Joint Hearing on "Partial-Birth Abortion: The Truth"
March 11, 1997
Statement by Orrin Hatch
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Let me thank all of those who have appeared today for coming. I understand that many, decent people on both sides of this issue have very strongly held beliefs. I respect those whose views differ from my own. And I condemn the use of violence or any other illegal method to express any point of view on this issue. I think everyone here shares that view. And when we denounce violence, we should also denounce the use of half-truths and the knowing or reckless deception of the public in advocating one's position on this issue.
Over the last several months. it has become evident to the public that a great deal of misinformation has been disseminated about partial-birth abortions. The recent statements of abortion clinic lobbyist Ron Fitzsimmons are revealing" what many already knew -- that there has long existed voluminous and convincing evidence that there are thousands of elective partial-birth abortions performed every year. The Judiciary Committees of both the House and Senate believe it is time to set the record straight, correct the false statements, and clarify any resulting misconceptions about the timing, method, and frequency of the partial-birth abortion procedure. Witnesses have been invited here to testify as to the facts surrounding this procedure -- not to give their opinions on the broader issue of abortion. In the end, we hope the public learns the truth about partial-birth abortions.
We will learn that the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997," which has been introduced in both the House and the Senate, does not address whether all abortions after a certain week of pregnancy should be banned, or whether late-term abortions should only be permitted in certain circumstances. S 6, the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997," bans one particular abortion procedure. That procedure involves the partial delivery during the 5th or 6th month of pregnancy, of an intact fetus into the birth canal. The fetus is delivered from its feet through its shoulders, so that only head remains in the uterus. Then, either scissors or another instrument is used to poke a hole in the base of the skull. At that point, a suction catheter is inserted to suck out the brains.
We will learn the truth about the frequency and method of this procedure. For example, we will hear that, notwithstanding the deceptive arguments -- intentional or otherwise -- of some pro-abortion groups that this procedure was extremely rare, we now know at least several thousand of these abortions are performed each year in the United States. In fact, one single clinic in New Jersey reportedly acknowledges performing 1,500 partial birth abortions annually. [The Bergen Record, Sept. 15 1996]. We will hear testimony that these abortions are performed primarily in the fifth and sixth month of pregnancy -- that is the second trimester -- and mainly on the healthy babies of healthy mothers.
The Committees will also examine the so-called alternative being proposed by the Clinton Administration. According to his spokesman, President Clinton, who vetoed this bipartisan legislation last year, thinks "elective" partial-birth abortions are "abhorrent." [Mike McCurry, quoted in Weekly Standard, March 17, 1997]. Yet, his fig-leaf alternative would do nothing to prevent partial birth abortions on unborn, healthy babies during the fifth or sixth month of pregnancy. The Administration's ban would only apply to third trimester partial birth abortions and, even then, a broad "health of the mother" exception would apply. As the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League pointed out in a document made available to the Committee, the Clinton proposal is already "the law of the land today." [NARAL Promoting Reproductive Choices "Responses to Tough Questions on the Late-Term Abortion Ban", Bate # NAF 135].
The Clinton Administration proposal is simply the latest example of what has become a pattern of dissemblance and deception by those who support abortion on demand and who do not want to ban this hideous procedure. For example, in June of 1995, we witnessed the dissemination -- and acceptance by many in the media -- of inaccurate information concerning the effects of anesthesia on the fetus of a pregnant woman. I must say that I am personally appalled by the irresponsibility that led some opponents of the partial-birth abortion ban to spread the myth that anesthesia given to the mother during a partial-birth abortion is what kills the fetus. Opponents of the bill presumably wanted to make this procedure appear less barbaric and make it more palatable. In so doing, however, they not only misrepresented the procedure -- which is bad enough-- but they spread potentially life-threatening misinformation that could prove catastrophic to women's health. By claiming that anesthesia kills the fetus, opponents spread misinformation that could deter pregnant women who might desperately need surizerv from undergoing surgery for fear that the anesthesia could kill or brain-damage their unborn children. Let me illustrate how widespread this example of misinformation had become:
In a June 23, 1995 submission to the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee, the late Dr. James McMahon, the other of the two doctors who had at the time admitted performing the procedure, wrote that anesthesia given to the mother during the procedure caused fetal demise. Syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman wrote that, when statements of supporters of the bill are reviewed, "You wouldn't even know that anesthesia ends the life of such a fetus before it comes down the birth canal." An editorial in USA Today on November 3, 1995 also stated, "The fetus dies from an overdose of anesthesia given to its mother." In a self-described fact sheet circulated to members of the House, Dr. Mary Campbell-- the medical director of Planned Parenthood who testified at the Judiciary Committee hearing-- wrote:
. "The fetus dies of an overdose of anesthesia given to the mother intravenously. ... [The anesthesia] induces brain death in a fetus in a matter of minutes. Fetal demise therefore occurs at the beginning of the procedure while the fetus is still in the womb."
When that statement was referenced to the medical panel at last Congress' Judiciary Committee hearing by Senator Abraham, the President of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Dr. Norig Ellison, flatly responded, "There is absolutely no basis in scientific fact for that statement." The American Society of Anesthesiologists had sought the opportunity to set the record straight and, although they did not take a position on the partial birth ban, they came forward out of concern for this harmful misinformation.
The spreading of misinformation such as this strikes me as a very sad commentary on the lengths that those who support abortion on demand, for any reason, at virtually any time during pregnancy, and apparently regardless of the method, will go to defend the procedure. The sacrifice of intellectual honesty is very disheartening.
In a few moments, we will take the unusual step of playing a video taped segment of a documentary series entitled Media Matters which aired on PBS in January. The video provides an appropriate lead-in to our hearing and details how many in the media passively accepted false or inaccurate information from pro-abortion sources and repeated it, unexamined, as news. Here lies an opportunity, for the press to do the right thing by reporting the truth about this procedure and exposing the Administration alternative for the fraud it is.
In closing, some of our witnesses will assert that our bill, the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997," is a first step in a campaign to ban all abortions. Yet, the real issue is whether knowingly permitting this procedure to continue would serve as a first step towards legalized infanticide. I urge the bill's opponents to ask themselves this question. What is the real purpose of this procedure? An answer to that question was recently given by abortion clinic lobbyist Ron Fitzsimmons when he told the New York Times, "It is a form of killing. You're ending a life." [New York Times, Feb.26, 1997]. It seems, Mr. Fitzsimmons and I may agree on something.
I believe today's hearing will provide ample justification, regardless of one's view on the broader issue of abortion, to support passage and enactment of the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997."
Judiciary Homepage