Senator Barbara Boxer is a disgrace. Her condoning the barbaric
procedure of partial-birth abortion with no intelligent reason and refusing
to answer questions regarding her position was childish. Is it any
wonder that these liberal Democrats cannot be trusted. She lied about
the American Medical Association , American nurses and the
obstetricians and gynecologists. See my web site for their statements,
and the procedure of a partial-birth abortion, if you dn't know it.
She takes a position with no defense. It has NOTHING to do with
with Roe Vs Wade. It has to do with a baby being killed when it
is 3/4th born and feels excruciating pain.
How this woman became a Senator boggles the mind. I am a
constituent of hers and have been trying to get her to answer my
letters for the past two years. If you reside in their state, all Senators
will answer your questions, but she won't. After reading the exchange
below, now I know why -- she's got NO answers. She has to pay
back Planned Parenthood and all the abortion mills, the Hollywood
film makers, militant feminists, and all the others, who have no sense
of common decency, who contribute large sums of money to her.
We just can't sit back and let these people hand us this kind of garbage.
Here is her phone no. and e-mail address, if you feel an urge -- I know
I sure do.
Here is the ridiculous tete-a-tete she carried on with Senator Santorum, word for word:
Senator Santorum: I think the issue of where we draw the line
constitutionally is very important. And I'm sure the Senator from
California [Senator Boxer] agrees with me. I think the senator from
California would say that she and I, and the senator from Illinois and
the senators from Arkansas and Kansas here, we are all protected
by the Constitution with a right to life. Would you agree with that,
senator from California -- [would you] answer that question?
Senator Boxer: I support the Roe versus Wade decision.
Santorum: So you would agree any child that's born has the right to life,
is protected under the Constitution? Once that child is born?
Boxer: I agree with the Roe v. Wade decision. And what you are doing
goes against it and will harm the women of this country. And I will speak
to that issue when I get the floor myself.
Santorum: But I would like to ask you a question. You agree, once that
child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected
by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?
Boxer: I would make this statement: That this Constitution, as it currently
is -- some of you want to amend it to say that life begins at conception.
I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born -- and
there is no such thing as partial-birth -- the baby belongs to your family
and has all the rights. But I am not willing to amend the Constitution to
say that a fetus is a person, which I know you would.
But we will get into that later. I would prefer to address --I know my
colleague is engaging me in a colloquy on his time, and I appreciate
it -- I will answer these questions.
I think what my friend is doing, by asking me these questions, is off
point. My friend wants to tell the doctors in this country what to do.
My friend from Pennsylvania says they are "rogue" doctors.
The AMA will tell you they no longer support you. The American nurses
don't support you. The obstetricians and gynecologists don't support
you. So my friend can ask me my philosophy all day. On my own
time I will talk about it.
Santorum: If I can reclaim my time: First of all, the AMA still believes
this is bad medicine. They do not support the criminal penalties
provisions in this bill, but they still believe -- I think you know that to
be the case -- that this procedure is not medically necessary, and they
stand by that statement.
I ask the senator from California, again: you believe, you said "once the
baby comes home." Obviously, you don't mean they have to take the
baby out of the hospital for it to be protected by the Constitution.
Once the baby is separated from the mother, you would agree --
completely separated from the mother -- you would agree that baby
is entitled to constitutional protection?
Boxer: I will tell you why I don't want to engage in this. You did
the same conversation with a colleague of mine, and I never saw
such a twisting of his remarks. [Editor's note: See Nov. 14, 1996
NRL News, page 24, for transcript of an exchange between Santorum
and Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wi.).]
Santorum: Well, be clear, then. Let's be clear.
Boxer: I am going to be very clear when I get the floor. What you are
trying to do is take away the rights of women and their families and
their doctors to have a procedure. And now you are trying to turn the
question into, "When does life begin?" I will talk about that on my
Santorum: What I am trying to do is get an answer from the senator
from California as to where you would draw the line? Because that
really is the important part of this debate.
Boxer: I will repeat. I will repeat, since the senator has asked me a
question...I am answering the question I have been posed by the
senator. And the answer to the question is, I stand by Roe v. Wade.
I stand by it. I hope we have a chance to vote on it. It is very clear,
Roe v. Wade. That is what I stand by. My friend doesn't.
Santorum: Are you suggesting Roe v. Wade covered the issue of a
baby in the process of being born?
Boxer: I am saying what Roe v. Wade says is, that in the early stages
of a pregnancy, a woman has the right to choose. In the later stages,
the states have the right, yes, to come in and restrict. I support those
restrictions, as long as two things happen: They respect the life of the
mother and the health of the mother.
Santorum: I understand that.
Boxer: That is where I stand. And no matter how you try to twist it,
that is where I stand.
Santorum: I would say to the senator from California, I am not twisting
anything. I am simply asking a very straightforward question. There is
no hidden question here. The question is --
Boxer: I will answer it again.
Santorum: Once the baby is born, is completely separated from the
mother, you will support that that baby has, in fact, the right to life and
cannot be killed? You accept that; right?
Boxer: I don't believe in killing any human being. That is absolutely
correct. Nor do you, I am sure.
Santorum: So you would accept the fact that once the baby is
separated from the mother, that baby cannot be killed?
Boxer: I support the right -- and I will repeat this, again, because I saw
you ask the same question to another senator...
Santorum: All the person has to do is give me a straight answer, and
then it will be very clear to everybody.
Boxer: And what defines "separation"? Define "separation." You answer
that question. You define it.
Santorum: Well, let's define that. Okay, let's say the baby is completely
separated. In other words, no part of the baby is inside of the mother.
Boxer: You mean the baby has been birthed and is now in its mother's
arms? That baby is a human being.
Santorum: Well, I don't know if it's necessarily in its mother's arms.
Let's say in the obstetrician's hands.
Boxer: It takes a second, it takes a minute... I had two babies, and
within seconds of their birth --
Santorum: We've had six.
Boxer: Well, you didn't have any.
Santorum: My wife and I had babies together. That's the way we do
things in our family.
Boxer: Your wife gave birth. I gave birth. I can tell you, I know when
the baby was born.
Santorum: Good! All I am asking you is, once the baby leaves the
mother's birth canal and is through the vaginal orifice and is in the
hands of the obstetrician, you would agree that you cannot abort,
kill the baby?
Boxer: I would say when the baby is born, the baby is born, and would
then have every right of every other human being living in this country.
And I don't know why this would even be a question, to be honest with you.
Santorum: Because we are talking about a situation here where the
baby is almost born. So I ask the question of the senator from California,
if the baby was born except for the baby's foot, if the baby's foot was
inside the mother but the rest of the baby was outside, could that baby
Boxer: The baby is born when the baby is born. That is the answer to
Santorum: I am asking for you to define for me what that is.
Boxer: I don't think anybody but the senator from Pennsylvania has
a question with it. I have never been troubled by this question. You
give birth to a baby. The baby is there, and it is born. That is my
answer to the question.
Santorum: What we are talking about here with partial birth, as the
senator from California knows, is a baby is in the process of being born --
Boxer: "The process of being born." This is why this conversation
makes no sense, because to me it is obvious when a baby is born.
To you it isn't obvious.
Santorum: Maybe you can make it obvious to me. So what you are
suggesting is if the baby's foot is still inside of the mother, that baby
can then still be killed.
Boxer: No, I am not suggesting that in any way!
Santorum: I am asking.
Boxer: I am absolutely not suggesting that. You asked me a question,
in essence, when the baby is born.
Santorum: I am asking you again. Can you answer that?
Boxer: I will answer the question when the baby is born. The baby is
born when the baby is outside the mother's body. The baby is born.
Santorum: I am not going to put words in your mouth...
Boxer: I hope not.
Santorum: But, again, what you are suggesting is if the baby's toe is
inside the mother, you can, in fact, kill that baby.
Boxer: Absolutely not.
Santorum: OK. So if the baby's toe is in, you can't kill the baby.
How about if the baby's foot is in?
Boxer: You are the one who is making these statements.
Santorum: We are trying to draw a line here.
Boxer: I am not answering these questions! I am not answering these