When you look at the language of the Daschle amendment, you find that it creates a subjective standard. The underlying bill has an objective standard. The amendment says ``would threaten the mother's life,'' or ``risk grievous injury to her physical health.'' ``Risk'' is the key word. We have quoted Dr. Hern in Colorado who said, ``I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman's life and could cause grievous injury to her physical health''--``could cause.'' We cited this. But, frankly, I don't believe anyone, if you look just at the language, would disagree with what the doctor said. The reality is that any pregnancy has a risk. We are dealing with subjective language. Second, it is doctor self-certified. The operative language, the key language, is certification. No way you can look beyond and behind that certification. Once the certification is made, that is it. Third, the issue of viability: Before you even get to the question of certification, you have the issue of viability. All the doctor has to say is ``not viable.'' Who is going to look behind that?
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of the Daschle amendment during Senate debate.
Share
More from Rick Santorum
The whole focus on suburban women and the issue of crime and the weakness of Democrats and the defund the police, all those things are actually playing right into - look, the chance that Donald Trump has in this election is that the…
I think hopefully the Republican Party will learn from that and be the party of Middle America again.
the Trump campaign is the one that's out there. They're the most visible. They're on the ground. There's a lot of energy, a lot of enthusiasm and that there is a surge.
If there's one area that's been telling is in Pennsylvania, we closed the registration gap this summer because we were knocking doors and getting their registrants and the Democrats weren't and it could pay a big difference.





