[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 69 (Thursday, May 16, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3553-S3555]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUESTS--S. RES. 133 and 134

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 133; that 
the Senate proceed to its consideration; that the resolution be agreed 
to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be made 
and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I 
wish to point out that the incident that led to this resolution--the 
Kermit Gosnell prosecution--indeed resulted in a successful 
prosecution. He was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder 
and one count of involuntary manslaughter. That case is closed. The 
criminal justice system has done its part, and the three life sentences 
without the possibility of parole means that the interests there--the 
very important public interests--will be served and he will never again 
harm women, infants or anyone else through his version of medical 
practice, that distorted and unfortunate betrayal of trust that he 
called a medical practice.
  We need very much to focus on the kind of abuse of trust--unsanitary, 
abusive, unsafe medical practices--across this country, no matter what 
kind of procedure is involved, and that is the reason I think this 
resolution is too narrow in its focus on violations of the standard of 
medical care when they occur in medical practice, which most certainly 
was involved in the Gosnell case and involved, unfortunately, in 
thousands of cases across the country every year.
  As Senators, we have a responsibility to focus on that betrayal of 
trust and care when it occurs. That is the reason I have offered a 
resolution--S. Res. 134--to express the sense of the Senate that all 
incidents of abusive, unsanitary, illegal, unhealthful medical 
practices should be condemned and prevented, and the perpetrators 
should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as Gosnell was.
  There are, unfortunately, many instances already publicly disclosed 
of these abuses of standards, and one of them, for example, I cited on 
the floor just very recently--last week. I remind my colleagues of the 
Oklahoma dentist who exposed as many as 7,000 patients to the HIV and 
hepatitis B and C viruses through unsanitary practices. So far, 60 of 
his patients have tested positive for these viruses. Those are 60 
people who trusted a health care provider in a position of authority to 
provide safe, quality care. Those patients now face life-threatening 
diseases. In Nevada, practitioners at an endoscopy center exposed 
40,000 patients to hepatitis C through their unsanitary practices, 
which went on for years. My resolution speaks to these kinds of 
abuses--unsafe, unsanitary practices--no matter what the medical 
procedure involved may be. So I urge my colleagues to support my 
resolution, and I do object to the proposed resolution of the Senator 
from Utah.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be 
discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 134, and the Senate 
proceed to its consideration; that the resolution be agreed to, the 
Blumenthal amendment to the preamble, which is at the desk, be agreed 
to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, and the motions to 
reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the request of the 
Senator from Utah.
  Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Connecticut?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Reserving the right to object, the kind of abuse, the kind 
of betrayal of trust described in the resolution proposed by my friend 
and my colleague from Connecticut is different in kind from that 
described in my resolution. The kind of abuse involved in my resolution 
involves the intentional taking, the first-degree premeditated murder 
of a human life. I think that deserves its own consideration, and on 
that basis I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. If I may respond to my friend's remarks--and I 
certainly not only sympathize with his motivation but also with the 
result--I just think it is too narrow a result--to investigate one form 
of medical practice, no matter how egregious the violation of standard 
of care may be. In this instance, it involved murder. We can say it 
now, no longer with the word ``alleged'' before murder, as we did last 
week. It is now proven. It is heinous and unacceptable. But so are the 
practices that involve exposing patients to very severe illnesses; and, 
likewise, the nursing home director in California who inappropriately 
administered an antipsychotic medicine to residents simply for 
convenience and which resulted in the death of one patient. Those kinds 
of practices may be equally egregious in the results and impact they 
cause, and my resolution would be broader and more inclusive and fairer 
not only to those victims' families--and I want to express my sympathy 
to the families of those victims who were so deeply and irreparably 
harmed by Gosnell--but also with the families and victims of other 
kinds of medical malpractice and to respect the States that have an 
independent responsibility to ensure adherence with those standards of 
care and ought to have the ability to enforce their laws, which might 
be impeded by the resolution that has been offered by my friend from 
Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I rise to ask my colleagues once again to 
join me in expressing the sense of the Senate that governments at all 
levels have a compelling interest in preventing and punishing the 
practices of late-term abortions under unsafe, unsanitary, and illegal 
circumstances.
  It seems as though every day we find new evidence that this problem 
is much bigger than we could have feared previously. Earlier this week, 
of course, Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell was convicted on 
three counts of first-degree murder for severing the spines of newborn 
infants, and one count of involuntary manslaughter for the death of a 
pregnant mother who came to see Dr. Gosnell for care.
  The shocking details of the Gosnell case have, despite the best 
efforts of

[[Page S3554]]

the mainstream media to cover it up, become national news. The abortion 
industry has spun into action, trying to isolate and condemn Gosnell as 
an aberration. Planned Parenthood cited Gosnell's ``appalling crimes.'' 
NARAL called him a ``butcher.'' On this very floor last week, Gosnell's 
actions were decried by pro-choice Senators as ``reprehensible'' and 
``an outrage . . . a violation of everything we hold dear.''
  But Kermit Gosnell has only been sentenced to life in prison and 
condemned as a monster for doing things for which--had he done them 
just a few seconds earlier or a few centimeters in a different 
direction--those same voices might have hailed him as a hero and not as 
a monster.
  Remember, President Obama himself, while serving in the State 
legislature of Illinois, voted against legislation that would have 
protected the civil and constitutional rights of infants--human 
beings--born alive.
  At a recent hearing in the Florida State Legislature, a Planned 
Parenthood representative refused even to acknowledge that newborn 
babies have the right to life. In recent weeks, undercover videos have 
caught abortion clinics around the country casually offering to kill 
infants born alive. Just this week, evidence emerged about similar 
abuses at a clinic in Texas.
  This has nothing to do with health care or even with medical 
negligence but with murder--a war on women and children waged under the 
guise of legitimate health care.
  As much as we might want to agree that Kermit Gosnell is an 
aberration, recent revelations, indeed, suggest otherwise. A mounting 
body of evidence seems to suggest that at least among some late-term 
abortion providers and advocates, the immorality of infanticide may be 
an open question.
  The abortion industry's defense of late-term abortion has always been 
based on a rejection of innate human dignity. How could it be 
otherwise? But as technology advances, their case for late-term 
abortion increasingly rejects medical science as well.
  We now know as a scientific fact that unborn children, after about 20 
weeks of development, can feel pain. We know Dr. Gosnell's victims 
squirmed and cried before he severed their spinal cords, and we know 
that every day medical technology progresses our abortion laws fall 
further behind the science.
  It is a tragedy all on its own that even today our laws defining 
human life depend more on geography than biology. The unsettling 
question before us now is: Has an industry whose profits have always 
depended on dehumanizing unborn children gone even further and 
dehumanized children born alive too?
  The case of Kermit Gosnell, the undercover videos, and recent clinic 
scandals around the country all hint at a terrifying answer. Yet right 
now we just don't know. My resolution would call on governments at all 
levels to find out--to find out what the late-term abortion industry is 
up to and to take any appropriate and necessary measures to prevent and 
punish abusive, unsanitary, and illegal practices.
  Some might say this resolution is a symbolic gesture, and I and 
others have introduced more concrete legislation. Perhaps. But even so, 
symbols are themselves important. It is important that the strong stand 
for the weak; that we, in the world's greatest deliberative body, lend 
our voices to the voiceless; that we, representatives of the most 
powerful Nation on Earth, promise to protect the weakest, most 
innocent, and most vulnerable among us and punish those who would do 
our children harm.
  Mr. CRUZ. Would the Senator from Utah yield for a question?
  Mr. LEE. Yes, I would.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I wish to ask a question but will start by 
laying a predicate and ask the Senator's views on that predicate.
  I rise to support the resolution offered by Senator Lee calling upon 
the Senate to investigate and hold hearings about the late-term 
abortion practices in this country.
  This is especially important given the fact we are seeing allegations 
of similar conduct to that of Dr. Gosnell potentially being performed 
in other locations across the country. Indeed, there have been 
allegations of similar conduct in my hometown of Houston, TX, which I 
understand are being investigated by the local district attorney and 
other authorities and that need to be fully and thoroughly 
investigated.
  The crimes committed by Dr. Gosnell are almost unspeakable. The harm 
inflicted to the mothers and to the babies who were born alive and had 
their lives willingly extinguished--unthinkable. The actions detailed 
in the grand jury report depict a house of horrors.

  Knowing what we know now about what happened, everyone in this body 
should be supporting conducting an investigation to make sure there are 
not other Dr. Kermit Gosnells across this country. We need to make sure 
it is not happening to other unsuspecting mothers, that other newborn 
babies are not being murdered as they were in Dr. Gosnell's clinic.
  Specifically this resolution states:

       Congress and States should gather information about and 
     correct abusive, unsanitary and illegal abortion practices 
     and the interstate referral of women and girls to facilities 
     engaged in dangerous or illegal second- or third-trimester 
     procedures.

  This body should be concerned what referrals were made to Dr. Gosnell 
and who else might be performing these late-term abortions in such 
horrific conditions.
  This resolution goes on to say:

       Congress has the responsibility to investigate and conduct 
     hearings on abortions performed near, at, or after viability 
     in the United States, public policies regarding such, and 
     evaluate the extent to which such abortions involve 
     violations of the natural right to life of infants who are 
     born alive or are capable of being born alive and therefore 
     are entitled to equal protection under the law.

  In my judgment this is a resolution everyone should support. Everyone 
who proclaims himself or herself to be a champion for women and 
children should enthusiastically support this resolution.
  Many of these late-term abortion clinics serve under-privileged 
populations. Anyone who proclaims himself a champion dedicated to 
helping the most vulnerable should be supporting this resolution. The 
Senate has an obligation to conduct oversight.
  Planned Parenthood, the Nation's largest abortion provider in 2001 
performed 333,964 abortions in the United States. From 2011 to 2012, 
Planned Parenthood received 45 percent of its revenue from taxpayer-
funded sources. Almost half of its income comes from the taxpayer. This 
body has an obligation to make sure there are not other Gosnell houses 
of horror practicing today.
  The conditions described in the grand jury report shock the 
conscience. They describe how doctors and nurses worked without proper 
licenses.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Utah has expired.
  Mr. CRUZ. My question to the Senator is, does he see how any Senator 
of good faith, given these facts, could oppose this resolution?
  Mr. LEE. I ask unanimous consent I be given 60 seconds to answer the 
question and then I will yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, in short, in response to the question from 
my colleague from Texas, I do find it difficult to understand why 
anyone would oppose this resolution. I also find it difficult to 
understand how this can be put on the same plate--as serious as other 
kinds of abuses are, as serious as other acts of medical malpractice 
may be, this one is different. This is about premeditated first degree 
murder of the most defenseless, most vulnerable people in our society, 
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Again, I renew my objection. Let me say, my two 
colleagues have made excellent closing arguments to the Gosnell jury. I 
would expect that to be the case since they are two well-trained, 
excellent lawyers. But the Gosnell case is over. It is done. He has 
been sentenced--or he will be shortly. These kinds of abuses ought to 
arouse outrage wherever and whenever they occur. Anytime, anywhere a 
doctor endangers a patient in violating standards of care, we ought to 
condemn them. So I urge my colleagues to join

[[Page S3555]]

me in the outrage I feel about the dentist in Oklahoma or the endoscopy 
center in Nevada or the nursing home director in California. In any 
case where prosecution is appropriate, an investigation should be done 
properly by State authorities who have jurisdiction, and they should 
condemn such practices. I ask them to join me in resolution S. 134.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator 
from Oklahoma, recognizing that he has other accommodations he has to 
deal with. I ask unanimous consent I be granted up to 4 minutes to 
speak after the Senator from Oklahoma completes his comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask the Chair if I am correct when I say after comments 
by the Senator from Virginia, the senior Senator from Texas will be 
recognized?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

                          ____________________