Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 Conference Report-Continued

PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2003 CONFERENCE REPORT—CONTINUED

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this debate is not something I look forward to on the floor of the Senate. This is one of the toughest issues any elected official ever has to face. It is highly controversial. In my home State of Illinois, in my hometown of Springfield, virtually everywhere I travel, there is a strong difference of opinion on the issue of abortion.

I understand that, and I really have to say as to all those who come to the floor today on either side of this issue, we should never question their motives because I think each and every one of us has tried to search our soul to find out what is fair and what is just. In many instances here, we are talking about things beyond our expertise as individuals. Some of us are lawyers, some have other backgrounds. Very few, if any of us, have medical credentials. But we come today to consider something which is historic, and that is that we would ban in the United States a medical procedure.

To my knowledge, that has never been done. It is being done here under the pretense that it is the humane and right thing to do. Yet when you speak to the professionals, those who do this for a living, the obstetricians and gynecologists, they basically tell you, be careful, because you can't really predict in every instance what a mother might face late in a pregnancy. But this bill has decided that regardless of the medical emergency that might face a mother late in her pregnancy—regardless, we are going to eliminate once and for all this medical procedure. I think that is a very historic and very dangerous action.

I wonder if, in retrospect, we would do it in any other area of medicine. But when it comes to the politically controversial area of abortion, many politicians and elected officials just come roaring through the door and say: Let me tell you what we are going to do and what we are not going to do.

I have tried to look at this in honest and fair terms. Let me tell you what I believe. I believe all late-term abortions should be strictly construed and prohibited in almost every case. I only allow two exceptions for any type of late-term abortion procedure: The life of the mother, and where the mother faces grievous physical injury if she goes through the pregnancy.

I said in an amendment I brought to the floor, just to make certain we know what we are doing, two doctors have to certify that either her life is at stake or, in fact, she runs the risk of grievous physical injury. I can stand behind that. I can say in good conscience that those are the only two exceptions for which I will stand.

But the bill before us today does not allow those two exceptions. If a mother faces the possibility of grievous physical injury if she continues the pregnancy, this bill will still ban a procedure which some doctors believe is best for her under those circumstances. Consider that for a moment. Consider what we are saying. Even if the woman faces grievous physical injury, she has to continue the pregnancy, or at least seek some other way of terminating the pregnancy that might not be as good for her.

Don't take my word for it. Again, I am a lawyer, I am a legislator. But the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists was asked about this procedure, and this is what they said. When abortion is performed after 16 weeks, intact D&X, which is what is called partial-birth abortion here, is one method of terminating a pregnancy. This is the important language from the professionals, from the obstetricians and gynecologists. Listen closely:

The physician, in consultation with the patient, must choose the most appropriate method based upon the patient's individual circumstances.

If it were your wife whose life was at stake, whose physical well-being were at stake, isn't that the standard you would want, that the doctor and your wife and family would make the best decision, appropriate to her medical circumstances?
There is no doubt in my mind. There is no doubt in the minds of the women who have come to tell me of the sad stories of their pregnancies that ended so badly.

Yet in this bill we are saying, as politicians and legislators, we want to step into that room in the doctor's office, we want to stand between the doctor and the patient, and we want to make the decision. We want to say to that doctor, regardless of what you think is best for this woman who faces grievous physical injury if she goes forward with the pregnancy, regardless of what is best for her in your medical, professional opinion, we are going to take away from you one procedure which you can use. It might be the best one for her, but it is not the best one politically. That is why this bill is before the Senate. That is a sad circumstance.

In one of the most frightening times in a woman's life, when she is so late in her pregnancy that they have decorated the room for the baby, picked the name, they know what they will do when the baby comes home, she gets the tragic news that something has happened no one anticipated. One of the ladies from my State came forward. I met her a few years ago. Vicki talked about having two children and a third child on the way. Here she was, late in her pregnancy. She described the pregnancy as disgustingly normal. At 32 weeks in the pregnancy, 8 months into the pregnancy, she went in for an ultrasound and discovered the little boy she was carrying had at least 9 major anomalies, including a fluid-filled cranium with no brain tissue at all, compacted, flattened vertebrae, congenital hip dysplasia, skeletal dysplasia, and hyperteloric eyes. The doctor told her this baby will never survive outside the womb and because of her physical condition he said she should terminate the pregnancy if she wanted to live and if she ever wanted to have another child.

Her husband, a doctor, sat down with her. They told me, personally, of crying through the night, making this decision and finally deciding they had to do this. And they did. She terminated this pregnancy with the very procedure that is being banned by this bill. She did it because she thought she had no choice. The doctor told her she had no choice. Frankly, if this bill passes, that procedure would not be available to her.

What has happened to Vicki since? The good news is she became pregnant again and she delivered a son, Nicholas, a little boy I met right outside the Capitol. This is a woman who did not want to be a mother, who did not want to be pregnant?
No. It is a woman who, through no fault of her own, found herself facing a medical emergency and deciding at the last moment, with her husband and her conscience, what was the best thing to do. She chose the very procedure which is going to be banned and prohibited by this bill.

That is unfortunate. There has been so much publicity back and forth about abortion procedures. Trust me, there is no way to terminate a pregnancy which is clean and sanitary and something you would want to publicize on television. It is a gruesome procedure at any stage in the pregnancy. Yet we have been led to believe this termination of pregnancy is somehow much different.

When I came before the Senate and said, all right, I will go along with terminating all late-term abortion procedures except when the mother's life is at stake or she is running the risk of grievous physical injury, we will require two doctors to certify that and will penalize a doctor if he misrepresents or lies about that, I thought, finally, we found a reasonable middle ground. Those who are opposed to virtually all abortions still would not vote for that amendment. Even though we had support of people who are pro-life and pro-choice, they could not support it.

The Supreme Court, across the street, has told us what happens to bills such as the one we are passing today. If you do not include a provision in there to consider the health of the mother, grievous physical injury, for example, if you do not include that provision, then you fail by the Roe v. Wade test.

Do not ask this Senator to stand here and make this statement with no evidence. The Court already mandated that decision in Stenberg v. Carhart. Nebraska, in that case, struck it down, with virtually the same language before the Senate today.
They said it lacks any exception for the preservation of the health of the mother. This bill lacks any exception for the preservation of the health of the mother.

Why are we here today? Because some people understand that regenerating this issue on a regular basis is good for some politically. But it is not good for this Nation, not to have closure on an issue or at least some reasonable compromise where we can limit all late-term abortion procedures.

There are some who are opposed to all forms of abortion. I respect their point of view. I respect the principles that bring them to that decision. But for those who believe, as I do, that abortion should be rare and should be safe, that we should limit it to the most extraordinary cases, particularly late-term abortions, I offered an amendment to do that. It was rejected.
Instead, we have this bill coming before the Senate, headed to the Supreme Court, which does not include the exception necessary to protect the health of the mother—protect the health of the mother I met, a woman who faced an extraordinary medical emergency.