Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 Conference Report-Continued
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2003 CONFERENCE REPORT-CONTINUED
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much.
Mr. President, you have heard a tragic story here of a woman who had an abortion who really did not want to have one. I have to tell you, that is why I am so proud to be a pro-choice Senator, a pro-choice American, a pro-choice Californian, fighting for that woman's right to never, ever, ever have to have an abortion if she decided she did not want one.
At the same time, I want the other side to understand that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and that at the early stages of a pregnancy Government should stay out of a personal, private, moral, and religious decision. That is exactly what being pro-choice means. It means the woman described by my friend must never be forced to have an abortion, ever, no matter what goes wrong with the pregnancy-no matter what-if she insists on going through with it and wanting to have that child. Regardless of the risk to her health, she has the right to do it. That is what being pro-choice is about. Being anti-choice means that Government will dictate that situation.
What we have here today and why our side has decided we wanted to have another debate on this is because, just as the other side has said, the anti-choice side has said this is a historic day, we agree. This is, indeed, a historic day because, for the first time in history, Congress will be banning a medical procedure that is considered medically necessary by physicians, physicians who know. And we will put those statements in the RECORD once again.
My colleague, Senator DeWine, very eloquently said this debate is about what kind of a country we are. That is true. What kind of a country would say to half of its population, "We don't trust you; We think you would choose murder"? What kind of a country would say to its doctors, who take the Hippocratic oath, "Do no harm. We don't trust you. You are going to jail"? In this bill, they will go to jail if they use this technique and it was not to save the life of a mother.
Imagine the circumstance where a doctor is making this decision: I think my patient might die if I don't use this. My God, I have to read the law. Oh, my God, she might live. How could I be sure? I am not positive. I think she might die.
That woman lying in front of that doctor is in great danger. That is why so many medical organizations and OB/GYNs are saying: Please, Senators, stop playing doctor. When we were kids, we had a doctor's set. We put on the white coat. If we want to do that, we should go get our medical degree. But don't stand here and talk about the fact that we can just make this a better country by outlawing medical procedures without an exception for the health of the woman. What kind of country does that? What kind of country says to half of its population: Yes, you are important, but if you are lying on the table and you could wind up being paralyzed or getting a stroke, you are just not that important. What kind of country says that to women? That is why I am here today. This bill is going to pass overwhelmingly. We know the drill. This President is going to sign it. There is going to be a big signing ceremony. There is going to be an immediate court suit. The bill will be stayed. The debate will occur across the street in the Supreme Court. This bill is the same bill essentially that was declared unconstitutional before because the judges understand-maybe better than my colleagues over here understand-the life and the health of a woman is very important, and it must be protected in accordance with the law.
We have been told by physicians-we have the statements in the Record-that by banning this procedure, a woman might get a hemorrhage. She might rupture her uterus. She could get very serious blood clots. She could get a stroke, an embolism. She could have damage to nearby organs. She could be paralyzed for life. Do you want to vote that way? You have a chance. If you don't make a health exception, then you are essentially saying women are just not that important.
If you love your mother, don't vote for this bill. If you love your daughter, don't vote for this bill. Because if she finds herself in this horrific circumstance of a pregnancy gone desperately wrong, where the doctor informs her, perhaps, that the baby's brain is outside of the skull, that there would be excruciating pain if the baby is born, that she could lose her fertility, that she could perhaps suffer a stroke, she won't be able to do anything about it. Is that what we want to do here in the Senate?
In many ways this is an exercise in politics, because we believe very strongly this bill will be overturned when it gets across the street. It is not an exercise I take lightly when colleagues think so little of the women of this country, of the mothers of this country, of the daughters of this country that they would pass a bill with no health exception.
I don't think that is what Americans want. When they really understand this, they turn against it. If you hear it without the full explanation, of course we say: Let's not do this procedure. But if you say, but it may be necessary to save the life or health of a woman, people say: OK, then at least allow it in those circumstances.
There isn't a Democrat on this side of the aisle who wouldn't have voted for a health exception along with a life exception, and this procedure would be banned. As a matter of fact, we have proposed-and I have written legislation-banning all late-term abortions except for a health exception and a life exception.
We all come here and say we know what Americans want. It is interesting because, of course, we are trying to determine that. Senator Sessions had a poll that said women in this country no longer want the right to choose. That is what he said. I have a poll that shows everyone in this country believes Roe is a fair balance and should continue. But let me tell you what I think Americans want. Let me tell you what I know Californians want. I don't speak for every Californian. I couldn't. There are 35 million of us. But the vast majority of us-and we have had amazing polls on this point-want American women protected. They want children protected. They want privacy protected. They want women respected. They trust women more than they trust Senators. They want us to do the right thing, and they know what the right thing is.
They understand Roe v. Wade took a very difficult decision and explained it in a way that is a balance between all the rights involved.
Here is what Roe v. Wade essentially says: In the first 3 months after pregnancy, a woman has the right to choose and the Government cannot get involved. After that, the Government can get involved. As a matter of fact, after viability, the Government could ban all abortion, which I support, except for the life or health of a woman. I happen to believe that was a Solomon-like decision. It balanced all the concerns. But the most important thing it did is it respected women for the first time.
This was a struggle. Women died. The Senator from Pennsylvania says it was only 85 women a year who died before Roe. We have evidence and we have articles to put in the RECORD today that will show you we believe the 5,000-a-year figure is more on the mark, because the 85 is only a report to the CDC from States where abortion was legal and in many States abortion was illegal in those years. Thousands of women died.
As I said before, let's face it, that is what the underlying tension is in the debate, because this particular procedure is done very rarely. What is really at stake here is Roe v. Wade.
How do I know that? I know it because of the language used on the other side over and over again: Killing children, killing children, killing children. My God, as someone who wrote the Violence Against Children Act, I have to hear people talk about the fact that women are out there every day killing children, that doctors are out there killing children.
Roe v. Wade is not about killing children. Roe v. Wade is about respecting women to say this is a moral issue. This is a religious issue. This is a family issue. This is a privacy issue. Government should stay out in the early stages. In the later stages, government can in fact legislate.
If you take the rhetoric used in the Chamber today and you extrapolated it in a logical fashion, it means the other side thinks all abortion is murder from the minute of conception. If there is a murder committed, there is a murderer, and you have to say that is the woman because, if you listen to their rhetoric, that is what it is about. The doctor is an accomplice in this act. Frankly, I would have more, shall we say, legislative respect for my colleagues-I have personal respect for them, but I would have more legislative respect for them-if they just came out and said, call it what it is: Abortion is murder. That is why we threw out the Harkin amendment that was in this bill supporting Roe. We think abortion is murder. We want women in jail. We want doctors in jail. Maybe they even want the death penalty for a woman. I don't know. I haven't probed them on it.
That is really what this debate is about. It is why it is important to take the debate to the American people. The beauty of being pro-choice is you totally respect the woman regardless of her view.
If she is 18 years old, or 17, or 19, and she wants to have that child, a pro-choice American says: What can we do to help you make it easier? But if she doesn't and it is something she wants to deal with very early in the pregnancy, then just the same way, we say it is your choice; we respect that choice.
This debate is a very important one, a very historic debate. It is true that this bill has passed several times. We expect it to pass today. But this is the first President who will ever sign a bill outlawing a medically necessary procedure.
Now, I am going to prove it is a medically necessary procedure because I am going to put in the RECORD a series of letters. First is the ACOG statement, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. We can play doctor all we want here. These are the folks who are out there birthing our children, out there telling us month after month, as we go back for our checkup when we are pregnant, how important it is to have good nutrition, not to smoke, not to have alcohol, how to protect that fetus and have a healthy baby. These are the people who want healthy babies born. What do they say?
They say:
The intervention of legislative bodies into medical decisionmaking is inappropriate, ill-advised, and dangerous.
I will repeat that. The obstetricians and gynecologists from all over this country told us that:
The intervention of legislative bodies into medical decisionmaking is inappropriate, ill-advised, and-
The last word is powerful-
dangerous.
This bill, if it is upheld by the Court-which I don't believe it will be-is putting women's lives in danger. Don't ask me; ask the doctors. The testimony of Anne Davis is clear. She is a physician. She is very eloquent on the point. She even says that the life exception in the bill is very narrow, which is something I agree with, but I hope the Court will look at that. She says this procedure that is about to be banned by this bill may well be the safest procedure for women in certain circumstances. She was very clear in her testimony.
I commend to my colleagues her testimony on March 25, 2003, before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution.
Mr. President, the American Public Health Association writes:
We are opposed to [this bill] because we believe this and other legislative and judicial restrictions to safe, medically accepted abortion procedures severely jeopardize women's health and well-being.
You are going to hear my colleagues on the other side say: This bill doesn't hurt women's health-not a problem, not an issue. This bill doesn't conflict with Roe. Why? Because they wrote in the findings that this bill has nothing to do with the health of a woman. Please. Give women just a little bit of credit here.
So here is the American Public Health Association clearly telling us why they believe this is a jeopardy to women's health and their well-being.
Then we have the American Medical Women's Association in a letter they wrote to us. They strongly oppose this ban, and this is what they say, because I think it is a very important thing they say here:
While the Association has high respect for each member and their right to hold whatever moral, religious and philosophical beliefs his or her conscience dictates, as an organization of 10,000 women physicians and medical students dedicated to promoting women's health and advancing women in medicine, we believe [this bill] is unconscionable.
Doctors are telling us this bill is "dangerous." These doctors are telling us that this bill puts women's health "in jeopardy." Doctors are telling us loudly and clearly that this bill is "unconscionable." But it is going to be passed and it will get the signature of the President and, if not overturned, it is going to hurt the women of our country.
They go on to say:
Legislative bans for procedures that use recognized [OB/GYN] techniques fail to protect the health and safety of women and their children, nor will it improve the lives of women and families.
I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
AMERICAN MEDICAL WOMEN'S
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Alexandria, VA, March 25, 2003.
Hon. JERROLD NADLER,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN NADLER: The American Medical Women's Association (AMWA) strongly opposes HR 760, the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003." While the Association has high respect for each member and their right to hold whatever moral, religious and philosophical beliefs his or her conscience dictates, as an organization of 10,000 women physicians and medical students dedicated to promoting women's health and advancing women in medicine, we believe HR 760 is unconscionable.
AMWA has long been an advocate for women's access to reproductive health care. As such, we recognize this legislation as an attempt to ban a procedure that in some circumstances is the safest and most appropriate alternative available to save the life and health of the woman. Furthermore, this bill violates the privilege of a patient in consultation with her physician to make the most appropriate decision regarding her specific health circumstances.
AMWA opposes legislation such as HR 760 as inappropriate intervention in the decision-making relationship between physician and patient. The definition of the bill is too imprecise and it includes non-medical terminology for a procedure that may ultimately undermine the legality of other techniques in obstetrics and gynecology used in both abortion and non-abortion situations. At times, the use of these techniques is essential to the lives and health of women. The potential of this ban to criminalize certain obstetrics and gynecology techniques ultimately interferes with the quality of health and lives of women. Furthermore, the current ban fails to meet the provisions set forth by the Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart, a ruling that overturned a Nebraska statute banning abortion because it contained no life and health exception for the mother.
AMWA's position on this bill corresponds to the position statement of the organization on abortion and reproductive health services to women and their families.
AMWA believes that the prevention of unintended pregnancies through access to contraception and education is the best option available for reducing the abortion rate in the United States. Legislative bans for procedures that use recognized obstetrics and gynecological techniques fails to protect the health and safety of women and their children, nor will it improve the lives of women and their families. If you have any questions please contact Meghan Kissell, at 703-838-0500.
Sincerely,
LYNN EPSTEIN, MD,
President.
Mrs. BOXER. Then you have the Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health. They make a very good point-a point we have made over and over again: There is no mention of the term "partial-birth abortion" in any medical literature. Physicians are never taught a technique called "partial-birth abortion" and cannot even define it, which is one of the things the Court said was too vague a definition. So why do you think my colleagues are banning something called partial-birth abortion when there is no such thing, according to physicians, as partial-birth abortion? I will give you 10 seconds to think it over.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 20 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for 10 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I gave you 10 seconds to think about why we are banning something called partial-birth abortion when there is no such medical procedure. The answer is, it is a highly charged bunch of words. There is no such thing as partial-birth abortion in the medical literature; you either have a birth or an abortion. But it charges people up. It gives you a picture that is not accurate.
This is what the Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health tell us:
Physicians need to have all medical options available in order to provide the best medical care possible. It is unethical and dangerous-
There is the word again "dangerous"-
for legislators to dictate the details of specific surgical procedures. Banning procedures puts women's health at risk.
"Risk," "danger," "jeopardy," and "unconscionable" are the words that go along with this bill. They are not my words.
They are words of physicians who have lived their life to help women have babies. That is what they are about.
Politicians should not legislate decisionmaking by doctors.
They call it medical decisionmaking.
To do so would violate the sanctity and legality of the physician-patient relationship. To falsify scientific evidence in an attempt to deny women their right is unconscionable.
There it is. "Unconscionable," "dangerous," "jeopardy," and "at risk" are the words we are being told. But we are going to vote for this bill because it is about politics. It is easy to say I cannot buy this procedure. We could have banned it completely. We could have banned all late-term abortion completely with a life exception, health exception. But, oh, no, I think the other side would rather have an issue than make progress. That is not just me talking, that is very anti-choice people who have said this is going to be overturned across the street in 5 minutes.
I ask unanimous consent to print this letter from Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
PHYSICIANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE
CHOICE AND HEALTH,
New York, NY.
Hon. JERROLD NADLER,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN NADLER: We are writing to urge you to stand in defense of women's reproductive health and vote against H.R. 760, legislation regarding so-called "partial birth" abortion.
We are practicing family physicians; obstetrician-gynecologists; academics in obstetrics, gynecology and women's health; and a variety of other specialties in medicine. We believe it is imperative that those who perform terminations and manage the pre- and post-operative care of women receiving abortions are given a voice in a debate that has largely ignored the two groups whose lives would be most affected by this legislation: physicians and patients.
It is misguided and unprincipled for lawmakers to legislate decision-making in medicine. We all want safe and effective medical procedures for women; on that there is no dispute. However, the business of medicine is not always palatable to those who do not practice it on a regular basis. The description of a number of procedures-from liposuction to cardiac surgery-may seem distasteful to some, and even repugnant to others. When physicians analyze and refine surgical techniques, it is always for the best interest of the patient. The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 11 times as high as that associated with abortion. Abortion is proven to be one of the safest procedures in medicine, significantly safer than childbirth, and in fact saves women's lives.
While we can argue as to why this legislation is dangerous, deceptive and unconstitutional-and it is-the fact of the matter is that the text of the bill is so vague and misleading that there is a great need to correct the misconceptions around abortion safety and technique. It is wrong to assume that a specific procedure is never needed; what is required is the safest option for the patient, and that varies from case to case.
THE FACTS
(1) So-called "partial birth" abortion does not exist.
There is no mention of the term "partial birth" abortion in any medical literature. Physicians are never taught a technique called "partial birth" abortion and therefore are unable to medically define the procedure.
What is described in the legislation, however, could ban all abortions. "What this bill describes, albeit in non-medical terms, can be interpreted as any abortion," stated one of our physician members. "Medicine is an art as much as it is a science; although there is a standard of care, each procedure-and indeed each woman-is different. The wording here could apply to nay abortion patient." The bill's language is too vague to be useful; in fact, it is so vague as to be harmful. It is intentionally unclear and deceptive.
(2) Physicians need to have all medical options available in order to provide the best medical care possible.
Tying the hands of physicians endangers the health of patients. It is unethical and dangerous for legislators to dictate the details of specific surgical procedures. Until a surgeon examines the patient, she does not necessarily know which technique or procedure would be in the patient's best interest. Banning procedures puts women's health at risk.
(3) Politicians should not legislate medical decision-making.
To do so would violate the sanctity and legality of the physician-patient relationship. The right to have an abortion is constitutionally protected. To falsify scientific evidence in an attempt to deny women that right is unconscionable and dangerous.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, representing 45,000 ob-gyns, agrees: "The intervention of legislation bodies into medical decision making is inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous."
The American Medical Women's Association, representing 10,000 female physicians, is opposed to an abortion ban because it "represents a serious impingement on the rights of physicians to determine appropriate medical management for individual patients."
THE SCIENCE
We know that there is no such technique as "partial birth" abortion, and we believe this legislation is a thinly-veiled attempt to outlaw all abortions. Those supporting this legislation seem to want to confuse both legislators and the public about which abortion procedures are actually used. Since the greatest confusion seems to center around techniques that are used after the first trimester, we will address those: dilation and evacuation (D&E), dilation and extraction (D&X), instillation, hysterectomy and hysterotomy (commonly known as a c-section).
Dilation and evacuation (D&E) is the standard approach for second-trimester abortions. The D&E is similar to first-trimester vacuum aspiration exception that the cervix must be further dilated because surgical instruments are used. Morbidity and mortality studies indicate D&E is preferable to labor induction methods (instillation), hysterotomy and hysterectomy because of issues regarding complications and safety.
From the years 1972-76, labor induction procedures carried a maternal mortality rate of 16.5 (note: all numbers listed are out of 100,000); the corresponding rate for D&E was 10.4. From 1977-82, labor induction fell to 6.8, but D&E dropped to 3.3. From 1983-87, induction methods had a 3.5 mortality rate, while D&E fell to 2.9. Although the difference between the methods shrank by the mid-1980s, the use of D&E had already quickly outpaced induction.
Morbidity trends indicate that dilation and evacuation is much safer than labor induction procedures and for women with certain medical conditions, labor induction can pose serious risks. Rates of major complications from labor induction, including bleeding, infections, and unnecessary surgery, were at least twice as high as those from D&E. There are instances of women who, after having failed inductions, acquired infections necessitating emergency D&Es as a last resort. Hysterotomy and hysterectomy, moreover, carry a mortality rate seven times that of induction techniques and ten times that of D&E.
There is a psychological component which makes D&E preferable to labor induction, undergoing difficult, expensive and painful labor for up to two days can be extremely emotionally and psychologically difficult, much more so than a surgical procedure that can be done in less than an hour under general or local anesthesia. Furthermore, labor induction does not always work: Between 15 and 30 percent or more of cases require surgery to complete the procedure. There is no question that D&E is the safest method of second-trimester abortion.
There is also a technique known as dilation and extraction (D&X). There is a limited medical literature on D&X because it is an uncommonly used variant of D&E. However, it is sometimes a physician's preferred method of termination for a number of reasons: It offers a woman the chance to see the intact outcome of a desired pregnancy, to speed up the grieving process; it provides a greater chance of acquiring valuable information regarding hereditary illness or fetal anomaly; and D&E provides a decreased risk of injury to the woman, as the procedure is quicker than induction and involves less use of sharp instruments in the uterus, providing a decreased chance of uterine perforations or tears and cervical lacerations. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists addressed this in their statement in opposition to so-called "partial birth" abortion when they said that D&X "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstances to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based on the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision."
It is important to note that these procedures are used at varying gestational ages. Both D&E and D&X are options for surgical abortion prior to viability. D&E and D&X are used solely based on the size of the fetus, the health of the woman, and the physician's judgment, and the decision regarding which procedure to use is done on a case-by-case basis.
THE LEGISLATION
Because this legislation is so vague, it would outlaw D&E and D&X (and arguably techniques used in the first trimester). Indeed, the Congressional findings-which go into detail, albeit in non-medical terms-do not remotely correlate with the language of the bill. This legislation is reckless. The outcome of its passage would undoubtedly be countless deaths and irreversible damage to thousands of women and families. We can safely assert that without D&E and D&X, that is, an enactment of H.R. 760, we will be returning to the days when an unwanted pregnancy led women to death through illegal and unsafe procedures, self-inflicted abortions, uncontrollable infections and suicide.
The cadre of physicians who provide abortions should be honored, not vilified. They are heroes to millions of women, offering the opportunity of choice and freedom. We urge you to consider scientific data rather than partisan rhetoric when voting on such far-reaching public health legislation. We strongly oppose legislation intended to ban so-called "partial birth" abortion.
Sincerely,
MEMBER PHYSICIANS.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am going to read you the story of Viki Wilson. Viki is a pediatric nurse. She lives in California. Her husband Bill is an emergency room physician. The Wilsons were expecting their third child when they received a devastating diagnosis at 36 weeks of pregnancy.
I hope every colleague will listen to this story and, for a moment, think about this couple and what they faced.
Viki was married to an emergency room physician. They were told after 36 weeks of pregnancy, of looking forward to this baby, that a large portion of the brain was formed outside the skull and most of the baby's tissue was abnormal. They were told by several physicians, including geneticists and perinatologists that their daughter they named Abigail could never survive outside her mother's womb, and that the so-called healthy baby kicks that Viki had thought for sure she was feeling were, in fact, seizures caused by the pressure as the baby's head had lodged in her pelvis.
Think about how you would feel if you were that father, if you were that mother, if you were that grandma, if you were that grandpa, if you were the mother of Viki or the mother-in-law or the father or the father-in-law or you were the brother of Viki or you were the brother-in-law or you were the sister or you were the aunt. They learned this pregnancy was doomed. They learned the baby they wanted so much could never live outside the womb. They learned the risks of this continued pregnancy to Viki, the very severe risks she faced.
They decided this procedure that is being banned today was the safest and best procedure for Viki. They talked about it; they prayed on it; they discussed it with their family; they discussed it among themselves with their physicians. They brought in every specialist one can think about, and they decided this was the best thing for Viki's family and for her children and for her children she hoped to have in the future.
The Wilsons held a funeral for Abigail, and a playground at their children's Catholic school is named in her honor. And then, very soon after, the Wilson family welcomed a baby son, actually through adoption. Is this the kind of person you want to harm? Is this the kind of woman you want to put at risk? Is this the kind of couple to which you are saying: Sorry, even if your doctors say Viki might have a stroke, Viki might be paralyzed, no can do; we can't help you because Senators playing doctor decided this procedure should no longer be a choice, an option for a woman in a severe and tragic circumstance.
I have to tell you, I have looked inside my heart up and down. I do not understand how we move forward as a society, how we move forward as a compassionate country when we do something that can conceivably hurt thousands and thousands of women and thousands and thousands of families. We could have passed this bill in a nanosecond. Just make a health exception. It would have met the objections of the Court with the health exception and a little bit less vagueness on the procedure, and we would have done something that would have been important. But, oh, no, I guess in the end the women of this country just don't matter that much.
I think this record is very clear. The physicians who know what they are talking about, who deal with these pregnancies every day don't want us to do this. The women, many of them very religious, who have been faced with this crisis tell us: Please, please make a health exception because if we didn't have this procedure, A, we might have died; B, we might have been paralyzed; C, we might have been made infertile; D, we might have had a stroke or embolism or damaged our nearby organs.
Why are we doing this? There is no such procedure called "partial-birth abortion." It is in every letter from the physicians. There is no such procedure. It is a made-up term to make this debate what it really is not about. It is a very sad day for us that we are banning a procedure that I have proven, by putting into the RECORD letter after letter from physicians, is necessary sometimes to save the life and health of a woman. We are banning this with no health exception. This is not the right thing to do.
This bill was stripped of the supportive language of Roe v. Wade that this Senate passed twice-not once but twice-saying that Roe v. Wade should remain the law of the land. Oh, no, they were so radical in that conference committee, they kicked out that very simple statement where most Americans agree that Roe v. Wade, making this decision in the early stages of a pregnancy in private-Government stay out of it; Senator Boxer, I might think you are really a good gal, but stay out of my private life. They are right. I don't deserve to be in it.
Senator Harkin has just come to the Chamber. He is the one who had that amendment which was adopted by this Senate twice, and how proud I was to stand with him. I wonder if it is OK with my colleagues, since Senator Harkin has arrived, if I give him 10 minutes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I, too, thank everyone involved in this debate on both sides because I think it has been a very enlightening debate. I have been on the Senate floor about this bill many times. This particular debate brought out so many issues.
I also thank the many women who experienced this procedure, who were able to come to Washington on many occasions to tell us what their world was like when they found out late in the pregnancy that something had gone horribly wrong and the doctor told them that their baby could never live outside of their womb and the doctor told them if they did not have the procedure that is being banned in this bill, they could suffer a stroke, they could suffer paralysis, they could lose their fertility. These women came out and put a face on this issue, a real, human face; many of them very religious, many anti-choice, who said this was an excruciatingly difficult choice, but they knew it was right for themselves and their baby.
What we are about to do today-and I have no illusions; I know this bill will pass-we are about to ban a procedure that doctors say is needed to save the life and health of a woman. If I went up to you on the street and I said, I know there is a medical procedure that is sometimes necessary to save the life and health of a woman, would you want to ban it or would you be willing to ban it except for those occasions when it is necessary. I think and I know most Americans would do the humane thing and say absolutely, we want to make an exception for life and health. That is not what is done in this bill.
The doctors tell us this is a dangerous piece of legislation. The doctors tell us this is an unconscionable piece of legislation. The doctors tell us that women's lives and health will be put at risk if we pass this. I happen to believe, on issues such as these, we have to turn to the women themselves who have faced this agonizing decision, and to the doctors, the OB/GYMs whose job it is to bring life into the world.
Well, when we have done that, they have told us not to go this route, that if we are going to ban the procedure, always to have an exception, always for the life and health of the woman. Yet this Senate is going to turn its back on the women of this country, turn its collective back on the doctors of this country, and basically outlaw a procedure they say is necessary.
When the President signs this bill-and he will do so-it will be the first time in history any President of either party has banned a medical procedure that is necessary to save the life and health of the people of this country. I think that is a historic moment, and I think the people of this country will understand all of the ramifications. There is no question about that.
To make it clear, I will reiterate what many of my colleagues who are pro-choice have said. We believe Roe v. Wade was rightly decided. We believe it balanced all the interests that were before the Court. We believe when the Court said, in the very early stages of a pregnancy, Senators, Congress people, stay out of this decision, they were right. When the Court said, in the late stages of a pregnancy, the State can control what occurs in an abortion, but always with an exception for the life and health of a woman, we believe that is right.
Now the other side tells us: Oh, well, this bill has nothing to do with Roe v. Wade. It does not in any way challenge Roe v. Wade. Well, that is just untrue on its face. The Court has already ruled in the Nebraska case that when you do not make an exception for health, when you have vague definitions, that is violative of Roe.
What we are doing is passing a piece of legislation that will be signed with great fanfare, and it will be declared unconstitutional across the street. Instead, we could have joined hands across party lines, we could have joined hands across ideological lines, we could have banned every single late-term abortion with an exception for life and health, but the other side refuses to do this-refuses to do this. I do not understand how you can stand here and say you are doing the right thing by the women in this country and not make an exception to protect the health of a mother.
I hope many of us will vote this down. I have no illusions in the final vote, but it has been an excellent debate. I hope America was listening.
I thank you very much.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you.
Madam President, I want to reply to what the good Senator has said, with great respect, when he says this procedure is outside the mainstream. I want to point out, I respect his opinion, but I think doctors who have gone into OB/GYN, if that is their field-I do not believe the American College of OB/GYNs-45,000 doctors-are out of the mainstream. I do not believe the American Medical Women's Association-10,000 female doctors-are outside the mainstream. Nor do I believe the American Public Health Association-thousands of doctors-are outside the mainstream.
So although I totally respect the opinion of my colleague, and I would fight for his right to have it, and his right to believe what he does, I think it is a bit dismissive of the mainstream OB/GYN doctors in this country, all of whom have told us, please do not pass this ban that they have said is dangerous to women. They have said, to use their words, it is risky to women, and they are very upset about it.
I did not want the Senate to believe these organizations back this bill, because they do not. We have put those letters into the RECORD.
I thank you very much.