The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Wednesday, the House voted to liberalize Medicaid abortions for the poor, the Florida legislature killed anti-abortion bills pushed by the governor, a Syrian pilot flew an advanced Soviet jet fighter to Israel and asked for political asylum. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: After the News Summary, we go first to the issue that has Congress tied in knots these days, capital gains and the budget deficit. Budget Director Richard Darman and Senate Democratic Leader George Mitchell join us. Next, abortion. Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Florida legislature cast pro choice votes. We have two reports. Then a controversial recommendation to cut back on some prenatal care. Doctors Mortimer Rosen and Kenneth Whittington will square off.NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: The House of Representatives approved a major policy switch today, liberalizing federal funded abortions. By a close vote, 216 to 206, the House rejected the Hyde amendment in force since 1981. It said Medicaid could pay for abortions only for poor women to save their lives. The new language will allow abortions after rape or incest. The same language has already passed the Senate, but abortion opponents said Pres. Bush would veto a bill that contained the more liberal language. Anti-abortion forces suffered a major defeat in the Florida legislature. On the second day of a special session of the Democrat-controlled House and Senate, they killed nine anti-abortion bills favored by Republican Gov. Bob Martinez. Four more bills in the Governor's package were killed yesterday. We'll have an update on the Florida story later in the program. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: At Cape Canaveral, Florida, NASA engineers went to work replacing a faulty engine computer that caused tomorrow's planned launch of the Shuttle Atlantis to be postponed until Tuesday. NASA announced the delay last night just an hour and a half after a federal judge threw out a request by three environmental groups to stop the flight. The environmentalists had claimed that the shuttle's Jupiter space probe posed an enormous danger because of its load of plutonium fuel. An Iowa farmer working in a corn field found an important missing piece of the DC-10 airliner that crash landed in Sioux City last July. The farmer, Janice Sorenson, was driving a combine when she hit a heavy piece of metal which turned out to be most of the engine rotor fan disk, a piece that the engine's manufacturer, General Electric, had been searching for. One hundred and twelve people died and a hundred and eighty-four others survived after the pilot brought the crippled plane to the ground.

MR. MacNeil: A Syrian pilot flew an advanced Soviet built MiG fighter to Israel today and asked for political asylum, the first time that's happened in the long hostility between the two nations. Officials said the pilot was on a training mission when he crossed into Israeli air space and landed at a civilian air field. A Syrian official disputed that, saying a mechanical problem on board forced an emergency landing. The fighter carried no ammunition or armaments, except for two machine guns. An Israeli officer commented on the incident.

RAANAN GISSIN, Israeli Defense Forces Spokesman: Past incidents show that when planes defected to Israel like the MiG 21 in 1966, we were able to gain very pertinent and important information which we later on shared with other countries. I think this is a similar case where information regarding this plane could help us and of course our allies.

MR. MacNeil: Aviation experts said the Soviet MiG is the mainstay of the Iraqi Air Force and has been supplied to Egypt, Libya, and Algeria. In Washington today, the Bush administration told Congress that it plans to sell Saudi Arabia 315 frontline tanks and support equipment. The package is said to be worth $3.1 billion.

MS. WOODRUFF: Three South African churchmen who are also anti- apartheid leaders paid a call on South Africa's new president, F.W. DeKlerk today. The group included Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the Rev. Allan Boesak. The meeting lasted for three hours during which DeKlerk asked for help in building a climate of trust between the government and the opposition. He also said he was willing to negotiate the issue of voting rights for blacks. The three anti-apartheid leaders demanded more concessions from the government before beginning serious negotiations.

MR. MacNeil: East Germany's Communist leaders said today they were prepared to discuss internal change following weeks of fleeing citizens and public demonstrations. A statement issued by the ruling politburo said, "Together we want to discuss all basic questions of our society, including economic deficiency, democratic cooperation, consumer goods, freer media, travel and the environment." The West German Defense Minister, Gerhard Stoltenberg, said that Mikhail Gorbachev's attempts to urge reform in East Germany have been weakened by his own problems at home. In one of those problem area, Azerbaijani/Armenian tension, Soviet cadets opened fire after being attacked with stones and hunting rifles. One person was killed and at least six were injured in the incident in Nagorno-Karabakh, the disputed Armenian enclave inside Azerbaijan.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Nobel Prize for economics was awarded to Norway's Trig Vahavelmo today. The Norwegian economist was cited for his work in the field of econometrics, showing that mathematical probabilities could predict shifts in the economy. The 77 year old economist has always shunned publicity and awards. He said today he was flustered and really had nothing to say about his award.

MR. MacNeil: In Colombia, an alleged drug trafficker wanted in the U.S. was arrested in Bogota, and there was more violence. Seven more people were killed in the drug trafficking center of Medillin since last night. Also today the human rights group, Amnesty International, charged in a report that Colombian police and soldiers had killed 2500 people in the past year and a half. The report claimed the murders were often committed in concert with drug traffickers. Amnesty claimed many of the killings appeared to be part of an effort to wipe out political opposition.

MS. WOODRUFF: That's our News Summary. Now it's on to the search for a compromise on a cut in the capital gains tax rate, the debate on abortion at the federal and state levels, and proposed changes in prenatal care. FOCUS - CAPITAL GAINS

MS. WOODRUFF: Next tonight we focus on the top Congressional issue right now. What to do about the budget deficit, the capital gains tax and the stalemate between Republicans and Democrats. By next Monday, Congress needs to pass a spending bill to cut next years deficit down to a 110 billion dollars. Without that bill there will be across the board Gramm-Rudman budget cuts. Last week the House passed its version of the spending Bill. One that cuts the capital gains tax rate along the lines proposed by President Bush during his election campaign. Tomorrow the Senate spending bill comes up for a vote with both sides holding their ground, Republicans hoping to include their capital gains tax cut, Democrats Leaders want to vote on the spending Bill without any tax cuts included. The task of the Democratic leadership was not made easier when one of their own, Sen. David Boren, [D] Oklahoma offered his own compromise proposal one that includes a capital gains tax rate cut, expanded IRA deductions, and several other tax breaks. Today Senate Minority Leader Robert Dole said the Republican capital gains plan deserves a vote by the full Chamber.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Minority Leader: Capital gains has broad bi partisan support in this body No doubt about it. I think there are 15 or 20 who would like to vote for some capital gains provision. And I would guess that probably 43, 44 Republicans also share that view and we don't believe we should be foreclosed from that opportunity. It's good policy. We believe that now the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Boren has announced a plan that I understand many Democrats support. There's been a plan announced by distinguished Sen. Morg and Senator Packwood that many Republicans support. That we have again a possibility of working out a compromise that would have widespread support on both sides of the aisle. And it would seem to me that there is an interest, there should be some way to package capital gains, IRAs, whatever, in an effort to satisfy those on both sides so that everyone is treated fairly.

MS. WOODRUFF: Joining us now are two key players in the capital gains and budget negotiations. First the Bush administration's point man, Budget Director Richard Darman. In a moment I should say we are expecting to have Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell join us as well. Mr. Darman, first of all Senator Mitchell said I believe it was yesterday that the Bush Administration was trying to torpedo negotiations over a budget compromise. Is that what you are all up to?

RICHARD DARMAN, Office of Management and Budget: No that is certainly not the case. We very much want to have a compromise. We would like to have one quickly. We've been working day and night with the Senate Leadership to try to get one. As Senator Dole said today the Republican Leaders, Senator Dole has given Senator Mitchell four offers now and we are yet to get one counter offer. So we would very much like to get this resolved and get it resolved quickly and move on and avoid the sequester you referred to earlier.

MS. WOODRUFF: So the Republicans are all for getting this resolved and the Democrats are the big hold up. Is that the way that it is?

MR. DARMAN: Well we have the votes as we had the votes in the House. We had a majority a majority in the House and a majority in the Senate in favor of capital gains. And the Democrats of course control the process. And they're trying to use the process to prevent a simple majority vote on the issue.

MS. WOODRUFF: What are you saying? Are you saying it's just a game that the Democrats are playing that they don't want to loose face in all of this?

MR. DARMAN: It's not all Democrats we think there are probably between 12 and 20 Democrats in the Senate who would support capital gains and so it is not all Democrats. But the Democratic Leadership would prefer to see capital gains be defeated and since they don't have the majority for the substantive vote they are using the process as best they can to prevent it from coming out.

MS. WOODRUFF: As you know, what the Democratic leadership is saying, is that for the Bush administration, it's more important for you all to get your little cut in the capital gains tax rate even though it is over a limited number of years than it is to reach some agreement on a budget, on cutting the budget deficit. That, you know, you've been brought face to face with what your priorities ought to be and you've chosen capital gains over an agreement on the budget deficit.

MR. DARMAN: No, it's perfectly possible to have both. Capitol gains is good for the economy, cutting the deficit good for the economy and they naturally go together.. There's no reason on earth that we shouldn't have to them move together, at least none that we're aware of. Now I would pick up one small point if I could. You said for a limited number of years. We would like the capital gains curt to be permanent. That is not what we were able to get in the House where again the Democratic Leadership in the House prevented a vote on our preferred capital gains approach. So we had to settle for one that is not quite as good as we would like to get out of the Senate.

MS. WOODRUFF: Why is the capital gains tax cut rate cut so important to you and to others in the Bush Administration?

MR. DARMAN: We think it's good public policy. It's very important to have more incentive for long term investment. Out of that ultimately comes more growth, more jobs for everyone. It's a benefit for the whole economy and so it's therefore desirable.

MS. WOODRUFF: But as you know, the Democrats, many of the Democrats, not all of them but many of the Democrats and others say that it is a short term thing that business people will take it advantage of it over a short term and then they will figure out another way to work the tax laws to their advantage.

MR. DARMAN: I think if it's correctly designed, the argument should be put just the other way. Right now there's too much attention to the short term, to much paper play in the markets for short term gain and not enough attention to long term investments and that is why it is important to give an incentive for longer term investment which is implicitly a lessor incentive for short term. So that we get more attention on the long term. That is the argument. It is not something where you have to make a choice, either capital gains or deficit reduction. They can perfectly well go together.

MS. WOODRUFF: But it appears to many of those who are watching the process, the Administration is saying look you know you either go our way on capital gains or we are not going to play any sort of deficit reduction?

MR. DARMAN: No, quite the contrary. We've offered four different approaches so far. We are prepared to talk about a fifth, sixth, seventh, eight. We have yet to get a counter offer.

MS. WOODRUFF: But all of those approaches include capital gains tax cuts?

MR. DARMAN: But not all of them require that it be part of the single reconciliation bill on the deficit. We have given several approaches that would not to have capital gains proceed that way. All we ask is that since there is a majority of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate who favor capital gain can't we please get it up for a vote. That is the way the system is supposed to work. If the judgment is that it's not right on the merits it can be defeated but we think we have the votes to win on the merits. Why not have a vote.

MS. WOODRUFF: There are some who again are watching this and asking this and asking well this is just the Administration determined not to loose face I mean, you've already won this one in the House and you're not about to lose another one in the Senate. That is has become a matter of pride over policy.

MR. DARMAN: Why is that if we have a majority on our side? I could see that if we were in the minority. But we believe that Democrats and Republicans on this issue constitute a majority in both the House and the Senate and of course this is one of the few issues that was clearly argued in the Presidential election campaign. It was in Pres. Bush's original budget submission, it's been in the House all along and now at the last minute on the Senate side they are arguing that is quote that it is extraneous. They're applying an arcane doctrine of so called extranaity in saying it should not come up for a vote on a procedural point.

MS. WOODRUFF: What do you think is going to happen here, I mean. assuming there is no agreement reached the Senate goes its way?

MR. DARMAN: I would like to think we'll reach an agreement. We have two broad possibilities. One is that we reach an agreement which is our preferred our come. Either for capital gains to move with reconciliation or for it to move promptly and fairly independent of reconciliation. One or the other. We'll take any number of possible variations on that theme but we want a fair vote on that. If we can work out an agreement to do that we could get reconciliation done and avoid sequester. If not, through no fault of ours or others the process is just going to drag out because there is going to be a whole host of contentious issues. Then we will end up in sequester, the public will rightly be dismayed at what these people are doing one more time.

MS. WOODRUFF: Sequester again being across the board, mandated budget cuts?

MR. DARMAN: That's correct. And that is avoidable if the parties are reasonable and come together. I still hope that we will all be reasonable and come together. I am sure that Senator Mitchell would feel the same way. We are just not there yet.

MS. WOODRUFF: But if you don't and if this goes to a conference committee and if what comes out of the conference committee does not include capital gains what is President Bush going to do. I know you never like to say well we will or we won't veto something but what is the President's disposition?.

MR. DARMAN: It's way too hypothetical. At this point there is a long way between here and there. First, we've got to get it out of the Senate and that is what we should all be working on right at the moment. Getting both quickly out of the Senate..

MS. WOODRUFF: But you've been working at it for days and days?

MR. DARMAN: It would be very easy, if I might respectfully suggest, that Senator Mitchell could at any point decide that he doesn't want to bring procedural objection and that capital gains which is in the House Bill can be considered in the Senate.

MS. WOODRUFF: As simple as that?

MR. DARMAN: It would be as simple as that. Richard Darman, thanks again for being with us. Well Sen. Mitchell you heard it right there. Senator Mitchell is joining us now from a studio on capital hill. All Mr. Darman says you need to do is just to remove your procedural objections and this will fly through according to the wishes of the majority.

SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL, Majority Leader: Judy, on August 3rd of this year 54 Democratic Senators voted to put the savings and loan bailout bill on the budget. 46 Senators voted against it, most of them Republican. The Republican view prevailed even though there was a majority to the contrary. That was the 34th time since Democrats regained control of the Senate in January of 1987 in which the Republican view prevailed even though there was a clear majority to the contrary. Not once, not one single time did Mr. Darman or Mr. Bush or any other Republican talk about procedure matters or suggest unfairness in those circumstances.Mr. Darman's definition of unfairness apparently is that when the Senate rules operate to the advantage of the Republicans they should be followed but when those same rules applied in the same manor operate to the disadvantage of the Republicans they are some how unfair. It is the height of inconsistency, the height of hypocrisy, the height of unfairness, to suggest that they should benefit from the rules when it is to their advantage but that there is something inappropriate about the rules being applied evenly when it is to their disadvantage. If I can just say. My definition of fairness is this. The same rules apply to everyone equally, even under all circumstances. That is all I am insisting in this case. They want special treatment under the rules for capital gains. Special treatment which they refused to give when the same rules operate to their disadvantage. I can not agree with that. It has nothing to do with capital gains. It has to do with the principles of fairness under which the Senate must operate.

MS. WOODRUFF: But, Senator, isn't that the way the political game is played in this town, that everyone uses the rules to his or her advantage, and complains about the rules when they are not used.

SEN. MITCHELL: If there's one thing that I intend to do as Majority Leader in the Senate. That is one thing that I've tried to do is to apply the rules fairly to all concerned, even in all circumstance. My definition of fairness does not mean giving Democrats an advantage under the rules, but it surely does not mean giving Republicans an advantage when they themselves have benefited from the rules and it is particularly important to note that the Senate rules protect minorities more than anything else.

MS. WOODRUFF: But you don't deny Mr. Darman's point that there is a majority in the Senate, over 50 members of the Senate who would agree with the Administration's position on this?

SEN. MITCHELL: No, I do not agree with that point. There are a majority who have expressed support for some form of capital gains or another. But no majority has agreed to any particular plan and I believe the plan supported by the President and approved in the House of Representatives could not gain a majority in the Senate. If that were the case, they would be presenting it. Why is it then that they are presenting a completely different plan. One other than that proposed in the House. So Mr. Darman's point is incorrect. What is true more than 51 Senators have expressed support for some form of capital gains cuts but they have not by any means agreed on any one plan. And the support is very diverse and as is often the case may not coalesce and therefore no plan may possibly gain a majority.

MS. WOODRUFF: Senator, why is there such a disagreement between the Republicans and some of your colleagues, Democrats, Senator Boren among them and you and others of the Democrats over capital gains. Why has capital gains become the focal point of all of this?

SEN. MITCHELL: There are three reasons why a capital gains cut should not be made now. The first is the deficit. The most serious domestic economic problem that we face is the deficit. The bill we are dealing with is a deficit reduction bill. The plan proposed by the President would increase the deficit by 67 billion dollars over the next decade according to the joint tax committee, non partisan experts on whom both parties rely. We're supposed to be dealing with the deficit. Increasing the deficit by 67 billion dollars is not the way to deal with the deficit. The second point if I may finish is equity. Almost all of the benefits from the capital gains tax cut proposed by the President will go to the very highest income earners in our society. 80 percent to the top 3 percent in come. Those making over $200,000 a year will get a $30,000 a year tax cut. Those down below will get little or nothing. And third and finally and most importantly. Everybody in this country knows that if we cut one groups taxes by 67 billion dollars some other groups taxes are going to go up by 67 billion dollars. And do you know who it is going to be? It's not going to be the top three percent. It is going to be the middle and lower class who once again are going to see their taxes increased, socked with tax increases, to pay for a tax cut for the handful at the very top of our society. That is exactly the wrong thing to do.

MS. WOODRUFF: I hear what you're saying and of course we also hear what the Administration and others are saying including again some of your Democratic colleagues that this will create investment but again without prolonging the debate over capital gains.

SEN. MITCHELL: There is no substantial economic evidence to support that argument. It is speculative entirely.

MS. WOODRUFF: But to go beyond that, there are those and I'll ask you the same question that I asked Mr. Darman. There are those who look at this on both sides including the Democrats and say what this is really about is a question of pride. The Democrats lost this one in the House, they don't want to loose it in the Senate and they are holding their ground because of that. That the substance that the policy has taken a bath?

SEN. MITCHELL: Of course, the institutions are entirely different and we have never adopted a theory because a Bill passes one House it need not pass the other. That is written in to the Constitutions. I didn't create that requirement. And if we change that requirement, then we fundamentally change the American system of government. The second is we believe we're right, we believe what we are doing is good for the country and we have an obligation as public officials to fight for that which we believe in .And I especially say for the overwhelmingly majority of Americans, the 90 percent of American families who will derive little or no benefit from this but whose taxes will go up in the future as a result of this to pay for this massive giveaway. It is in their interest that we are fighting. The people making 20,30.40, 50 thousand dollars a year.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Darman said he hoped that there could be some agreement reached on this in the Senate. Are you optimistic? It doesn't sound like it from what you are saying but are you optimistic?

SEN. MITCHELL: It will be very difficult to reach agreement but we are still trying and we have not been helped by the Administration statements which torpedoed a similar effort in the House and statements yesterday were clearly an effort to torpedo the current discussions in the Senate but we're still trying notwithstanding that. Let me say that the problem is a fundamental one. Basically, as Mr. Darman made clear, they want special treatment under the rules for capital gains. They want to say that the capital gains is not subject to the same rules that every other bill is. Isn't required to meet the same standards that other Bills are and I am not able to agree to that for the reasons that I have stated. It's going to be very difficult to do, but we're meeting in good faith with Republican Senators continuing this evening trying to come up with a formula that will permit us to go forward with deficit reduction which is our principle objective.

MS. WOODRUFF: So as much as an impasse as it sounds like it is you are saying that there is a possibility?

SEN. MITCHELL: Hope springs eternal, Judy. I am an optimist by nature. And I think that we have got to get about the nations business.

MS. WOODRUFF: Sen. Mitchell thank you for being with us. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Still ahead on the NewsHour abortion politics and new advice for expectant mothers. UPDATE - ABORTION BATTLE

MR. MacNeil: We go next to the politics of abortion. As we reported, anti-abortion activists had two back to back defeats today. On the national front, the House of Representatives narrowly approved relaxing the conditions for federally funded abortions, setting up a possible veto confrontation with Pres. Bush. By accepting the more liberal Senate language in an appropriations bill, the House agreed to extend Medicaid funded abortions for poor women in the case of incest and rape. Since 1981, Congress had allowed abortions under Medicaid only when the life of the mother was threatened. Here are some extended excerpts from today's floor debate.

REP. HENRY HYDE, [R] Illinois: Regarding rape and incest, you have to make a distinction between the horror of the crime and the results of the crime. It's a crucial critical distinction. You compound the horror by killing a second victim, the innocent unborn child. You know, it's the unborn of the rich that are at risk. We can save some of the unborn of the poor and they're worth saving if by denying federal tax dollars to exterminate the young of the poor, we can save some poor children. It's the unborn of the rich that are at risk.

REP. NANCY JOHNSON, [R] Connecticut: Can you hold your head up as a member of this United States Congress and say we provide women and children protection against rape and incest? We don't in America. So will you deny funding to those most common victims, most vulnerable women and girl childs funding for -- and I'm stumbling over that phrase, but I want you to remember we're talking about 13 year olds, we're talking about little kids, who are raped, who are the victims of incest.

REP. HAROLD VOLKMER, [D] Missouri: I realize that in each year that we did not fund abortions from federal funds that we saved the lives of two hundred and fifty to three hundred thousand children. And those children today are walking the streets of our rural areas and our communities, their age from zero to thirteen is how old they are. They're out there enjoying the fruits of this country.

REP. JIM McDERMOTT, [D] Washington: I'm a psychiatrist and I'm a physician who has treated victims of both rape and incest. And I must tell you the last thing victims of assault need is to have control over their own bodies taken away from them yet again by the government. Denying Medicare funding, Medicaid funding says to the victim, you have not suffered enough in this painful ordeal, so we are going to force you to bear a child which was conceived out of hatred and violence. Isn't our society more compassionate than that?

REP. JIM LIGHTFOOT, [R] Iowa: There's a group that hasn't been heard from. And that I think are the children who possibly were the result of an inconvenience, a rape, an incest, or maybe a good time in the back seat of a Chevrolet. I happen to be one of those. I have no idea why I was conceived or what happened, but to my two loving parents who have raised me, my adoptive parents who changed my diapers, who took me through a broken arm, who took me through the pneumonia, and asthma, and girlfriends good and bad, car wrecks, and all those good things, I want to join them in saying to the mothers of this world who possibly suffered a lot of indignities because they were pregnant because they weren't married or they were pregnant because of a rape or they were pregnant because of an incest, those of us, your children who lived, say, God bless you, thank you. We loveyou.

REP. NITA LOWEY, [D] New York: Today we are here to protect the rights of the poorest victims of violent sexual crimes. Women with financial resources will continue to have the freedom to be in control of their lives, to make the most personal, personal decision. But Congress cannot, must not turn its back on the poorest victims of rape and incest who become pregnant by telling them that they cannot have an abortion, that they cannot choose to take control of their lives. You've heard the shocking reports by the FBI, the National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect; 85,000 cases of rape and 100,000 cases of child sexual abuse each year. Those startling numbers are not just numbers; they're people.

MS. WOODRUFF: Last week, Pres. Bush threatened to veto the bill containing the more liberal abortion language. Meanwhile, in Florida today the Democratic controlled state legislature handed Republican Gov. Bob Martinez a major defeat by adjourning a special session without approving any legislation to restrict abortions. The governor had convened the session in the wake of this summer's Supreme Court decision which opens the door for states to enact more restrictive abortions. The governor had convened the session in the wake of this summer's Supreme Court decision which opens the door for states to enact more restrictive abortion laws. Correspondent Elizabeth Brackett has this report from Tallahassee.

MS. BRACKETT: Florida legislators met for only two days in a special session both anti-abortion and pro-choice forces had called critical to the future of their movements. Legislators returned home without passing any legislation that restricted access to abortion. Pro-choice legislator, Elaine Gordon, called the lack of action a major victory.

ELAINE GORDON, State Representative: The significance for the pro-choice movement is that it has been demonstrated very very strongly that if the people make their will known that they can, indeed, influence their elected officials to put forth their position, and in this case, it was the position that this is a private decision and that government should not intrude in that private decision.

MS. BRACKETT: The big loser in the session may have been Florida Gov. Bob Martinez. Martinez had put his political career on the line when he called for the special session. Martinez, an outspoken anti-abortion supporter, proposed a package of legislation to restrict abortion rights. Despite the defeat, the governor said he had no regrets.

GOV. MARTINEZ, Florida: I stood for my convictions. And I think I made that clear from the very beginning. And I don't think the people in any state have an adverse feeling towards someone who stands up on a matter of conviction, provide the debate that's necessary on this issue. It's a debate that will be handled on a state by state basis and it will continue.

MS. BRACKETT: The governor's package included proposals that would have restricted public funds for abortion, required that women be told of fetal development, impose tougher regulations on abortion clinics, and require viability testing at 20 weeks. Rep. Chance Irvine brought the viability testing bill to the House Rehabilitative Services Committee. She used the recent U.S. Supreme Court Webster decision to bolster her case.

CHANCE IRVINE, State Representative: Roe is distinguishable on its facts. Since Missouri has determined that viability is the point at which its interest in potential human life must be safeguarded, therefore, when it makes that determination, we have according to Webster, as I see it, and I realize that everybody has their own point of view on how to interpret this decision, but as I see it, that specifically gave us the right to say the children must be tested at 20 weeks and that only in the case of the life of the mother being endangered could an abortion be performed after that point.

MS. BRACKETT: Testifying on the other side, feminist activist Eleanor Smeal argued that the law would do more harm than good.

ELEANOR SMEAL, Pro-Choice Activist: It is extremely important that we do not restrict or provide artificial political barriers to the best of medical care to people with troubled pregnancies. And in reality, the issue of viability is talking about only troubled pregnancies. Because in the state of Florida, as well as nationwide, in the last trimester essentially abortion is illegal except for the health of the life of the mother. In fact, less than 1/100 of 1 percent of abortions occur at this stage in pregnancy.

MS. BRACKETT: Anti-abortion activists thought they might at least get some bills passed requiring tougher regulations for abortion clinics. Newspaper stories have been running exposes here on unsafe and unsanitary conditions in some Florida clinics. The state closed three clinics over the last several weeks. Debate on the issue was heated in the Senate committee.

DICK LANGLEY, State Senator: This is nobody's pro-choice or pro- life amendment or bill. That issue justifiably separates us. If you don't believe life begins at conception, as I do, then you have the right to believe what you want about abortion, and you know that's where reasonable people can differ. But the health and safety of those who do choose, you want them to have the right to choose abortion, for God's sakes, protect them when they do choose to have one. I don't see where that should be an issue before this committee, just how and why. You know, Pro-Life is accused of not caring about mothers. You know, I can see sincere disagreement about this on whether or not you think that. But right now I cannot see for any than some political reason that you would not care about the mothers yourself.

CARRIE MEEK, State Senator: And I will not vote for anything to pass this legislature during this special session that is a knee jerk reaction to the abortion issue, because I think we should see that we have strong laws in Florida to restrict abortions, I think that we should see that they are conformed, that they're in compliance, and if they're not, close them down.

MS. BRACKETT: But when it came time for the vote, anti-abortion forces lost 5 to 2.

DICK LANGLEY: I'm telling you women will be injured, women will die, but you'll have your political victory.

SPOKESPERSON: Thank you, Sen. Langley. The Secretary will call the roll. [ROLL CALL]

SPOKESPERSON: By your vote the bill has failed.

MS. BRACKETT: Anti-abortion forces did have one small victory when a parliamentary maneuver enabled them to debate the clinic regulations bill with the full Senate. Anti-abortion legislators continued to say their concern was health and safety.

LEGISLATOR: Nobody really wants to block access to a woman who has made the choice of an abortion, but you want to protect her health.

JEAN MALCHON, State Senator: There is no woman on the floor of this body who will vote against this who is not equally if not more concerned for a far longer period of time about women's safety. And I certainly feel that the implication that people who do not want to rush into this today without adequate information to do it on an informed and realistic basis, the implication that we are unconcerned about women's and children's safety is some of the worst demagoguery I have ever heard on the floor of this body.

MS. BRACKETT: Anti-abortion forces got their debate, but they did not get a vote. The order to adjourn prevailed. [ADJOURNMENT]

MS. BRACKETT: Anti-abortion activist Faithe Anzalone who had marched and lobbied in the weeks leading up to the session vowed that the results would not discourage her.

FAITHE ANZALONE: It's made me even stronger in that I'll be there in 1990 to see to it that people will not let the democratic process go on, they will be voted out of office.

MS. BRACKETT: Bonnie Davis had marched too on the other side. She had never been involved before and the victory felt good.

BONNIE DAVIS: I'm very pleased. I think it affirms the right of everyone, men and women, to be left alone. And I think that's what this country is all about.

MS. BRACKETT: Both sides said they would use the results of the session to organize for upcoming Gubernatorial and legislative races. But after today, it does appear that the Pro- Choice forces will have a head start.

MS. WOODRUFF: The abortion battle shifts now to Pennsylvania, where that state legislature will take up anti-abortion measures at the end of this month. FOCUS -PRENATAL CARE

MR. MacNeil: Finally tonight we have a debate over prenatal care and how to get it to those women who need it most. In a major policy shift, the U.S. Public Health Service says that healthy pregnant women may need less prenatal care than they're now receiving. This week the new recommendations were sent out to all health care agencies in the country. There are 1.6 million women whose babies are at no apparent risk. The report recommends that more attention be given to those mothers whose babies are at higher risk. Higher risk pregnancies involve women whose babies are more likely to have a low birth weight or be born premature. Those complications contribute to high infant mortality rates for babies born to poor women. The report recommends that women with low risk pregnancies have pelvic examinations only on the first visit and no pap test if they've had one within the last year, less frequent blood pressure and urine tests on office visits and fewer office visits. Normally a woman would have about 13 office visits during a pregnancy. The panel recommends only seven or eight. In the case of high risk mothers, the panel emphasized the need for more counseling on nutrition and the risks involved with drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. The panel hopes that these changes will shift needed resources from low risk to high risk pregnancies. But that's a matter of debate as we hear from two physicians with differing views. Dr. Mortimer Rosen is the chairman of the panel that issued the recommendations. He's the head of the obstetrics and gynecology department at Columbia's Medical School. Dr. Kenneth Whittington is president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. Dr. Rosen, first of all, what do you consider the most important message of your panel's report to the health care industry?

DR. MORTIMER ROSEN: Certainly not the message that's come out in the media, less care for women. The most important message is that prenatal care and a dollar spent in prenatal care is the most valuable dollar that the United States can spend. A dollar saving health at the beginning of life produces a useful citizen. There are several major points in this panel that seem to be overlooked. First of all, and I'm sure as Dr. Whittington would agree, the panel suggested that prenatal care not be focused just on the unborn baby or the mother, focus on the mother, the infant, and the family. There is a window of time in which we can improve self- esteem and the quality of life which may last forever. The panel said much more than that. The panel said there is a new visit. Common sense tells us we can do much more for women if we can intervene before they become pregnant. Look at a patient before she comes to you early in pregnancy and says, have I done wrong, but rather say, can you counsel me for a healthy pregnancy. A preconceptual visit is at the top of the list of the most important visits. Going through that report --

MR. MacNeil: That is a new recommendation.

DR. ROSEN: That is a new recommendation done by some, but clearly make it part of prenatal care. The panel said we've made remarkable advances and medical advances, the psychosocial environment, the behavioral environment of that family and of that woman needs also good emphasis. Indeed, the medical and the psychosocial environment will contribute to a better future for that family. Now you might ask, why is this all important, why did Washington spend three years and have sixteen individuals argue for hours over this thing? One only has to look at the numbers. Robin, in this country, we spend more dollars on health care than any nation in the world and yet in infant mortality, the outcome of pregnancies, the first year of life, more babies die than 16 other countries. We're really not No. 1, and 40 percent of those problems come from the prenatal period. In perinatal mortality, that is, the child before birth and the child after birth, we don't rank in the top 10. We have to spend our dollars better and do better in outcome. I'm willing to debate that part of the report that said perhaps some visits aren't necessary. But let's not lose the fact that this report says more money will be needed in the health care of women and if our congressional groups and our state groups and our media get into that battle, then we will be in the top 10, where we belong.

MR. MacNeil: You're surprised at the reaction to the recommendation that less care may be necessary for women with uncomplicated or low risk pregnancies.

DR. ROSEN: Only a little surprised, terribly disappointed if the report gets buried in the backlash saying some women may not need as much care and other women will need much more care. And we're not balancing these dollars one for one. But if this report doesn't pick up public enthusiasm, then out on the streets, 25 percent of the women in the United States who receive poor prenatal care, and the nurseries that I walked through today that show these very low birth weight babies born into a world already deprived will just go on, and that's a sadness.

MR. MacNeil: Do you wish now you had not included that recommendation in that report because it's been such a lightning rod for attention?

DR. ROSEN: I must tell you, I have mixed feelings. But ethically I think what we did was correct. We looked into what was there. You know, when a woman comes into my office, she takes one half day out of her life. She leaves her job, she picks her children up, she may take them with her or find a baby sitter. She waits in the office. I'm generally an hour late. And I have to spend 10 minutes with her and often I'm not sure that I'm contributing to her health, sometimes yes, so if she wishes to come, I encourage her to come, but I don't think it's mandatory.

MR. MacNeil: Let's pursue this. Dr. Whittington, do you agree that some care now given to low risk women is unnecessary?

DR. KENNETH WHITTINGTON, American Academy of Family Physicians: Sir, I think we physicians, family physicians, would agree the statement the panel made that prenatal care is the foundation for the health given to that pregnant woman and that infant in the family, absolutely critical. The other statement they made is that risk status of that individual changes from time to time during that pregnancy. And I think there is where the concern that we as family physicians have. Because we see that a low risk patient starting may indeed the next month become a high risk patient. We feel that our care that we give when we bring patients to the office is not perfunctory. We don't simply weigh 'em, measure the fundus, and that's all. That's where we, family physicians, at least, spend extra time, psychosocial, make sure about the smoking, make sure about alcohol, drugs, do things that for the status of the family bring that in, get that patient ready when that child is born to start immunizations, this type things. We see the benefits of all of that. The preconceptual visit is absolutely imperative, and that's what we stand out because we see the patient.

MR. MacNeil: But could in your view, could some visits be reduced, if there's a question of trying to shift some of the medical resources to women who need it more, could some visits for healthy low risk women be reduced and some test be reduced?

DR. WHITTINGTON: We would wholeheartedly agree with the report that said if unnecessary testing, instrumentation, pelvic exams, et cetera, are done, they should be done away with, they shouldn't be done. At the same token, we finally have made some changes in infant mortality. We're saying what we have done is lowering that infant mortality, even though it's infinitesimally small at this time, we're making those headlines. That's where we want to not give up anything there to slip back. Yes, we need more emphasis on high risk patients, absolutely.

MR. MacNeil: As Dr. Whittington says, your report does say that the risk assessment must continue right through a pregnancy. How do you square that with seeing an apparently healthy woman less often?

DR. MORTIMER ROSEN, Columbia University: We looked at the data and we tried to come up with some answers. We looked at all the major medical illnesses. We looked at the unexpected toxemia or high blood pressure of pregnancy, and then we said, what is the content of an individual visit? Some things change unexpectedly. How often? Would an additional visit pick that up? But you know at the extreme, we could see women every day. There is an example for example of keeping a woman with twins in the hospital to prevent premature birth. It turns out they had more premature births. Not doing more is not only doing good. So there may be a paradox in this.

MR. MacNeil: Would you run the risk if you saw a woman only seven or eight times in a pregnancy, instead of thirteen times, that you might miss some change that would be, that would indicate a change in risk?

DR. ROSEN: Absolutely. And there's a dreadful fear if we have made a mistake and we are wrong, we will have done harm. However, the challenge really is very clear. The literature lacked data and we were spending a great deal of money. It's an easy experiment to conduct, find out if women do better or not better. In Denmark, for example, there are less prenatal care visits than in the United States, and their mortality rates are lower than ours. In Sweden, there are more visits than in the United States, and their mortality rates are better than ours. Say, maybe it is not only the visit; maybe it's some of the other things that we're doing.

MR. MacNeil: What do you think?

DR. WHITTINGTON: I will only go back to say the care, the prenatal visits that we're doing now, the way it is now, we're seeing a lowering of that infant mortality. We hadn't been seeing that. And I think we know what we're doing now is at least good medicine. Now if there are good studies that show we can change that, family physicians being a continuing care type giver have a pretty well good assessment of that family because they've been a family of yours. And you can assess the risk of those individuals and indeed if those risks are down, and you feel comfortable with chancing that, sure.

MR. MacNeil: What about the women who don't get any or enough visits during their pregnancy, they aren't seen enough, they don't get the right advice? How -- what I can't understand in your report is how you envision resources that might be saved from, saving unnecessary treatment for healthy women, how does that get shifted in the way health care is provided in this country?

DR. ROSEN: It's really very straightforward. There aren't enough visits and rooms in most of the clinics to be able to see the patients. In New York City today most of the hospitals are in the red because they cannot afford all the stresses of our society. At my hospital, The Presbyterian Hospital, we are delivering less prenatal care for women because we are already going broke, having taken on society's problems as a personal hospital problem, when all of us should be supporting it. Those women can't get into clinic today, although we're trying to do the best job that we can. Therefore, if our clinic were in part less busy, we might give more care. But beyond it, our Congress will have to say, we must get out into the community, we will give you the money to provide health care for women.

MR. MacNeil: But you're not saying that the majority of American women who have private health insurance or coverage provided through an HMO through an employer, whatever it is, that if they have less care, those resources get shifted to poorer women?

DR. ROSEN: I'm not an economist and I can't tell you exactly how the dollars will go. I can tell you how the manpower will go and there may be more manpower there. But the interesting thing is that in the United States I believe in Dr. Whittington's practice or in my practice, we don't charge by the visit. Therefore, a woman may come more often or less often for a standard fee. I didn't really want to get into the fees and the cost of the individual --

MR. MacNeil: You don't have a financial incentive in having the woman visit more often?

DR. WHITTINGTON: Absolutely not or less even; if anything, it would be the reverse. And I think that's the whole point is that what we're delivering is working. And I agree wholeheartedly that finances have got to be there. We don't give up good medicine to try to produce more finances. That's a societal problem.

MR. MacNeil: What effect -- I mean, after all, this isn't just a report by another bunch of doctors, this is the United States Public Health Service, and it has all that prestige behind it and seriousness -- what effect do you think that's going to have on the way that health care is funded? For instance, on private insurance companies, how are they going to respond to this report?

DR. WHITTINGTON: I think obviously the fear would be is that they say we're going to cut back on prenatal care in low risk women. And I think that's a wrong way to go. And that's the wrong signal to send at this time when we're changing the course of what we're seeing as infant mortality. We mustn't give that up. In fact, they're going to have to spend more money because they're talking about doing the things that we family physicians are doing, counseling, education. They're talking about these things. That's going to take more money.

MR. MacNeil: What effect do you think your report -- you must have talked this a lot in your discussions, how is this going to impact on Medicaid, HMOs, on various delivery programs and on private insurance?

DR. ROSEN: Let's talk about the 60 percent.

MR. MacNeil: This is what commands the resources very often, isn't it, the way it's reimbursed.

DR. ROSEN: Absolutely. The dollar drives the economy every which way unfortunately and at times. However, let's look at how this thing really comes about. Now there are guidelines that state if you are an at risk woman, you have psychosocial supports besides biomedical reports.

MR. MacNeil: Psychosocial reports. Just define what you mean by that.

DR. ROSEN: It's difficult to say, the health of the mother, the self-esteem of the mother, the use of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, things like that. How does she live in her home? Is there child abuse?

MR. MacNeil: I didn't mean to divert you too far. Go back to what you were saying.

DR. ROSEN: Now we're saying that Medicaid will insist and should pay for the fact that these psychosocial abuses must be paid for and you must have resource people available to treat patients. I can't treat the for everything. Dr. Whittington can't treat them for everything. The definition is clear now. When the resource is needed, it should be paid for. If a visit is needed for a nurse or person to go into a home --

MR. MacNeil: We're just having to wrap this up in under a minute. But what you're saying is that the impact of this report will be on the Congress to increase, and the states, to increase the funding for Medicaid for poor women to provide the kind of coverage you are recommending. Is that it?

DR. ROSEN: For all women who are at high risk, recognizing risk changes, we have to do better than we're doing today.

DR. WHITTINGTON: We would wholeheartedly agree to that.

MR. MacNeil: Dr. Whittington, Dr. Rosen, thank you both for joining us. RECAP

MS. WOODRUFF: Again, the main points in the news, abortion foes suffered two defeats today. The U.S. House of Representatives voted to include rape and incest as grounds for Medicaid abortions. Such abortions are presently restricted to cases where the mother's life is in danger. And a special session of the Florida legislature killed all the anti-abortion bills proposed by Gov. Bob Martinez. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Judy. That's the Newshour tonight and we will be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.