TOMORROW MORNING. MR. PRESIDENT, I THINK IT IS TRULY
           REGRETTABLE THAT WE STILL HAVE TO DEBATE THIS AFTER SO MANY
           YEARS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A PROCEDURE THAT IS MORALLY WRONG
           WRONG. MR. PRESIDENT, THE FACTS ARE REALLY NOT AT ISSUE. NO ONE
           DENIES THIS PROCEDURE IS DESIGNED TO KILL -- TO KILL -- A

           LIVING PARTIALLY DELIVERED BABY, A BABY THAT IS USUALLY FIVE TO
           SIX MONTHS OLD OLD. FIVE TO SIX MONTHS GESTATION. NO ONE DENIES
           THAT ONLY A FEW INCHES SEPARATE THIS BARBARIC PRACTICE FROM
           OUTRIGHT MURDER. PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION IS IS PERHAPS THE ONLY
           LEGAL PROCEDURE WHERE LIVE BIRTH AND DEATH BECOME VIRTUALLY
           SIMULTANEOUS. THE VOTE WE WILL CAST TOMORROW MORNING WILL BE A
           CLEAR MORAL DECISION ABOUT LIFE AND ABOUT DEATH. IT IS A

           DECISION REALLY ABOUT WHO WE ARE, WHO WE ARE AS A PEOPLE, OUR
           MORAL IDENTITY AS A PEOPLE. BANNING THIS PROCEDURE REPRESENTS
           THE MORAL CONSENSUS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY AN OVERWHELMING
           MARGIN. MR. PRESIDENT, DR. LEROY SPRANG AND MARK NEARHOFF
           STATED IN THE AMERICAN MEDICAL JOURNAL ASSOCIATION -- AND I
           QUOTE -- "PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION SHOULD NOT BE PERFORMED
           BECAUSE IT IS NEEDLESSLY RISKY, INHUMANE AND ETHICALLY

           UNACCEPTABLE." MR. PRESIDENT, I STRONGLY AGREE WITH THIS
           CHARACTERIZATION AS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. NOW IT'S NO SECRET
           THAT AMERICA HAS BEEN EXPERIENCING A MORAL CRISIS, AND WE HAVE
           REACHED A CROSS ROAD. THE QUESTION WHICH I ASK ON THIS FLOORED
           -- WHICH I ASKED ON THIS FLOOR JUST ABOUT A YEAR AGO, I GUESS,
           ABOUT PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION, THOSE QUESTIONS REALLY REMAIN
           UNANSWERED. THESE QUESTIONS ARE MORE PROFOUND THAN EVER. WHAT
           DOES OUR TOLERATION FOR THIS IMMORAL PRACTICE SAY FOR US AS A
           COUNTRY?

           WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT US AS A PEOPLE?
           I BELIEVE, MR. PRESIDENT, ONE JUDGED AS A COUNTRY BY WHAT IT IS
           FOR, BUT ALSO YOU JUDGE A COUNTRY BY WHAT IT IS AGAINST. WE
           JUDGE A COUNTRY BY WHAT IT TOLERATES. AND WE TOLERATE TOO MUCH
           IN THIS COUNTRY. WE TOLERATE A LOT IN THIS NATION. BUT AT SOME
           POINT, MR. PRESIDENT, WE SIMPLY HAVE TO DRAW THE LINE. YOU

           KNOW, WE HAVE TO STOP HIDING BEHIND THE PHRASE, "OH, I REALLY
           DON'T LIKE THIS, BUT IT'S SOMEONE ELSE'S PRIVATE MATTER. I
           DON'T WANT TO INTERFERE, WE'LL PUT UP WITH IT. IT'S NOT MY
           BUSINESS." WE HAVE TO STOP HIDING, MR. PRESIDENT, BEHIND THAT.
           IN A COUNTRY THAT'S BASED ON RESPECT FOR FREEDOM, THIS IS, OF
           COURSE, A VERY IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE. BUT IT DOES HAVE LIMITS,
           LIMITS THAT ARE BASED ON THE SAME RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS THAT

           IS THE VERY FOINDATION FOR EEDOM SELF. WHY, AFTER ALL, IS THE
           ARGUMENT BASED ON PERSONAL FREEDOM SO POWERFUL IN OUR POLITICAL DEBATES?
           IT'S BECAUSE WE ALL HAVE IN OUR HEARTS THE IMMORTGAGE TALL
           WORDS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON -- THE IMMORTAL WORDS OF OF THOMAS
           JEFFERSON, THE WORDS THAT WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE
           SELF-EVIDENT, THAT WE HAVE THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE,
           LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. THIS IS OUR PROFOUND
           MORAL CONVICTION, MR. PRESIDENT. BUT WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT OUR

           MORAL CONVICTIONS WHEN WE CONTINUE TO ALLOW IN THIS COUNTRY
           THIS BARBARIC PRACTICE?
           WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT US AS A PEOPLE?
           DOES ALLOWING THIS PRACTICE BESPEAK A COMMITMENT TO THE
           SANCTITY OF OF HUMAN LIFE, OF A HUMAN PERSON?
           NO, MR. PRESIDENT. IF WE DO NOT SAY AT SOME POINT THAT OUR
           TOLERANCE DRAWS THE LINE AT A PRACTICE SO BRUT AND SO INHUMANE,
           WE RUN THE SEVERE RISK OF OF ERODING THIS FOUNDATION THAT
           REALLY LIES AT THE BASE OF ALL OUR OTHER FREEDOMS, A COUNTRY

           THAT ALLOWS THIS BARBARIC PROCEDURE TO BE INFLICTED ON INNOCENT
           HUMAN LIVES IS A COUNTRY THAT CANNOT BE TRUSTED WHEN IT
           PROCLAIMS A RESPECT FOR OTHER FREEDOMS. WHAT FREEDOM, MR.
           PRESIDENT, WILL SUCH A COUNTRY NOT DISCARD IN THE NAME OF MERE
           CONVENIENCE?
           FOR ME, THE DECISION IS CLEAR. THIS -- THIS -- IS WHERE WE DRAW
           THE LINE. NOW IS THE TIME THAT WE DRAW IT. WE MUST BAN THIS
           UNCIVILIZED, THIS BARBARIC, THIS IMMORAL PROCEDURE, AND WE MUST

           DO IT TOMORROW MORNING. NOW, MANY PEOPLE AGREE, MR. PRESIDENT,
           THAT THIS PROCEDURE IS CLOSER TO INFANTICIDE THAN IT IS TO
           ABORTION. ONE OF THE REASONS BANNING THIS PROCEDURE HAS BEEN
           SUPPORTED BY DOCTORS, INCLUDING THE AMERICAN MEDICAL
           ASSOCIATION, THE PHYSICIANS AD HOC COALITION FOR TRUTH, AND
           EVEN BY OTHERWISE PRO-CHOICE INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING EVEN SOME
           ABORTIONISTS, IS BECAUSE IT IS A PROCEDURE THAT IS NEVER A

           MEDICAL NECESSITY. IT IS NEVER A MEDICAL NECESSITY. IT IS DONE,
           MR. PRESIDENT, THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING IT IS DONE FOR
           SHEER CONVENIENCE. THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND
           GYNECOLOGISTS, WHILE IT DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS BILL, COULD
           NEVERTHELESS NOT IDENTIFY ANY CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THIS
           PROCEDURE WOULD BE THE ONLY OPTION TO SAVE THE LIFE OR PRESERVE
           THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER. MOST PEOPLE IN AMERICA OPPOSE THIS
           PROCEDURE, AND THEY OPPOSE IT FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THEY KNOW
           WHAT IT IS. FOR THOSE WHO DON'T OR WHO NEED TO BE REMINDED OF

           OF WHAT IT IS, LET ME AGAIN DESCRIBE IT. I KNOW THIS PROCEDURE
           HAS BEEN DESCRIBED ON THIS FLOOR MANY, MANY TIMES, BUT IT GOES
           TO THE HEART OF THIS DEBATE. PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION INVOLVES
           THE PARTIAL DELIVERY OF A BABY ITS FEET. THE HEAD IS LEFT
           INSIDE ITS MOTHER'S WOMB. THE HEAD REMAINS IN THE UTERUS WHILE
           THE ABORTIONIST KILLS THE BABY STABBING SCISSORS INTO THE BASE
           OF THE CHILD'S HEAD, SUCTIONING OUT THE BABY'S BRAINS WITH A

           SMALL TUBE, THEN COMPLETING THE DELIVERY OF THE NOW DEAD CHILD.
           IN THIS BARBARIC PROCEDURE, MR. PRESIDENT, THE ABORTIONIST DOES
           NOT EVEN ADMINISTER ANESTHESIA TO THE FETUS. MR. PRESIDENT, A
           MOMENT AGO YOU POINTED OUT THAT DOGS ARE TREATED BETTER THAN
           THIS. THE DOGS THAT ARE USED IN MEDICAL RESEARCH ARE REQUIRED
           TO BE GIVEN PAIN MANAGEMENT THERAPY UNDER FEDERAL STANDARDS.
           THE TREATMENT OF THESE HUMAN FETUSES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
           WOULD NOT EVEN MEET THE BEAR MINIMUM FEDERAL STANDARD FOR THE

           DOGS USED IN MEDICAL RESEARCH. KNOWING THAT, WHY THEN HAVE WE
           NOT BANNED THIS PROCEDURE?
           WHY ARE WE STILL HERE 0 DEBATING YET AGAIN WHAT SHOULD BE
           SELF-EVIDENT THAT, THIS PRACTICE IS A CRIME AGAINST OUR COMMON
           HUMANITY?
           THE ANSWER, I'M AFRAID, IS VERY SIMPLE. MY FRIEND FROM
           PENNSYLVANIA HAS SPENT A GOOD TIME TODAY ON THE FLOOR OUTLINING
           IT AND OUTLINING THE REASON. THE CASE SUPPORTING THIS PROCEDURE
           IS BUILT ON MISINFORMATION. IT IS BUILT ON LIES. AND THEY ARE

           INTENDED TO POISON THE PUBLIC DEBATE AND OBSCURE THE TRUTH.
           THAT'S THE FACT. IN THE BEGINNING OF THE PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION
           CONTROVERSY, MANY PEOPLE WERE MISLED TO BELIEVE THAT THIS
           PROCEDURE WAS RARE. WE WERE TOLD IT WAS RARE. NOW TODAY WE KNOW
           THAT SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE. ALMOST EVERYONE IS AWARE BY NOW THAT
           RON FITZSIMMONS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL COALITION
           OF ABORTION PROVIDERS, ADMITTED -- ADMITTED -- THAT HE LIED. HE
           SAID, "I LIED THROUGH MY TEETH." HE LIED WHEN HE SAID THAT

           PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS WERE PERFORMED RARELY AND ONLY IN
           EXTREME MEDICAL CIRCUMSTANCES. HE ADMITTED LATER, AFTER THE
           DEBATE, THAT THAT WAS A LIE. IN THE INTEREST, MR. PRESIDENT, OF
           MEDICAL ACCURACY, LET ME EMPHASIZE AND BE SPECIFIC ABOUT HOW
           MR. FITZSIMMONS LIED. HE LIED PLAINLY, AND IN HIS OWN WORDS, HE
           LIED THROUGH HIS TEETH. WE WERE MISLED AGAIN, MR. PRESIDENT,
           WHEN WE WERE TOLD THAT THIS PROCEDURE WAS THE ONLY LATE-TERM
           ABORTION PROCEDURE THAT COULD BE USEED IN CERTAIN INSTANCES TO

           SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER. AGAIN, THAT'S NOT TRUE. IT IS
           SIMPLY NOT TRUE. THIS PROCEDURE IS NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY. IT
           IS NOT MEDICALLY INDICATED. EVER. NOR IS IT THE ONLY OPTION
           AVAILABLE. NOW THAT'S NOT BASED ON WHAT MIKE DEWINE SAIZ OR
           WHAT RICK SANTORUM SAYS. THAT'S BASED ON THE AMERICAN MEDICAL
           ASSOCIATION. NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, WE WERE TOLD YET ANOTHER
           FALSEHOOD, LIE. WE WERE TOLD THAT THIS PROCEDURE WAS TO

           PRESERVE THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER. WE WERE MISLED ABOUT THAT AS
           WELL. THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. DR. MARTIN HASKELL, A MAN WHO
           INVENTED THIS PROCEDURE, HE SAID THAT 80% OF THE ABORTIONS HE
           PERFORMS ARE ELECTIVE. 80%. THIS IS THE ABORTIONIST. THIS IS
           THE MAN WHO INVENTED THIS HAD PROCEDURE. HE SAYS 80% OF THE
           ONES HE PERFORMS ARE ELECTIVE. A SURVEY WHICH ASKS WOMEN WHO
           HAD HAD LATE-TERM ABORTIONS WHY THEY WAITED FOUND THAT 71% DID

           NOT KNOW THEY WERE PEGT OR -- PREGNANT OR MISJUDGED THE AGE OF
           THE BABY. THIS PROCEDURE, MR. PRESIDENT, IS IS BEING PERFORMED
           FOR CONVENIENCE, PURE AND SIMPLE. NOW, WE'VE ALSO BEEN TOLD THE
           PROCEDURE IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE BABY IS NOT VIABLE ANYWAY.
           BUT EVEN THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT ALWAYS TRUE. MANY TIMES IT'S NOT
           TRUE. RESEARCH -- A RECENT ARTICLE IN THE "NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL
           OF MEDICINE" FOUND THAT 56% OF BABIES ARE VIABLE OUTSIDE OF

           THEIR MOTHER'S WOMB AT 24 WEEKS. AT 25 WEEKS, 79% OF THEM ARE
           VIABLE. I'M SURE THAT MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE HAD THE SAME
           EXPERIENCE THAT I HAVE WHEN WE HAVE GONE HOME TO OUR HOME
           STATES, VISITED NEONATAL INTENSIVE UNITS AT CHILDREN'S
           HOSPITALS OR OTHER HOSPITALS, AND WE'VE SEEN 22
           WEEK-OLD-CHILDREN, 23-WEEK-OLD CHILDREN THAT HAVE BEEN BORN
           PREMATURELY WHO ARE FIGHTING FOR LIFE, BUT MANY OF THEM DO IN
           FACT MAKE T. WE'VE SEEN THAT WITH OUR OWN EYES, AND WE'VE ALL

           TALKED TO THE DOCTORS WHO ARE FRANTICALLY TRYING, WORKING SO
           HARD EVERY DAY TO SAVE THEM. AND MANY CAN BE SAVED. NOW,
           UNFORTUNATELY, THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
           STATES, IN VETOING THIS LEGISLATION AS IN HIS VETO OF THE
           PREVIOUS LEGISLATION HAS JUSTIFIED HIS POSITION PRECISELY ON
           THESE TYPES OF OF FALSEHOODS. IN FACT, IF YOU LOOK AT HIS VETO
           MESSAGE LAST TIME, WHAT YOU FIND IS ALL THESE FACTS THAT ARE
           OUTLINED THERE THAT HE SAYS ARE FACTS ARE SIMPLY NOT TRUE. THE

           PRESIDENT TRAGICALLY IS WRONG. WHILE IT'S TRUE, MR. PRESIDENT,
           THAT EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO HIS OR HER OWN OPINION, NONE OF US
           IS ENTITLED TO OUR OWN FACTS. AND THE FACTS CLEARLY INDICATE
           THAT THE PRESIDENT PUT DOWN HIS VETO MESSAGE IS WRONG. NOW THE
           FALSEHOODS SPREAD BY THE DEFENDERS OF PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION
           ARE, FRANKLY, OFFENSIVE. BUT EVEN MORE OFFENSIVE ARE SOME OF
           THESE LIES IS ONE THE PROPONENTS OF PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION TELL

           THE TRUTH. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THEY SAY THE PARTIAL-BIRTH
           ABORTION PROCEDURE IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO GET RID OF DEFECTIVE
           INFANTS, THE LATE DR. JAMES MCMAHON, WHO HAD PERFORMED
           THOUSANDS OF THESE PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS, HE SAID HE
           PERFORMED SOME OF THESE ABORTIONS BECAUSE THE BABY HAD A CLEFT
           LIP. THAT'S RIGHT -- A CLEFT LIP. MAYBE IT'S TIME TO REWRITE
           OUR SACRED DOCUMENTS TO SAY, "WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE
           SELF-EVIDENT THAT MOST OF US -- MOST OF US -- ARE ENDOWED WITH

           INALIENABLE RIGHTS -- THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY AND THE
           PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. BUT PEOPLE WITH CLEFT LIP AND OTHER
           PROBLEMS ARE ENTITLED TO BE VICTIM TO A PAINFUL AND BARBARIC
           MURDER. NO, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT IS NOT THE MORAL ATTITUDE OF
           THE AMERICA I WANT TO BELIEVE IN OR THAT I DO BELIEVE IN.
           THAT'S THE MORAL ATTITUDE OF ANOTHER CIVILIZATION, ONE THAT
           AROSE IN THIS VICIOUS CENTURY ONLY TO VANISH FROM THE FACE OF
           THIS PLANET BY THE FORCE OF AMERICAN ARMS AND, MORE
           IMPORTANTLY, OF AMERICAN VALUES. IT IS IN OUR POWER TO SAY "NO"

           TO THIS THROWBACK TO THE DAYS OF THE NAZIS, TO SAY "NO" TO THE
           SELECTION OF THE FITTEST, TO SAY "NO" TO INFANTICIDE. THAT'S
           WHAT WE'RE ABOUT TODAY ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE. THAT'S WHAT
           WILL WE WILL BE ABOUT TOMORROW MORNING WHEN WE CAST OUR VOTE.
           MR. PRESIDENT, I'D LIKE TO NOTE BRIEFLY THAT A NUMBER OF STATE
           STATUTES HAVE SOUGHT TO BAN THESE PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS. SOME
           STATES HAVE HAD SUCCESS. OTHERS HAVE NOT. MANY OF THOSE
           STATUTES WHICH HAVE BEEN STRUCK DOWN, HOWEVER, ARE VERY
           DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THIS LEGISLATION. I WOULD LIKE TO TALK

           ABOUT THIS CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECT OF THIS BILL, BECAUSE THE
           ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED TIME AND TIME AGAIN ON THE FLOOR OF THE
           SENATE. SO LET ME TURN TO AN EXAMINATION OF THE BILL BASED ON
           OUR CONSTITUTION, BASED ON ROE V. WADE AND CASEY AND THE OTHER
           SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. FIRST LET ME STATE THAT OF THE CASES
           OF THE STATUTES THAT HAVE BEEN STRUCK DOWN, THE STATUTE THAT IS
           BEFORE US, THE PROPOSED STATUTE THAT IS BEFORE US IS COMPLEERL
           DISTINGUISHABLE. FOR EXAMPLE, MR. PRESIDENT, THE FIRST LAW TO

           BAN THE PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION PROCEDURE WAS ENACTED IN MY
{END: 1998/09/17 TIME: 21-15 , Thu.  105TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}