May 14,1997

Now, why do we think it is important to outlaw this procedure? Well, there are lots of reasons why I think we should outlaw this procedure. No. 1, because it is a barbaric procedure. I hope that it would shock the consciousness of every Member of the Senate that we would allow innocent human life to be treated in such a deplorable fashion, to be manhandled and destroyed, as we would not even allow a dog to be destroyed. So, on the surface of it, the obvious reason is that this goes beyond the pale of what should be acceptable in our society. I can't imagine a Senator from the United States of America standing on the floor of the U.S. Senate 30 years ago with these charts and having to argue--argue--that this should be illegal in our country. Absolutely incomprehensible. Yet, 30 years later, as a result of Roe versus Wade, we have become so desensitized to the humanity of a baby inside the mother that we will allow this to occur--and defend it, defend it, vehemently defend it as a right.

The abortion debate in this country since Roe versus Wade has focused on the issue of rights, of choice. The reason I think the abortion industry and abortion rights advocates are so upset about this debate is because, in a partial-birth abortion, you can't miss what is at stake here. This is not about a right. It is about a baby. You can't miss the baby here. It is right here before your eyes. It is right there where you can see it. It is outside of the mother and you can't avoid it. That is why they just cringe when this bill comes to the floor, because now we are talking about the dirty little secret we have had in this country for a long, long time, that abortion--and I will use the words of Ron Fitzsimmons--`One of the facts of abortion is that women enter abortion clinics to kill their fetuses. It is a form of killing. You're ending a life.' Bravo for Mr. Fitzsimmons for stating the obvious. But that is something that the abortion industry has steadfastly avoided. He is talking about what abortion really is. It is about ending a life. And in this case, you can't miss the life. It is right here, right before your eyes, fully formed. The argument about just a blob of tissue or some protoplasm doesn't hold up at this late stage of a pregnancy. This is a baby. It is a fully-formed little baby. In many cases, it's a viable little baby.

I mentioned Roe versus Wade. There are some people who will argue that this goes over the line, that this violates the provisions of Roe versus Wade. Let me address that issue very briefly and I will refer not only to the committee report in the House, the House Judiciary Committee report, but also the remarks made by my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, on this issue. It was one of the reasons he supports the ban. When the baby is here in the mother's uterus, Roe versus Wade applies. Roe versus Wade says that, basically, for the first two trimesters, the woman has the right to do whatever she wants to do with that child in her womb. That is what Roe versus Wade says. They said, in the third trimester--it is definitely implied if not stated--because of the fetus', the baby's, potential viability, the rights of the baby come into play and there are limitations on abortion.

Well, see, we have an interesting case here because this procedure takes the baby outside. The baby is not only outside of the uterus, except for the head, but outside of the mother almost completely, and is in the process of being born. In fact, the baby is almost completely born, hence the procedure's name, `partial birth.' So the baby is no longer completely within the domain of the uterus and then ruled by Roe versus Wade. By leaving the uterus, the baby gains rights that it didn't have inside.

As an aside, don't you find it an interesting irony that inside the mother's womb this little baby, surrounded by fluid and warmth, is the most vulnerable to be killed and has no protection against someone who wants to kill it. Once it leaves what would be seen by the baby as a safe environment, then it could be protected. But in the place where you would think that the baby would be most secure is the one place where it is the most vulnerable to being killed, and only because this procedure involves partial birth, only because the baby leaves the mother does Roe versus Wade not apply. And so those who argue that we banned second-trimester abortions by banning this procedure--and we would because most do take place in the second trimester--that we violate Roe versus Wade, they don't understand Roe versus Wade. That child is no longer in the uterus and that child, now that it is born and still alive, still feeling, able to feel pain, cannot be killed; or at least we can ban it under Roe versus Wade because it has rights. The baby has rights.

So we very strongly believe that these spurious arguments that somehow or another Roe versus Wade is being violated--by the way, there is nothing more I would rather see than Roe versus Wade being violated, but it doesn't do it here. This procedure does not do it. This procedure falls well within the constitutional boundaries of Roe versus Wade and Doe versus Bolton.

Another issue that is being charged against this procedure--or it comes out in favor of this procedure--is the issue of a fetal abnormality. I am going to have a lot to say about the issue of fetal abnormality. But let me just say this for now. We have had Members of the U.S. Senate stand here in some of the finest hours of the U.S. Senate, and argue forcefully, gallantly, to protect the rights, the health, the safety, the security of disabled children. We passed the Americans With Disabilities Act. We are debating ironically--the irony is not lost--IDEA, which has the rights of disabled children in our discussion today. That bill is actually the bill before us as I speak. You will hear such passion. You should listen to some of the debate--those of you who did not--the passion of the Senators defending the right for children with disabilities to have access to educational opportunities so they can maximize their human potential. Yet, unfortunately some of the most passionate speakers on that issue--turn around and passionately argue that because of their disability we should be able to kill them before they are born.

Abraham Lincoln used a Biblical verse. `A house divided against itself cannot stand.' How can you with any kind of reflective conscience argue that the right to be so that children with disabilities have the ability to maximize their human potential and the Government should be there to ensure that their rights are not trampled upon and then not be willing to give them the most precious of all rights, the right to live in the first instance? How can you be a champion of the disabled when you will use fetal abnormality as an excuse to kill them in the first place?

It is a shocking realism in this country that goes back to what I suggested before, which is we have become so desensitized to human life to kill a little baby, that unseen, unborn child, that because it is unseen you can just put it out of your mind, it is not really seen. That desensitization has consequences. We are seeing the consequence right now. We are debating this procedure. It is incredible to me that we even have to debate this. But it is here because people just have forgotten what life is all about, and what life means.

We have across the street, at the Supreme Court, the issue of doctor-assisted suicide. We have had lower courts say that doctor-assisted suicides are OK. We have massive organizations --I do not know how massive--at least organized organizations that advocate for allowing people to kill themselves and to have doctors help them. Again, I look back at 20 or 30 years ago and wonder whether that debate could have occurred at this time. But do not be surprised, particularly if this bill is unsuccessful, if we send the message out to the country that says human life isn't really that valuable, that we can in fact brutalize the most innocent children who have done nothing wrong to anybody.

It is amazing. You can describe this procedure. I saw a television commercial put out by one of the groups who showed a prisoner shackled, both arms and legs, walking down death row and being put in a chair. While he was walking and he was led to the chair, what if a voice describes the procedure, describes taking the scissors and puncturing the base of the skull and sticking a vacuum tube in the base of the skull and suctioning the brain out? The courts would clearly find that cruel and unusual punishment and violative of the Constitution. But you can do that to a little baby who hasn't killed anybody. It hasn't robbed, raped, stolen, nor harmed a soul. And then we wonder what is happening to our culture. We wonder, as we sit at home and we listen to the news, and we listen and we read the papers, and we see the young people out there, and we wonder. Why have they gone astray? What is happened to the fabric of our culture? Why don't they have respect for our country, for people's goods, for other people's lives? Why, indeed? You need to look only this far: 1.5 million abortions a year, as public, and as customary, and as usual, and, as a matter of fact, as any number you will hear on the U.S. floor--1.5 million abortions.

OK, what is next? You will hear it discussed in the news:

Abortion. It is a matter of choice. It is someone else's decision. I do not want to get involved. It has nothing to do with me. Look around you. Things are coming to roost in this country. When you have such disdain for human life that we are seeing exemplified, magnified, by allowing this procedure to go forward, by allowing this innocent little baby to be mutilated, butchered in such a way. People who vote for this to remain legal have answered their own question as to why our culture is the way it is, because the great, great leaders of our country, the role models--that is what we are, whether we like it or not. Every Senator who goes into a school--and I go into a lot of them--particularly young kids. I am sure the Presiding Officer now sees this as a new Member of the Senate. Oh, they would love to have your autograph. They want to have your picture taken with them because you are someone to look up to. You are someone who has achieved a level of excellence that we admire in this country. You are in a position of authority. What you say and think matters. And they look up to us.

Is this what you want them to see? Is this what you want to teach the next generation, that this kind of brutality is OK, and then you wonder why you see random acts of violence and you wonder why you see no respect for human life? The consequences are real. They are here. We don't have to speculate as to what the consequences of this are. They are here, and we are living with it.

All we want to do here is to take one little step in creating some decency again, one meek little message for the people in this country that life should be respected, that children should not be brutalized unnecessarily. That is what this procedure does.

You will hear arguments that this will not stop abortions. It may be true. I wish I could say this would stop hundreds and thousands of abortions. But I am not too sure that it will.

What I am sure of is that this brutality will stop and we will send a very clear, positive message to Americans and to the world that this kind of barbarism has no place in American culture, certainly no place in the laws of our country.

So I hope that as Members come tomorrow and we begin the formal debate on this bill that they will come with open minds and open hearts, that they will seek the truth. This debate has been surrounded by lies from those defending the procedure. Hopefully those admissions of lies will give people the opportunity to look anew at what the facts are, not just the facts of when this is used, but how it is used. I went through all of those things--but what the ramifications are for this country and for our society.

The abortionists are probably right. We are not going to stop a lot of abortions. There are other methods of abortion available if we outlaw this. Abortions unfortunately on babies this age will continue. But we send a signal, as small as it is.

That is why I guess I am so shocked at the vehemence of the opposition, the opposition that says this will not stop abortions, the opposition that admits that this is rare and that this is a fringe procedure. They admit it is not a commonly used procedure, that it is not in the medical literature. They know all of that. Yet, they stand here, backs to the wall, fighting for every last inch of not defendable territory. Folks, this is not defendable territory.

We may not win this time. I don't know what God has planned for this debate. But we may not win this time. That is OK. We will be back.

This is wrong. So when people in the U.S. Senate who believe something is wrong don't stand up and fight to overturn that wrong, we will be in for very serious, even more serious, consequences for this country.