[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 78 (Tuesday, May 10, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2389-S2392]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                Abortion

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the last several days, the radical 
left has taken the debate about abortion to dangerous ends.
  Last week, a liberal group launched an intimidation campaign against 
six members of the Supreme Court. They posted a map online with their 
home addresses and encouraged protesters to take their complaints 
straight to the Justices' doorsteps. No surprise as swarms of 
protesters heeded their call. They showed up at some of the Justices' 
homes this weekend.
  Even though this plan was in the works for several days, the White 
House remained silent and refused to condemn this clearcut example of 
doxing.
  It wasn't until yesterday morning, once the weekend's protest had 
concluded, that the White House Press Secretary said the Justices 
should be able to do their jobs without fearing for their personal 
safety or the safety of their families. And that wasn't the only 
alarming update from the weekend.
  A pro-life group in Wisconsin was vandalized and set on fire on 
Sunday morning. The person or persons responsible smashed windows and 
attempted to use a Molotov cocktail. They left graffiti on the exterior 
wall of the building that read, ``If abortions aren't safe, then you 
aren't either.''
  Threats of violence are never acceptable. It doesn't matter who is 
making the threat or who is on the receiving end. There is a world of 
difference between legitimate public discourse protected under the 
First Amendment to the United States Constitution and threats or acts 
of violence which are not.
  Every single person in this Chamber, especially our Democratic 
colleagues, should affirm that any demonstrations about this heated 
issue cannot threaten the safety of anyone, Supreme Court Justices, 
pro-life advocates, or otherwise.
  This past weekend's events have highlighted the need to better 
protect the Justices and their families. They deserve the protection 
that, at this moment, the Supreme Court Police are not able to provide. 
Last week, Senator Coons, the Senator from Delaware, and I introduced a 
bill to increase protection for all nine Justices and their families. 
This basically would be the same sort of authorities given to the 
Capitol Police in protecting Members of Congress.
  The events of this weekend have underscored just how important this 
is. This legislation was at the request of the Chief Justice, who wants 
to ensure that members of the Court and their families have the 
security and protection they need, especially at this tense time when 
Justices are facing enhanced threats.
  We currently have two Justices with school-age children, and in the 
coming months, that number will increase to three once Judge Jackson 
takes her place on the Supreme Court Bench. I am glad this bill passed 
the Senate last night, and I hope our colleagues in the House will take 
it up and pass it in the coming days.
  This week, the issue at the center of this turmoil will be a topic of 
debate here in the U.S. Senate. The Democratic leader has promised that 
the Senate will vote on a radical abortion bill that goes far, far 
beyond codifying Roe v. Wade.
  This radical pro-abortion bill that Senator Schumer has set for a 
vote on tomorrow allows for abortions at any point during a woman's 
pregnancy, up until the time of delivery.
  It does this by prohibiting States from protecting an unborn child's 
right to life as long as one healthcare provider signs off that a 
pregnancy would pose a risk to the woman's physical or mental health.
  It isn't hard to see that this is a blank check for abortion 
providers like Kermit Gosnell. You may remember that Dr. Gosnell was a 
physician in Philadelphia, PA, who ran something called the Women's 
Medical Society Clinic but which was dubbed a ``house of horrors'' 
during his subsequent trial.
  He was also a prolific prescriber of OxyContin, but in 2011 Dr. 
Gosnell and his wife Pearl and eight employees were charged with a 
total of 32 felonies and 227 misdemeanors in connection with the 
deaths, illegal medical services, and regulatory violations at his 
abortion clinic.

  Pearl and the eight employees pleaded guilty to various charges in 
2011, while Dr. Gosnell pleaded not guilty and sought a jury trial. 
After that trial, Dr. Gosnell was convicted of first-degree murder in 
the deaths of three infants and involuntary manslaughter in the death 
of Karnamaya Mongar, an adult patient at the clinic following an 
abortion procedure.
  Gosnell was also convicted of 21 felony counts of illegal late-term 
abortions and 211 counts of violating Pennsylvania's 24-hour informed 
consent law.
  After his conviction, Gosnell waived his right to appeal, and in an 
exchange for an agreement from prosecutors not to seek the death 
penalty, he was sentenced to life in prison without parole.
  Not only does the radical abortion bill that Senator Schumer has teed 
up a vote on tomorrow usurp the constitutional role reserved to the 
States, it would allow a child born after 21 weeks of gestation to be 
aborted. Next month, a baby who was born at 21 weeks and 2 days will 
celebrate his second birthday. But this extreme legislation would 
invalidate all State laws that limit abortions after 20 weeks of 
gestation.
  This wouldn't just impact pro-life red States; this change is so 
radical that it would invalidate existing laws in blue States as well. 
In Massachusetts and Nevada, for example, abortions are restricted 
after 24 weeks. In California, Washington, and Illinois, abortions are 
restricted after viability.
  If this legislation were to become law, those laws would be preempted 
under the supremacy clause of the Federal Constitution.
  Now, this sort of radical lurch and knee-jerk reaction to a draft 
opinion

[[Page S2390]]

illegally leaked by somebody at the Supreme Court--this reaction is way 
out of step with the views of most Americans when it comes to the 
sensitive and emotional issue of abortion.
  A poll last summer found that 65 percent of Americans believe 
abortion should be illegal in the second trimester. Opposition to third 
trimester abortion is even stronger--an overwhelming 80 percent of 
Americans are opposed to late third trimester term abortions.
  But under this legislation, States would have no power to stop the 
radical procedure known as partial birth abortion as long as one 
provider signed off that the mother's mental health might be affected.
  What that is, is not defined and is left to the imagination. But just 
when you think it is bad, it gets worse. This bill would also 
invalidate laws that prevent abortion from being used as a method of 
sex selection. In other words, this legislation allows a parent who is 
hoping for a son to abort a baby girl.
  This is a type of practice that sadly became common in China during 
the era of the one-child policy. It is not something that should happen 
in America.
  Not only that, this bill undermines State efforts to protect unborn 
babies with disabilities, like Down syndrome. Unborn children being 
killed based solely on gender or disabilities is a devastating problem 
in other countries.
  We cannot allow such grotesque practices to become mainstream here in 
America. America is better than that.
  This bill that the majority leader has teed up a vote on tomorrow 
would also invalidate conscience laws, which protect healthcare 
providers who have deeply held objections to abortion.
  Conscience laws are extremely common--46 States allow individual 
healthcare providers to refuse to provide abortion services.
  This law that we will be voting on tomorrow would wipe away all of 
those existing State laws. Any healthcare provider who had a deeply 
held religious or moral objection to abortion would be required by 
Federal law to provide them anyway. Any healthcare provider who refused 
to do so could find themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit.
  This radical pro-abortion legislation removes a range of commonsense 
protections that exist in States across the country. It does away with 
State laws that limit the performance of abortions to licensed 
physicians, meaning nonphysicians could perform and prescribe 
abortions; and it provides no protection for babies who survive a 
botched abortion.
  It invalidates informed consent laws, which require healthcare 
providers to share information about the baby with the mother, such as 
whether the child is capable of feeling pain.
  And it gives the Attorney General of the United States sweeping 
authority to block State laws protecting the right to life.
  This legislation would overturn existing laws and allow abortions on 
a scale our country has never seen before.
  It is a sad commentary on the conscience of America when all but a 
handful of our Democratic colleagues are fighting to implement these 
radical policies.
  As it stands today, the United States is only one of a handful of 
countries that allows elective abortions after 20 weeks. Other 
countries on that list of seven include the People's Republic of China, 
ruled by the Chinese Communist Party, and North Korea.
  This should be a massive red flag for our colleagues across the aisle 
that our compassion for the unborn ranks right up there with the 
People's Republic of China and North Korea; but, unfortunately, they 
don't see the inherent humanity of these lost innocent lives.
  The extent to which the Democratic Party continues to embrace such 
radical policies never ceases to amaze me.
  As shocking as this legislation is, it is not entirely new. It 
already failed to pass the Senate once this year. It couldn't even earn 
the support of all 50 Democratic Senators. It failed on a 46-48 line 
vote. Democrats haven't made any changes that will move the needle in 
their direction in this bill that we will vote on tomorrow.
  I simply do not agree that the American people want abortion laws in 
our country that put us on par with the Chinese Communist Party and 
North Korea--two of the world's most aggressive human rights abusers.
  America cannot be its best if we do not value the lives of our most 
vulnerable. I believe babies--fellow human beings with heartbeats, 
fingerprints, just like the rest of us--deserve to have protection 
under the law--under State laws that would, if in the event Roe were 
overturned, be the ultimate arbiter of what the laws would be in those 
individual States.
  The Declaration of Independence itself guarantees the right to life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and I believe that right to life 
extends to the unborn, just as it does to every other American.
  I have always believed in defending the right of the unborn to life, 
liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and I will continue to fight this 
bill, no matter how many times the majority leader brings it to the 
floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week, Americans woke up to the news 
that was perhaps not unexpected but still stunning.
  It appears that in a matter of weeks, we may soon live in a country 
where women have fewer constitutional rights than their parents or 
grandparents.
  In one bold move, the ultraconservative, activist majority on the 
Supreme Court appears poised to erase the constitutional right to 
choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.
  I want to be clear: The leak of the majority draft opinion in Dobbs 
v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is an unprecedented breach of 
the Court's confidential deliberations. It may harm the trust the 
Justices have with one another, as well as the public's trust in the 
Court.
  Still, one must wonder, Why is it that our Republican colleagues have 
been focused so exclusively on the leak of the draft opinion rather 
than the substance of the opinion itself? And why do we hear in the 
last few days a continued reference to the security of Supreme Court 
Justices without a real discussion of where the proposed opinion will 
take us?
  Let's make it clear--unequivocally clear--in a bipartisan fashion: 
Violence is never acceptable. Violence is never acceptable against 
Supreme Court Justices, their families, their staff, or anyone 
associated with that branch of government.
  Nor is violence acceptable on January 6, 2021, in this Chamber, when 
the mob--the insurrectionist mob--leaving a Trump rally came here and 
tried to stop the business of the U.S. Senate and the House of 
Representatives, and we left as fast as we could move out the back door 
to try to escape that. That was violence which led to five deaths and 
the assaults on 150 members of law enforcement. That violence is 
unacceptable as well, and I hope my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, who vetoed an effort for a bipartisan commission to investigate 
the violence of January 6, will step up now and say they were wrong.
  Violence against a Supreme Court Justice, violence against a Member 
of the House, and a Member of the Senate--none of those is acceptable, 
period. Unequivocally. Period.
  I am in favor of protecting the Justices, of course. I have been 
party to efforts in my home State of Illinois, after a tragic incident 
over 10 years ago, when a disgruntled client ended up killing a Federal 
judge's mother and husband in their home.
  Since then, I have called for more security, and I am glad to add my 
name to this effort now to provide security to this Court and all the 
members of the Court, their families, and the staff who are involved.
  It is unacceptable. Violence, either in this building or across the 
street, is unacceptable.
  But I would like to speak as well to the substance of the statement 
just made by the Senator from Texas.
  He recalled the case of Kermit Gosnell, a case where a doctor in 
Philadelphia was convicted, virtually of infanticide--repeated cases of 
infanticide--and he was sentenced, ultimately, to life in prison, where 
he still spends his time serving that out, with no chance of parole, 
nor should he ever have a chance at parole.

[[Page S2391]]

  I struggle to get the connection between the crime of infanticide and 
the debate we are having, because there is nothing in the bill coming 
to the floor by the Democrats which is going to change that basic 
finding in the case in Pennsylvania.
  That doctor, now removed from his profession and serving time in 
Federal prison, was guilty of a crime, and the bill before us on the 
floor of the Senate will not change that reality at all. I don't know 
if that was the inference, but I took it to mean that. I hope I was 
wrong.
  We need to acknowledge the basics that a critical constitutional 
right may be removed by the Supreme Court.
  I am an amateur historian studying the history of this country. I 
can't think of another time when a constitutionally guaranteed right by 
Supreme Court opinion of over 50 years has been removed by the Court. 
But that is what we face now--on the right of Americans to make the 
most basic decisions about their health, their lives, and their future.
  Sadly, many Republicans are desperately trying to deflect from this 
ruling and what it means for every single American.
  If the legal reason in the Court's draft opinion becomes final, that 
decision in Dobbs will end a half-century guarantee that the right to 
abortion is protected in our Constitution.
  Republicans know that overturning Roe v. Wade and eliminating access 
to a woman's healthcare is extremely unpopular.
  When asked point-blank whether we should do it, only 28 percent of 
Americans say that they agree.
  In a world without Roe, Americans would not only be denied healthcare 
services they are entitled to, it is possible--it is possible--that 
some will be prosecuted.
  Far-right lawmakers have been feverishly anticipating this moment. 
Over the past week, some of these same officials have introduced 
legislation around the country designed to punish women for making the 
basic decisions about reproductive health.
  State legislators in Louisiana introduced a bill to allow prosecutors 
to bring murder charges against a woman who undergoes or anyone who 
provides an abortion.
  The same Louisiana bill would seemingly call into question the 
legality of in vitro fertilization, as well as IUDs, the morning after 
pill, and other forms of emergency contraception.
  I am glad I was on the floor a few minutes ago. My colleague, Senator 
Duckworth, talked about her two little girls--cutest kids you can 
imagine.
  I remember those kids from the earliest time. When I was in a car 
driving in the State of Illinois to an event in Bloomington, the phone 
rang and it was Tammy Duckworth. She was my colleague in the U.S. 
Senate and--she was going to be my colleague in the U.S. Senate, and 
she was a Member of the House of Representatives, and she told me that 
she was going to have a baby. I couldn't believe it.
  Tammy and I have known one another since a few weeks after her, I 
should say, terrible crash of the helicopter in Iraq. I had known what 
she had gone through, surgeries and recovery, and I was the one who 
encouraged her to run for office, and I am sure glad I did. She has 
become the voice of the military, the voice of veterans, and one of 
most powerful voices in the U.S. Senate.
  And when she told the story about those two little girls, born 
through the process of in vitro fertilization, it struck home.
  I am fortunate enough as a grandfather to have two in vitro 
grandbabies. I love them to pieces, and I thank goodness that there was 
a science achievement available to help my daughter deliver those 
beautiful kids.
  A Republican lawmaker in Idaho said he is open to banning certain 
forms of birth control if this decision goes forward at the Supreme 
Court. He wanted to include plan B emergency contraception and IUDs.
  Think about that. State by State, legislator by legislator, will 
decide what is acceptable when it comes to contraception.
  Now, some people are going to think: Durbin, you are exaggerating. 
Democrats are at it again exaggerating.
  But I am old enough to remember before Griswold, the regulation of 
contraception in those days when it was virtually, in many States, even 
illegal to buy a condom.
  And so you think I am exaggerating? We lived at that time.
  It wasn't until Griswold v. Connecticut, decided by the Supreme 
Court, that established a right of privacy under our Constitution, 
which then led to Roe v. Wade. That was America. It was an America 
which, sadly, many Republican lawmakers long for.
  A lawmaker in Missouri introduced a bill that deputizes bounty 
hunters to sue anyone who helps a woman seeking an abortion outside the 
State of Missouri.
  I wanted to remind my colleague from Texas, who spoke just before me, 
it was the Texas bounty hunter's law that started this conversation in 
earnest.
  In Texas, they decided that there would be a civil penalty that can 
be charged against those who were engaged in an abortion, and the 
person could claim that penalty if they disclosed that to the public.
  Just a few days ago, the Republican leader in this body, Senator 
McConnell of Kentucky, said that a national ban on abortion could be 
``possible''--a national ban if Roe is overturned and the Republicans 
take control of the Senate.
  Leaving it up to each State to decide a woman's reproductive rights 
is creating a patchwork quilt of uncertainty. Your constitutional 
rights would depend on your ZIP Code, but that is exactly the future we 
are facing.
  To be sure, Democratic State legislatures will continue to protect 
access to abortion unless, of course, Republicans in Congress enact the 
national ban that Senator McConnell said is possible.
  In the absence of a national ban, if you can afford to travel, you 
will be able to access reproductive care in States like Illinois and 
Connecticut. But what about everyone else? If the right to have an 
abortion now depends on where you live or how much money you make, 
millions of women, many from historically marginalized communities, 
will face even greater hurdles in obtaining an abortion.
  America already has one of the worst maternal mortality rates in the 
developed world. Drastically restricting access to abortion or banning 
abortion altogether will make those rates worse.
  Republicans and anti-choice activists are trying to minimize the 
impact that erasing Roe would have. They talk about other times the 
Supreme Court has overturned precedent, and they argue--disingenuously, 
I think--that this is how the Court has always worked. It corrects its 
own past mistakes.
  They claim that overturning Roe is no different than the Supreme 
Court overturning Plessy v. Ferguson--a decision which gave us the 
odious fiction of ``separate but equal'' that was later overturned by 
Brown v. Board of Education. But there is a profound difference. It 
appears that never before in the history of America has a Supreme Court 
decision to abandon settled law made Americans less free--never. In the 
past, when the Court has taken the serious step of overturning settled 
law, it has done so to expand freedom, expand opportunity, not 
eliminate it. What the activist, anti-choice majority on this Court 
will do is unprecedented, radical, and dangerous.
  Here is another fact that Republican lawmakers are hoping you will 
not notice: It is not just the right to abortion that is in jeopardy; 
Justice Alito's draft opinion in the Dobbs case questions the very 
existence of the right to privacy. It argues that unenumerated rights--
that is, rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution--must be 
deeply rooted in U.S. history and tradition in order to be recognized 
as a constitutional right. Who decides what is deeply rooted in history 
and tradition?
  The Court's Obergefell v. Hodges decision established marriage 
equality only 7 years ago. Will the Court's reactionary majority put 
that next on the chopping block?
  What about the right to contraception, as I mentioned before, 
established by Griswold v. Connecticut 11 years before Roe? A 
Republican Member of this body recently criticized that decision 
establishing the privacy right of every individual to choose the 
contraception

[[Page S2392]]

right for their family. He described this as ``constitutionally 
unsound.''
  Rather than settling the debate on abortion, the draft Dobbs opinion 
would further divide our fractious Nation and set the stage for a 
radical majority in the Court to erase even more constitutional rights. 
It would give government the power to dictate your rights and dictate 
your future. That is why we must take action to protect women's 
productive rights.
  Tomorrow, the Senate will vote on the Women's Health Protection Act. 
This bill will codify the right to provide or obtain an abortion free 
from medically unnecessary restrictions. The American people deserve to 
know where their Senators stand. I will not stop fighting for the right 
of every American, especially the women of America, to have these 
rights as established for over 50 years.
  For years, the Republicans have claimed they are the party of 
families, the party of family values. Yet they have spent decades 
ignoring the needs of working families. Republicans are willing to 
force women to carry unwanted or unexpected or even dangerous 
pregnancies to term, but they are not willing to help them raise their 
children.
  There are aspects of their voting patterns in the Senate that make it 
clear that when it comes to helping families with the basics, such as 
tax credits for children, making sure that families have paid medical 
leave for their newborns or other family members--all of these things 
are family friendly and family values. Unfortunately, they are not 
supported by many, if any, Republicans. That would be a demonstration 
that they truly care for families.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.