On the recordOctober 21, 2003
Let me reiterate who is being compassionate. Our side of the aisle, down to every person, and the pro-choice side of the aisle. On the other side we have a few. We agree to this ban if there is an exception for the health and life of a woman. The other side said no. And the clear fact is, when the other side says there will not be an exception for the health of the woman, the other side is not being compassionate. Let me tell you, when a woman is told--and we will take out what could happen to a woman if this is not available--some of the health consequences, when a woman is told she could have a stroke, that she could wind up paralyzed, that she could wind up hurting or harming other organs, we are talking about a major problem to women. To say you are being compassionate and you are being caring to the most vulnerable when you turn your back away from the fact that a woman could have a hemorrhage, she could have her uterus ruptured, she could be made infertile, she could have blood clots, embolism, a stroke, damage to nearby organs, or paralysis if this particular procedure is not available to her--if you have no compassion, if you smile when you look at this, if you do not feel what it is like for a woman to face this, if you put this in the back of your mind, I am sorry, in my view you are not for the most vulnerable at all. We could have banned this procedure if we had added a health exception.
Source
govinfo.gov




