Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the question asked very eloquently by my friend is: How low have we sunk? I say pretty low, when we have a bill before us that doesn't even have an exception for the health of a woman. I get caught up in my throat when I think about it. Women like Viki Wilson, women who are religious, women who desperately want children, women who were told, as she wasand I will read her storythat if she didn't have a procedure outlawed in this bill, she could never have a child again, and worse. So I think we sink pretty low when we write a bill that doesn't even have an exception that has been the law of this land since 1973 in a Supreme Court case that is still upheld, which says, yes, we can act to limit abortion, but we always have to make an exception for the life and the health of a woman. That is my position.
I have said on this floor, along with many of my pro-choice colleagues who are Democrats and Republicans, we would ban all late-term abortions, except for the life and health of the woman. My view is anyone who comes to this floor to ban a medical procedure that could save the life and health of a woman and doesn't have that exception, is sinking very low. It shows a lack of respect for women, a lack of respect for their lives, their future ability to have children, to love children, and for their future as healthy women.
I will show you a list of problems that could develop in women if they don't have the procedures that are banned in this bill. Show me that list of what could happen. This comes from various physician letters, which I will ask to print in the RECORD later in the debate. This is what can happen to women if there is no health exception in the bill, which there is not. There are 15 pages of findings, but no health exceptions.
The Supreme Court already ruled on this very same billthe Nebraska lawand sent it back and said you cannot come to us with a bill that doesn't make an exception for the health of a woman. Why? Because they see that a woman could hemorrhage and die; a woman's uterus could rupture and she could die; a woman could get a blood clot and she could die; she could have an embolism and she could die; she could have a stroke and she could die; she could have damage to nearby organs and, in some cases, she would have to live paralyzed.
How low have we sunk that we cannot make a exception for the health of a woman? Pretty low. Pretty low. When I started this debate, I made the point that there is no such thing as partial-birth abortion. It is a phrase that is used by the proponents of this bill in order to essentially make abortion illegal one procedure at a time. Every one of my friends who is on the floor time and time again, if you ask them, they will be honest and they will say they don't like Roe v. Wade; they don't think abortion should be legal; it ought to be criminalized. This is the way they are goingone procedure at a time.
By the way, if you read the Supreme Court caseput up the chart that shows what the Court said. We are talking about more than one procedure banned, although our friends will tell you it is one procedure. Look at what the case says.
First of all, there is no health exception. I will go to this chart. The Supreme Court said in the Nebraska case, a legally identical bill:
Even if the statute's basic aim is to ban D and X, its language makes clear it also covers a much broader category of procedures.
So let there be no mistake, those voting for this bill are not just outlawing one procedure, but many procedures, which fits right into the agenda of my friends who are here tonight and who will be here in the next several days debating with us, because they want no abortioneven though, if you ask the American people, should a woman have a right to choose, should Government stay out of that private decision, a vast majority will say yes, because it is out of respect for women to make a decision with their physician and with their God. It is a decision that has a lot of components to it, one they discuss with their families. It is a tough decision. But I don't personally think any Senator ought to be put in the bedroom of any of our people making these decisions, or in a doctor's office.
If my daughter had a problem pregnancy and her health was threatened, just as Viki Wilson's was, I don't think that I would go to a U.S. Senatornot even the one who is a doctor, because he is a heart surgeon. If she had a heart problem, absolutely. I think it is important to see what the American Medical Association says about this. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that they are very holier than thou about this and they have every right to their opinions. They do not know more than doctors. It is not their job to protect the life and health of women. They don't even know what they are talking about. Listen to the AMA. The AMA, American Medical Association, has previously stated their opposition to this bill:
We oppose legislation that would criminalize a medical practice or procedure. Since S. 3 includes a provision that would impose a criminal penalty on physicians performing intact dilation extraction, the AMA does not support this bill.
Even though they don't like the procedure, they would not support this bill. The letters I have had printed in the RECORD from practicing OB/GYNsthose are the doctors women go to. They don't go to "Dr. Santorum," they don't go to "Dr. DeWine," they don't go to "Dr. Boxer," they don't go to "Dr. Murray;" they go to their OB/GYN.
What do they say?
We urge you to stand in defense of women's reproductive health and vote against S. 3, legislation regarding so-called partial-birth abortion.
There is no mention of the term "partial-birth abortion" in any medical literature. There is no such term, I say to my friends. Physicians are never taught a technique called "partial-birth abortion" so, therefore, they are unable to medically define it. What is described in the legislation, they say, could ban all abortions.
Why don't my colleagues just come out and say, "Let's ban all abortions"? Let's have that debate. You lose it, at least with the American people. I do not know how the votes line up here. We are going to have a chance to vote on whether to overturn Roe v. Wade. We are going to offer that up. We will have a debate about that. Let's see where people stand on that one. But to do it in this way, making up a term and doing it in a way that is so vague that the Supreme Court basically says it covers a much broader category of procedures, is absolutely a fraud on the people. I do not know what else to call it. The Supreme Court said in an identical bill it is far broader than just one procedure.
What did it say about the health of a woman? It also said:
Our cases have repeatedly invalidated statutes that in the process of regulating the methods of abortion, imposed significant health risks.
In other words, there is no health exception in this bill. Senator Santorum added 15 pages of language, but the operative part of the bill makes no exception for health.
Let's be clear on what we are talking about. First of all, a partial-birth abortion, which there is none, is a vague term which could ban all abortions and many abortions. There is no health exception whatsoever in the bill. Without a health exception, if a doctor fears a hemorrhage or a uterine rupture, or a blood clot or an embolism or a stroke or damage to nearby organs or even paralysis, it is not enough for my friends on the other side. How low have we sunkI want to talk about that. If your daughter is told if she does not get this particular procedure, she may be paralyzed for life and you will not make an exception, how far have we sunk? I think that is a fair question.
The debate we are having is not the real debate. The real debate is outlawing abortion completely and doing it one procedure at a time and making people think this particular procedure, A, is real, which there is no such thing as a partial-birth abortionit is not in any dictionary; it is made upand B, making them think you really are banning one procedure when the Supreme Court said, no, there are many procedures and maybe all abortions are banned.
So why not come here like a manand I say "a man" because it is the men on the other side who brought this to us. Maybe we will have some women debating it tomorrow, but so far we have seen the same men come down here, and they are saying they are after this partial-birth abortion when we know every one of them wants to ban all abortions, does not believe in a woman's right to choose, wants to criminalize women who would have an abortion, criminalize doctors, and have a constitutional amendment to make it illegal.
I remember those days. Women died during those days. How low have we sunk? Women were made infertile in those days. All the points we see hereserious health consequences of banning safe proceduresall of that I remember in those days.
Finally, the Supreme Court got enlightened in 1973 and said: Government, keep your nose out of this; it is a health issue; and if you legislate to clamp down on abortions in the late termwhich, by the way, I agree with, but always have a life and health exception so we do not force women into a situation where they can lose their ability to function for their families.