On the recordMarch 11, 2003
I listened carefully to the arguments made by the Senator from Pennsylvania. I would say the vast majority of the arguments he made had nothing to do with my amendment. He has made arguments on behalf of the underlying bill, and that is his right. I defend his right to do it. But I come back to a discussion of my amendment. The Senator from Pennsylvania has argued that because we use the term ``risk'' in this amendment that it is so hard to understand or define, it really does not present any kind of protection. Let me read it for the record. We say in this amendment we will prohibit all late-term abortions--that is, abortions after a fetus is viable--unless two medical doctors certify--and one has to be a nonattending physician, in other words, an expert brought in for consultation--that continuing the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life--that is fairly straightforward--or risk grievous injury to her physical health. The Senator from Pennsylvania says: I just don't understand what you could mean by ``risk grievous injury to her physical health.'' The fact of a pregnancy is a risk. That certainly is true. But to argue that each pregnancy is a risk of grievous physical injury is to overstate it and to ignore section 1535 where grievous injury is defined. Keep in mind, the doctors who have to certify in writing that you are dealing with a viable fetus and there is a risk of grievous physical injury have their medical licenses on the line.
Source
govinfo.gov