Mr. Speaker, I have practiced obstetrics and gynecology for more than 30 years and have delivered thousands of babies. I have never needed to, nor have I known of any circumstance where the partial birth abortion procedure was necessary for the health of the mother. Quite to the contrary, it is my most sincere conviction that the procedure itself is quite dangerous to the mother.

When it was first said by the right-to-life advocates that this procedure was frequently done, I was reluctant to believe this possible, considering its danger and its grotesque nature. It was only after the admission by the proponents of abortion that, indeed, it was done frequently, and on healthy babies, that I was willing to consider that we had slipped to the point where this operation is promoted as an acceptable medical procedure.

The notion that this procedure should be available for the protection of the health of the mother is disingenuous to say the least. As a physician who encountered inter-uterine fetal death in the second and third trimester, I never entertained the thought of performing this procedure because of the risk to the mother. Using the mother’s health as an excuse for abortion reminds me of what I witnessed in the 1960’s as an obstetrical resident. Physicians defying the law were using a legal loophole saying that if an individual threatened suicide, it was a justification for abortion. It was a matter of course to make a phone call and get a commitment from a sympathetic psychiatrists to say, yes, he would sign the papers — and that’s all that it took.

It is one thing to defend abortion because one sincerely believes it should be legal, but it is another thing to distort the truth, fudge the statistics, and pretend that its done for the health of the pregnant women. This should be exposed for the falsehood that it is.

I am convinced abortion is the most important issue of the 20th century. Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt will determine the outcome of that civilization. Supporters for legalization of abortion in the 1960’s never dreamed it would come to the debate that we face today over this grotesque procedure — the partial birth abortion.

Determining whether or not this country endorses this procedure or not makes a moral statement of the utmost importance regarding the value of human life.

The legislative approach to abortion is of lesser consequence than the issue itself. Abortion regulation, like all acts of violence, traditionally and under the Constitution, were dealt with locally until 1973 when the courts chose to legalize nationally the procedure. Removing the issue from the jurisdiction of the federal courts so states could deal with all the problems surrounding abortion would be more in line with the traditional constitutional approach to government. Obviously, all funding by any government ought to be prohibited in a society that pretends to protect human life and defend individual liberty.

It is now a worn out cliche that abortion is defended in the name of women’s right and freedom of choice. But claiming to protect the freedom of one individual can never be an excuse to take the life of another. Life and liberty are never in conflict; life and convenience may well be. The inconvenience and responsibility of caring for a hungry, crying baby at 3 a.m. never justifies baby killing. Nor is a inconvenient baby in the womb a justification for its elimination.

For those who cry out for choice, let me point out that someone must speak out for the small, the weak, and the disenfranchised so their choice for life is heard.

No one in this body can challenge me on my defense of personal choice in all social, personal, and economic matters, but I do not accept the notion that choice means the right to take the life of a human being. That’s a mockery of the English language and truth.

Those so bold who today would argue that choice means not only the killing of the unborn but the partially born as well, I say to you: Where are you when it comes to real choice in economic transactions, hiring practices, gun ownership, use of private property, confiscatory taxing policies, taking personal risks, picking schools for our children, medications and medical procedures not yet approved by the FDA? Let me hear no more about choice as the excuse to kill. Please, with due respect, pick another less offensive word.

This great debate over life has lasted now for over 30 years. And it took the partial birth abortion procedure to crystallize, vividly, exactly what the debate is all about.

The deliberate killing of a half born infant, with heart beating, arms and legs flailing, and a chest struggling for a first breath by aspirating the infant’s brain is, to many of us, an uncivilized, abhorrent and unacceptable procedure.

Yet, we as a nation, now without a moral barring, appear frozen as to what to do. The debate has boiled down to this: should the police be called or should the abortionist be paid a handsome fee?

For now, the best we can do is make a statement that there is a limit — and we have reached it. Hopefully, someday, there will be enough respect for local government to handle problems like this, but we must forcefully acknowledge that the defense of all liberty requires the utmost respect for all life.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 19th, 1997 at 3:14 am and is filed under Speeches and Statements. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.