In Hillary Clinton vs. Santorum, the babies won

Human Life Review, Spring 2003 by Cleaver, Cathleen A

APPENDIX B

"Where are the swollen heads?" asked Sen. Hillary Clinton.

This was a rhetorical question by which the senator from New York intended to make a point on the floor of the U.S. Senate during the debate over the partial-birth abortion ban. Clinton was accusing Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., of trying to deceive the public by showing a "perfect" (her word) baby in his color sketches depicting the gruesome procedure.

"Where are the brainless heads?" she went on. "Where are the hearts and lungs growing outside of the body?"

We owe a great debt of gratitude to Santorum for the way he handled this offensive line of questioning and, indeed, the entire debate. With a brilliant mix of force and grace, he first reminded Clinton the sketches represent the typical partial-birth abortion case, where there are no health issues for either the mother or the baby. The "vast majority" of these abortions are done in the fifth and sixths months of gestation and beyond on "healthy mothers with healthy fetuses," in the words of Ronald Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition for Abortion Providers. It would be deceptive to present visual aids suggesting otherwise.

But then Santorum took up Clinton's challenge, saying he'd be happy to produce new posters that depicted the atypical case, where the baby being killed by partial-birth abortion had obvious physical defects. These children, too, fall within the protections of his bill, he said. It is not only the "perfect" children who deserve to be protected from intentional death during birth. Why, he turned the question on her, would she suggest children with disabilities be appropriate candidates for this procedure? Do their disabilities make them less human? Would her distinction fly under the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Hillary Clinton was hoist by her own petard, as they say. It was a beautiful thing.

But the argument is made again and again that partial-birth abortion is a necessary evil-necessary because of the minority of circumstances where a pregnancy has gone tragically wrong, where a woman learns her child is diagnosed with a severe or lethal abnormality.

What of these cases? First, genetic or other abnormalities in the fetus pose no threat to a woman's life or health. This is true for hydrocephaly, anencephaly, polyhydramnios, trisomy and other abnormalities that have been used to justify a need for partial-birth abortion. In all these cases, the pregnancy can be brought to term and the child delivered, whether by induction or C-section, with no long-term adverse health effects to the mother. With the advances in perinatal medicine this is simply established medical fact.

But there is another argument that can appear compelling: Why make a woman carry a pregnancy to term only to prolong the anguish of knowing that her child will die at birth or shortly thereafter? Isn't it kinder to her to allow the abortion? Studies-preliminary though they may be-say No. When looking at psychological complications of so-called therapeutic abortions, a disproportionate number of complications were related to abortions that were sought for fetal abnormalities. Psychological stress related to fetal anomalies is significantly greater for women who abort than for those who wait and deliver their babies, even if death soon follows.

So, far from relieving the anguish, this type of abortion appears actually to prolong it. The argument that partial-birth abortion provides some benefit in these tragic cases is false, and women should not have to bear the psychological burden that is the result of such flawed reasoning.

There is a better way. Physicians and nurses committed to authentic care can provide a genuine alternative to the destruction wrought by partial-birth abortion. Perinatal hospice provides the time and resources needed to support the family and infant through the ambivalence and anguish associated with bringing the pregnancy to term. It is a form of care that emphasizes the value of these children, even if they are destined for an early death, with very positive results.

Partial-birth abortion promises nothing but pain, for everyone involved. It is not disputed that babies at this stage of development are extremely sensitive to pain. One neurological expert testified that a partial-birth abortion was a "dreadfully painful" experience for the unborn child.

Women who undergo partial-birth abortions experience the physical pain of days of forced dilation and the psychological pain of being present at the destruction and disposal of their baby. No compassionate person wants to see a woman suffer the personal tragedy of abortion, and those who experience an abortion later in pregnancy are especially vulnerable to post-abortion trauma.

Not one single abortion is prohibited by law today-not one. The Supreme Court in Doe v. Bolton-the case decided on the same day as Roe v. Wade-ruled that state laws cannot prohibit abortions, no matter when in pregnancy, if sought for a health reason. The court defined "health" to include: "all factors-physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age . . . relevant to the well-being of the woman." It is the quintessential exception that swallows the rule.