Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
24494123
label
Partial Abortion [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
24494123
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Partial Abortion [1]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)
Ann O'Leary's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
24494123
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7367480-20130436S-035-005-2015
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
0e7330356fd2ca2f
ocrText
October 21, 1999
RECOMMENDED TELEPHONE CALL
TO:
SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC)
DATE:
THIS AFTERNOON BEFORE THE FINAL VOTE (THE TIME
FOR FINAL PASSAGE HAS NOT YET BEEN SET)
RECOMMENDED BY:
LARRY STEIN
JOEL WIGINTON
PURPOSE:
TO THANK THE SENATOR FOR HIS VOTE ON THE
SANTORUM SENSE OF THE SENATE AND TO URGE THE
SENATOR TO VOTE AGAINST THE SANTORUM BILL ON
"PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION" AND THEREBY HELP
SUSTAIN A VETO.
BACKGROUND:
S. 1692, "The Partial Birth Abortion Act," sponsored by Senator
Santorum and 43 others, is virtually identical to those you vetoed
during the 104th and 105th Congresses. S. 1692, like the previous
two bills, fails to address your primary concern that the prohibition
on this type of abortion procedure not apply when the attending
physician considers the procedure necessary to preserve the health
of the woman. (The bill would only allow this type of abortion in
cases where it is needed to save the life of the woman.) Last
Congress, the Senate passed the bill, 64-36. Last night, the Senate
passed, with a similar veto sustaining vote of 63-36, a Santorum
Sense of the Senate holding that so-called partial birth abortions
should be banned.
Based upon the vote on the Santorum Sense of the Senate, Senator
Boxer, the Minority Floor Manager on this issue, was confident
that the Senate would have an identical vote on final passage of the
underlying bill.
Senator Boxer asked the Legislative Affairs staff if you could call
Senator Edwards to thank him for his vote on the Santorum Sense
of the Senate and to ensure that he will vote against the Santorum
bill.
In addition, Senator Durbin offered a substitute that, similar to
Senator Daschle's alternative of last session, would have banned
all post-viability abortions with an exception to protect the life of a
woman and a narrow exception to protect the health of a woman.
Unlike Daschle's alternative of last session, Durbin's proposal
would have also required that a second doctor certify that a post-
viability abortion is necessary. Women's groups, which last year
objected to Daschle's proposal, oppose the Durbin alternative more
strongly. Senator Daschle's amendment, which we supported,
secured 36 votes last session. The Durbin alternative was defeated
on a motion to table by a vote of 61-38.
TOPICS OF DISCUSSION:
1.
Thank the Senator for his vote on the Santorum Sense of
the Senate vote, and express your similar concern that this
procedure should only be used when absolutely necessary.
2
Tell the Senator that you have devoted much time
developing your position on this issue - that while you
oppose the use of the "partial birth abortion" procedure in
general, you believe that there are a small group of women
in desperate circumstances who need this procedure to
prevent serious injury to their health. You have implored
the Congress to send you legislation that includes this
necessary exception. (ACOG agrees with you that this bill
endangers women, because it prevents doctors from using a
procedure that in a few cases best protects women from
serious injury.)
3.
Tell the Senator you believe that this bill is consistent
neither with the Constitution nor with sound public policy.
Since your 1997 veto, more federal courts have ruled that
state partial birth abortion bans are unconstitutional. More
specifically, the Santorum bill is unconstitutional because it
could be read to ban a wide variety of abortion procedures,
including those used in the earliest stages of pregnancy. In
19 states, courts have fully or partially enjoined similar
legislation on the ground that: (1) it is unconstitutionally
vague because it could be read to ban some of the safest
and most commonly-used abortion procedures; (2) it does
not provide an exception to protect women's health; and (3)
it violates Roe V. Wade.
4.
Remind the Senator that medical decisions should be made
by patients in consultation with their doctors, not by the
government. The decision about abortion is a private,
medical decision. The Santorum bill would prevent doctors
and their patients from choosing what might well be the
best and most appropriate medical treatment.
CONTACT PERSON AND
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
Will Austin (202) 224-7352
DATE OF SUBMISSION:
October 21, 1999
ACTION:
October 21, 1999
RECOMMENDED TELEPHONE CALL
TO:
SENATOR BLANCHE LINCOLN
DATE:
THIS AFTERNOON BEFORE THE FINAL VOTE (THE TIME
FOR FINAL PASSAGE HAS NOT YET BEEN SET)
RECOMMENDED BY:
LARRY STEIN
JOEL WIGINTON
PURPOSE:
TO THANK THE SENATOR FOR HER VOTE ON THE
SANTORUM SENSE OF THE SENATE AND TO URGE THE
SENATOR TO VOTE AGAINST THE SANTORUM BILL ON
"PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION" AND THEREBY HELP
SUSTAIN A VETO
BACKGROUND:
S. 1692, "The Partial Birth Abortion Act," sponsored by Senator
Santorum and 43 others, is virtually identical to those you vetoed
during the 104th and 105th Congresses. S. 1692, like the previous
two bills, fails to address your primary concern that the prohibition
on this type of abortion procedure not apply when the attending
physician considers the procedure necessary to preserve the health
of the woman. (The bill would only allow this type of abortion in
cases where it is needed to save the life of the woman.) Last
Congress, the Senate passed the bill, 64-36. Last night, the Senate
passed, with a similar veto sustaining vote of 63-36, a Santorum
Sense of the Senate holding that so-called partial birth abortions
should be banned.
Based upon the vote on the Santorum Sense of the Senate, Senator
Boxer, the Minority Floor Manager on this issue, was confident
that the Senate would have an identical vote on final passage of the
underlying bill.
Senator Boxer asked the Legislative Affairs staff if you could call
Senator Lincoln to thank her for her vote on the Santorum Sense of
the Senate and to ensure that she will vote against the Santorum
bill.
In 1995 then-Rep. Lincoln supported the so-called "partial-birth"
abortion ban. Simply stated, this was a very tough vote for Senator
Lincoln.
In addition, Senator Durbin offered a substitute that, similar to
Senator Daschle's alternative of last session, would have banned
all post-viability abortions with an exception to protect the life of a
woman and a narrow exception to protect the health of a woman.
Unlike Daschle's alternative of last session, Durbin's proposal
would have also required that a second doctor certify that a post-
viability abortion is necessary. Women's groups, which last year
objected to Daschle's proposal, oppose the Durbin alternative more
strongly. Senator Daschle's amendment, which we supported,
secured 36 votes last session. The Durbin alternative was defeated
on a motion to table by a vote of 61-38.
TOPICS OF DISCUSSION:
1.
Thank the Senator for his vote on the Santorum Sense of
the Senate vote, and express your similar concern that this
procedure should only be used when absolutely necessary.
2
Tell the Senator that you have devoted much time
developing your position on this issue - that while you
oppose the use of the "partial birth abortion" procedure in
general, you believe that there are a small group of women
in desperate circumstances who need this procedure to
prevent serious injury to their health. You have implored
the Congress to send you legislation that includes this
necessary exception. (ACOG agrees with you that this bill
endangers women, because it prevents doctors from using a
procedure that in a few cases best protects women from
serious injury.)
3.
Tell the Senator you believe that this bill is consistent
neither with the Constitution nor with sound public policy.
Since your 1997 veto, more federal courts have ruled that
state partial birth abortion bans are unconstitutional. More
specifically, the Santorum bill is unconstitutional because it
could be read to ban a wide variety of abortion procedures,
including those used in the earliest stages of pregnancy. In
19 states, courts have fully or partially enjoined similar
legislation on the ground that: (1) it is unconstitutionally
vague because it could be read to ban some of the safest
and most commonly-used abortion procedures; (2) it does
not provide an exception to protect women's health; and (3)
it violates Roe V. Wade. This includes the September 24,
1999, Eighth Circuit decision striking down the
Arkansas
ban.
4.
Remind the Senator that medical decisions should be made
by patients in consultation with their doctors, not by the
government. The decision about abortion is a private,
medical decision. The Santorum bill would prevent doctors
and their patients from choosing what might well be the
best and most appropriate medical treatment.
CONTACT PERSON AND
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
Beth Overman (202) 224-6706
DATE OF SUBMISSION:
October 21, 1999
ACTION:
PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION
Q&A
October 21, 1999
Q:
Does the President still remain committed to vetoing the partial birth abortion bill?
A:
The President will veto the bill for the same reason as before - because it does not
adequately protect women from serious harm. The President based his veto on the fact
that there are a small group of women in desperate circumstances who need this
procedure in order to save their lives or prevent serious injury to their health. The
President believes that this procedure should be banned except when necessary to save
the life of a woman or prevent serious harm to her health. If Congress presented such
legislation to him, he would gladly sign it.
Q:
Didn't the President base a prior veto on false information - i.e. that this procedure
is performed on only a few hundred women in desperate circumstances?
A:
Let's be clear - the President based his veto on the fact that there is a small group of
women in desperate circumstances who need this procedure in order to save their lives or
prevent serious injury to their health. He never said that these are the only circumstances
in which the procedure is used; he said that these few women need to be protected. If
Congress presented the President with a bill that did that, he would gladly sign it. It is
worth noting that the American College of Obstreticians and Gynocologists (ACOG),
which is the organization of specialists who know the most about this issue, agrees with
the President that the bill endangers women, because it prevents doctors from using a
procedure that in a few cases best protects women from serious injury.
BACKGROUND: In 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of
Abrotion Providers, said that partial birth abortions are (1) performed more frequently than pro-
chioce groups have acknowledged and (2) often performed on healthy women with healthy
fetuses. There are no good statistics on these questions, and it would be a mistake to challenge
Fitzsimmons on the facts. The important point is that even if true, Fitzsimmons claims do not
undermine the President's position, as explained above.
Q:
Does the President support Senator Durbin's alternative?
A:
We have not fully reviewed the language of the specific alternative, but the President has
made clear that he would sign a bill that bans partial birth abortions if it included an
exception to save women's lives or prevent serious injury to their health.
Q:
Would the President support a bill that bans all late term abortions?
A:
The President has long opposed late-term abortions regardless of the procedure used, and,
as Governor of Arkansas, signed into law a bill that banned them, with an appropriate
exception for the life or health of the mother. The President would sign legislation that
prohibits all late-term abortions, except those necessary to save the life of a woman or
prevent serious harm to her health.
12/20/99 MON 16:30 FAX 202 456 5426
PLM
002
It's always good to hear from you
Dear Kate:
somuch
and
Thank, you for your letter of October 18.^ ^ You ve brought up some
complex and difficult issues, and as always, I appreciate your
counsel. on This complex and difficult issue.
1 have urged caseas
do not support
to send me a bill
As you know, I have long opposed late-term abortions, and would sim
That banco 1 can sim. I believe a ban must have to protect
a federal law banning them, with an appropriate exception for the
or prevent serious adver threats to her
life or health of the mother. However, in bills presented tc me
health
banning the procedure, the Congress has chosen not to adopt my
sensible and constitutionally appropriate proposal to except women
who are subject to serious physical harm if they are denied the
procedure. As you may know, as Governor of Arkansas, I signed a law
that banned third trimester abortions, with an exception for
instances in which the procedure may be necessary to protect the
life or health of the mother
My position is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on
Roe V. Wade, which dictated that any law regulating abortion must
12/20/99 MON 16:30 FAX 202 456 5426
PLM
003
This is into from
Devorah Adler
protect both the life and the health of the woman.
lawen supina
is sendio
mae
into
In regards to your concerns about handling and disposal of fetal tissue removed during these
procedures, I can assure you that this matter is dealt with utmost sensitivity. The
selling of body parts or human tissue is illegal. The regulations
which govern handling of tissue following the procedure explicitly
prevent clinics from receiving anything other than reimbursement for
storage and handling of such materials. Research labs never receive
whole organs or limbs; the material supplied to labs is considered
to be medical waste. Further regulations determine the manner in
which the tissue is transported and cared for.
in falt, they trouble me deeply
I have never contended that this procedure, today, is always used in
narrow
I believe is appropriate.
circumstances falling within the^exception I do not support such
uses; and, as I have stated repeatedly, I would sign appropriate
move
R.
3
legislation banning them. However, I maintain that the procedure
at
must remain legal for the few women whose tragic and disturbing
#:
cases necessitate that this procedure must be available in order to
save their life or health
In regards to the article which you sent, "Dead Baby Parts Business
Booming," I would be interested to know if there is reliable
DF
evidence to support the claims made by Paul Likoudis in The
doe
Wanderer. My staff in the Domestic Policy Council advise that the
not
information is not accurate. As I mentioned, the selling of body
want
toclear
This,
In fact the procedure has
Need wamen's
office clearan
House
as/it
has
many
111
deepty
people
Licis
12/20/99 MON 16:31 FAX 202 456 5426
PLM
1
004
parts or human tissue is illegal.
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts on this difficult issue.
Need language from Nicole.
Thought: Kate and the President have been
corresponding on this issue for some time.
I don't think this letter should be a
history on l.t.a. b/c they 've Mobaby
dis assed the fasices. at's just
answer his questions and make the
draft saind pusanal.
Nicole -
12/13
From EL -
-
Have you seen this? Do you know
if a response was ever sent?
THE PRESIDENT SEEN
THE WHITE HOUSE
12-30-99
WASHINGTON
December 17, 1999
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
copied
FROM:
Bruce Reed
Reed
Eric Liu
Lin
SUBJECT:
DPC Weekly Report
Padesta
1. Crime - Update on Gun Negotiations. We have begun to engage various parties in
copied Podesta P
the settlement talks and want to keep you updated. This week we met with representatives of
most of the cities and counties that have filed suit against the gun manufacturers. Our message
to this sprawling group was the importance of solidarity, and they were roundly supportive of our
involvement. We also discussed strategy with the Attorneys General of New York and
Connecticut, Eliot Spitzer and Richard Blumenthal, who have led the slow-moving talks to this
point and who will be working with us as we push things forward. (We are meeting with Stan
Chesley on Monday). Our plan is as follows: we are working now to hone a common "wish
list" of remedies that we, the cities, the states and others on our side can bring into the settlement
talks; on January 6, Robert Delfay, the lead industry negotiator, will come to the White House
for a preliminary visit; on January 21, we will meet the manufacturers at the annual Shot Show in
Las Vegas for a round of substantive talks; and sometime in the middle of January we may also
meet informally with manufacturers to lay the groundwork for the Las Vegas round. None of
this information is yet public. On a separate track, we met with this week with John Podesta and
Administration staff to lay out our legislative and regulatory agenda on gun control and
enforcement. We have a series of announcements in queue, beginning this weekend with a new
budget initiative for ATF on ballistics, that will serve both to fortify our negotiating position and
to frame public debate on our terms as talks with the industry get underway.
an
2. Education - Civil Rights Investigation of Chicago Social Promotion Policy. You
asked recently about a federal civil rights investigation of the Chicago Public Schools social
promotion policy. In October, the Education Department's Office of Civil Rights (OCR)
received a complaint from an advocacy group alleging that Chicago's policy discriminates on the
Dealy weat good w we the
basis of race and sex and violates Title VI and Title IX. The complaint alleges that Chicago uses
the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) as the sole criterion for promoting students to the 4th, 7th
and 9th grades; that this has a disparate impact on African American, Latino, and male students;
high me rud
and that CPS is using the test in a manner that the test's makers deem inappropriate. OCR is now
gathering information on the allegations, but has determined already that the Title IX claim has
no factual basis. Chicago maintains that it takes into account factors other than ITBS scores,
Loug
such as grades and attendance. The plaintiffs contend that those other factors never mitigate
poor scores. While we cannot influence the course of this investigation we are monitoring it
closely. The social promotion policy in your Education Accountability Act requires multiple
&
have
measures, not scores from a single test, for promotion decisions.
jume
MANUA
What they are doing in
Chicago is good -- they need
to keep high numbers of low
learners going to summer
school!
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
12-30-99
3. Health Care - Partial Birth Abortion and Organ Trafficking. Kate Britton
recently wrote to you about partial birth abortion, and you asked two questions about her letter.
First, you asked about fetal tissue trafficking. Britton cites an article in the Wanderer claiming
that women are coerced into having abortions so that fetal tissues and organs can be sold to NIH-
funded laboratories. This is simply not accurate Selling body parts or human tissue is illegal,
and NIH would not sanction or fund the types of activities described in the article. Second, you
asked about Britton's claim that "the vast majority of partial-birth abortions are performed in the
5th and 6th months of normal pregnancies and are completely elective, that is, not associated
with maternal or fetal risk." According to a survey by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the
majority of these procedures are indeed performed in the 5th and 6th months of pregnancy, but
we do not have good data on the associated risk level. Your position on this procedure is clear:
you would sign a ban of late-term abortions if there were an appropriate exception to protect the
good
health and life of the woman. You have consistently opposed the cases Britton objects to -
procedures that are "completely elective." We will help draft an appropriate response.
4. Health Care - Update on Gene Patenting. Following your Millennium Meeting on
genetics, the NIH met with the Patent and Trademark Office to discuss growing public concerns
about PTO's liberal approval of patents for gene sequences. From the NIH's point of view, such
patents severely limit research and development on the genetic underpinnings and treatments of
disease. (As you know, there is also considerable debate whether intellectual property
monopolies over genetic material should ever, as an ethtical matter, be granted). As it happens,
PTO is now developing new guidelines for the genetic patent approval process. Under the
current draft guidelines, PTO would not grant patents for short genetic sequences that have no
known function, but would approve patents for sequences when: 1) a specific function for the
sequence has been determined, such as its role in disease development or its use as a diagnostic;
or 2) general information about the sequence's location or potential function has been identified.
The NIH, while pleased that PTO would refuse patents for sequences with no known function, is
troubled that sequences for which merely general information is known could be patented.
Indeed, many in the consumer and scientific advocacy communities would prefer to permit
patents only for those sequences that are linked to a new diagnostic use or treatment intervention.
The final guidelines are subject to an OMB review, and we will work closely with OMB and
others to build in more protections against premature application of patents.
Cr Poduty
Wift is right about their
Podesta
Important issue
NIH is night
2
about this
Debra D. Alexander
12/13/99 07:38:45 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
John H. Corcoran III/WHO/EOP@EOP
CC:
devorah r. adler/opd/eop@eop, Nicole R. Rabner/WHO/EOP@EOP
bcc:
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT FOB -- Kate Britton
Hi, everyone. The article seemed inflammatory. John, you might want to say something like,
The article is very disturbing, and I would be interested to know if there is reliable evidence to support the
claims made by Paul Likoudis in The Wanderer. My staff in the Domestic Policy Council advise that the
information is not accurate. Specifically, selling body parts or human tissue is illegal. Second, the "site
fees" mentioned are not paid by any lab that we are aware of. Third, labs never recieve whole organs or
limbs. Material supplied to labs is basically "medical waste".
John H. Corcoran III
John H. Corcoran III
12/13/99 07:23:08 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Debra D. Alexander/WHO/EOP
CC:
Devorah R. Adler/OPD/EOP@EOP
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT FOB -- Kate Britton
Debi -- FYI
Devorah-- Thanks.
Forwarded by John H. Corcoran III/WHO/EOP on 12/13/99 07:22 PM
Devorah R. Adler
12/13/99 07:16:26 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
John H. Corcoran III/WHO/EOP@EOP
CC:
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT FOB -- Kate Britton
! called the researcher (Alan Fantel) who is cited in the article to get more information.
First, selling body parts or human tissue is illegal.
Second, the "site fees" that he is talking about are not paid by any lab he has ever heard of.
Third, they never recieve whole organs or limbs. Everything is basically "medical waste".
Fourth, he has never heard of the humice the article discusses.
I am not sure what our response should be. I think that this article is basically false.
Devorah
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
BRaw I With
11-24-99
what about an
Kate Britton
pilaz-
October 18, 1999
then ou way Dont
Does know anyone low really
Dear Bill,
when?
(Meul tongly-
Thank you for sharing with me in such a personal way your own past reasoning in
regard to partial-birth abortion, in response to the extraordinary Eulogy for Matthew. As
a friend and sister-in-Christ, I feel a desire to respond to the explanation you offered as to
why criminality should not be attached to partial-birth abortion.
As you know, your success in keeping this procedure free of criminality has not
restricted its practice to a "benign zone" wherein partial-birth abortion is performed only
Tuis
on behalf of conflicted and earnest parents facing rare circumstances. I wish to bring to
your attention some results of the growing practice of partial-birth abortion in our
country. I enclose for you an article, "Dead Baby Parts Business Booming" (The
Kg
Wanderer, 9/30/99) which exposes grotesque sub-industries that now openly auction the
intact corpses of American babies. This article shows that the lack of criminality of
Copied
partial-birth abortion has had an effect far beyond that of being lenient toward women
whose unborn babies have rare medical conditions. The article quotes directly from
Reed
brochures and publicity materials published by fetal tissue wholesalers which solicit or
Cahill
advertise their leasing of space at abortion facilities, in order to have their own employees
on site for the purpose of harvesting correctly-packed fetal tissue, limbs and organs.
Podeso
Vendors of human body parts offer top price only for intact organs. The prices for
fragmented parts are reduced by 30%. The incentive for increased partial-birth abortion,
which results in an intact body, becomes clear. The industry anticipates only increasing
demand for tissue harvested from intact aborted babies. What kind of nation are we
becoming?
Bill, when you personally legitimized the reasoning of five mothers who defended
their decisions to end their pregnancies by means of partial-birth abortion, you assumed
the obligation of guaranteeing that this option must be permissible even if practiced on a
large scale. When you protect from criminality the decision of a mother who decides for
partial-birth abortion due to a desire to preserve her future fertility and/or end the
suffering of her child, you also condone the error she makes of naming the undeniable but
relative goods of fertility and freedom from suffering superior to the absolute good of
already-created human life. Scripture records in countless passages that God has
reserved exclusively to Himself the right to number the days of a human life. ["The
LORD kills and brings to life. I Samuel 2:6 "There are things which the LORD
hates hands that shed innocent blood.' Proverbs 6:16,17] No creature may assume a
right superior to the rights of the Creator Himself. These mothers' poor formation in
natural law led them to the wrong conclusion that protecting their potency to have
another baby with a longer life-expectancy or better health was an absolute good. No
parent, however prayerful, has an absolute right to fertility or to a healthy child. These
are gifts of God--gifts which He is free to grant or to withhold. ["For My thoughts are
not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, says the LORD. For as the heavens
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
11-24-99
are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways." Isaiah 55:8,9] The
tragic cost of each mother's erroneous ranking of relative goods (the natural desire for
fertility, for a normal pregnancy and for freedom from suffering) over an absolute good
(man's obligation to heed God's absolute injunction against the taking of innocent life)
was the intentional death of her baby.
I can state with confidence that the mothers you mentioned who said that they
were Catholic acted in violation of 20 centuries of unequivocal teaching by the Roman
Catholic Church upholding the absolute dignity and sanctity of every human life,
irrespective of its health or duration. The freedom of a Catholic to follow her conscience
proceeds from the obligation first to achieve a rightly-formed conscience. These mothers
cannot cite a single Scripture passage, the writings of any Church Father, a Papal
Encyclical nor reference from the Catholic Catechism which supports their decisions to
end their pregnancies-no matter how hard to bear the cross of painful circumstances
surrounding them.
It is a sad fact that your five women-and any woman to whom partial-birth
abortion is presented as the best option-were given poor medical care. Partial-birth
abortion has not been shown to influence positively maternal fertility. Its effectiveness as
a means of euthanizing a handicapped child in utero is undisputed. Today, the vast
is the
majority of partial-birth abortions are performed in the 5ᵗʰ or 6th months of normal
the?
pregnancies and are completely elective, that IS, not associated with maternal or fetal risk.
Most doctors in practice today did not learn this method of abortion in medical school.
The procedure was devised, absent scrutiny of mainstream physicians, by physician-
operators of abortion clinics. In 1992, details of the procedure were presented publicly
for the first time at the National Abortion Federation. The electorate, the courts, and the
medical establishment became aware of partial-birth abortion only after this presentation.
The procedure is unnatural in every way and clearly was designed to manipulate the
scope of Roe V. Wade. The procedure's inventors wagered (so far, correctly) that if they
insured that only the head was allowed to emerge previous to delivering the fatal
puncture, they evaded the protection guaranteed to a whole person under the Constitution.
Bill, I ask you to re-examine your past stand and look hard at what
motivated you in it. This procedure is evil and, as the enclosed article shows, its
results are evil, and you-a Christian and President of the United States-should
not continue to support its protection from criminality.
Bill, every president needs moral standing before the people he serves. Let a
reversal on your part toward the criminality of partial-birth abortion be a sign of your
humility and moral courage toward that end. It's never too late to do what's right. I urge
you to take bold advantage of extraordinary graces that are offered by Jesus Christ to all
those who are blessed to be alive for the celebration of the 2000th year since His birth.
Jesus Himself assures you personally, "Do not be afraid!" [Mt 28:10] We recall that the
Mary's pregnancy with Jesus was not without aspects of "crisis." God did not spare even
the mother of His own Son anguish and confusion in her maternity. She too feared for
the proximate and ultimate fate of her baby. Jesus has truly gone before us in every way
in order to provide for our needs right now.
My favorite parable is the one where Jesus tells about two brothers who are given
an order by their father. One says immediately that he will obey, but does not. The other
defies his father verbally, but then reconsiders and ultimately does obey. Jesus asks,
"Which of the two did the will of his father?" [Mt 21:31] I love this story because I am
like the second brother. Many times in my life-sometimes in grave matters--I too say
"no" to my Father. Upon reconsidering (often years later), I must repent of my words and
deeds of defiance and follow instead the narrow way of God's Will. What a relief it is to
me to know that my habitual, ever-ready expressions of self-love do not determine my
ability to repent and then do the will of my Father! I am grateful that He is the God of
second chances.
I'll be praying for you regarding the criminality of partial-birth abortion. A
change within your heart is the basis for the change of mind in you that can instantly
strike a measurable blow to this evil. I know that this is hard, but it is not too hard for
you, if you surrender to God's doing of it through you. Ask Him sincerely, and then
watch how He makes for you "a hiding place from the wind; a covert from the tempest;
streams of water in a dry place; shade in a weary land." [Is 32:2] I believe in you and
in your capacity, as Mother Teresa taught us all, "to do something beautiful for God." I
see in you liberation of spirit, a virtue much-loved by God, for those blessed with it can
seek and find Him everywhere and in everyone. Take courage in the knowledge that God
has called and kept hidden Donna Wilkes as a suffering co-worker both of your interior
life in Christ and your public life as President of the United States. At Mass today, we
heard proclaimed, "Despite the increase of sin, grace has far surpassed it, so that, as sin
reigned through death, grace may reign by way of justice leading to eternal life,
through Jesus Christ our Lord.' [Rom 5:21] Let us claim this verse for the sake of
Jesus Christ's babies!
+ In Christ,
Rat
At Home In The Culture Of Death
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
Dead
11-24-99
Baby Parts
Business
Booming
By PAUL LIKOUDIS
Here is a sign of the times of
ly important byproduct of the sex-
American life in the Clinton re-
ual revolution.
gime:
(For those who want to see the
"Human embryonic and fetal
document themselves, it's only a
tissues are available from the Cen-
click away on the Internet. Just call
tral Laboratory for Human Embry-
up the ask.com search engine, type
ology at the University of Wash-
in "Where can I purchase fetal tis-
ington. The laboratory, which is
sue?," and within seconds, "NIH
supported by the National Insti-
Guide" will appear as one of the
tutes of Health, can supply tissue
answers.)
from normal or abnormal embry-
Here, courtesy of the National
os and fetuses of desired gestation-
Institutes of Health, in taxpayer-
al ages between 40 days and term.
funded black and white, is the re-
Specimens are obtained within
ality of America's culture of death:
minutes of passage and tissues are
commercial cannibalism of the
aseptically identified, staged, and
young of the human species, a
immediately processed according
business about to break into the
to the requirements of individual
mainstream as a coalition of ma-
investigators. Presently, processing
jor medical and health organiza-
methods include immediate fixa-
tions, businesses, and associations
tion, snap fixation, snap freezing in,
press for federal funding of lethal
liquid nitrogen and placement in
embryo research
balanced salt solutions or media
Since the widespread legaliza-
designated and/or supplied by in-
tion of abortion, abortionists, pro-
vestigators. Specimens are shipped
tected and promoted by media
by overnight express, arriving the
publicists, have dramatized the
day following procurement.
plight of the poor pregnant girl
"Inquiries:
whose life can only be set right by
"Alan G. Fantel, Ph.D.
free and easy access to tax-funded
"Department of Pediatrics, RD-
abortions.
20
The abortion industry, however,
"Seattle, WA 98195."
has always been about money, and
In cold, clinical research terms,
now Houston-based Life Dynam-
here is the end product of the "fc-
ics has shown it's a double-profi-
tal tissue issue"
an
economical
teering, body-snatching supplier
for the rapidly growing biologics
and pharmacological industries
which require a continuing supply
of fresh human bodies, brains, or-
gans, flesh and bones for research,
product manufacturing, treatments,
and therapies.
Following the release, last May,
of a powerful LifeTalk video fea-
turing "Kelly," a fetal tissue pro-
curer for the Maryland-based An-
atomic Gifts Foundation, Life Dy-
namics has released documenta-
tion obtained from fetal tissue
wholesalers, that is, companies
A
which place their employees in
abortion facilities to harvest tissue,
limbs, organs, etc. The tissue is
See
THE WANDERER
September 30, 1999
Business Booming
under proposed legislation, will
fund abortions that "produce life-
saving benefits for others."
(Continued from Page 1)
The company boasts its tissue
them by the clinics. However, they
Clowes estimates that, with the
then shipped to uniyersities, phar-
"is the highest quality, most afford-
do pay a 'site fee' to the clinics for
aging of America and the growing
maceutical and biologics firms,
able, and freshest tissue prepared
the right to access the tissue.
callousness of baby-boomers,
and government research centers.
to your specifications and deliv-
"The tissue is then donated' to
there will be an increased demand
ered in the quantities you need
the researchers who in turn pay the
for medical treatments using or-
Just Business
when you need it."
wholesalers for the cost of retriev-
gans and tissue harvested from
al. Profit is realized by the whole-
aborted babies.
Included in the documents are
A Ghoulish Request
salers' ability to set their own re-
"It may be expected," he wrote
price lists and shipping and pro-
trieval fees.".
in ALL's Encyclopedia, "that as
curement instructions.
Also included in the Life Dy-
many as five million people will
Opening Lines, a division of
namics booklet are dozens of cop-
Something Old,
make use of fetal tissue on a regu-
Consultative and Diagnostic Pa-
ies of completed "tissue requested"
Something New
lar basis. This means that the total
thology, Inc., of West Frankfurt,
documents, along with protocols
amount of fetal tissue required to
Ш., will pay $999 for brains eight
for harvesting, preserving, and
Fetal tissue research, harvesting
satisfy the demands of these 'neo-
weeks old or less ("30% discount
shipping.
organs from living. aborted babies,
vampires' will be measured in the
if significantly fragmented"). $400
One such document is a request
building "humice" for research and
tons every year.
for an intact embryonic cadaver
for "Limbs, Liver, Thymus."
the rest of the brave new world of
"Since there are only about
eight weeks old ordess; $600 for
"Preservation: Fresh shipped on
biomedical research is not new; the
120,000 second and third trimes-
an intact embryonic cadaver above
wet ice. IMDM/10%, 1x 1-
work goes back to the 1920s, ac-
ter abortions in the United States,
eight weeks; $550; for gonads;
Glutamine, Pen/Strep. Will supply
cording to the American Life
this means that demand for fetal
$350 for bone marrow, and various
if necessary. Limbs intact. To be
League's Judie Brown in "Recy-
tissue will crushingly and inevita-
prices for everything but the
removed under sterile condi-
cling Babies: The Practice of Fe-
bly overwhelm the available sup-
scream: livers, spleens, pancreas,
tions
tal Tissue Research" (1996).
ply."
thymus, mesentery, kidney, pitu-
"Shipping: Fresh, wet ice. Pri-
In the American Life League's
Clowes predicted "inflated pric-
itary gland, ears, eyes; skin, lung
ority overnight or same day.
Pro-Life Activist's Encyclopedia
es
a thriving black market; the
and heart block, spinal column,
"Tissue Use/Significance: Hu-
entry on "Fetal Experimentation:
growing and selling of preborn ba-
spinal cord, cord blood, limbs.
man fetal tissue will be used for the
Frankenstein Revisited," author.
bies for sale; the import of fetal tis-
Anatomic Gift Foundation will
generation of SCID-humice. Brief-
Brian Clowes traces the gruesome
sue from poor and developing
pay $220 for a first-trimester aspi-
ly, a SCID mouse is engrafted with
history of fetal experimentation
countries; and entrepreneurs en-
ration abortion ("fresh") and $260
either a human bone marrow frag-
if it is "frozen."
and organ harvesting - the "road
couraging women to abort as late
ment, thymus/liver graft, or a
to Auschwitz" - back to Europe-
as possible for a monetary reward."
Opening Lines provides two
lymph node. These mice will then
an and U.S. universities in the
Clowes wrote the above in 1995.
kinds of promotional literature,
be used to study hemoglobino-
1960s. The practice rapidly accel-
brochures for abortion'clinics and
patheis in vivo. Approval for
In 1999, Kelly, the pseudony-
brochures for researchers and in-
the production of SCID humice
erated with the legalization of
mous organ harvester who unload-
abortion.
dustry, which Life Dynamics in-
and transplantation of cells into
ed her documents at Life Dynam-
cludes in its booklet of documen-
them has already been obtained
On May 20th, a coalition called
ics, confirmed that women are "co-
tation.
from the IUCUC of Genetech, Inc.
Patients' CURe (Coalition for Ur-
erced" into having abortions.
The front page of the brochure
(Study #97-156)
gent Research) started lobbying in
Women, she says, would change
for abortion facilities proclaims:
Other documents stipulate that
Washington, D.C., for federal tax-
their minds after entering the abor-
"Find out how you can turn your
organs must be retrieved within ten
payer funding of stem cell research
tion mills, but they were sedated
patients' decision into something
minutes, indicating that the organ
that requires the killing of human
by staff into a "Nyquil nap."
wonderful." Inside is this text: "We
must be procured from a living,
embryos, accompanied by an enor-
Kelly also testified on the Life
know your patient's decision to
aborted baby.
mous media blitz ballyhooing the
Dynamics video that women are
have an abortion/was carefully
Other documents stipulate "no
alleged benefits of fetal tissue re-
encouraged to have late-term abor-
considered and we also know it
dig." which instructs the abortion-
search for a host of medical prob-
tions to meet the demands of an
was a very difficult one to make.
ist that no digoxin (a feticidal
lems.
industry that requires intact speci-
"Now that the choice has been
chemical) can be used, for it would
Members of the coalition in-
mens and tissues:
made; we ask that you propose to
harm the desired organs.
clude the Alliance for Aging Re-
Mark Crutcher, president of Life
your patient a simple program that
Other norms stipulate "no
search, the American Cancer So-
Dynamics, says he's convinced
could help thousands of peo-
anomalies" or "no congenital ab-
ciety, the Glaucoma Research
that the reason the abortion indus-
ple.
normalities" - evidence perfect-
Council, Juvenile Diabetes Foun-
try fights so hard to keep "partial-
"Consultative and Diagnostic
ly healthy babies are being abort-
dation International, Parkinson's
birth abortion" legal is that it wants
Pathology. Inc., will be asking to
ed for organ harvesting.
Action Network, Resolve: The
to sell the fetal tissue.
obtain tissue specimens from your
Life Dynamics also discloses
National Infertility Association,
"Why do pro-aborts fight SO
patient's medical procedure
that these fetal organ harvesting
and the Spina Bifida Association,
hard to keep it?," he asks in an in-
"This is an opportunity to make
businesses set up promotional
Inc.
terview published last month in
a'difference
and it can be ben-
booths at conferences held by the
As Richard Doerflinger of the
The Alberta Report. "All it says is
eficial to your clinic
National Abortion Federation
U.S. Bishops' Pro-Life Activities
you can't kill them by this meth-
"1) Consultative and Diagnostic
Much of the fetal tissue is used
office observed, the demand for
od.
Pathology will lease space from
for HIV/AIDS research.
federal funding for destructive
"This is about maximizing prof-
your facility to perform the har-
Technically, this gruesome busi-
embryo research - currently
its. First, you sell the woman an
vesting and distribution of tissue.
ness is illegal. It is against federal
against the law represents a dra-
abortion: Then you turn around
The revenue generated from the
law to sell human tissue or body
matic turn in the American abor-
and sell the dead baby you take out
lease can be used to offset your
parts, but as Life Dynamics points
tion culture: Government now can
of her. But you have to take it out
clinic's overhead
out: "The fetal material [the com-
only fund those abortions which
whole or you don't have anything
"2) Consultative and Diagnostic
panies) harvest is 'donated' to
"save the life of the mother." but
to sell."
Pathology can train your staff to
harvest and process fetal tissue.
Based on your you'une we will re-
imburse part or your employ-
ce's salary, thereby reducing your
overhead."
The brochure for industry de-
clares: "Fresh Fetal Tissue harvest-
ed and shipped to your specifica-
tions
where and when you need
it"
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
TWENTY-NINTH SUNDAY: YEAR A
rightfully belongs to him: tribute, obedience to just laws
(10/17/99)
but nothing more. The State does not enjoy absolute
power and dominion. As ordinary citizens, Christians have
46. GIVING TO GOD WHAT IS GOD'S
the obligation of rendering to the state whatever material and
personal services are required for the common good. 3 For
their part, civil authorities are obligated to act with equity
46.1 Loyal collaborators in fostering the common good.
and justice in the distribution of their goods and services.
The First Reading of today's Mass shows us how God
They have to serve the common good without looking for
chooses his instruments of salvation wherever He pleases.¹
any personal gain. They have to legislate and govern with
To bring his People out of exile the Lord takes hold of
the greatest respect for the natural law and the rights of
your
Cyrus, a pagan king. The Lord uses political authority to
people. This includes the protection of life from the
dut
do good. There is nothing in the universe that lies outside
moment of conception, defence of the family, religious
his paternal dominion.
liberty, the rights of parents regarding the education of
In the Gospel for today² Jesus reaffirms the duty of
their children. The Lord speaks through the Prophet
all of us to obey civil authority. The Pharisees and the
Isaiah: Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees⁴
Herodians had attempted to lay a trap with their question:
Christians are obliged to pray for those who exercise
Was it licit to pay tribute to Caesar? There were those
civil authority. Rulers and governments have a great
among the Jews who argued that such payments simply
responsibility to carry out. Christians should fulfil their
reinforced the tyranny of foreign domination over the
duties to society with virtually scrupulous exactitude.
Chosen People. If the Master were to acquiesce in this
There should be no more loyal collaborators for the com-
my
payment, the Pharisees would be able to accuse him of
mon good than the Christian faithful. This fidelity will
collaboration with the Romans. He would thus be
spring naturally from well-formed consciences. Their rela-
discredited before a good part of the people. But if He
tions with civil authority should become, in fact, a path to
were to oppose the tax, the Herodians, who were in league
sanctity: the payment of taxes, the power to vote, our
with the (occupying) civil power, would then have grounds
involvement in associations for public welfare, active parti-
for a denunciation to the Romans.
cipation in political life should that be our calling
Let
Jesus gives his enemies a profound response, which
us examine ourselves today to see if we are truly being
went far beyond their twisted expectations. He does not
good examples to others of fostering the common good.
limit himself to a 'yes' or 'no'. The Master speaks: Render
therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, he says, and
to God the things that are God's. Give to Caesar what
1. First Reading, Is 45:1; 4-6
3. Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, 75
2. Matt 22:15-21
4. Is 10:1
46.2 The religious dimension of man.
personal responsibility in the development of society, which
The Lord recognized the civil power and its rights,
drives- them on to perform their family, social and profes-
but He also stated quite clearly that we have to respect the
sional duties with Christian generosity. 7
rights of God.⁵ Human activity cannot be reduced to
strictly social and political spheres of action. Every indivi-
46.3 The Faith, a powerful light.
dual has a profound religious dimension to his being. It
When it comes to fundamental questions of social
informs all of his works and gives them tremendous dig-
morality, Christians should be fully aware of the fact that
nity. This explains why the Lord adds those important
their religious faith serves as a powerful light illuminating
words: Give
to God the things that are God's.
the whole area of the common good. The teachings of God
Whenever a Christian plays a part in public affairs, in
and his Church are not an obstacle to human welfare or
education, say, or in cultural life, he or she cannot behave
scientific progress. They are rather a sure guide for the
as if to reserve the faith for some better occasion in the
realization of those worthy goals. When, for example, a
future. The distinction which Christ made was not intended
Christian maintains the indissolubility of marriage, he is
to relegate religion to the temple - to the sacristy - so that
showing the way to guaranteeing the health of society.⁸ He
temporal realities would develop apart from divine and
thus provides huge benefit to all. It is not a question of
Christian law. 6 Quite the contrary; Christians are chal-
safeguarding our own special privileges. We have so much
lenged to be light and salt in the middle of the world. We
to give for the good of society! This is what we can learn
are called to transform the environments in which we live
from the example of the first Christians. A person with a
and work, so as to make them more human. We should
well-formed conscience can make an enormous contribu-
strive to make the path to God accessible for as many of
tion to the real welfare of his or her fellow citizens. The
our fellow men as possible. In the words of the Second
Christian has a most precious light to offer amidst so
Vatican Council: The laity accomplish the Church's mission
much darkness!
in the world principally by that blending of conduct and faith
What has come to pass in our society is most lament-
which makes them the light of the world; by that uprightness
able, as was pointed out by Cardinal Luciani, later Pope
in all their dealings which is for every man such an incentive
John Paul I: In this same society there is a terrible moral
to love the true and the good and which is capable of induc-
and religious void, he wrote, Today all seem frantically
ing him at last to go to Christ and the Church; by that frater-
directed toward material conquests: make money, invest,
nal charity that makes them share the living conditions and
surround oneself with new comforts, live the 'good life'. Few
labours, the sufferings and yearnings of their brothers, and
think also of 'doing good'.
thereby prepare all hearts, gently, imperceptibly, for the
God = who should fill our life - has, on the contrary,
action of saving grace; by that full awareness of their
become a very distant star, to which people look only at
5. of Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis humanae, 11
7. Second Vatican Council, Apostolicam actuositatem, 13
6. J. Escrivá, Letter, 9 January 1959
8. cf J. M. Pero-Sanz, Believers in Society, Madrid 1981, P. 30
certain moments. People believe they are religious because
formation for their consciences:
they go to church; but outside of church they want to lead
Our entire life is for the Lord, and everything in it.
the same life as many others, marked by small or, big
How is it possible that we could reserve some area of it for
deceits, acts of injustice, sins against charity; and thus they
our sole personal domain?
totally lack coherence.⁹ This is not the way to render to God
the things that are God's The proper path lies in living a
coherent life of faith, We should act as children of God in
the halls of government as well as in the living-rooms of
our friends: We should have the firm conviction that the
Church is an unquenchable source of truth, the only
source capable of filling our modern age's terrible; moral
and religious void. A society without these values is at the
mercy of aggressive elements and prey to a gradual dehu-
manization. God is not a distant star out of touch with
mankind. He is a most powerful light who gives meaning
and significance to all human affairs. We Christians; then,
are the ones who have to transform the world we live in, in
alliance with all people of good will How can we stand
idly by in the defence of human life from its beginnings?
Shall we be silent in the face of genetic manipulations that
degrade the subject and at the same time every other
human person? In another area, what is to be done about
the right of parents to educate their children?
Render to God the things of: God. The Lord is the life
of every person from the moment of conception. The Lord
sanctified family life in Nazareth and later taught us to
respect the indissolubility of marriage. The Lord revealed
these truths even though many of his hearers were scan-
dalized at his message. Despite all social pressures and
propaganda- to the contrary, married Christians should
take care not to block the wellsprings of life. Truly, all men
and women should make a serious effort to receive good
9. A. Luciani, Illustrissimi, p. 179
MAR-19-97 14:31 FROM: OMB LA
ID:
PAGE 1/4
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
File- Abatic-
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
Partial. Pri-th-
SAB, othicial
PHONE: 395-4790 / FAX: 395-3729
statements
TO: Elena Kagon
DATE: 3/19/97
FROM:
CHUCK KIEFFER
CHUCK KONIGSBERG
LISA KOUNTOUPES
ALICE SHUFFIELD
KATE DONOVAN
NANCY BRANDEL
Comments:
Final SAP ON HR. 929
FAX #:
PAGES: 4
PHONE NUMBER:
(includes cover page)
MAR-19-97 14:31 FROM:OMB LA
ID:
PAGE 2/4
PTR PRESIDENT STATE UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
March 19, 1997
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20503
(House)
.
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 929 - Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997
(Rep. Canady and 181 cosponsors)
H.R. 929 contains the same serious flaws as H.R. 1833, a virtually identical bill that was
passed during the 104th Congress and vetoed by the President on April 10, 1996.
The President will veto H.R. 929 for the reasons he expressed in his veto message of
April 10, 1996, which is attached.
PAGE
3/4
MAR-19-97 14:31 FROM: OMB LA
ID:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
April 10, 1996
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 1833,
which would prohibit doctors from performing a certain kind of
abortion. I do so because the bill does not allow women to
protect themselves from serious threats to their health. By
refusing to permit women, in reliance on their doctors' best
medical judgment, to use this procedure when their lives are
threatened or when their health is put in serious jeopardy, the
Congress has fashioned a bill that is consistent neither with
the Constitution nor with sound public policy.
I have always believed that the decision to have an
abortion generally should be between a woman, her doctor, her
conscience, and her God. I support the decision in Roe V. Wade
protecting a woman's right to choose, and I believe that the
abortions protected by that decision should be safe and rare.
Consistent with that decision, I have long opposed late-term
abortions except where necessary to protect the life or health
of the mother. In fact, as Governor of Arkansas, I signed into
law a bill that barred third trimester abortions, with an
appropriate exception for life or health.
The procedure described in H.R., 1833 has troubled me
deeply, as it has many people. I cannot support use of that
procedure on an elective basis, where the abortion is being
performed for non-health related reasons and there are equally
safe medical procedures available.
There are, however, rare and tragic situations that can
occur in a woman's pregnancy in which, in a doctor's medical
judgment, the use of this procedure may be necessary to save a
woman's life or to protect her against serious injury to her
health. In these situations, in which a woman and her family
must make an awful choice, the Constitution requires, as it
should, that the ability to choose this procedure be protected.
In the past several months, I have heard from women who
desperately wanted to have their babies, who were devastated to
learn that their babies had fatal conditions and would not live,
who wanted anything other than an abortion, but who were advised
by their doctors that this procedure was their best chance to
avert the risk of death or grave harm which, in some cases,
would have included an inability to ever bear children again.
For these women, this was not about choice -- not about deciding
against having a child. These babies were certain to perish
before, during or shortly after birth, and the only question was
how much grave damage was going to be done to the woman.
I cannot sign H.R. 1833, as passed, because it fails to
protect women in such dire circumstances -- because by treating
doctors who perform the procedure in these tragic cases as
criminals, the bill poses a danger of serious harm to women.
This bill, in curtailing the ability of women and their doctors
to choose the procedure for sound medical reasons, violates the
constitutional command that any law regulating abortion protect
both the life and the health of the woman. The bill's overbroad
criminal prohibition risks that women will suffer serious
injury.
more
(OVER)
-MaR-19-97 14:31 FROM OMB LA
ID:
PAGE
4/4
2
That is why I implored Congress to add an exemption for the
small number of compelling cases where selection of the
procedure, in the medical judgment of the attending physician,
was necessary to preserve the life of the woman or avert serious
adverse consequences to her health. The life exception in the
current bill only covers cases where the doctor believes that
the woman will die. It fails to cover cases where, absent the
procedure; serious physical harm, often including losing the
ability to have more children, is very likely to occur. I told
Congress that I would sign H.R. 1833 if it were amended to add
an exception for serious health consequences. A bill amended in
this way would strike a proper balance, remedying the
constitutional and human defect of H.R. 1833. If such a bill
were presented to me, I would sign it now.
I understand the desire to eliminate the use of a procedure
that appears inhumane. But to eliminate it without taking into
consideration the rare and tragic circumstances in which its use
may be necessary would be even more inhumane.
The Congress chose not to adopt the sensible and
constitutionally appropriate proposal I made, instead leaving
women unprotected against serious health risks. As a result of
this Congressional indifference to women's health, I cannot, in
good conscience and consistent with my responsibility to uphold
the law, sign this legislation.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 10, 1996.
# # #
Abution-parlial
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFECE OF THE PRESIDENT STATE URITED
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
birth-othical birth- othicial
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
stateme Ts
letters
TO:
RAHM EMANUAL
TODD STERN
NANCY ANN MIN (OMB)
MARTHA FOLEY (WHLA)
PETER JACOBY (WHLA)
PHIL CAPLAN (COS)
WILLIAM MARSHALL (White House Counsel)
JOHN HART (Intergovernmental Affairs)
MELANNE VERVEER (1st Lady's Office)
ELENA KAGAN (DPC)
BARBARA WOOLLEY (Public Liaison)
LYNN HOGAN (DPC)
CC:
CHARLES KIEFFER
CHUCK KONIGSBERG
TRACY THORNTON
DATE:
March 6, 1997
FROM:
Alice Shuffield
RE:
Partial-Birth Abortion letter for your clearance
Attached is a draft response to Senator Kennedy's 3/5/97 letter to Dr. David Satcher (also
attached), requesting specific information for the Tuesday, March 11th Senate Judiciary
Committee hearing on partial-birth abortion.
In an effort to meet his request for a response by March 7th, please contact me (5-4790) by
1:00 pm on Friday with your comments or your clearance.
THANKS!
3-06-1997 2:52PM
FROM
P.2
301-436-5202 NOHS/OCD
116
P02
MAR 06 '97 15:49
DRAFT 3/6/97
The Honorable Edward Kennedy
United States Senate
Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Kennedy:
Thank you for your letter of March 5 Satcher regarding the availability of data on
abortions, particularly the so-called partial birth abortion. Dr. Satcher has asked that I respond
and 1 am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to your several questions. I have divided my
response into three sections: the sources of abortion dara, the annual number of abortions as a
function of gestation period and abortion method, and the availability of date on partial-birth
abortions.
Current sources of abortion data
There are two current sources of abortion data: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) and The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI):
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-The CDC began abortion surveillance in
1969 to document the number and characteristics of women obtaining legal induced abortions, to
monitor the incidence of unintended pregnancies, and to assist with efforts to Identify and reduce
preventable causes of morbidity and mortality associated with abortions. The CDC's abortion
data are currently complied from data submitted voluntarily by the health departments of 45
States plus Washington, D.C. and New York City. CDC's national count also includes estimates
for the five states not collecting abortion statistics; these five states (including Alaska, California,
lows, Now Hampshire, and Oklahoma) account for an estimated 26.5 percent of U.S. abortions.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI)-The AGI, a private, non-profit research organization,
periodically collects data on total abortions by directly contacting abortion providers to obtain
information on the number of abortions performed The AGI does not collect information on
patient characteristics. The data reported by the AGI are believed to accurately reflect the national
count of abortions. The totals reported by central health agencies to CDC are generally lower than
those obtained by direct surveys of abortion providers conducted by the AGI. In 1992, for
example, the CDC national estimate was about 12.5 percent lower than the number reported to
AGI. The trends in abortions according to the two data sources have been fairly similar; the
percent difference in the number of abortions reported by CDC and AGI has declined in recent
years.
Abortion data analyzed according to gestation period and abortion method.
Two tables are attached. The first labeled "Table 16" - is an excerpt from Abortion
Surveillance--United States, 1992 (CDC, MMWR No. SS-3, 1996), based on CDC's abortion
surveillance system. It provides a cross-classification of numbers of procedures by weeks of
3-06-1997 2:53PM
FROM
P.3
301-436-5202 NCHS/OCD
116 P03
MAR 06 '97 15:49
gestation and abortion method for the 36 areas that report these characteristics to CDC. Abortion
data compiled by CDC does not Include breakdown of abortion mothod on a week by week basis
beyond a gestational period of 21 weeks. We have also enclosed a copy of the full CDC report.
The second table provides estimates of numbers of abortions by more detailed gestational
distribution. The table includes data from the CDC system as well as a table that was developed
by the Alan Guttmacher Institute using data from three data systems: their reporting system. the
CDC surveillance system. and data collected from the 14 States that were part of an NCHS data
system in 1992.
It should be stressed that these tables, like other abortion data, have serious limitations. These
include:
There is no verification or validation of information reported in either of these data
systems. Gestational age, in particular, is highly subject to error.
Definitions of procedure are vague, lack consistency in the way they are applied, and
reflect a lack of consensus on use of medical terminology.
CDC compiles information from 47 reporting areas (not all provide all data items), which
in turn are based on reports from facilities and physicians, and there are Inconsistencles
across states regarding abortion reporting. AGI obtains reports from facilities, covering
the whole U.S. but lacking characteristics on the encounter (e.g., abortion method,
gestation. etc.).
The AGI national estimates according to patient characteristics, such as ago, length of
pregnancy, and type of procedure, are based on coupling the total abortion figures
collected by the AGI with the more detailed data complied by the CDC. The CDC data
according to patient characteristics are limited. however, because all states do not provide
information on all characteristics. For example, in 1992. gestational age was reported by
37 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City. Gestational age according to type
of procedure was reported by only 35 states and New York City. The AGI estimates of
abortions according to gestational age in the second attached table were based on the
CDC distributions. However, the figures for abortions after 20 weeks were based on a
tabulation of NCHS abortion data for 14 states which provided detailed gestational data.
Data on "partial-birth abortions," and Intect dilation and extraction abortions
Because the term "partial birth abortions" is not a medical term. it is not used in reports submitted
by physicians or providers to State health departments. Threfore, abortion data compiled by CDC
does not have data specific to that term. Dilation and extraction (also known as D&X and intact
D&E) is one of several abortion methods included under the general category of curettage,
however the data submitted by states and providers do not subdivide the category further into
2
3-06-1997 2:54PM
FROM
P.4
301-436-5202 NOHS/TICD
116 P04
MAR 06 '97 15:50
specific abortion methods. In fact, the current lack of standardization in the definition of the
procedures is a barrier to the collection of such data. As noted, the AGI surveillance system does
not collect abortion data by procedure.
While anecdotal information has been discussed in the press, the validity of the anecdotal data has
not been determined.
I hope we have provided some clarification on the availability of data on partial birth abortions, or
more specifically. intact dilation and extraction. In short, while there are data available that allow
monitoring of trends and abortion issues in the aggregate, we are unaware of credible data to
address the use of this specific procedure.
Sincerely,
Edward J. Sondik, Ph.D.
Senior Advisor to the Secretary on Health Statistics. and
Director, National Center for Health Statistics, CDC
cc: David Satcher, M.D.
Attachments
3
32
P.5
116 P05 MAR 06 '97 15:50
TABLE 16. Reported legal abortions, by weeks of gestation and type of procedure* - United States, 1992
MAR-06 97 17:38 FROM:
Wesks of gestation
st
9-10
11-12
23-15
16-20
223
Total
Type of procedure
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
&
%
No.
%
Bo.
%
No.
%
Currttage
(suction or
sharp?
362,453
19.9
166,815
99.9
$2,811
38.6
40,740
$8.2
25,180
80.0
$,605
86.4
886,594
99.0
intrauterine saline
Institution
43
0.0
32
0.04
53
0.1
200
0.8
7,324
4.5
422
=
2,074
0.3
Intresterine
prostaglandin
institution
22
and
19
0.0"
35
as'
189
0.5
1,273
4.3
456
4.8
2018
03
MMWR
Hysterotomy
Hysterectomy
11
0.0°
7
0.0
3
0.0'
3
0.83
11
0.0°
8
0.1
41
0.0'
Other'
282
0.1
70
0.0
211
0.3
325
0.8
1,495
5.1
437
4.0
2,820
0.4
Total**
362,817
100.0
166,943
100.0
83,214
190.0
41,487
100.0
28,283
100.0
2,838
100.0
693,557
180.0
"Excludes unknowns.
9 includes diliatation and avacuation.
1 50.00%
& Includes institution procedures not reported 41 a specific category.
Reported by 35 states and New York City.
Note: Total numbers of abortions differ from the following table due to different reporting areas.
FROM
301-435-5202 NCHS/DCD
Source: CDC. Abortion Surveillance: United States, 1992, MWR 45(No. SS-3), 1996.
TO:53729
3-06-1997 2:54PM
PAGE:07/07
EDWARD M. KENNEDY
HASSACHUSETTS
Hnited States Senate
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-2101
March 5. 1997
Dr. David Satcher
Office of the Director
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Road, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
Dear Dr. Satcher,
As you know, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing entitled. "Partial-Birth
Abortion: The Truth," on Tuesday, March 11, 1997. Although the hearing will undoubtedly address
several issues, I believe a great deal of attention will be focused on the confusion surrounding the
number of Intact D&E abortions performed annually. I hope you will bc able to provide information
that assists members of the Committee to better understand this issue.
It is my understanding that no public or private organization complies national data on the
number of intact D&E procedures performed annually. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and
the Alan Guttmacher Institute, recognized by the CDC as maintaining highly accurate and
comprehensive abortion statistics, do maintain a range of abortion-related data. Based on this
information and our understanding about the period in which the intact D&E procedure is employed.
we can infer. with reasonable accuracy. the number of abortions performed after fetal viability.
It would be very helpful to me and other members of the Judiciary Committee If the CDC
would tell us how long they have been maintaining abortion data and provide the following: abortion
data by gestation period and correlated to abortion method; data regarding "partial-birth abortions," If
such data exists; data regarding intact D&E abortions or verification that my understanding of data
collection regarding intact D&E abortions is correct: and your opinion regarding the validity of the
statistics provided by the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Finally, I would like to know if you are aware
of any public or private organization that maintains accurate Information on "partial-birth abortions."
Because the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on this issue on Tuesday, March
11, 1997, I would appreciate a response to my request no later than Friday. March 7. 1997. If you
have any questions regarding this request. please call me at my Judiciary Committee General
Counsel, Melody Barnes, at (202) 224-7956.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter, and I look forward to your response.
Sincerely.
Edward fed M. Kennedy Kindy
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
90-XHI.I
Abortion
Q&A
October 27, 1999
Q: Last week, the Senate passed the Partial Birth Abortion Act with a narrow veto-
sustaining margin. Why are you committed to vetoing a bill that most Americans agree
outlaws an unconscionable procedure?
A: I support the decision in Roe V. Wade protecting a woman's right to choose. At the same
time, I have long opposed late-term abortions, and I continue to do so except in those
instances necessary to save the life of a woman or to prevent serious harm to her health.
Unfortunately, the bill passed by the Senate does not contain an exception to the measure's
ban that will adequately protect the lives and health or a small group of women in tragic
circumstances who need an abortion performed at a late stage of pregnancy to avert death or
serious injury. I have met women who desperately wanted to have their babies, but who
were devastated to learn that their babies had fatal conditions and would not live, who
wanted anything other than an abortion, but who were advised by their doctors that this
procedure was their best chance to avert the risk or death or grave harm.
I have asked Congress repeatedly, for nearly 4 years, to send me legislation on this issue that
includes a limited exception for the small number of cases where use of this procedure is
compelling. Their failure to make such a humane exception leaves me no choice but to veto
this legislation.
Q: On Tuesday, a federal appeals court in Chicago upheld bans on late-tern abortion in
Wisconsin and Illinois -- what affect do you think this will have on the congressional
debate?
A: The federal courts continue to be divided on the constitutionality of these statutes. Other
circuit courts have struck down such bans as unconstitutional. As the courts continue to
wrestle with this issue, I can tell you where I stand on this question. I am ready to sign a bill
that bans all late term abortions if it includes a reasonable exception to save a woman's life or
prevent a serious threat to her health.
PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION Q&A
October 19, 1999
BACKGROUND: S. 1692, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 1999, sponsored by Senator
Santorum and 43 co-sponsors, may come up for Senate floor consideration this afternoon.
Q.
Does the President still remain committed to vetoing the partial birth abortion bill?
A.
The President will veto the bill for the same reason as before - because it does not
adequately protect women from serious harm. The President based his veto on the fact
that there are a small group of women in desperate circumstances who need this
procedure in order to save their lives or prevent serious injury to their health. The
President believes that this procedure should be banned except when necessary to save
the life of a woman or prevent serious harm to her health. If Congress presented such
legislation to him, he would gladly sign it.
Q.
Didn't the President base a prior veto on false information - i.e. that this procedure
is performed on only a few hundred women in desperate circumstances?
A.
Let's be clear - the President based his veto on the fact that there is a small group of
women in desperate circumstances who need this procedure in order to save their lives or
prevent serious injury to their health. He never said that these are the only circumstances
in which the procedure is used; he said that these few women need to be protected. If
Congress presented the President with a bill that did that, he would gladly sign it. It is
worth noting that the American College of Obstreticians and Gynocologists (ACOG),
which is the organization of specialists who know the most about this issue, agrees with
the President that the bill endangers women, because it prevents doctors from using a
procedure that in a few cases best protects women from serious injury.
BACKGROUND: In 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of
Abrotion Providers, said that partial birth abortions are (1) performed more frequently than pro-
chioce groups have acknowledged and (2) often performed on healthy women with healthy
fetuses. There are no good statistics on these questions, and it would be a mistake to challenge
Fitzsimmons on the facts. The important point is that even if true, Fitzsimmons claims do not
undermine the President's position, as explained above.
Q.
Will the President support Senator Durbin's alternative that he is expected to offer?
A.
We have not yet seen the language of the specific alternative, but the President has made
clear that he would sign a bill that bans partial birth abortions if it included an exception
to save women's lives or prevent serious injury to their health.
Q.
Would the President support a bill that bans all late term abortions?
A.
The President has long opposed late-term abortions regardless of the procedure used, and,
as Governor of Arkansas, signed into law a bill that banned them, with an appropriate
exception for the life or health of the mother. The President would sign legislation that
prohibits all late-term abortions, except those necessary to save the life of a woman or
prevent serious harm to her health.
[email protected]
10/27/99 05:00:44 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Nicole R. Rabner/WHO/EOP
CC:
Subject: 7th Circuit decision on WI and IL pba statutes
Nicole -- just wanted to make sure you saw our memo on yesterday's 7th
Circuit decision on the WI and IL so-called "partial-birth" statutes.
Kate Michelman has been talking to the press and stressing the
following points:
* all pro-choice Americans should be deeply concerned about
yesterday's decision and its effect on women's reproductive freedom.
*
This decision conflicts with the majority of the courts who have
reviewed similar bans and found them unconstitutional.
*
Unlike other courts that have simply struck down state bans as
unconstitutionally vague, the 7th Circuit felt compelled to read
limiting definitions into the bans despite the fact that they were not
in the language of the bans themselves.
*
When the Supreme Court reviews this issue, it will be the first time
since 1992 that the Court has addressed a major abortion decision.
This should alarm any American who cares about preserving a woman's
right to choose.
* A woman in consultation with her doctor must have all appropriate
and safe medical options available. As Judge Posner noted in his
dissent, by not containing a health exception, these bans in effect
are stating "that fetal life is more valuable than women's health."
* This decision underscores the importance of the 2000 Presidential
elections. The next President will likely nominate two or three
Supreme Court Justices who will hold the power to reaffirm or overturn
*Roe*.
* This decision is another in a series of assaults on a woman's right
to choose just in the last week: Last Thursday the Senate voted to
ban abortion procedures for the third time in four years; and 48
Senators voted against the principles of *Roe* in the first floor vote
on the *Roe V. Wade* decision since early in the Reagan
Administration.
If you have any questions on this decision, please give me a call.
allison
Let me know if you can't print or open this document and I will have
it faxed to you.
- pba7th.wpd
TO:
Interested Parties
FROM:
NARAL
RE:
Hope Clinic V. Ryan & Christensen V. Doyle (7th Cir. Oct. 26, 1999)
DATE:
October 27, 1999
In a sharply divided decision (5 to 4), a majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit voted to uphold so-called "partial-birth" abortion bans
in Wisconsin and Illinois - but only after directing the lower courts to issue "
precautionary injunctions" prohibiting the enforcement of these bans as applied
to all but a single type of procedure. Neither statute contained such limiting
language.
In issuing these "precautionary injunctions," the Seventh Circuit joined courts
around the country in finding that, if the statutes were more broadly applied,
they would be unconstitutional. However, the Seventh Circuit's approach
ignored the bans' threat to women's health recognized both by other courts and
by the dissenters in this case.
The four dissenters, led by Judge Richard A. Posner, would have held that both
the Illinois and Wisconsin statutes are unconstitutionally vague and impose an
undue burden on women's right to choose. He explained that proponents of
the ban "are concerned with making a statement in an ongoing war for public
opinion
The statement is that fetal life is more valuable than women's
health."
Moreover, the Seventh Circuit's opinion conflicts with recent Eighth Circuit
decisions striking down the Nebraska, Iowa, and Arkansas bans on the ground
that they impose an unconstitutional undue burden on women's right to
choose.
Because the majority opinion conflicts with the three decisions issued by the
Eighth Circuit on September 24, 1999, it is likely that the U.S. Supreme Court
will review the issue. This will be the first time since 1992 that the Court has
addressed a major abortion issue. It is possible that a ruling could come as
early as next summer.
This decision - following on the heels of last Thursday's Senate votes, one in
favor of a ban on abortion procedures, and a second in which 48 Senators voted
against the principles of Roe - underscores the importance of the 2000
Presidential election since the next President will likely nominate two or three
Supreme Court Justices who will hold the power to reaffirm or overturn Roe.
105th Congress, 1st Session
VETO OF H.R. 1122
MESSAGE
FROM
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TRANSMITTING
HIS VETO OF H.R. 1122, A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 18, UNITED
STATES CODE, TO BAN PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS
OCTOBER 21, 1997.-Message and bill referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary and ordered to be printed
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
59-011
WASHINGTON : 1997
To the House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 1122, which
would prohibit doctors from performing a certain kind of abortion.
I am returning H.R. 1122 for exactly the same reasons I returned
an earlier substantially identical version of this bill. H.R. 1833, last
year. My veto message of April 10, 1996, fully explains my reasons
for returning that bill and applies to H.R. 1122 as well. H.R. 1122
is a bill that is consistent neither with the Constitution nor sound
public policy.
As I have stated on many occasions, I support the decision in Roe
V. Wade protecting a woman's right to choose. Consistent with that
decision, I have long opposed late-term abortions, and I continue to
do so except in those instances necessary to save the life of a
woman or prevent serious harm to her health. Unfortunately, H.R.
1122 does not contain an exception to the measure's ban that will
adequately protect the lives and health of the small group of
women in tragic circumstances who need an abortion performed at
a late stage of pregnancy to avert death or serious injury.
I have asked the Congress repeatedly, for almost 2 years, to send
me legislation that includes a limited exception for the small num-
ber of compelling cases where use of this procedure is necessary to
avoid serious health consequences. When Governor of Arkansas, I
signed a bill into law that barred third-trimester abortions, with an
appropriate exception for life or health. I would do so again, but
only if the bill contains an exception for the rare cases where a
woman faces death or serious injury. I believe the Congress should
work in a bipartisan manner to fashion such legislation.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON.
THE WHITE HOUSE, October 10, 1997.
(1)
One Hundred Fifth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven
An Act
To amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
of 1997".
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Title 18, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after chapter 73 the following:
"CHAPTER 74-PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS
"Sec.
"1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited.
"& 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited
"(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign
commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby
kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than two years, or both. This paragraph shall not apply
to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of
a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness,
or injury. This paragraph shall become effective one day after
enactment.
"(b)(1) As used in this section, the term 'partial-birth abortion'
means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion
partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus
and completing the delivery.
"(2) As used in this section, the term 'physician' means a
doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to practice medi-
cine and surgery by the State in which the doctor performs such
activity, or any other individual legally authorized by the State
to perform abortions: Provided, however, That any individual who
is not a physician or not otherwise legally authorized by the State
to perform abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a
partial-birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this
section.
"(3) As used in this section, the term 'vaginally delivers a
living fetus before killing the fetus' means deliberately and inten-
tionally delivers into the vagina a living fetus, or a substantial
portion thereof, for the purpose of performing a procedure the
physician knows will kill the fetus, and kills the fetus.
(3)
4
H.R. 1122-2
"(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time she
receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the mother has
not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion,
the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in a civil action obtain
appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's
criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.
"(2) Such relief shall include-
"(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and
physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and
"(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of
the partial-birth abortion.
"(d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this section
may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether
the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother
whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, illness or injury.
"(2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that issue
at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the defendant,
the court shall delay the beginning of the trial for not more than
30 days to permit such a hearing to take place.
"(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed
may not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate
this section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this
title based on a violation of this section.".
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.-The table of chapters for part I
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to chapter 73 the following new item:
"74. Partial-birth abortions
1531".
NEWT GINGRICH,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
STROM THURMOND,
President pro tempore of the Senate.
[Endorsement on back of bill:]
I certify that this Act originated in the House of Representatives.
ROBIN H. CARLE, Clerk.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 7, 1997
Dear Rosa:
The House of Representatives will soon vote on accepting the
Senate Amendment to H.R. 1122, legislation that will ban a
certain late-term abortion procedure. As you know, I have long
opposed late-term abortions, and I continue to do so except in
those instances necessary to save the life of a woman or prevent
serious harm to her health. Unfortunately, neither H.R. 1122,
nor the Senate Amendment which will be pending before the House,
contains an exception to the measure's ban that will adequately
protect the lives and health of the small group of women in
tragic circumstances who need an abortion performed at a late
stage of pregnancy to avert death or serious injury.
Consequently, I urge you to vote against H.R. 1122 when it comes
before the House. Should the House agree to the Senate Amendment
and send H.R. 1122 to me for signature, I will veto the
legislation.
I have asked Congress repeatedly, for almost two years, to
send me legislation that includes a limited exception for the
small number of compelling cases where use of this procedure is
necessary to avoid serious health consequences. When Governor of
Arkansas, I signed a bill into law that barred third-trimester
abortions, with an appropriate exception for life or health. I
would do so again tomorrow, but only if the bill contains an
exception for the rare cases where a woman faces death or serious
injury. I believe that Congress should work in a bipartisan
manner to fashion such legislation.
Although I continue to hope that this painful issue can be
resolved, enactment of H.R. 1122 is not the answer. I urge you
to vote against this measure.
Sincerely,
Riu Clinton
The Honorable Rosa L. DeLauro
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
# 31
P
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
May 14, 1997 (SENT)
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
(Senate)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 1122 - Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997
(Solomon (R) NY)
H.R. 1122 contains the same serious flaws as H.R. 1833, an identical bill that was passed during
the 104th Congress and vetoed by the President on April 10, 1996.
The President will veto H.R. 1122 for the reasons he expressed in his veto message of
April 10, 1996, which is attached.
(Do Not Distribute Outside Executive Office of the President)
This Statement of Administration Policy was developed by the Legislative Reference Division
(Pellicci) in consultation with Associate Director Min.
OMB/LA Clearance: Nancy Ann (OMB), Elena Kagan (DPC), Peter Jacoby/John Hilley
(WHLA).
H.R. 929
As reported by the House Judiciary Committee on March 12th, H.R. 929 would ban under most
circumstances a certain type of late-term abortion procedure, which the bill calls a "partial-birth
abortion." H.R. 929 defines the term "partial-birth abortion" to mean any "abortion in which the
person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus
and completing the delivery."
H.R. 929 would allow a "partial-birth abortion" in cases where it is needed to "save the life of a
mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury " This exception,
however, is permitted only when no other procedure would suffice. This bill does not include an
exception for cases in which the woman's health is threatened.
H.R. 929 would subject doctors and others who perform the procedure to criminal fines and/or
up to two years of imprisonment. The bill would exempt women who obtain such abortions from
any criminal penalties.
2
Because of the criminal fines provisions, H.R. 929 is subject to the pay-as-you-go requirement of
the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. OMB's preliminary scoring estimate of the
criminal fine receipts under this bill is zero.
Congressional Action on H.R. 1833
Last year the House passed H.R. 1833 by a vote of 288-139 and the Senate passed the bill by a
vote of 54-44. The House voted to override the President's veto by a vote of 285-137; the Senate
failed to override the President's action by a vote of 57-41.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
3/18/97 - 3:45 P.M.
104th Congress, 2d Session
House Document 104-198
VETO OF H.R. 1833
MESSAGE
FROM
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TRANSMITTING
HIS VETO OF H.R. 1833, A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 18, UNITED
STATES CODE, TO BAN PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS
APRIL 15, 1996.-Message and accompanying bill referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be printed
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
29-011
WASHINGTON : 1996
To the House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 1833, which
would prohibit doctors from performing a certain kind of abortion.
I do so because the bill does not allow women to protect themselves
from serious threats to their health. By refusing to permit women,
in reliance on their doctors' best medical judgment, to use this pro-
cedure when their lives are threatened or when their health is put
in serious jeopardy, the Congress has fashioned a bill that is con-
sistent neither with the Constitution nor with sound public policy.
I have always believed that the decision to have an abortion gen-
erally should be between a woman, her doctor, her conscience, and
her God. I support the decision in Roe V. Wade protecting a wom-
an's right to choose, and I believe that the abortions protected by
that decision should be safe and rare. Consistent with that deci-
sion, I have long opposed late-term abortions except where nec-
essary to protect the life or health of the mother. In fact, as Gov-
ernor of Arkansas, I signed into law a bill that barred third tri-
mester abortions, with an appropriate exception for life or health.
The procedure described in H.R. 1833 has troubled me deeply, as
it has many people. I cannot support use of that procedure on an
elective basis, where the abortion is being performed for non-health
related reasons and there are equally safe medical procedures
available.
There are, however, rare and tragic situations that can occur in
a woman's pregnancy in which, in a doctor's medical judgment, the
use of this procedure may be necessary to save a woman's life or
to protect her against serious injury to her health. In these situa-
tions, in which a woman and her family must make an awful
choice, the Constitution requires, as it should, that the ability to
choose this procedure be protected.
In the past several months, I have heard from women who des-
perately wanted to have their babies, who were devastated to learn
that their babies had fatal conditions and would not live, who
wanted anything other than an abortion, but who were advised by
their doctors that this procedure was their best chance to avert the
risk of death or grave harm which, in some cases, would have in-
cluded an inability to ever bear children again. For these women,
this was not about choice-not about deciding against having a
child. These babies were certain to perish before, during or shortly
after birth, and the only question was how much grave damage
was going to be done to the woman.
I cannot sign H.R. 1833, as passed, because it fails to protect
women in such dire circumstances-because by treating doctors
who perform the procedure in these tragic cases as criminals, the
bill poses a danger of serious harm to women. This bill, in curtail-
ing the ability of women and their doctors to choose the procedure
for sound medical reasons, violates the constitutional command
(1)
2
ONE HUNDRED FOURTH Cor
AMERICA, AT THE SECOND
that any law regulating abortion protect both the life and the
CITY OF WASHINGTON ON W
health of the woman. The bill's overbroad criminal prohibition risks
ARY, ONE THOUSAND NINE I
that women will suffer serious injury.
That is why I implored Congress to add an exemption for the
small number of compelling cases where selection of the procedure,
in the medical judgment of the attending physician, was necessary
to preserve the life of the woman or avert serious adverse con-
sequences to her health. The life exception in the current bill only
covers cases where the doctor believes that the woman will die. It
fails to cover cases where, absent the procedure, serious physical
To amend title 18, United St.
harm, often including losing the ability to have more children, is
Be it enacted by the Sel
very likely to occur. I told Congress that I would sign H.R. 1833
the United States of America i
if it were amended to add an exception for serious health con-
sequences. A bill amended in this way would strike a proper bal-
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
ance, remedying the constitutional and human defect of H.R. 1833.
This Act may be cited a
If such a bill were presented to me, I would sign it now.
of 1995".
I understand the desire to eliminate the use of a procedure that
appears inhumane. But to eliminate it without taking into consid-
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PART)
eration the rare and tragic circumstances in which its use may be
(a) IN GENERAL.-Title
necessary would be even more inhumane.
by inserting after chapter 73 t
The Congress chose not to adopt the sensible and constitutionally
appropriate proposal I made, instead leaving women unprotected
"CHAPTER 74-PAH
against serious health risks. As a result of this Congressional indif-
ference to women's health, I cannot, in good conscience and consist-
"Sec.
ent with my responsibility to uphold the law, sign this legislation.
"1531. Partial-birth abortions prohit
WILLIAM J. CLINTON.
"§ 1531. Partial-birth abort
THE WHITE HOUSE, April 10, 1996.
"(a) Any physician who,
commerce, knowingly perforn
kills a human fetus shall be
not more than two years, or
to a partial-birth abortion
a mother whose life is enda
or injury: Provided, That no
for that purpose. This para₁
after enactment.
"(b)(1) As used in this SE
means an abortion in which
partially vaginally delivers
and completing the delivery.
"(2) As used in this S€
doctor of medicine or osteopaí
cine and surgery by the Sta
activity, or any other indivi
to perform abortions: Provid
is not a physician or not oth
to perform abortions, but V
partial-birth abortion, shall
section.
"(c)(1) The father, if ma
receives a partial-birth abort
not attained the age of 18
the maternal grandparents o
2
ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, AT THE SECOND SESSION, BEGUN AND HELD AT THE
protect both the life and the
CITY OF WASHINGTON ON WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANU-
verbroad criminal prohibition risks
ARY, ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND NINETY-SIX
jury.
ress to add an exemption for the
where selection of the procedure,
attending physician, was necessary
an or avert serious adverse con-
exception in the current bill only
An Act
lieves that the woman will die. It
it the procedure, serious physical
To amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions.
ability to have more children, is
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
ress that I would sign H.R. 1833
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
exception for serious health con-
is way would strike a proper bal-
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
il and human defect of H.R. 1833.
This Act may be cited as the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
e, I would sign it now.
of 1995".
inate the use of a procedure that
ate it without taking into consid-
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS.
nstances in which its use may be
(a) IN GENERAL.-Title 18, United States Code, is amended
humane.
by inserting after chapter 73 the following:
t the sensible and constitutionally
stead leaving women unprotected
"CHAPTER 74-PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS
result of this Congressional indif-
ot, in good conscience and consist-
"Sec.
old the law, sign this legislation.
"1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON.
"§ 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited
96.
"(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign
commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby
kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than two years, or both. This paragraph shall not apply
to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of
a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness,
or injury: Provided, That no other medical procedure would suffice
for that purpose. This paragraph shall become effective one day
after enactment.
"(b)(1) As used in this section, the term 'partial-birth abortion'
means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion
partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus
and completing the delivery.
"(2) As used in this section, the term 'physician' means a
doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to practice medi-
cine and surgery by the State in which the doctor performs such
activity, or any other individual legally authorized by the State
to perform abortions: Provided, however, That any individual who
is not a physician or not otherwise legally authorized by the State
to perform abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a
partial-birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this
section.
"(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time she
receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the mother has
not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion,
the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in a civil action obtain
(3)
4
H.R. 1833-2
appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's
criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.
"(2) Such relief shall include-
"(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and phys-
ical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and
"(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of
the partial-birth abortion.
"(d) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed
may not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate
this section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this
title based on a violation of this section.".
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.-The table of chapters for part I
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to chapter 73 the following new item:
"74. Partial-birth abortions
1531".
BILL EMERSON,
Speaker of the House of Representatives pro tempore.
STROM THURMOND,
President of the Senate pro tempore.
[Endorsement on back of bill:]
I certify that this Act originated in the House of Representatives.
ROBIN H. CARLE, Clerk.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear John:
I understand that the House is preparing to consider H.R. 1833, as
amended by the Senate, which would prohibit doctors from performing
a certain type of abortion. I want to make the Congress aware of my
position on this extremely complex issue.
I have always believed that the decision to have an abortion
should be between a woman, her conscience, her doctor, and her God.
I strongly believe that legal abortions -- those abortions that the
Supreme Court ruled in Roe V. Wade must be protected -- should be
safe and rare. I have long opposed late-term abortions except, as
the law requires, where they are necessary to protect the life of
the mother or where there is a threat to her health. In fact, as
Governor of Arkansas, I signed into law a bill that barred third
trimester abortions except where they were necessary to protect the
life or health of the woman, consistent with the Supreme Court's
rulings.
The procedure described in H.R. 1833 is very disturbing, and I cannot
support its use on an elective basis, where the abortion is being
performed for non-health related reasons and there are equally safe
medical procedures available. As I understand it, however, there are
rare and tragic situations that can occur in a woman's pregnancy in
which, in a doctor's medical judgment, the use of this procedure may
be necessary to save a woman's life or to preserve her health. In
those situations, the Constitution requires that a woman's ability to
choose this procedure be protected.
I have studied and prayed about this issue, and about the families
who must face this awful choice, for many months. I believe that we
have a duty to try to find common ground: a resolution to this issue
that respects the views of those -- including myself -- who object
to this particular procedure, but also upholds the Supreme Court's
requirement that laws regulating abortion protect both the life and
the health of American women.
2
I have concluded that H.R. 1833 as drafted does not meet the
constitutional requirements that the Supreme Court has imposed
upon us, in Roe and the decisions that have followed it, to provide
protections for both the life and the health of the mother in any
laws regulating abortions.
I am prepared to support H.R. 1833, however, if it is amended to
make clear that the prohibition of this procedure does not apply
to situations in which the selection of the procedure, in the medical
judgment of the attending physician, is necessary to preserve the
life of the woman or avert serious adverse health consequences to
the woman.
I urge the Congress to amend H.R. 1833 to ensure that it protects the
life and the health of the woman, as the law we have been elected to
uphold requires.
Sincerely,
Brin Churcen
- OFFICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
December 6, 1995 (SENT)
(Senate)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 1833. Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995
(Rep. Canady (R) FL and 115 others)
The President believes that the decision to have an abortion should be between a woman, her
conscience, her doctor, and her God. He believes that legal abortions should be safe and rare.
The President has long opposed late-term abortions except where they are necessary to protect
the life of the mother or where there is a threat to her health, consistent with the law. The
Supreme Court has ruled that "Roe forbids a state from interfering with a woman's choice to
undergo an abortion procedure if continuing her pregnancy would constitute a threat to her
health." Therefore, the Administration cannot support H.R. 1833 because it fails to provide for
consideration of the need to preserve the life and health of the mother, consistent with the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Roe V. Wade. If the bill is not amended to rectify these
constitutional defects, the Attorney General and the White House Counsel will recommend that
the President veto the bill.
*****
BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM FOR MARIA ECHAVESTE
FROM:
Laura Efurd
Office of Public Liaison
RE:
Meeting with women groups on late-term abortion bill, S. 1692
DATE\TIME:
Tuesday, October 19th, 3:00 pm
LOCATION:
Room 100, OEOB
ATTENDEES:
Maria Echaveste, Deputy Chief of Staff
Ann Lewis, Counselor to the President
Sylvia Matthews, Deputy Director, OMB (still awaiting
confirmation)
Nicole Rabner, DPC
Lauren Supina, Director, Women's Office, OPL
Representatives of women's organizations
(see attached list of those invited)
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this meeting is to give the women's organizations
an opportunity to talk with high level White House staff about the
upcoming debate on S. 1692, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of
1999.
BACKGROUND:
Senate Leadership has indicated that they may take S. 1692 later
this week, when they complete action on Campaign Finance
Reform. In anticipation of this debate, we have proposed a
meeting with some women's groups who have been most active on
this issue to give them an opportunity to discuss with White House
staff the current situation on the Hill, and provide their views on
how the debate will go this year. This will be an informal meeting
to share information.
FORMAT:
Opening - Maria Echaveste
Self Introductions of organization representatives (optional)
Turn over discussion to women's groups
Discussion
TALKING POINTS:
As we all know, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has indicated that he may bring up the
Late Term abortion bill this week, following campaign finance reform.
Our position on this bill has not changed. As you all were key in the previous debates on this
issues, we want to keep in touch with you as this bill moves forward.
We would like to hear from on the status of the bill in the Senate and how it compares to
previous debates on this issue and discuss your strategy for this year's vote,
ATTACHMENTS:
1) List of invitees (list of confirmed attendees will be provided by COB)
2) Draft SAP and Draft Statement
List of Invitees
Meeting with Women's Groups
Late Term Abortion Bill
October 19, 1999
*Denotes confirmed attendee
Joanne Hustead*
National Partnership for Women and Families
202-986-2647
Marsha Greenberger
National Women's Law Center
202-588-5180
Allison Herwitt*
NARAL
202-973-3000
Sana Schtasel*
Center for Reproductive Law and Public Policy
202-530-2975
Jodie Leu*
Planned Parenthood
DC office # is 202-785-3351
Maureen Britell
National Abortion Federation
202-667-5881
Nancy Zirken*
National Ass'n of University Women
202-785-7700
Julie Burton
Voters for Choice.
202-944-5080
Patricia Ireland*
Jan Erickson*
NOW
Alice Cohan*
Fund for Feminist Majority
DRAFT -- NOT FOR RELEASE
October 18, 1999
(Sena
S. 1692 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1999
(Sen. Santorum (R) PA and 43 cosponsors)
S. 1692 contains the same serious flaws as H.R. 1833 and H.R. 1122, virtually identical bills that
were passed during the 104th and 105th Congresses and vetoed by the President on April 10,
1996, and October 10, 1997, respectively.
The President will veto S. 1692 for the reasons he expressed in his veto message of April 10,
1996, which is attached. [see below]
**********
(Do Not Distribute Outside Executive Office of the President)
This Statement of Administration Policy was developed by the Legislative Reference Division
(Pellicci) in consultation with the DPC (Rabner), CoS (Bernstein), WHLA (Thornton), HD
(Garcia), and the Justice Department (per Patty First).
Background
The proposed position is identical to that taken during the 104th and 105th Congresses on
virtually identical legislation. S. 1692, like the previous two bills, fails to address the President's
primary concern that the prohibition on this type of abortion procedure not apply when the
attending physician considers the procedure necessary to preserve the health of the woman. (The
bill only would allow this type of abortion in cases where it is needed to save the life of the
woman.)
During the 104th Congress, H.R. 1833 passed the House by a vote of 286-129, and the Senate by
a vote of 54-44. During the 105th Congress, H.R. 1122 passed the House by a vote of 296-132,
and the Senate by a vote of 64-36.
S. 1692 was placed on the Senate calendar earlier this month without committee action. To date,
there is no House companion bill.
Description of S. 1692
S. 1692 would ban under most circumstances a certain type of late-term abortion procedure,
known medically as intact dilation and extraction, which the bill calls a "partial-birth abortion".
S. 1692 defines the term partial-birth abortion to mean any "abortion in which the person
performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and
completing the delivery."
S. 1692 would allow a partial-birth abortion in cases where it is needed "to save the life of a
mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury." The bill does not
include an exception for cases in which the woman's health is threatened.
S. 1692 would subject doctors and others who perform the procedure to civil and criminal fines
and/or up to two years of imprisonment. The bill would allow the father, if married to the
woman at the time of the procedure, and certain other family members to sue the individual
performing the procedure for damages. S. 1692 would exempt women who obtain such
abortions from any criminal penalties.
Pay-As-You-Go Scoring
S. 1692 could increase both direct spending and receipts; therefore, it is subject to the pay-as-
you-go requirement of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. OMB estimates that the
net pay-as-you-go effect of this bill would be zero.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
10/15/99 - 4:00 p.m.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
April 10, 1996
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 1833, which would
prohibit doctors from performing a certain kind of abortion. I do so
because the bill does not allow women to protect themselves from
serious threats to their health. By refusing to permit women, in
reliance on their doctors' best medical judgment, to use this procedure
when their lives are threatened or when their health is put in serious
jeopardy, the Congress has fashioned a bill that is consistent neither
with the Constitution nor with sound public policy.
I have always believed that the decision to have an abortion
generally should be between a woman, her doctor, her conscience, and
her God. I support the decision in Roe V. Wade protecting a woman's
right to choose, and I believe that the abortions protected by that
decision should be safe and rare. Consistent with that decision, I
have long opposed late-term abortions except where necessary to protect
the life or health of the mother. In fact, as Governor of Arkansas, I
signed into law a bill that barred third trimester abortions, with an
appropriate exception for life or health.
The procedure described in H.R. 1833 has troubled me deeply, as it
has many people. I cannot support use of that procedure on an elective
basis, where the abortion is being performed for non-health related
reasons and there are equally safe medical procedures available.
There are, however, rare and tragic situations that can occur in a
woman's pregnancy in which, in a doctor's medical judgment, the use of
this procedure may be necessary to save a woman's life or to protect
her against serious injury to her health. In these situations, in
which a woman and her family must make an awful choice, the
Constitution requires, as it should, that the ability to choose this
procedure be protected.
In the past several months, I have heard from women who
desperately wanted to have their babies, who were devastated to learn
that their babies had fatal conditions and would not live, who wanted
anything other than an abortion, but who were advised by their doctors
that this procedure was their best chance to avert the risk of death or
grave harm which, in some cases, would have included an inability to
ever bear children again. For these women, this was not about choice
-- not about deciding against having a child. These babies were
certain to perish before, during or shortly after birth, and the only
question was how much grave damage was going to be done to the woman.
I cannot sign H.R. 1833, as passed, because it fails to protect
women in such dire circumstances -- because by treating doctors who
perform the procedure in these tragic cases as criminals, the bill
poses a danger of serious harm to women. This bill, in curtailing the
ability of women and their doctors to choose the procedure for sound
medical reasons, violates the constitutional command that any law
regulating abortion protect both the life and the health of the woman.
The bill's overbroad criminal prohibition risks that women will suffer
serious injury.
That is why I implored Congress to add an exemption for the small
number of compelling cases where selection of the procedure, in the
medical judgment of the attending physician, was necessary to preserve
the life of the woman or avert serious adverse consequences to her
health. The life exception in the current bill only covers cases where
the doctor believes that the woman will die. It fails to cover cases
where, absent the procedure, serious physical harm, often including
losing the ability to have more children, is very likely to occur. I
told Congress that I would sign H.R. 1833 if it were amended to add an
exception for serious health consequences. A bill amended in this way
would strike a proper balance, remedying the constitutional and human
defect of H.R. 1833. If such a bill were presented to me, I would sign
it now.
I understand the desire to eliminate the use of a procedure that
appears inhumane. But to eliminate it without taking into
consideration the rare and tragic circumstances in which its use may be
necessary would be even more inhumane.
The Congress chose not to adopt the sensible and constitutionally
appropriate proposal I made, instead leaving women unprotected against
serious health risks. As a result of this Congressional indifference
to women's health, I cannot, in good conscience and consistent with my
responsibility to uphold the law, sign this legislation.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 10, 1996.
###
Nicole R. Rabner
10/15/99 02:54:27 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Laura Efurd/WHO/EOP@EOP
CC:
Ruby Shamir/OPD/EOP@EOF
Subject: Re: Meeting with Women's Group on Late Term Abortion Bill, EA
My thoughts for the women's groups to invite to this meeting:
Judy Lichtman, National Partnership for Women and Families
202-986-2647
Marsha Greenberger, National Women's Law Center
202-588-5180
Kate Michaelman, NARAL
202-973-3000
Janet Benshoo (phoenetic), Center for Reproductive Law and Public Policy
(Janet works out of the NY office, but Sona Shtasel is a good contact in theirn DC ofc at 202-530-2975)
Gloria Felt, Planned Parenthood
(Gloria works from the NY office; their DC office # is 202-785-3351)
Vicky Saporta, National Abortion Federation
202-667-5881
Nancy Zirken, National Ass'n of University Women
202-785-7700
ACLU
(I'm not sure whom to invite from here, but Kate Engustian has been recommended as someone to call to
ask -- 202-544-1681)
I defer to Marybeth on whether to add or subtract, but these are my thoughts. Thanks for putting this
together.
Nicole
OCT-14-1999 15:36 TO:NICOLE RABNER
FROM: 454 JULIA YUILLE
P. 1/5
Total Pages: 5
LRM ID: RJP195
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Washington, D.C. 20503-0001
Thursday, October 14, 1999
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM
Legislative BPellicci Distribution below
URGENT
TO:
FROM:
Janet R. Forsgren (for) Assistant Director for Legislative Reference
OMB CONTACT:
Robert J. Pellicci
E-Mail: [email protected]
PHONE: (202)395-4871 FAX: (202)395-6148
SUBJECT:
Executive Office of the President Statement of Administration Policy on
S1692 Partial Birth Abortion
DEADLINE:
3:00 P.M. Friday, October 15, 1999
In accordance with OMB Circular A-19, OMB requests the views of your agency on the above subject
before advising on its relationship to the program of the President. Please advise us if this item will
affect direct spending or receipts for purposes of the "Pay-As-You-Go" provisions of Title XIII of
the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.
COMMENTS: Senate floor consideration of S. 1692 could occur as early as next week.
DISTRIBUTION LIST
AGENCIES:
61-JUSTICE - Robert Raben - (202) 514-2141
52-HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES - Sondra S. Wallace - (202)690-7760
EOP:
Daniel N. Mendelson
Nicole R. Rabner
Ruby Shamir
Joel K. Wiginton
Aprill N. Springfield
Leslie Bernstein
JENNINGS_C
Devorah R. Adler
Peter Rundlet
Barry T. Clendenin
Olga O. Garcia
James J. Jukes
Janet R. Forsgren
Sandra Yamin
OCT-14-1999 15:36 TO:NICOLE RABNER
FROM: 454 JULIA YUILLE
P. 2/5
LRM ID: RJP195
SUBJECT: Executive Office of the President Statement of Administration Policy
on S1692 Partial Birth Abortion
RESPONSE TO
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL
MEMORANDUM
If your response to this request for views is short (e.g., concur/no comment), we prefer that you respond by
e-mail or by faxing us this response sheet. If the response is short and you prefer to call, please call the
branch-wide line shown below (NOT the analyst's line) to leave a message with a legislative assistant.
You may also respond by:
(1) calling the analyst/attomey's direct line (you will be connected to voice mail If the analyst does
not answer); or
(2) sending us a memo or letter
Please include the LRM number shown above, and the subject shown below.
TO:
Robert J. Pellicci Phone: 395-4871 Fax: 395-6148
Office of Management and Budget
Branch-Wide Line (to reach legislative assistant): 395-7362
FROM:
(Date)
(Name)
(Agency)
(Telephone)
The following is the response of our agency to your request for views on the above-captioned subject:
Concur
No Objection
No Comment
See proposed edits on pages
Other:
FAX RETURN of
pages, attached to this response sheet
OCT-14-1999 15:36 TO:NICOLE RABNER
FROM: 454 JULIA YUILLE
P. 3/5
DRAFT - NOT FOR RELEASE
DRAFT
October 14, 1999
(Senate)
S. 1692 - Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1999
(Sen. Santorum (R) PA and 43 cosponsors)
S. 1692 contains the same serious flaws as H.R. 1833 and H.R. 1122, virtually identical bills that were
passed during the 104th and 105th Congresses and vetoed by the President on April 10, 1996 and
October 10, 1997, respectively.
The President will veto S. 1692 for the reasons he expressed in his veto message of April 10, 1996,
which is attached.
**********
OCT-14-1999 15:36 TO:NICOLE RABNER
FROM:454 JULIA YUILLE
P. 4/5
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
April 10, 1996
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 1833,
which would prohibit doctors from performing a certain kind of
abortion. I do so because the bill does not allow women to
protect themselves from serious threats to their health. BY
refusing to permit women, in reliance OD their doctors' best
medical judgment, to use this procedure when their lives are
threatened OI when their health is put in serious jeopardy, the
Congress has fashioned a bill that is consistent neither with
the Constitution nor with sound public policy.
I have always believed that the decision to have an
abortion generally should be between a woman, her doctor, her
conscience, and her God. I support the decision in Roe V. Made
protecting a woman's right to choose, and I believe that the
abortions protected by that decision should be safe and rare.
Consistent with that decision, I have long opposed late-term
abortions except where necessary to protect the life or health
of the mother. In fact, as Governor of Arkansas, I signed into
law a bill that barred third trimester abortions, with an
appropriate exception for life or health.
The procedure described in H.R., 1833 has troubled me
deeply, as it has many people. I cannot support use of that
procedure on an elective basis, where the abortion is being
performed for non-health related reasons and there are equally
safe medical procedures available.
There are, however, rare and tragic situations that can
occur in a woman's pregnancy in which, in a doctor's medical
judgment, the use of this procedure may be necessary to save a
woman's life or to protect her against serious injury to her
health. In these situations, in which a woman and her family
must make an awful choice, the Constitution requires, as it
should, that the ability to choose this procedure be protected.
In the past several months, I have heard from women who
desperately wanted to have their babies, who were devastated to
learn that their babies had fatal conditions and would not live,
who wanted anything other than an abortion, but who were advised
by their doctors that this procedure was their best chance to
avert the risk of death or grave harm which, in some cases,
would have included an inability to ever bear children again.
For these women, this was not about choice -- not about deciding
against having a child. These babies were certain to perish
before, during or shortly after birth, and the only question was
how much grave damage was going to be done to the woman.
I cannot sign H.R. 1833, as passed, because it fails to
protect women in such dire circumstances -- because by treating
doctors who perform the procedure in these tragic cases as
criminals, the bill poses & danger of serious harm to women.
This bill, in curtailing the ability of women and their doctors
to choose the procedure for sound medical reasons, violates the
constitutional command that any law regulating abortion protect
both the life and the health of the woman. The bill's overbroad
criminal prohibition risks that women will suffer serious
injury.
OCT-14-1999 15:36 TO:NICOLE RABNER
FROM:454 JULIA YUILLE
P.5/5
2
That is why I implored Congress to add an exemption for the
small number of compelling cases where selection of the
procedure, in the medical judgment of the attending physician,
was necessary to preserve the life of the woman or avert serious
adverse consequences to her health. The life exception in the
current bill only covers cases where the doctor believes that
the woman will die. It fails to cover cases where, absent the
procedure, serious physical harm, often including losing the
ability to have more children, is very likely to occur. I told
Congress that I would sign H.R. 1833 if it were amended to add
an exception for serious health consequences. A bill amended in
this way would strike a proper balance, remedying the
constitutional and human defect of H.R. 1833. If such a bill
were presented to me, I would sign it now.
I understand the desire to eliminate the use of a procédure
that appears inhumane. But to eliminate it without taking into
consideration the rare and tragic circumstances in which its use
may be necessary would be even more inhumane.
The Congress chose not to adopt the sensible and
constitutionally appropriate proposal I made, instead leaving
women unprotected against serious health risks. As a result of
this Congressional indifference to women's health, I cannot, in
good conscience and consistent with try responsibility to uphold
the law, sign this legislation.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 10, 1996.
# # #
TOTAL P.05
Thursday, October 21, 1999
National Journal's Congress 13
AMA Drops Support Of 'Partial-Birth' Abortion Legislation
HEALTH
BACKERS OF legisla-
that the association had erred in en-
sure the AMA endorsed in the last Con-
tion to ban so-
dorsing the measure.
gress.
called partial-birth abortions were dealt
According to the New York Times,
Backers of the measure still hope
a blow Wednesday when the American
the audit found that the AMA "ignored
this will be the year the Senate finally
Medical Association rescinded its en-
its own decision-making procedures"
produces the two-thirds majority for
dorsement of the bill while it was be-
and that leaders of the organization
the bill needed to override a promised
ing debated on the Senate floor.
were "manipulated by Republican
presidential veto.
The organization broke with much
members of Congress."
President Clinton has twice vetoed
of the rest of the medical community
A statement issued by AMA Trustee
earlier versions of the measure be-
and backed the bill in 1997 after lengthy
John Nelson dated Tuesday said: "The
cause it does not include an exception
negotiations with the bill's sponsor,
current version of Sen. Santorum's bill
allowing the procedure to be used to
Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.
subjects physicians to criminal pros-
protect the pregnant woman's health.
But after much of the AMA's lead-
ecution. For this reason, we do not
The House has twice voted to over-
ership was ousted following an unre-
support the bill."
ride, but the veto has twice been sus-
lated matter, a management audit by
The bill's language, however, is
tained by the Senate.
the firm Booz Allen & Hamilton found
identical to the language in the mea-
- By JULIE ROVNER
Political Roundup
Second GOP Candidate Eyes
Contest To Take On Grams
primary if he does not get the party
Moore Seat In Kan.
Gets More Crowded
endorsement at the Democratic-
STATE REP. PHILL KLINE this week
STATE SEN. STEVE KELLEY Wednes-
Farmer-Labor convention next sum-
jumped into the race for the GOP
day entered what is becoming a
mer. Miles and Lillehaug say they
nomination for the seat held by
crowded field seeking the Democ-
will run only with the endorsement;
freshman Rep. Dennis Moore, D-
ratic nomination to challenge Sen.
Ciresi plans to run in the primary.
Kan.
Rod Grams, R-Minn., next year, the
Kline, 39, a conservative who
Associated Press reported
Poll: Bush, McCain In Statistical
has served in the Kansas House
Kelley, a first-term legislator, is
Dead Heat In Arizona
since 1993, is the second Republi-
an attorney at a Minneapolis law
A NEW POLL RELEASED by the Behav-
can to announce a bid for the 3rd
firm - where he has focused on
ior Research Center of Arizona
District seat.
the area of commercial litigation.
showed Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.,
Greg Musil, an attorney and
He has specialized in technology is-
in a statistical dead heat with
Overland Park City Council presi-
sues in the legislature, and Wednes-
Texas Gov. George W. Bush in the
dent, announced he was running
day gave an announcement speech
Arizona presidential primary next
last month.
using notes on a computer set up
February.
This is not the first time Kline
as a sort of TelePromp' a few
Of 502 registered voters polled
has run for Congress. In 1986 he
feet away from him.
between Oct. 13-17, Bush garnered 35
ran from the 2nd District, losing to
The race for the Democratic
percent while McCain got the nod
then-Rep. Jim Slattery, D-Kan.
nomination already includes promi-
from 31 percent. Sixteen percent
Other possible candidates are
nent trial attorney Michael Ciresi,
were undecided. Bush's lead is within
Jeff Colyer, an Overland Park plas-
former U.S. Attorney David Lille-
the poll's 4.5 point error margin.
tic surgeon, and Gary Morsch of
haug, University of Minnesota
Malcolm (Steve) Forbes and
Olathe, a physician who is the
physician Steven Miles and former
Elizabeth Dole, who dropped out of
founder of the Heart to Heart Inter-
Minneapolis alderman Dick Fran-
the race Wednesday, both received
national relief organization.
son.
6 percent, while Patrick Buchanan
Moore, the first Democrat to
In addition, state Sen. Jerry
picked up 3 percent.
represent the 3rd District in 38
Janezich said Wednesday he is 70
A poll conducted by Northern
years, ousted GOP Rep. Vince
percent leaning toward getting in,
Arizona University earlier this
Snowbarger with 52 percent of the
and former Rep. Tim Penny, D-
month found 39 percent of Arizona
vote last year. Snowbarger said he
Minn., also may run.
Republicans preferred McCain to
has decided against running for the
Kelley said he does not yet
28 percent for Bush. That poll's er-
seat in 2000.
know yet whether he will run in the
ror margin was 5.7 points.
URGENT VOTE TODAY
TO:
Reproductive Health Staff
FROM:
Allison Herwitt, Director Government Relations
Terri McCullough, Legislative Representative
DATE:
October 21, 1999
RE:
HARKIN SENSE OF THE SENATE RESOLUTION
On Thursday, October 21, the Senate will vote on Senator Harkin's non-binding
resolution, "Sense of Congress Concerning Roe V. Wade." NARAL urges Senators
to support the Harkin Resolution and will score this vote in our 1999
Congressional Record on Choice.
The Harkin Resolution reaffirms the deeply held principles espoused by the U.S.
Supreme Court in the 1973 Roe V. Wade decision. In Roe, the Court recognized that
the constitutional right of privacy "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision
whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." Roe decriminalized abortion, "
vindicat[ing] the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his
professional judgment
This landmark Supreme Court decision struck a careful balance between the right of
women to choose abortion in the early stages of pregnancy and the states' interest in
protecting potential life after viability. Roe stated that prior to fetal viability, the
abortion decision must reside with the woman, to be made in consultation with her
doctor and within the context of her own religious beliefs. After fetal viability, Roe
allows states to ban abortion as long as the woman's life and health are protected.
In the years before Roe, an estimated 1.2 million women resorted to illegal abortions
annually, despite the known hazards "of frightening trips to dangerous locations in
strange parts of town; of whiskey as an anesthetic; of 'doctors' who were often
marginal or unlicensed practitioners, sometimes alcoholic, sometimes sexually
abusive; unsanitary conditions; incompetent treatment; infection; hemorrhage;
disfiguration; and death." It is estimated that as many as 5,000 women died yearly
from illegal abortion before Roe.
"Someone gave me the phone number of a person who did abortions
and / made the arrangements. / borrowed about $300 from my
roommate and went alone to a dirty, rundown bungalow in a
dangerous neighborhood in east Los Angeles. A greasy looking man
came to the door and asked for the money as soon as / walked in. He
told me to take off all my clothes except my blouse; there was a towel
to wrap around myself. / got up on a cold metal kitchen table. He
performed a procedure, using something sharp. He didn't give me
anything for the pain - he just did it. He said that he had packed me
with some gauze, that / should expect some cramping, and that / would
be fine. / left."
- Polly Bergen, discussing the illegal abortion in
the 1940s that rendered her infertile and nearly
proved fatal.
Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, the safety of abortion has increased
dramatically.
*
The most important effect of the legalization of abortion on public health in the
United States was the near elimination of deaths from the procedure.
Between 1973 and 1990, the number of deaths per 100,000 legal abortions
declined more than tenfold. By 1990, the risk of death from legal abortion had
declined to 0.3 deaths per 100,000. The American Medical Association's
Council on Scientific Affairs credits the shift from illegal to legal abortions as
an important factor in this decline.
Roe not only established women's reproductive freedom, but also was central
to women's continued progress toward full and equal participation in
American life. In the 26 years since Roe, the variety and level of women's
achievements have reached unprecedented levels. As the Supreme Court
observed in 1992, "[t]he ability of women to participate equally in the economic
and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their
reproductive lives."
Attached is more information on the 1973 Supreme Court decision. If you have
further questions please contact Allison Herwitt at 973-3003, or Terri McCullough at
973-3047.
ROE V. WADE AND THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of
meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these
matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under
compulsion of the State."
U.S. Supreme Court Justices O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania V. Casey
Abortion in the United States Before Roe
When Roe V. Wade was decided in January 1973, abortion except to save a woman's
life was banned in nearly two-thirds of the states.² Laws in most of the remaining
states contained only a few additional exceptions.³ It is estimated that each year 1.2
million women resorted to illegal abortion,⁴ despite the known hazards "of frightening
trips to dangerous locations in strange parts of town; of whiskey as an anesthetic; of
'doctors' who were often marginal or unlicensed practitioners, sometimes alcoholic,
sometimes sexually abusive; unsanitary conditions; incompetent treatment; infection;
hemorrhage; disfiguration; and death."
The Constitutional Development of the Right to Privacy
During the half century leading up to Roe, the Supreme Court decided a series of
significant cases in which it recognized the existence of a constitutionally protected
right to privacy that keeps fundamentally important and deeply personal decisions
concerning "bodily integrity, identity and destiny" largely beyond the reach of
government interference.⁶ Citing this concern for autonomy and privacy, the Court
struck down laws severely curtailing the role of parents in education, mandating
sterilization, and prohibiting marriages between individuals of different races.⁷
Important aspects of the right to privacy were established in Griswold V.
Connecticut,8 decided in 1965, and in Eisenstadt V. Baird, decided in 1972.⁹ In these
cases, the Supreme Court held that state laws that criminalized or hindered the use of
contraception violated the right to privacy. Having recognized in these cases "the
right of the individual to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into
matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget
a child,"¹⁰ the Court held in Roe that the right to privacy encompasses the right to
choose whether to end a pregnancy.¹¹
The Court has reaffirmed this holding on multiple occasions throughout the past 25 years, 12
noting in 1992 that "[t]he soundness of this
analysis is apparent from a consideration of the
alternative. Without a privacy right that encompasses the right to choose, the Constitution
would permit the state to override not only a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy, but
also her choice to carry the pregnancy to term.¹⁴
The Roe Compromise
Although Roe invalidated restrictive abortion laws that disregarded women's right to privacy, the
Court recognized a state's valid interest in potential life. 15 That is, the Court rejected arguments
that the right to choose is absolute and always outweighs the state's interest in imposing
limitations 16 Instead, the Court issued a carefully crafted decision that brought the state's
interest and the woman's right to choose into balance.
The Court held that a woman has the right to choose abortion until fetal viability, but that the
state's interest generally outweighs the woman's right after that point. 17 Accordingly, after
viability -- the time at which it first becomes realistically possible for fetal life to be maintained
outside the woman's body the state may ban any abortion not necessary to preserve a woman's
life or health. 18
25 Years of Roe: A Better Life for Women
By invalidating laws that forced women to resort to back-alley abortion, Roe was directly
responsible for saving women's lives. It is estimated that as many as 5000 women died yearly
from illegal abortion before Roe. 19 Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, the safety of
abortion has increased dramatically. The number of deaths per 100,000 legal abortion
procedures declined more than five-fold between 1973 and 1991. 20 In addition, Roe has had a
positive impact on the quality of many women's lives. Although most women welcome
pregnancy, childbirth and the responsibilities of raising a child at some period in their lives, few
events can more dramatically constrain a woman's opportunities than an unplanned child.
Because childbirth and pregnancy substantially affect a woman's "educational prospects,
employment opportunities, and self-determination," restrictive abortion laws narrowly
circumscribed women's role in society and hindered women from defining their paths through
life in the most basic of ways.2¹ In the 25 years since Roe, the variety and level of women's
achievements have reached unprecedented levels. The Supreme Court recently observed that
[t]he ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has
been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives."22
Into the New Millennium: What Will the Next 25 Years Bring?
In 1992, the Court rendered its most important decision in the abortion area since Roe. In
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania V. Casey, the Court reaffirmed Roe, while at
the same time sharply restricting its protections. The Casey Court abandoned the strict scrutiny
standard of review and adopted a less protective standard that allows states to impose restrictions
as long as they do not "unduly burden" a woman's right to choose. Under this new standard, the
Court approved state obstacles that it had previously found to violate the right to privacy and
effectively invited states to impose barriers on women's access to abortion. 23 Indeed, today
states are enforcing more restrictions that impede women's access to safe, legal abortion than at
any time since Roe was decided twenty-five years ago.²⁴
It seems inevitable that great strides will be made in the next millennium in science, technology,
athletics, communication, and in numerous other fields of human endeavor. What is less clear is
whether proponents of women's reproductive health and freedom will be able to move forward in
the 21 st century -- to secure better access to effective methods of contraception, comprehensive
sexuality education, and quality health and child care -- or will remain locked in a struggle
against further deterioration of the right to choose ostensibly secured by Roe a quarter century
ago.
It is past time for the nation to develop policies that secure access to abortion, make abortion less
necessary, and improve reproductive health. Our nation must commit resources to prevent
unintended pregnancy by promoting sexuality education, family planning and healthy
childbearing. Only then will the promise of Roe be fulfilled.
January 8, 1998
NOTES:
1.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania V. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992).
2.
Roe V. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 118-119 n.2 (1973).
3.
See, e.g., Calif. Health & Safety Code §§ 25950-25955.5 (Supp. 1972); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 40-2-50
to 40-2-53 (Cum. Supp. 1967); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 24, §§ 1790-1793 (Supp. 1972); N.M. Stat. Ann. §§
40A-5-1 to 40A-5-3 (1972)
4.
Richard Schwarz, Septic Abortion (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1968), 7; Willard Cates, Jr., "Legal
Abortion: The Public Health Record," Science, vol. 215 (Mar. 1982): 1586.
5.
Walter Dellinger and Gene B. Sperling, "Abortion and the Supreme Court: The Retreat from Roe V. Wade,"
138 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 83, 117 (Nov. 1989).
6.
Casey, 505 U.S. at 927 (Blackmun, J., concurring and dissenting).
7.
See Meyer V. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Skinner V. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Loving V.
Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
8.
Griswold V. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
Page 3
9.
Eisenstadt V. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).
10.
Eisenstadt, 405 U.S. at 453 (emphasis omitted).
11.
Roe, 410 U.S. at 153.
12.
See, e.g., Akron V. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416 (1983); Thornburgh V.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986).
13.
Casey, 505 U.S. at 859.
14.
Casey, 505 U.S. at 859.
15.
Roe, 410 U.S. at 159.
16.
Roe, 410 U.S. at 153-54.
17.
Roe, 410 U.S. at 163-65.
18.
Roe, 410 U.S. at 163-64.
19.
Schwarz, Septic Abortion, 7.
20.
Lisa M. Koonin et al., "Abortion Surveillance -- United States, 1993 and 1994," CDC Surveillance
Summaries, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, vol. 46, no. SS-4, (Aug. 8, 1997): 96.
21.
Casey, 505 U.S. at 928 (Blackmun, J., concurring and dissenting)
22.
Casey, 505 U.S. at 856.
23.
Casey, 505 U.S. at 881-87.
24.
Who Decides? A State-by-State Review of Abortion and Reproductive Rights, 1998 (Washington, D.C.:
The NARAL Foundation/NARAL, 1998), V.
National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
Page 4
P. 001
OGT. -19' 99 (TUE) 22:58
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
THE UNITED OF ENE PREESID
Office of Legislative Affairs
United States Capital Building
Old Executive Office Building
SEAL S:
Room S-212
Room 269
Washington, DC 20510
Washington, DC 20501
Telephone (202) 224-8391
Telephone (202) 456-9003
Facsimile (202) 224-0291
FAX COVER SHEET
To:
Nicole Baber Laber
Fax:
6-2878
From:
Kay Casstevens
David Thomas
Joel
Paul Thomell
Billy Glunz
Pages:
(including cover sheet)
Comments:
This transmission may contain certain information that is sensitive
or confidential in nature. Its contents are exclusively intended for
the person (S) identified above.
OCT. - 19'99 (TUE) 22:58
P. 002
PBA definition Version Beta 2
6-38749
10/19/99
(b) (b)(1) As used in this section, the term 'partial-birth abortion' means
an abortion in which the person performing the abortion deliberately and
intentionally (a) delivers through the vagina some portion of an-intact living
fetus until the fetus is partially outside the body of the mother, for the
purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the fetus
while the fetus is partially outside the body of the mother; and (b) performs
the overt act that kills the fetus while the intact living fetus is partially
outside the body of the mother.
P. 003
OCT. 19' 99 (TUE) 22:58
nil
P. 02
THE AMENDED SANTORUM BILL
REMAINS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The proposed amendment to S. 1692 entirely fails to cure the constitutional
defects in the Santorum bill. The bill continues to endanger women's health and to
deprive them of their constitutional rights by banning safe, common, pre-viability
abortions. Virtually every court in the nation to have considered similar bans has found
them to be unconstitutional.
The amended version of S. 1692 remains unconstitutional for the following
reasons:
The bill continues to impose an unconstitutional undue burden on
women's right to choose by reaching safe and common abortion
procedures performed before fetal viability. The bill continues to contain
no reference to gestational age whatsoever.
The bill further endangers women's health by failing to include a
constitutionally-mandated exception to protect the health of the pregnant
woman, and by including only a constitutionally inadequate life exception.
The bill impermissibly attempts to micro-manage surgical procedures,
thereby undermining the health of women, intruding on the doctor-patient
relationship, and interfering with pregnant women's right to medical self-
determination.
FAX COVER SHEET
DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, DC 20502
PHONE: 202/456-5696
FAX: 202/456-2878
DATE: 10/19
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCL. COVER): 8
FROM:
Nicole Rabner
TO:
fuel Wisinton
FAX:
66468
COMMENTS: doel, attached are the 3 last
cally sheet
sessim -3'll forward my draft shothy for
This memo.
The document accompanying this Facsimile Transmission Sheet is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it
is addressed. This message contains information which may be privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under
applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, dissemination, copying or distribution, or taking
any action in reliance on the contents of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately at the number above.
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
5-15-97
FG001-08
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 14, 1997
RECOMMENDED TELEPHONE CALL
TO:
SENATOR BREAUX
DATE:
ON OR BEFORE NOON MAY 15, 1997
RECOMMENDED BY:
SUSAN BROPHY, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS sB
TRACEY THORNTON, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
PURPOSE:
TO ASK THE SENATOR TO SUPPORT THE DASCHLE
ALTERNATIVE ON LATE-TERM ABORTION
BACKGROUND:
On March 20, 1997, the House of Representatives passed a
bill identical to the one you vetoed last year by a vote of 295-
5/15/97
Call made
136, a veto-proof margin. The Senate will vote on the
Daschle substitute tomorrow as well as a Feinstein-Boxer
per Betty
substitute to the underlying bill sponsored by Senator
Currie. Rey
Santorum (R-PA).
Affairs informed
C. cloud
Both substitutes would ban all post-viability abortions with
exceptions for life and health of the mother. The differences
cas
Brophyn
between them go to the definition of health. The Daschle
alternative contains a very strict definition of health making it
unlawful to abort a viable fetus unless the physician certifies
that continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the
mother's life or risk grievous injury to her health. Grievous
injury does not include any condition that is not medically
diagnosable or any condition for which termination of
pregnancy is not medically indicated. Senator Daschle
:
intends to cover a mental health condition only when it
manifests itself in some serious physical way. The Feinstein-
Boxer exception covers "serious adverse health
consequences to the woman".
TOPICS OF DISCUSSION:
1. Tell Senator Beaux that you recognize and respect the
fact that he is pro-life and that you would never ask him to
2
do anything that would in any way compromise his position
But say that you really believe that Daschle's alternative is a
pro-life position since it would actually prevent abortions of
viable fetuses. A simple ban on one procedure will not stop
a single abortion; it would merely result in abortion by other
methods, all of which may pose a greater and therefore
unacceptable risk to the woman's health.
2. Tell him that while you will not yield on the issue of
protecting the health of the mother, you are supporting
Daschle's very strict definition of health in hopes of bringing
this matter to closure - neither side is happy with Daschle's
alternative. Ask him to vote for Daschle so that we can
begin to bring this divisive matter to a close once and for all.
Say that the Senate's acceptance of the Daschle approach
will send a signal that it time to find a moderate solution to
this issue which includes a total ban while protecting the life
and great injury to the health of the woman.
CONTACT PERSON AND
Senator Breaux
TELEPHONE NUMBERS(S):
202-543-9011 or White House Operator
DATE OF SUBMISSION:
May 14, 1997
ACTION:
0100010
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
97MAY
5-16-97
THE WHITE HOUSE
FG001-08
WASHINGTON
MAY 14, 1997
RECOMMENDED TELEPHONE CALL
TO:
SENATOR HO LLINGS
X
DATE:
ON OR BEFORE NOON MAY 15, 1997
RECOMMENDED BY:
SUSAN BROPHY, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
TRACEY THORNTON, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
PURPOSE:
TO ASK THE SENATOR TO SUPPORT THE DASCHLE
ALTERNATIVE ON LATE-TERM ABORTION
BACKGROUND:
On March 20, 1997, the House of Representatives passed a
bill identical to the one you vetoed last year by a vote of 295-
136, a veto-proof margin. The Senate will vote on the
Daschle substitute tomorrow as well as a Feinstein-Boxer
substitute to the underlying bill sponsored by Senator
Santorum (R-PA).
Both substitutes would ban all post-viability abortions with
exceptions for life and health of the mother. The differences
between them go to the definition of health. The Daschle
alternative contains a very strict definition of health making it
unlawful to abort a viable fetus unless the physician certifies
that continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the
mother's life or risk grievous injury to her health. Grievous
injury does not include any condition that is not medically
diagnosable or any condition for which termination of
pregnancy is not medically indicated. Senator Daschle
intends to cover a mental health condition only when it
manifests itself in some serious physical way. The Feinstein-
Boxer exception covers "serious adverse health
consequences to the woman".
South Carolina recently passed a ban on "partial-birth"
abortions and Senator Hollings announced that he would
switch his vote to override your veto since his state passed a
2
similar law. He has also indicated that he will not support
the Daschle alternative but Senator Daschle thinks he might
be persuaded to vote for his alternative.
TOPICS OF DISCUSSION:
1. Tell Senator Hollings that you respect his decision to
reflect South Carolina's statute on "partial-birth" by
supporting Santorum's bill, but let him know that supporting
either Senator Daschle or Feinstein is obviously not
inconsistent with his position. Indicate that enactment of
either alternative allows Congress to pass a comprehensive
ban that actually stops abortions of viable fetuses; it is a ban
that is constitutional and it is a ban that you would sign.
2. Tell him that while you will not yield on the issue of
protecting the health of the mother, you are supporting both
Feinstein's approach as well as Daschle's very strict
definition of health in hopes of bringing this matter to closure
-- neither side is happy with Daschle's alternative. If he is
unwilling to vote for Feinstein, ask him to vote for Daschle
so that we can begin to bring this divisive matter to a close
once and for all. Say that the Senate's acceptance of the
Daschle approach will send a signal that it time to find a
moderate solution to this issue which includes a total ban
while protecting the life and preventing great injury to the
health of the woman.
CONTACT PERSON AND
Senator Hollings
TELEPHONE NUMBERS(S):
202-244-1114 or White House Operator
DATE OF SUBMISSION:
May 14, 1997
ACTION:
010000
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
5-15-97
FG001-08
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MAY 14, 1997
RECOMMENDED TELEPHONE CALL
TO:
SENATOR BOXER
DATE:
ON OR BEFORE NOON MAY 15, 1997
RECOMMENDED BY:
SUSAN BROPHY, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS sb
TRACEY THORNTON, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
PURPOSE:
TO THANK THE SENATOR FOR HER LEADERSHIP IN
OPPOSING THE SANTORUM BILL ON "PARTIAL-
BIRTH ABORTION" AND TO ASK HER TO CONSIDER
VOTING FOR DASCHLE IF HER ALTERNATIVE DOES
NOT PREVAIL
BACKGROUND:
On March 20, 1997, the House of Representatives passed a
bill identical to the one you vetoed last year by a vote of 295-
136, a veto-proof margin. The Senate will vote on the
Daschle substitute tomorrow as well as a Feinstein-Boxer
substitute to the underlying bill sponsored by Senator
Santorum (R-PA).
15/15/97
Both substitutes would ban all post-viability abortions with
call mada
exceptions for life and health of the mother. The differences
per Betty
between them go to the definition of health. The Daschle
Currie
alternative contains a very strict definition of health making it
Reg 162s
unlawful to abort a viable fetus unless the physician certifies
that continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the
C. Cludend
mother's life or risk grievous injury to her health. Grievous
Bonter Beophy
injury does not include any condition that is not medically
diagnosable or any condition for which termination of
pregnancy is not medically indicated. Senator Daschle
intends to cover a mental health condition only when it
manifests itself in some serious physical way. The Feinstein-
Boxer exception covers "serious adverse health
consequences to the woman".
2
Senator Daschle's approach is not supported by the pro-
choice movement because of its narrow health definition.
Senator Boxer has privately indicated her very strong
reservations about the Daschle alternative but she has not
said that she will vote against it. She is concerned that the
women who were here when you vetoed the bill may not be
covered under Daschle. We have told her that we believe
they would be and have asked Daschle to make that clear in
his remarks on the floor.
TOPICS OF DISCUSSION:
1. Tell Senator Boxer that you are very grateful for her
work to protect a woman's right to choose. Say that we
would not have been able to hold the line as we have so far
were it not for her courage and the strength of her
convictions. Ask for her assessment of the vote situation in
the Senate.
2. She may tell you that Daschle is leaning towards voting
for Santorum if Daschle's alternative does not pass. Let her
know that you had a conversation with Senator Daschle
earlier today and he did not raise that possibility with you.
Tell her that you are concerned about the veto override vote
and that you know how difficult this matter is for many of
her colleagues. Tell her that you think it is important to pass
either her alternative or Daschle's so that at least there are
two different bills, one in the Senate recognizing the need to
protect the mother's health and the other an extreme House
measure that will be vetoed. Tell her she should vote for
Daschle's alternative if her's does not pass.
CONTACT PERSON AND
Senator Boxer
TELEPHONE NUMBERS(S):
202-547-1015 or White House Operator
DATE OF SUBMISSION:
May 14, 1997
ACTION: