To the Editor:
Your coverage of Surgeon General nominee David Satcher's recent speech at Dartmouth indicated that the only opposition to his approval is from the National Rifle Association. However, there is another group of citizens concerned with Clinton's nomination of David Satcher -- those who are opposed to the partial-birth abortion procedure.
That Dr. Satcher continues to support President Clinton's intemperate position on this issue is quite surprising and even disturbing. Though Dr. Satcher claims that he supports a "health of the mother" exception (which effectively scuttles the bill), he should know that the American Medical Association as well as a broad coalition of obstetricians and neonatal practitioners have declared that the partial-birth abortion procedure is never (never!) medically necessary for the health of the mother. Dartmouth's own C. Everett Koop told the American Medical News: " ... in no way can I twist my mind to see that the late-term abortion as described -- you know, partial birth, and then destruction of the unborn child before the head is born -- is a medical necessity for the mother. It certainly can't be a medical necessity for the baby."
Support for the ban on partial-birth abortions is bipartisan and broad-based. President Clinton justified his first veto of the ban by saying that it was a rare procedure. Once that justification was exposed as a lie, he has resorted to the claim that the ban does not take into account the health of the mother. This assertion is belied by the known facts.
Because the surgeon general position also includes policy-making responsibility as an assistant secretary in the Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Satcher's nomination deserves more careful scrutiny. He must be held accountable to the American public for his unjustifiable position on partial-birth abortions.
