[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 78 (Tuesday, May 10, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2407-S2412]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WOMEN'S HEALTH PROTECTION ACT
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise to express the urgent need to
pass the Women's Health Protection Act and put an end to the constant
attacks that have chipped away at women's constitutional rights in this
country. Now more than ever, it is vital to codify reproductive rights
and protect other hard-won civil rights as they face renewed threats.
Last week, POLITICO published Supreme Court Associate Justice Alito's
[[Page S2408]]
draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, which, while not
final, would strike down Roe v. Wade. This would have an immediate and
devastating consequence for the health and well-being of tens of
millions of women of reproductive age across the Nation. Women in low-
income families who could not overcome the financial and logical
barriers to travel to States with abortion access will suffer the most,
increasing existing health disparities.
While this draft opinion is a reminder of what is at stake, we have
seen the erosion of reproductive rights for decades. Despite the clear
constitutional rights the Supreme Court established almost 50 years ago
in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, each year, legislatures across
the country have passed harmful abortion restrictions in an effort to
impede a woman's fundamental right to make the best informed healthcare
decisions for herself and her family. This goes against what I believe
to be one of the fundamental responsibilities of the Court, which is to
expand rights, not restrict them.
Implementing the Bill of Rights, we have seen the Federal courts over
a period of time protect Americans against the abuse of power,
including the power exercised by our government. Should this opinion go
into effect, this would be the first time in memory that the Court
would act to take away the constitutional rights of Americans. It would
also be the first time in our country's history when women now would
have fewer rights than their mothers.
The reasoning used in this draft decision could also be used to
undermine other dearly held civil rights in the future. Justice Alito's
leaked draft opinion laid out a roadmap to overturn other landmark
decisions that expanded rights, including Obergefell v. Hodges, which
affirmed marriage equality.
Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all testified under oath
before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Supreme Court precedents
should stand--a bedrock principle of jurisprudence known as stare
decisis--but they clearly arrived with an agenda to overturn Roe, and
now, they are making that a reality.
Senate Republicans and former President Donald Trump bear
responsibility for nominating and confirming Justices far outside of
the legal mainstream and damaging our confirmation process and the
public's faith in the Supreme Court as an impartial arbiter of our
Nation's laws.
Senate Republicans deliberately stole the seat that President Barack
Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill, and they delayed even having a
hearing for 1 year, effectively shrinking the size of the Supreme
Court. Senate Republicans then turned around and rushed the
confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett after the death of Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, even though early voting had already begun in the
2020 Presidential elections.
Overturning Roe goes against public opinion. A recent poll of the
Washington Post-ABC showed that 70 percent of Americans believe that
the Court should uphold Roe and that decisions regarding abortion
should be left to a woman and her doctor.
Now more than ever, it is essential for the Senate to pass the
Women's Health Protection Act, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor.
The legislation would protect the right to abortion free from medically
unnecessary restrictions and create a statutory right for providers to
provide and patients to receive care. This would codify Roe v. Wade and
prevent States from continuing to enact restrictions on reproductive
freedoms.
Despite the opinion just being a draft and abortion still being a
constitutional right, States are already seizing on the momentum of
this draft opinion and moving to limit a woman's constitutional right.
Since the leak of this draft opinion, legislatures around the country
are rushing to criminalize abortion and outlaw contraception.
Just last week, the Louisiana State Legislature advanced a bill that
would classify abortion as homicide. This adds to the over half of our
States that have already passed laws to restrict and ban abortion
access. There are more than one dozen States with anti-abortion laws
set to take effect immediately if the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v.
Wade.
The Republican leader, Mr. McConnell, stated:
If the leaked opinion became the final opinion, legislative
bodies--not only at the state level but at the federal
level--certainly could legislate in that area.
Thanks to five unelected, activist Justices on the Supreme Court,
women are facing the prospect of a Federal, nationwide ban on abortion
services. We go back to those days where abortions were performed
illegally in back alleys. We can't let that happen in this country.
While many States, including my home State of Maryland, have acted to
expand abortion care, we cannot rely on a patchwork of State laws to
protect a basic constitutional right. The right to choose is
fundamental and a decision that a woman should make in consultation
with a doctor or other healthcare provider free of political
interference from Federal, State, or local government.
I urge President Biden and the Department of Health and Human
Services, the Department of Justice, and other Federal Agencies to use
their power and to act swiftly to safeguard the reproductive rights of
Americans.
There is no denying that this is a bleak moment. We know the battle
for reproductive rights has been an ongoing struggle with previous
setbacks. We saw this just a few months ago following the anti-choice,
pro-vigilante law that the Texas Legislature passed which threatens
providers with jail time and fines for administering what is still
federally and constitutionally protected medical care for women.
We cannot wait any longer. We must do everything in our power to
ensure access to reproductive services now. Therefore, I urge my
colleagues to pass the Women's Health Protection Act, and we will have
a chance to do that starting tomorrow.
Throughout my time in Congress, I have been a steadfast supporter of
reproductive rights, and this will not change. Regardless of the
outcome of tomorrow's vote or the Supreme Court's final decision, I
will continue to do everything within my power to ensure that women can
have access to the care they need.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. Madam President, I also rise to speak about the need to
pass the Women's Health Protection Act. Certainly, the Senator from
Maryland outlined a very strong argument as to why this fundamental
protection, this fundamental right, needs to be protected.
We know right now that we may see the Supreme Court come out with a
decision to basically end Roe v. Wade and, in the process, end a
fundamental right that women in this country have had available to them
for 50 years.
We can hear all the arguments--and my colleagues will present an
awful lot of arguments tonight and tomorrow--as to why we need to pass
this act, but for me, this is personal, a personal experience that I
had, and it is an experience that, unfortunately, many, many families
have had. The fact is, as I have shared this story, I have been really
overwhelmed by people reaching out to me and saying that they, too,
have a very similar story and how my talking about it brought out their
willingness to share their experience as well. In addition to that,
they understand how important it is that we protect Roe v. Wade and we
protect the right for women to make critical decisions for themselves,
along with their doctor, and not have politics interfere with those
decisions.
My story involves my first wife. When we were married, she was
pregnant with a child whom we very much wanted. We were looking forward
to having a second child. In the fourth month, towards the end of the
fourth month, her water broke--clearly a very dangerous situation.
She went to go see her physician. Her physician examined her and
said: With this water breaking, the amniotic fluid has now left the
uterus. There is no way a baby can survive in this situation.
They examined her. There was a very faint heartbeat.
He said: There is a faint heartbeat here, but there is no way this
baby can survive.
He said: What I think will happen is you are going to have a
miscarriage. So
[[Page S2409]]
go home tonight, and you will have a miscarriage, and come in and see
me tomorrow.
Well, you can imagine the anguish, the horrible evening, and the
despair that she was in and I was in. It was a long, long night.
The next morning, nothing happened. She went back to the physician--
we went back to the physician. He examined her again and said: I am
really surprised. I don't know why you didn't miscarry because it is
clear that there is no way this baby can survive in this situation. The
amniotic fluid is gone; the cushion is gone.
He said: I don't think I can do anything because there is still a
faint heartbeat here. I don't know why there is still a faint
heartbeat. So go home again tonight. I think tonight is going to be the
night you have a miscarriage.
We went back again. It didn't happen--another horrible night--
horrible. The mental anguish is intense, and families who have gone
through this know exactly what I am talking about.
We went the next day, and, again, he examined her. He said: I can't
understand this, but this is going on. I am really worried that there
is going to be an infection here. There isn't the protection there. You
could go into septic shock. Your health is definitely endangered here.
The baby can't survive. Without the amniotic fluid, the cushion, the
baby could lose its limbs.
There were horrible, horrible, nightmarish kinds of thoughts in our
minds.
He said: I am going to go to the hospital, and I am going to say,
even though there is a faint heartbeat, this is a medical necessity,
that we have to do a D&C abortion here to protect your health and
potentially your life if we don't take care of this. So I will go to
the hospital. Go home, and I will call you and let you know when I can
bring you in.
Well, he called. I will never forget the voicemail that was left. He
said: I am really sorry to say this. I went to the hospital board. I
explained the medical necessity here, what you are going through, how
we have to take care of this because it could clearly be a serious
situation if you go into septic shock.
And the board said: No. As long as there is a faint heartbeat, you
can't perform the procedure.
Then he said: There is no reason for this decision from the hospital
board. It is not based on sound medicine. It is not based on medical
practice. It is not based on what is best for your health. This is
based on politics. Plain and simple, this is politics.
He goes: I am ashamed that this happened, and I am embarrassed I have
to call you and tell you I can't do it because the hospital will not
grant me privileges to do it.
He said: My advice to you is find a doctor now, immediately, that can
take care of this procedure.
Well, you can imagine how scary that is, how frightening that is; and
who do we call in that situation? We were fortunate in the fact that we
had a friend who was a hospital administrator at another hospital. He
got us in to see the gynecologist, OB-GYN at the hospital to examine
her. We went there.
He examined her and said: Oh, my gosh, I have to do this procedure
now. There is no more time. This is getting incredibly dangerous. We
have to do the D&C abortion.
He said: You are about to go--the infection is starting. It is going
to get worse. If I don't do this quickly, you are going to lose your
uterus. If we don't deal with it quickly, you could very well lose your
life with the infection that could occur here.
He immediately performed the procedure.
Just think of that. One, if we didn't have the opportunity to see
another doctor who was able to perform it and understood the severity
of it, my wife at the time, former wife, could have easily lost a
uterus, could have had significant health impacts, and could have lost
her life.
It just kept ringing in my mind what that doctor said: This is about
politics. This is not about good medical practice. This is not about
caring about someone's health and caring about their life; it was about
politics. And that is why we have to protect Roe v. Wade.
We have to protect the right for women to control their bodies, to
control their reproductive health. It cannot be a decision made by
politicians here in this body or other places. This is a real situation
that families face. As I mentioned, there was an outpouring of folks
who have come to me who had similar situations.
I think about Michigan right now. Michigan has a law on the books
that was written in 1931 that says all abortion is prohibited in our
State. It doesn't matter whether or not it involves the health of the
mother, it doesn't matter if it is the life of the mother, it doesn't
matter if a woman is the victim of rape or incest--it is just simply
not allowed. I think that is unconscionable. That is what will happen.
It is a real-life situation that could happen if the Court decides to
go forward and reverse Roe v. Wade. Situations like what my former wife
went through and families all across America would not be able to have
that kind of option.
If you think about the no exception for rape or incest, you will have
a 17-year-old girl in Michigan who is raped. She will have no options.
I know a majority of people in the United States believe that is
unacceptable. I know a majority of people in the United States believe
that women have the right to make these most personal, these most
intimate decisions themselves, with the advice of their physician or
whoever else that they want to consult.
This is not about politics. This is not about the opinions of folks
who think that they know better. Let's preserve the right of women to
do what they think is best.
That is why we have to pass the Women's Health Protection Act and why
I would urge all my colleagues to search their heart and listen to the
stories that people will tell them and understand that the right thing
to do is to protect reproductive freedoms and rights in America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, first, I want to thank my friend and
colleague, the Senator from Michigan, for coming to the floor to share
his own powerful and personal story and the stories of his constituents
about why so many of us are here on the Senate floor this evening, and
it is because 8 days ago, our country received a terrible wake-up call.
A leaked draft opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States
indicated that a majority of five Justices may be on the verge of
overturning the constitutional protections of reproductive freedom set
forth in Roe v. Wade.
We don't know if this draft opinion will be the final decision, but
we do know there is a very high chance that the Supreme Court of the
United States will soon blow up 50 years of precedent and strip women
of their constitutional right to make choices about their own body and
their own self-determination.
And while the content of this opinion is shocking, it is not totally
surprising. This is the premeditated outcome of years--years--of
plotting and planning by the rightwing legal movement and the
Republican Party.
Candidate Donald Trump promised the Nation he would handpick Justices
who would overturn Roe v. Wade. On the campaign trail, he even claimed
that Roe would be overturned ``immediately'' once he assumed office.
And he stated on national television that women who receive abortions
should be punished. Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans made up
their own rules and then broke their own rules in order to play their
part in this scheme.
First, Senate Republicans refused to even hold a hearing on President
Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, on the grounds that it
was a Presidential election year.
Four years later, Senate Republicans rushed through one of President
Trump's own Supreme Court nominees just weeks before the 2020 election.
And in between, Senate Republicans carved out an exception to the
Senate filibuster rule so they could push through all three of Trump's
anti-choice Supreme Court picks: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy
Coney Barrett.
Each of these nominees raised their right hand before the Senate
Judiciary Committee and swore under oath that they respected the weight
of judicial precedent. In fact, when Brett Kavanaugh was asked about
Roe v.
[[Page S2410]]
Wade, he pointed to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which affirmed the
core holding in Roe establishing a constitutional right to abortion,
and he called the decision in Casey ``precedent on precedent,'' a
double precedent.
But let's be very clear, this draft opinion has no respect for
judicial precedent. If the draft holds, all three of President Trump's
nominees to the Supreme Court, along with some others already on the
Bench, will have deliberately deceived and defrauded the American
public.
Rightwing ideologues set out to stack the Court with Justices ready
and willing to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Now, this rightwing establishment, this machinery, is on the verge of
achieving their goal, even though their win will be a horrible loss for
the reputation of the Supreme Court, a horrible loss for the integrity
of our Constitution, and most of all, a horrible loss for the American
people.
More than half of the women and girls of reproductive age in our
country live in States that would likely ban or severely restrict
abortion if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.
Thirteen States have so-called trigger laws that will kick into
effect automatically the day Roe is overturned. Nine States have passed
laws that were struck down in the past because they violated the
protections of Roe, but those laws could come back if Roe v. Wade is
overturned.
Many of these laws we are talking about are extreme. One trigger law
in Kentucky would ban all abortions at any point in pregnancy, with no
exceptions for rape, no exceptions for incest, or a situation in which
a child could be born with a fatal birth defect.
Another trigger law in Idaho would make providing an abortion at any
point in pregnancy and under almost any circumstances a felony crime
punishable by 5 years in prison. A Texas law that is on the books right
now would put doctors in jail or fine them up to $10,000 for
prescribing pills for medication abortions through telehealth or the
mail for women who are more than 7 weeks pregnant.
And a law that has been on the books since 1931 in Michigan would
snap back into effect, making nearly all abortions at any point in
pregnancy a felony. And women who undergo medication abortions would be
made felons, even in the case of rape and incest.
Just last week, State legislators in the Louisiana House advanced a
bill through committee that would allow women who obtain abortions at
any time in pregnancy to be prosecuted for murder--for murder.
Experts say that this extreme law could also be used to restrict
emergency contraception and in vitro fertilization, which is a critical
process that helps customers with infertility build their families.
Like many of our colleagues, I have been hearing from my
constituents, my constituents in the State of Maryland, who have
learned just how dangerous this situation is for women and families
across the country. One constituent named Connie shared her story of
taking emergency contraception after she was attacked and raped by a
stranger at the age of 18.
She told me about the importance of being able to make that choice
about her body and her future instead of potentially becoming pregnant
because of a rape. Today, Connie is a social worker, a therapist, and
has a wonderful son.
I have received other testimonials from constituents across the State
of Maryland who have shared their stories and expressed their deep
concern and fear about the Court striking down Roe v. Wade.
If Roe was overturned, women living in States where safe and legal
abortion is banned will have to travel away from their homes, away from
their communities, away from their families simply to exercise control
over their own bodies.
Those who lack the money or the time will either be forced to carry
an unwanted pregnancy to term or find somebody performing abortions in
the shadows in their States, a throwback to the dangerous back-alley
abortions.
In 1965, 8 years before the Roe v. Wade decision, illegal abortion
accounted for 17 percent--17 percent--of all deaths attributed to
pregnancy and childbirth. That past could soon be our present.
So, you see, this Supreme Court decision doesn't just turn back the
clock on precedent, it turns back the clock on public health as it
strips women of their reproductive freedoms.
And in a world where Roe has been overturned, as you drive across our
great country, your rights will change from State to State as you cross
each State border. That is the result of taking away a constitutional
right, and that is why polling shows the great majority of the American
people do not want the Supreme Court to take away the rights under Roe
v. Wade.
Now, I am proud to represent a State that has codified a woman's
right to reproductive choice. In fact, during my very first campaign
for public office, the right to reproductive choice was the defining
issue in my election to the Maryland General Assembly. It was another
time when there was great fear that a Supreme Court might overturn Roe
v. Wade.
And so I ran on the pro-choice ticket, and after I was sworn in, in a
matter of months, my colleagues and I passed a bill in 1991 codifying
Roe v. Wade as a matter of Maryland State law.
But here is the thing, laws like the one we have in Maryland, laws
like the one we passed back in 1991, will be on the chopping block if
this decades-long, rightwing project continues to go according to plan
because the Republicans' ultimate objective isn't just to overturn Roe
v. Wade; it is to enact a Federal law passed in this Senate and in the
House banning abortion nationwide.
Last week, Leader McConnell acknowledged that a national ban on
abortion was a real possibility during an interview with USA TODAY.
That should sound alarm bells all over America.
This has been a two-step process. Step No. 1, strike down the
constitutional protections of Roe v. Wade that prohibit elected
officials, whether it is State legislatures or in Congress, from
enacting laws that prohibit or restrict unnecessarily the right to
choose. That is step No. 1. It seems we are on the verge of that
happening.
Once you clear the way, step No. 2, enact a Federal law in Congress
banning abortion everywhere in the country, and we have seen exactly
how extreme those laws can be from the State examples I cited earlier.
That could happen here if this Republican, rightwing project sees its
logical end; that Federal law would supersede Maryland's law. If
Congress passed that law and it was enacted, State laws like those in
Maryland protecting the right to choose in Maryland would be knocked
off the books. That is true of other State laws, statutes, that protect
a woman's right to choose.
No woman in America would be safe to obtain a safe and legal abortion
if such a national law were enacted.
Now, everyone should also understand another huge danger posed by the
draft. Its flawed logic not only would dismantle the right to an
abortion, it could also be used to strip away other rights protected by
the Constitution.
I have read Justice Alito's draft opinion. I have read all 98 pages
of it.
In this opinion, Justice Alito tries to distinguish this case on
abortion from other cases involving other individual rights. Alito
claims that this case is special because it involves abortion and the
State's interest in protecting life, while other cases do not. Well,
that is obvious on its face, but it misses the bigger danger in Alito's
opinion.
Because it doesn't change the fact that Justice Alito's reasoning for
dismantling the right to obtain an abortion can be used to dismantle
many other rights that we currently take for granted as well. Justice
Alito claims that, even as you look at the entire Constitution, you
cannot find a right to choose for women; that you cannot derive that
from the Constitution.
In fact, on page 5 of the draft opinion, Justice Alito writes:
The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no
such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional
provision.
And if we follow Justice Alito's flawed logic, the same could be said
of a host of other rights that are not specifically named in the
Constitution. The Constitution doesn't have the word ``contraception''
in it. The Constitution doesn't talk about consenting adults engaged in
sexual relations.
[[Page S2411]]
Look, this is the thing: Over time, the Supreme Court has recognized
components of liberty through a close analysis of the Bill of Rights
and the 14th Amendment, and that includes the right to use
contraception, the right of consenting adults to have sexual relations
with who they choose, and the right to marry who you love.
These are rights the American people don't want elected officials to
take away, whether they are State legislatures or Members of the Senate
or the House. But they are all at peril too if the logic of Alito's
reasoning is played out. And the terrible irony--the terrible irony--
here is those who most claim to oppose government regulations of any
kind are now the ones rushing to regulate the most intimate, personal,
and private aspects of American life. They say they don't want
government having any role in their life--get out of my way--except for
when it comes to them taking away this right and planning to pass laws
that would ban abortion nationally, and as I said, open the door to
going after other liberties as well.
So those are the stakes that we are facing as we gather here this
evening in anticipation of tomorrow's vote. And that is why we are
taking this vote tomorrow. That is why we need to pass the Women's
Health Protection Act, but even if we fall short this time, having a
vote now is important. It is important to the country. Democracy
requires accountability, and it is important that the American people
know where each of the Senators stands on this issue. It is a
fundamental question.
So as we move into November toward the midterm elections, the
American people will be watching closely how Members of this body vote
on this fundamental constitutional question. And they will look to see
who voted to strip away constitutional rights and who rose to protect
them. And I believe that the majority of this country--the overwhelming
majority of this country--wants to stand up to protect fundamental
liberties in the Constitution of the United States.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I will probably get in trouble with
somebody for saying this, but the question of when life begins, the
deeper question of what defines life, which biological entities are
alive or possess independent existence versus which biological entities
are simply part of something else that is alive--man, those are really
hard questions.
I heard my colleague Senator Daines on the floor earlier tonight
talking passionately about his belief that life begins at conception
and that humans have an obligation to defend a day-old fetus equally to
our obligation to defend the life of someone who has been born.
Now, I disagree. I believe that life begins at birth. I believe that
our legal obligation towards a born human is different than our legal
obligation toward an unborn fetus. But on that narrow question of when
life begins, I don't cast any particular judgment on Senator Daines for
believing what he believes. His belief system is shared by millions of
Americans--not the majority of Americans, but a significant share.
This disagreement that he and I have over when legally protected life
begins, though, is as significant and as important a disagreement as
exists--right--because it is about the most foundational questions in
human existence: What is life? Who decides whether a woman bears a
child? Who has control over that woman's body? Who has control over the
most sacred and critical function of a human being, the act of giving
birth? It just doesn't get any more important than that set of
questions.
And given this fundamental disagreement, given the weightiness of
these questions, given the large number of Americans who sit on either
side of these questions, I come to one simple conclusion: No
government, no group of politicians, should make this decision for
anyone else. This decision about whether to abort a pregnancy, so
morally complicated, so socially divisive, should and must be left to
individuals--in this case, to women--to decide.
Over the course of history, millions have died in fights over another
weighty moral issue--the question of whether God exists, and if a God
exists, exactly what form that being takes and what it requires of
humans. Disputes over religion have eradicated entire civilizations.
What does this have to do with Roe v. Wade?
Well, our Founding Fathers decided that there were some topics that
were so personal, so subject to disagreement and controversy, that
government should just be barred from registering judgment.
That is part of the reason why our civilization has not been plagued
by wars between religious groups--a reality that continues to paralyze
societies to this day in other parts of the world--because we keep
government out of the question of which God is the right God. That is
up to every American to decide for themselves, even though many
Americans believe that the consequence of observing or following the
wrong God is serious--eternal damnation, for some. The stakes are huge
when it comes to religion, but government sits on the sidelines.
To me, that is an imperfect but instructive corollary to the debate
over choice and abortion. The decision about whether to have an
abortion is so personal, and the lack of consensus in the country on
the question is so unavoidable, as to make government intervention just
as illegitimate as it would be if government tried to dictate to
someone which religion they should follow.
Now, that is not the exact route that the Supreme Court traveled to
get to the Roe decision, but it helps me understand why, from 1973
until today, the decision about whether or not to have an abortion has
been a constitutional right of the individual, not the constitutional
right of the government to decide.
Frankly, it has always been really hard for me to square how
Republicans, who so readily evangelize about small government, about
the importance of putting families and their decision-making processes
first, about the evil of public sector overreach, are so enthusiastic
about the government micromanaging personal decisions about pregnancy
or marriage or adoption.
Small government is great, I guess, for corporations, but it is not
so great when it comes to the most intimate decisions that families
make.
And as I have said on this floor before, it is also hard to take
seriously Republicans' passionate pleas for this body to defend the
existence of an unborn fetus when they seem to care so little about
many of the existential threats that are posed to every American after
they are born.
Today, this day, over 100 Americans are going to die from gunshot
wounds, from murders, and suicides. And whether my Republican
colleagues agree with me or not that stricter gun laws is part of the
solution to this uniquely American epidemic that plagues those that are
born, I don't know that I have ever heard a Republican speech dedicated
to this crisis on the floor of the Senate. I have heard dozens
dedicated to the cause of those before birth. It seems that after
birth, life matters a little bit less to some people in this body.
So that is what I think. And as I said, I will probably get into some
hot water for admitting that I understand the arguments that people
like Senator Daines make. I don't agree with his views, but I
understand them. And my hope is, is that as we begin this debate over
the future of reproductive choice and health in this country, as this
debate heats up--because it is not going away. We are taking a vote
tomorrow, but this is a debate that is going to consume this Nation if
the Alito opinion becomes law, which I believe it will.
My hope is that we are honest about the complexity of this debate,
but the Republicans are equally honest in the claims that they make.
Let me just briefly tell you what I mean.
Today, I heard Republican Senators making a whole bunch of claims
that are just so ungrounded in truth as to diminish the quality of what
should be a very important debate on a very weighty subject.
For instance, I heard Senators make the claim that the protesters who
were protesting outside or near Supreme Court Justices' homes
threatened violence against those Justices. That was
[[Page S2412]]
an explicit claim made by people who came down to this floor who might
have heard it on some unreputable website, but it is not true.
You can object to protesters being outside of public officials'
homes. It has happened to all of us, by the way, but don't make up
threats of violence just because it makes for a better story.
I heard one Senator say that the Women's Health Protection Act, for
which I will proudly vote tomorrow, allows for garage abortions. That
is not true. That is just plainly not true.
Every State requires that abortions be performed in licensed
healthcare facilities and nothing in the bill changes it. Don't say
that just because it makes a better story.
Many Republicans claim that the bill we are taking up tomorrow allows
abortions up to the date of birth. That is not true either.
The Women's Health Protection Act does codify Roe v. Wade, but Roe
only protects a woman's right to have an abortion without restriction
until viability and then afterward protects for the woman's health or
risk of death. The bill simply does not expand the circumstances under
which an abortion can be performed beyond what currently exists in case
law.
So I am going to be honest with my colleagues about the admitted
complexities--the political, moral complexities of this debate. But I
expect opponents of the bill that we are debating tomorrow to be
equally honest in the arguments they make as well.
So I will have a lot more to say about this topic as we begin what I
think is a debate that will consume this Nation, rightfully, over the
course of the coming weeks and months, but for today I will leave it
there.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
____________________