mother to kill the child?

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.

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

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

Mr. SANTORUM. There are great pains out there when you are dealing with a child that is not going to live. It hurts. And it is troubling. But you will find, not only from my experience but from the experience of doctors who deal with this all the time, that treating your son or daughter with dignity, loving them as much as you can for as long as you can--does not make the pain go away. It never goes away. When you lose a child it never, ever goes away. But it helps you live with it. What we are doing today is, hopefully, banning a procedure and explaining to all of those unfortunate people who may be dealing today, right now, with this situation, that there is a better way for everyone. Let us do the better way. Let us do the right thing. Let us do the just thing for everyone. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM. I will do a unanimous-consent request and then be happy to let the Senator from Massachusetts speak.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Steven Schlesinger, a detailee on the Judiciary Committee, and Michelle Kitchen, a member of my staff, be permitted privileges of the floor for the duration of the debate.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use. Mr. President, there are so many things I would like to say, but let me just start with one at a time, and that is the pictures the Senator from California put up here of women who have been in situations where they were faced with a fetal abnormality and were convinced, unfortunately, by some genetics counselors and others to have an abortion as their option. Let me show you a picture of someone who wasn't convinced by genetics counselors that that was her only option. That is Donna Joy Watts. I talked about her yesterday. She had the same condition as two of the women that Senator Boxer just described--same condition. Her mother had to go to four hospitals to find someone who would not do what the people that Senator Boxer just talked about did, which is terminate the pregnancy, abort the child. She said no. She says, I'm going to let my child live in the fullness of what God has planned for her. I am not going to end her life. I am not going to make the decision to end her life, like any other mother or father would not, if they were faced with a sick child, kill them. Why would you kill your child? Because your child is sick? Because your child might not live long? Why kill your child? Lori Watts and Donny Watts said, no, we are not going to kill our child. We are going to do what we can. We are going to treat her with dignity and respect like any other member of our family. We are going to love her and do everything we can to support her. So they delivered Donna Joy Watts. The doctors would not treat her. They said she was going to die. They would not even feed her for 3 days. You want to talk about all these doctors who are so concerned about saving lives. Then why are we debating physician-assisted suicide if all these doctors are so concerned about saving lives? People who perform abortions are not principally concerned about saving lives. They are worried about malpractice concerns, particularly if you have a difficult pregnancy. They are worried about a whole lot of other things. But I would suggest, unfortunately, there are too many--if there is one, there is too many--doctors out there who--after she was born, doctors were referring to Donna Joy as a fetus laying there alive, breathing--a fetus. So do not tell me, do not tell me that all these caring, compassionate doctors would, of course, do everything to save a child's life. It is not true. God, I wish it were true. And, unfortunately, bad advice is given out by people who either do not know, have not taken the time to understand what options are available, what technology has been developed, or do not care or just are afraid to deal with the problem. Mr. and Mrs. Watts had to go to four hospitals just to find a place to have her delivered. They would not deliver her. They would abort her. They would do a partial-birth abortion. In fact, they offered a partial-birth abortion, but they would not deliver her. So do not bring your pictures up here and claim that is the only choice. This is not a choice. These are little babies. And they are asking us to help them now. This is not Senator Rick Santorum, nonphysician, speaking. Over 400 obstetricians and gynecologists--and by the way, the person who designed this barbaric procedure that we are debating was not an obstetrician. You hear so much about all these experts. He was not an expert. He is a family practitioner who does abortions, and you can only question as to why he spends all his time doing abortions instead of taking care of families. But that is what he does. He does abortions. This is not taught in any medical school. It is not in any peer review literature. It is not done anywhere but abortion places. It is not done in hospitals that deal with high-risk pregnancies. Ask the question. I will ask it. Can you find a place that deals with high-risk pregnancies that has perinatologists at their unit that does partial- birth abortions? The answer is no, zero. No hospitals do this procedure. If this is a procedure that was so important to be kept alive and so important to be an option, then why don't the experts, the people who study high-risk pregnancies, perform this? If this was the best choice--and the Senator from California suggested that in fact would be the only choice in certain cases. Yesterday, she listed five conditions in which this would be the only choice. Now, if you are a perinatologist, someone who deals in late-term pregnancies, and you are not performing this--you are basically telling the perinatologists that they are doing malpractice because they are not doing this procedure. Let me talk to you about one perinatologist who wrote to me. This is Dr. Steve Calvin, assistant professor, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Minnesota in Minneapolis: As a specialist in Maternal-Fetal Medicine, I practice with the busiest group of perinatologists-- That is obstetricians who work on high-risk pregnancies and deal with these fetal problems-- in the upper midwest. The busiest group of perinatologists in the upper Midwest. I also teach obstetrics to medical students and residents. I know of no instances when the killing of a partially born baby was necessary to accomplish delivery in any of the five medical situations listed by Senator Feinstein. Senator Feinstein claims that partial-birth abortion is necessary to end a pregnancy in the following five situations: Fetal hydrocephaly, fetal arthrogryposis, maternal cardiac problems (including congestive heart failure), maternal kidney disease and severe maternal hypertension. The first two conditions are significant fetal problems. Hydrocephalus-- And that is exactly, by the way, what Donna Joy Watts had-- is an increased amount of cerebrospinal fluid that can cause enlargement of the head and arthrogryposis includes deformities of the fetal limbs and spine. Significant as these abnormalities may be, they do not require the killing of a partially born fetus. Delivery can be accomplished by other means that are safer for the mother-- I repeat, ``safer for the mother''-- and give the fetus at least a chance of survival. And, I might add, apart from this, some dignity, some dignity to one of our children, one of our humankind, in the case of the family, one of their family. The other three conditions are maternal illnesses that may indeed require ending the pregnancy. But, as with the fetal problems, there is no reason that the treatment must include suctioning out the brain of a partially born baby. One of my biggest concerns is that the opponents of this ban are claiming that this destructive procedure is the only method of ending a pregnancy. Abortion supporters have previously acknowledged that surgical mid-trimester and late- term abortions are more dangerous to a woman's health than induction of labor. Let me read this again. Abortion supporters have previously acknowledged that surgical mid-trimester and late-term abortions are more dangerous to a woman's health than induction of labor. Their concern for women's health and safety apparently ends when there is any threat to unrestricted abortion. Signed Steve Calvin, MD. And I will put up this quote from 400 doctors, over 400 doctors, including the former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop. I suggest these over 400 doctors, many of them members of ACOG, which is American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, also are concerned about maternal health. Many of these are perinatologists, people who specialize in high-risk pregnancies. I would think they would be concerned about maternal health. Many of these doctors are pro-choice and they said the following clearly. While it may become necessary, in the second or third trimester, to end a pregnancy in order to protect the mother's life or health, abortion is never required. Now, they did not say it should be an option. They said never. These are experts. Senator Boxer says, well, Rick Santorum should not be in the operating room. I would not want to be in the operating room. I would pass out if I was in the operating room. The fact of the matter is I am not going to be in the operating room. These folks are. This is what they say. ``Never,'' not sometimes, ``never required.'' It 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 or third trimester, and certainly-- Underline certainly-- not by mostly delivering the child before putting him or her to death. This last line is very important. What is required in the circumstances specified by Senator Daschle [Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein] is separation of the child from the mother, not the death of the child. In other words, there may be cases where you must separate the child from the mother, you must deliver the baby, either by induction and delivery, vaginally or by cesarean section, but in no case, according to a doctor--and I ask if you can produce one perinatologist who would say that it is necessary, absolutely necessary, to kill the child in order to protect the life and the health of the mother, because I have hundreds who say it is not, hundreds from the finest universities and the finest medical schools all over this country who say absolutely, definitively--and the former Surgeon General of the United States, C. Everett Koop--never necessary, never necessary. Now, we also have to talk about all these cases that we are concerned about the mother's health. We make the assumption that abortion is an option to preserve the mother's health or life. I heard that over and over again. It has to be out there in late trimesters, after 20 weeks. Let me share a couple of statistics that shed some light on this. This was referred to by Dr. Calvin. I want to back it up by the statistics. This is from the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Who are they? They signed letters with NARAL and Planned Parenthood and all these other abortion groups, in support of this procedure, in support of every liberalization you can possibly imagine. They are a pro-choice, some would even suggest pro-abortion group. Here is what they say. The risk of death associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy, from 1 death in every 600,000 abortions at 8 or fewer weeks to 1 per 17,000 at 16-20 weeks, and [after 20 weeks, when partial-birth abortions are performed, they are considered late-term abortions after 20 weeks] 1 per 6,000 at 21 or more weeks. It is 100 times more likely that a mother will die than if the abortion were performed in the first 8 weeks. It is 100 times more likely. This is what these people are advocating, performing abortions. Let me throw one statistic on top of that. I will show it. I will read it. ``It should be noted that at 21 weeks and after, abortion is twice as risky for women as childbirth: The risk of maternal death is 1 in 6,000 for abortion and 1 in 13,000 for childbirth.'' So, aborting a child through partial-birth abortion, late in term, is statistically more dangerous to the life of the woman than inducing labor. In other words, not only is it preferential for our society not to kill children who should be given a chance at birth, late, when there may be a chance of viability or just when they should have at least some dignity attached to their life, but it is more dangerous to abort than it is to induce labor or to have a cesarean section. It is more dangerous. The folks who say they are protecting a woman's health and life are arguing for procedures that do the exact opposite. Facts: I know we do not like to talk about facts when it comes to abortion. We like to put up pictures of nice families and warm little babies, that somehow or another, this family is better off because of an abortion. The fact is by having an abortion she was twice as likely to die and not be in that picture. That is the fact. We do not want to talk about that. We want to make sure the right of abortion is paramount among all rights. Because that is what this amendment does--nothing. It lets there be abortion on demand, anytime, anywhere, on anybody. That is what this amendment does. It has no restrictions. It is an exception that is not an exception. It is an exception that says that, while we cannot have postviability abortions except for the health of the mother-- let me tell you what Dr. Warren Hern, who wrote the definitive textbook on abortion, called ``Abortion Practice,'' said. Here it is: ``Abortion Practice,'' Warren M. Hern, from Colorado. My understanding is this is sort of the definitive textbook on teaching abortions. He does second- and third- trimester abortions and is very outspoken on this subject. He does not use partial-birth abortion, I might add; does not see it as a recognized procedure. But this is what an abortionist who does late- term abortions--in fact, has people come from all over the world to have abortions done by him--this is what he said about, not the Boxer- Feinstein amendment but the Daschle amendment, which we are going to debate next: I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman's life and could cause grievous injury to her physical health. In other words, abortion on demand, anytime during pregnancy. And he believes this. Some would say you are relying on the doctor's bad faith--no. He believes this. And he has a right to believe it. If you look at the statistics, I mean, you know, unfortunately some women do die as a result of pregnancy and, therefore, he could say legitimately there is a risk. Any pregnancy is a risk. It may be a small risk, but it is a risk. And all these bills require, that we are going to hear today, is just a risk. Not a big risk, a risk. So what we have are limitations without limits. What we have is a farce, to try to fool all of you, to try to fool the press. It has done a very good job fooling the press. We have wonderful headlines about how we are trying to step forward and do something dramatic on limiting late-term abortions. Phooey, we have a step forward into the realm of political chicanery, of sham, of obfuscation, illusion, that does nothing but protect the politician at the risk of the baby. That is what is going on here. That is what is going on all day. You are going to hear a lot of it. You are going to hear, ``Oh, we need to do this, we need to protect this.'' Here are the facts as pointed out by their side. I am using their facts. The Alan Guttmacher Institute--their numbers. Even when we debate with their information they cannot refute it. The fact of the matter is, there is no reason to do a partial-birth abortion and there is every reason in the world to stop it. It is a dehumanizing procedure. You wonder why we have a society that just is becoming adrift, that does not know right from wrong, that does not have any sense of justice, that does not have--we do not have any compassion for each other? I will give you a good example why that happens. Because on the floor of the U.S. Senate we are debating a procedure where we can kill a little innocent baby that is completely delivered from the mother except for the head. It is moving outside of the mother, a little baby who has done nothing wrong to anybody, and we are saying, ``You don't deserve to live.'' Give people like Donna Joy Watts a fighting chance. It will ennoble us all. We can look to Donna Joy and her family and say there are parents who showed the best, who showed the best in our hearts, who showed the willingness to fight for life, for things that are at the core of who we are as humanity. Let that spirit come back into American culture. Stop this culture of death and self-centeredness and focus in on life and dignity. What about poking scissors in the base of a little baby's skull and suctioning its brains out is dignifying the human being? You would not do that to a dog or an old cat that you wanted to put to sleep. You would not do it to a criminal who has killed 30 or 40 people. And you do it to a little baby who has done nothing wrong and just wants a chance, for however long it may be--and it may not be long--but, for however long, the dignity of life. The Senator from California talks about the long-lasting pain to the family that we would be imposing on them. What is so painful about looking at yourself in the mirror and saying: ``I have done everything I can to help my little girl or my little boy have a chance at life. I gave them every chance. I loved them as much as I possibly could in the time that God gave us.'' What is so painful about that? I will tell you pain. Facing, every day, that you killed your son or daughter for no reason, that is a pain I would not want to live with.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.