Bill Clinton: “Well, they're two different things there. First of all, what I said on the balanced budget thing, I don't think--let me…”

“Well, they're two different things there. First of all, what I said on the balanced budget thing, I don't think--let me try to be clear here so I won't be misunderstood. I do not believe it is good policy or need- ed to have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I do believe that it's good policy for America to pass a balanced budget plan now and to implement it. And I believe I have some credibility on that because we've cut the deficit by more in 4 years than anybody has in a month of Sundays. So everybody knows that--and my record as Governor was that of a fiscal conservative. So this is not about fiscal conservatism. It is about whether you can design a constitutional amendment which in difficult and very different times than the ones in which we now live won't do more harm than good. That's my only concern there. And so the only thing--what I was trying to say when I was asked about this before is, there have been changes in the composition of the Senate which at least apparently give them enough votes to pass this amendment. So what I was saying is I'm not for this, but if you're going to do it, try to do it in a way that gives you enough flexibility to deal with the kinds of things that can happen. We're passing this constitutional amendment in a very different environment than some of the environments in which we've lived in the last 30 years. That's the only point I was trying to make on that. Now, perhaps changes in the House will make it more difficult to pass in the House, but I just don't know. You know, the President cannot veto a constitutional amendment. It gets passed and sent out to the States. So that's the point I want to make on that. On the partial birth abortion issue, I would very much--I wanted to sign that legislation when I first heard about it; I thought I would sign it, since I am generally opposed to third-trimester abortions anyway and signed legislation to restrict them in Arkansas. The problem is, I will say again, there are a few hundred women every year who have personally agonizing situations, where their children are born or about to be born with terrible deformities which will cause them to die either just before, during, or just after childbirth. And these women, among other things, cannot preserve the ability to have further children unless the enormous size of the baby's head is reduced before being extracted from their bodies. This is a very painful thing to discuss. I have met six of these women. I will say again, three of them were pro-life Catholics. One of them was a pro-life evangelical Christian. This is not a pro-life, pro-choice issue. To me this is a practical problem. I believe that people put in that situation ought not to have Congress tell them that they're never going to be able to have children again. Now, I know there are just a few hundred of them, and I know that all the votes were on the other side. And I am well aware that there were several places in this country where major political headway was made against the Vice President and me and against some of our candidates for Congress and against others running for other things because of this issue, because it sounds so awful when you describe it-- that the politics is all on the other side. But one of the things the President is supposed to do is to look out for the few hundred against the many millions when the facts are not consistent with the rhetoric. And I'm just telling you--Hillary and I, we only have one child. And I just cannot look at a woman who's in a situation where the baby she is bearing against all her wishes and prayers is going to die anyway, and tell her that I am signing a law which will prevent her from ever having another child. I'm not going to do it. Now, I pleaded and I pleaded and I pleaded last time with the Congress to adopt highly restrictive language on this procedure which would make it clear that there had to be a very serious health problem for the woman involved before it could be adopted, in addition to having her own life at stake--a very serious health problem, like having the ability to have a child again. And they would not do it. And they would not do it. And they would not do it, I believe, because it was great politics. But it's bad policy. So if we will--if we can have the right sort of language here--I don't like this procedure. I don't think anybody ought to just, you know, show up 8 months and 2 weeks pregnant and say, ``I just think I'd like to have an abortion, and this is what I want to use.'' I think the States should have taken care of that. Eighty percent of the States have, but 20 percent haven't. But if they will help me with language here and do it in good faith, I will happily sign this bill. But there are a few hundred people every year that are adversely affected by this, and I am the only person that's elected by all the people that feels, therefore, less pressure on this. I have to do what I think is right. I cannot take away from these women the right to bear further children. It would be wrong, and I will not do it. Stock Market”