|
|
|
|
September Issue |
|
|
|
Resources |
|
|
|
 |
|
Issue Date: JANUARY 1997
Volume: 12
Issue: 01
Page: 114
|
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION VETO
The Right to Choose
NANCY ROMAN
Editor's note: What follows are excerpts from senatorial speeches that supported President Clinton's veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Bill. The opposite page includes speeches condemning the veto. The final vote was 57 to 41 against the veto. The veto remained in force, as 67 votes are needed to override a veto.
BARBARA BOXER (D--CALIFORNIA)
FOOTNOTE: Excerpts taken from the Congressional Record, September 26, 1996.
The bill that is before us, which has been vetoed by the President, is not about choice, it is about health and life. Frankly, I believe that it is about politics. That is the saddest thing of all. ...
Let me read from the President's letter. I believe that every American who listens to this letter will see the compassion in our President toward women and families who find themselves in tragic danger and circumstances, and to children. ...
The President writes:
"Dear Mr. Leader: I am writing to urge that you vote to uphold my veto of H.R. 1833, a bill banning so-called partial-birth abortions. My views on this legislation have been widely misrepresented, so I would like to take a moment and state my position clearly.
"I am against late-term abortions and have long opposed them, except, as the Supreme Court requires, where necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. As Governor of Arkansas, I signed into law a bill that barred third trimester abortions with an appropriate exception for life and health. I would sign a bill to do the same thing at the Federal level if it were presented to me.
"The procedure aimed at in H.R. 1833 poses a difficult and disturbing issue. Initially, I anticipated that I would support the bill. But after I studied the matter and learned more about it, I came to believe that it should be permitted as a last resort when doctors judge it necessary to save a woman's life or to avert serious consequences to her health. ...
"Some have raised the question whether this procedure is ever most appropriate as a matter of medical practice. The best answer comes from the medical community, which believes that, in those rare cases where a woman's serious health interests are at stake, the decision of whether to use the procedure should be left to the best exercise of their medical judgment.
"The problem with H.R. 1833 is that it provides an exception to the ban on this procedure only when a doctor is convinced that a woman's life is at risk, but not when the doctor believes she faces real, grave risks to her health.
"Let me be clear. I do not contend that this procedure, today, is always used in circumstances that meet my standard. The procedure may well be used in situations where a woman's serious health interests are not at risk. But I do not support such uses, I do not defend them, and I would sign appropriate legislation banning them."
The President of the United States says if this procedure is used in any other circumstance other than health and life of the mother, he would ban it, and we could do that by unanimous consent today. ... The President goes on:
"At the same time, I cannot and will not accept a ban on this procedure in those cases where it represents the best hope for a woman to avoid serious risks to her health.
"I also understand that many who support this bill believe that a health exception could be stretched to cover almost anything, such as emotional stress, financial hardship or inconvenience. That is not the kind of exception I support. I support an exception that takes effect only where a woman faces real, serious risk to her health. Some have cited cases where fraudulent health reasons are relied upon as an excuse--excuses I could never condone. But people of good faith must recognize that there are also cases where the health risks facing a woman are deadly serious and real. It is in those cases that I believe an exception to the general ban on the procedure should be allowed.
"Further, I reject the view of those who say it is impossible to draft a bill imposing real, stringent limits on the use of this procedure--a bill making crystal clear that the procedure may be used only in cases where a woman risks death or serious damage to her health, and in no other case. Working in a bipartisan manner, Congress could fashion such a bill. ...
"In short, I do not support the use of this procedure on demand or on the strength of mild or fraudulent health complaints. But I do believe that it is wrong to abandon women whose doctors advise them that they need the procedure to avoid serious injury. That, in my judgment, would be the true inhumanity. Accordingly, I urge that you vote to uphold my veto of H.R. 1833."
EDWARD M. KENNEDY (D--MASSACHUSETTS)
Many of us have seen, over the course of the past days, the real appeal to emotionalism. ...
I oppose this legislation, and I urge the Senate to sustain the President's veto. The President was right to veto this bill, because it fails to include adequate safeguards for the life or the health of the mother.
It makes no sense to criminalize a medical procedure that has saved the lives and preserved the health of many women. If our Republican colleagues are serious about this difficult and complex issue, they would have included an exception for the life of the mother instead of the inadequate exception in this bill. They would have also included an exception for serious threats to the health of the mother.
This bill is too harsh and too extreme in both of these areas. Without good faith exceptions for the life and health of the mother, the bill, in addition to being too harsh and too extreme, is unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade.
Because of these serious deficiencies, this bill imposes an unacceptable burden on women and their doctors. Congress should not criminalize a medical procedure needed to deal with cases that threaten the life or the health of the mother. In these difficult and traumatic and heart-rending cases, Congress should not second-guess the judgment of the doctor, let alone threaten the doctor with prison. ...
No major medical association supports this legislation. It is specifically opposed by many leading medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Women's Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Nurses Association, and the California Medical Association. ...
If this bill is enacted into law, Congress will be violating sound medical practice and adding to the pain and misery and tragedy of many women and their families.
OLYMPIA SNOWE (R--MAINE)
I rise to speak in opposition to this effort to override the President's veto of H.R. 1833.
This is our very last chance to ensure that this punitive legislation does not have the effect of putting women's lives and health on the line. For that is exactly what will happen if we override the President's veto today. Women's lives and health will be put at tragic risk. And Congress will be substituting its judgment for that of doctors, by outlawing a medical procedure for the first time since Roe v. Wade.
There is no question that any abortion is an emotional, wrenching decision for a woman. When a woman must confront this decision during the later stages of a pregnancy because she knows that the pregnancy presents a direct threat to her own life or health, such a decision becomes a nightmare. ...
Not since prior to Roe v. Wade have there been efforts to criminalize a medical procedure in this country. But that's exactly what this bill does.
This legislation is an unprecedented expansion of Government regulation of women's health care. Never before has Congress intruded directly into the practice of medicine by banning a safe and legal medical procedure that is absolutely vital in some cases to protect the health or life of women.
The supporters of this bill are substituting political judgment for that of a medical doctor regarding the appropriateness of a medical procedure. Regrettably, politicians are second-guessing medical science.
Who are we here on this floor to say what a doctor should and should not do to save a woman's life or preserve her health? Who are we to legislate medicine?
The proponents of this legislation are willing to risk the lives and health of women facing medical emergencies. According to physicians--not politicians--this procedure is actually the safest and most appropriate alternative for women whose lives and health are endangered by a pregnancy. ...
We must never overlook the fact that women's lives and health are at stake. They hang in the balance. Women who undergo these procedures face the terrible tragedy of a later-stage pregnancy that has through no fault of their own gone terribly, tragically wrong. These women will face the horrible truth that carrying their pregnancy to term may actually threaten their own life and their own health.
JOHN KERRY (D--MASSACHUSETTS)
This bill does not clearly define which procedures would be banned because the term "partial birth" is not a medical term. The bill defines "partial birth" abortion as "an operation in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery." This vague definition in the bill would, for the first time, impose limits on the Roe v. Wade right of a woman to choose an abortion.
This language easily could be interpreted to ban other medical procedures which are--and should remain--completely legal. The bill would also ban procedures used in the third trimester to save the health or future fertility of the mother. This would overturn the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade that states in the third trimester can ban abortion procedures except those saving the life or protecting the health of the mother.
I am personally opposed to abortion in the third trimester--except when the life or health of the woman is at risk. But that is the law of the land today. There is no question that late-term abortion procedures are gruesome. But this procedure is considered safer and less traumatic in some cases than alternative late-term procedures. ...
There are only 600 third-term abortions performed in the entire country each year, according to the best statistics we have available from the Alan Guttmacher Institute. In fact, there are only two doctors in the entire United States, located in Colorado and Kansas, who are known to perform abortions during the last 3 months of pregnancy. ...
I will uphold the President's veto of this bill. I believe that it would be a major mistake for the Federal Government to try to practice medicine in order to make an ideological point. Trained doctors, after consulting with their patients, should make these decisions. I urge my colleagues to support the President on this difficult issue.
JANUARY 1997
12
01
S P E C I A L F E A T U R E -- T H E M E A N I N G O F T H E E L E C T I O N S
Still a Republican Congress<br> Republicans insist their new majority is an affirmation of their platform.<br> <page> 82<br> Shortly after results were tallied, House Speaker Newt Gingrich declared his party's paper-thin majority an affirmation of the Republican Congress--and then gently lobbed the legislative agenda into President Clinton's court.<br> "We have an obligation, frankly, to reach out to the newly reelected president who after all campaigned on a balanced budget and targeted tax cuts and being against drugs and being for doing virtually all the things we said we were for," he said.<br> Republican leaders all over Capitol Hill followed his cue.<br> "He [Clinton] won the right to have the first time at bat," said Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican National Committee. "To the extent that he has an agenda, you can expect Republicans to give it a serious, thoughtful consideration."<br> This strategy puts the president in a box: Either he advances the GOP agenda by supporting GOP initiatives like tax cuts, a balanced budget, and smaller government or he moves a more liberal agenda that they will reject with glee.<br> "I think this is going to be a sparse year legislatively," says Rep. John Linder, Georgia Republican and newly appointed chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee.<br> Gingrich, who was easily reelected in Georgia, saw his majority in the House cut almost in half, as 19 Republicans were defeated--most of them freshmen who had loyally supported him.<br> For example, Rep. Michael Patrick Flanagan, who had earlier defeated legendary Democrat Rep. Dan Rostenkowski in Chicago, lost to Rod Blagojevich. Rep. Fred Heineman of North Carolina was defeated by former Democratic Rep. David Price. And Rep. Dick Chrysler of Detroit was taken down by Democrat Debbie Stabenow, a former state senator.<br> There are 435 members of the House. The GOP majority dropped from 235 seats to about 226 seats, with a handful of races still undecided at press time.<br> "As a group, we are more conservative, more experienced, and not quite as rambunctious," Linder says. <br> Aside from the GOP freshmen, most incumbents in both parties fared well, buoyed by a strong economy and congressional achievements such as reforming welfare and allowing workers to take their health insurance from job to job.<br> There were a few exceptions: <br> In Missouri, Democratic Rep. Harold Volkmer lost to Republican Kenny Hulshof.<br> Republican Anne Northup defeated Democratic Rep. Mike Ward in Louisville, Kentucky.<br> Rep. Robert Dornan, a California Republican known for his opposition to homosexuality and abortion, was defeated by Loretta Sanchez in a heavily Hispanic district.<br> Republicans also took a hit in the Northeast, where the Democratic stronghold got stronger.<br> In one of the least expected losses, Rep. Gary Franks of Connecticut--one of two black Republicans--was defeated by Democrat James Maloney. <br> Republicans insist their new majority, albeit slim, is an affirmation of their platform: to cut taxes, balance the budget, and reduce the size of government. Sixty of the 73 GOP freshmen were reelected. Republicans also knocked off 3 Democratic incumbents and picked up 10 open seats.<br> "In voting for the Republican Congress, they [voters] validated the effectiveness and success of this Congress," says Barbour. "This Republican Congress has the highest approval rating of any Congress in a decade. They liked what they got."<br> What did they get?<br> The 104th Congress made notable progress toward downsizing government, including:<br> * Unraveling Franklin Roosevelt's Agricultural Adjustment Administration, a program Congress passed in 1933 that sought to raise farm prices by giving subsidies to farmers who agreed to reduce production of certain commodities. Congress passed a seven-year farm bill that weans corporate farmers from price supports in a series of decreasing payments. It also eliminates planting restrictions, allowing farmers to rotate their crops as they choose.<br> * Overhauling welfare, repealing major social service programs including Aid to Families with Dependent Children, which gives cash assistance to about 14 million poor people. The new law gives cash grants to states and concomitant leeway to develop their own assistance programs for the poor. It also requires the 26 million who receive food stamps to work for them. It denies benefits to legal aliens awaiting citizenship.<br> * Revamping 60-year-old telecommunication laws, using competition rather than regulation as a means of delivering telecommunications services--including cable TV and on-line services--more cheaply. It requires telephone companies to share their phone lines with competitors.<br> Polls showed that the public generally liked these accomplishments and the overall Republican theme of reducing the size of government.<br> But the same polls also showed that people do not want to dismantle government willy-nilly, and they were nervous about proposed changes to Medicare.<br> Democrats seized on fear and fed it. Backed by an AFL-CIO--financed ad campaign, Democrats branded Republicans "extremist" for proposing slower growth in Medicare and student loans and repealing protections for the environment.<br> Unions started the drumbeat early this year and continued it until Election Day in advertising that depicted baby-boomer couples worried about health care for their grandparents because of proposed GOP changes to Medicare.<br> "Our effort helped to define what the issues are," says Norm Kurz, an AFL-CIO spokesman. Union workers went door-to-door in 102 districts. "It was good old-fashioned politics, and the reason people were drawn to this is because the issues that matter to them most were being debated," Kurz says.<br> The unions helped Democrats, but not enough to give them the 19 seats they needed to take back control of the House. Only 12 of the 32 AFL-CIO--targeted Republicans lost. A key question remaining is how labor interests will fare in a Congress controlled by Republicans. It is almost a certainty that Republicans will be looking for ways to reduce federal funds that flow to unions through the appropriations process.<br> GOP prevails<br> On the Republican side, candidates tried to bank on a public preference for divided government.<br> Bill Paxon, New York Republican and former chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee, says the most effective Republican ad of the season was one entitled "Crystal Ball," in which the GOP capitalized on public fears of a Democratic president acting alongside a Democratic Congress to rubber-stamp its initiatives. It appealed to voters to elect a Republican Congress to keep Clinton in check.<br> "We reminded viewers of what things were like just two short years ago with a drive toward government-run health care and gays in the military," says Paxon. "That ad is the reason some of our members are here."<br> The Republican National Committee also bought $250,000 of radio spots during evening drive time. When President Clinton was declared the winner, they instantly filled those spots with an ad urging voters to go to the polls and elect a Republican to keep Clinton in check.<br> Although they prevailed, House Republicans are left with less room to maneuver.<br> A majority by any margin brings with it a host of perks, including committee chairmanships, extra staff, larger offices with better views--and most important, control of the agenda. But when the majority is airtight, it is easier for the minority party to derail legislation and advance its own proposals.<br> Democrats hope the Republicans' narrower House majority means the GOP will check its hunger to slash government spending and downsize government, as they woo Democrats to help with their initiatives.<br> "You are going to have to have real bipartisan cooperation if you are going to achieve anything," says Rep. Martin Frost, Texas Democrat and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.<br> While Republicans are not likely to embark on an ambitious agenda as they did two years ago, Republican leaders have implied that they will press ahead with investigations into the scandals that have plagued the White House, including Whitewater, travelgate, and filegate.<br> "The revelations are serious," Barbour says, "and they must be taken seriously."<br> Sen. Christopher Dodd, Connecticut Democrat and chairman of the Democratic National Party, has said the American public is sick of these investigations.<br> Senate Majority leader Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican, reminded political observers not to forget that Republicans increased their majority in the Senate.<br> Republican Larry Pressler of Idaho lost, but Republicans picked up seats in Nebraska, Arkansas, and Alabama. Republican businessman Chuck Hagel beat Democratic Gov. Bill Nelson in Nebraska for the seat of retiring Sen. Jim Exxon. Rep. Tim Hutchison claimed the seat of retiring Democrat David Pryor in Arkansas. Alabama Attorney General Jeff Sessions claimed the seat of retiring Democrat Howell Heflin.<br> Overall, the GOP's performance in the South was mixed. Although they picked up Senate seats in Arkansas and Alabama, they missed opportunities that they had been crowing about in Louisiana and Georgia.<br> In Louisiana, Mary Landrieu, former state treasurer and daughter of former New Orleans Mayor Moon Landrieu, defeated Republican Woody Jenkins, who was backed by the Christian Coalition.<br> In Georgia, Max Cleland, Vietnam veteran and triple amputee, defeated businessman Guy Millner in a particularly negative campaign. Cleland said he and other Democrats benefited from the Republicans' overzealous drive to cut government.<br> "Most Americans wanted a change, but they didn't want a radical change," he says. "What they ended up with was radical change, and people said, 'Wait a minute, here.' A lot of voters felt like the drunk on the Titanic: 'I ordered ice, but this is ridiculous.' "<br> House Republican performance in the South was mixed, too. The GOP picked up both open seats in Alabama. Republican lawyer Robert Aderholt beat Democrat Robert "Bob" Wilson. In the district just below that, Republican Bob Riley was ahead of T.D. "Ted" Little, a state senator.<br> But they didn't do quite as well as they had hoped. GOP strategists had planned to offset any freshman losses by winning most of the 18 open seats in the South. But Democrats, after suffering heavy blows in 1992 and '94, met the Republicans with candidates so conservative it was hard to tell one from the other.<br> Republicans faced conservative Democrats like Mike McIntyre and Bobby Etheridge in North Carolina, who were pro-gun, pro-life, and conservative on most social issues. McIntyre, a conservative Democratic lawyer, defeated Republican Bill Caster, who owns a small business, for the open House seat of retiring Democrat Charlie Rose. Etheridge, who distanced himself from President Clinton after he regulated tobacco, defeated Republican Rep. David Funderburk.<br> In Florida, Democrats staved off a pickup of Sam Gibbons' old seat when Jim Davis beat Republican Mark Sharpe.<br> "I think Republicans got all they are going to get in the South," says Frost. "If they survived '94 and they survived '96, they are keepers."<br> Conservative Democrats could become a more important bloc of voters as these issues are decided next year. The 42 freshmen Democrats span the spectrum from liberal Harold Ford, Jr., in Tennessee to McIntyre, who was considered more conservative than the Republican he defeated.<br> The conservative "blue dog" Democrats, a spinoff of "yellow dog" Democrats, will likely add to their numbers with Democrats like Alan Boyd of Florida or Bobby Etheridge of North Carolina--making them a more formidable force.<br> While it is clear Republicans will rule the House, its precise balance is yet to be determined. In Texas, a successful challenge to redistricting raised the possibility that several seats wouldn't be decided until runoffs in December.
</font>
<!-- FOOTER START -->
</TD>
</tr>
</TBODY></TABLE></DIV>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<table width="778" border="0" align="center" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<tr>
<td align="center" bgcolor="#006699" class="footer">Copyright © 2003 The World & I. All rights reserved.
<a class="footerLink" href="./copyrights.asp">Terms of Use</a> |
<a class="footerLink" href="./privacy.asp">Privacy Policy</a></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
</body>
</html>
<!-- FOOTER END -->
|
