[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 137 (Tuesday, September 22, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6860-S6864]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 36, which the
clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 230, H.R. 36, a bill to
amend title 18, United States Code, to protect pain-capable
unborn children, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11
a.m. will be equally divided between the leaders or their designees.
The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to address the issue before
the Senate. It relates to the divisive and controversial issue of
abortion. It comes at an unusual moment in the history of the Congress.
This week, for the first time, the Pope will be addressing a joint
session of Congress. It was 50 years ago when the first Pope visited
the United States. The arrival of Pope Francis this week is a cause of
great celebration to people from my State of Illinois and across this
Nation because of their respect for his leadership of the Catholic
Church. It calls to question, of course, the relationship between
religion and our government.
This summer I finished a book called ``Mayflower,'' which told the
story of the Pilgrims coming to the United States, settling in in our
country, looking for a new opportunity but looking more than anything
for freedom of religious belief. They were followed by scores and
thousands of others who came for the same reason.
My mother was an immigrant to this country, brought here at the age
of 2. Her mother brought her and her sister and brother to our shores
for a variety of reasons. But there is one thing that sticks out in
that journey. Up in my office I have something that my grandmother
carried across the ocean from Lithuania to the United States. It was a
Roman Catholic prayer book written in Lithuanian. It was contraband in
1911 in Lithuania for her to possess it because the Russians were in
control and the Russians were imposing the orthodox religion and making
it difficult to practice the Catholic religion. I never knew my
grandmother, but she was one brave lady to bring three kids across the
ocean and stick in her bag that prayer book which meant so much to her,
that prayer book which she could use in the United States of America
without the government telling her she could not.
We have tried to strike the right balance between religion and our
democracy from the beginning. I believe our Founding Fathers got it
right. They said three things in the Constitution about religion:
first, that each of us would have the freedom to worship as we choose
or to choose not to worship; second, that the government would not
choose a religion and that we would not have an official government
religion; and third, that there would be no religious test for public
office in America.
I thought those were settled principles, but this Presidential
campaign suggests otherwise. We had the outrageous suggestion by a
Republican Presidential candidate this last weekend that a Muslim
should never serve as President of the United States. I would think
that a man of his background and learning would at least take the time
to understand our Constitution and the express provision which says
that he is wrong, that there will never by a religious litmus test to
serve in public office in the United States.
[[Page S6861]]
And now, this week on the floor of the Senate, we will have two votes
on the issue of abortion. There was a time when this issue came before
us frequently--not so much lately. It is a divisive and controversial
issue; that is for sure. But this week the Republican Senate leadership
has allowed two of their Presidential candidates to raise this issue on
the floor of the Senate. It is no coincidence this issue comes before
us the same week the Pope, the leader of the Catholic Church, will be
addressing a joint session of Congress. It is more than a coincidence.
This particular bill relates to when a person can terminate a
pregnancy. For 47 years, if I am not mistaken--maybe I have that
calculation slightly wrong--we have had Supreme Court guidance on when
the government can play a role in the decision about the termination of
a pregnancy. Now there is an effort on the floor of the Senate to
change that basic guidance from the Roe v. Wade decision. Each time we
step into this question, into something which seems as clear as ``at 20
weeks we will draw a line and after that there cannot be a legal
termination of pregnancy,'' we find we are walking into an area of
uncertainty.
I remember meeting many years ago, when we were debating this issue,
a woman from Illinois. She was from the town of Naperville. In 1996 she
told me a harrowing story of how legislation such as the bill before us
would have impacted her. She learned late in her pregnancy that the
child she was carrying could not survive outside the womb. Her doctors
diagnosed her baby with at least nine major anomalies, including a
fluid-filled cranium with no brain tissue. Sadly, she also had
underlying medical conditions--personal conditions--that complicated
her pregnancy even more. Doctors were concerned that if she went
through with the pregnancy at that point, she ran the risk of never
having another baby. With tears in her eyes, she told me how she and
her husband agonized over the news and eventually decided it was best
for them and their other children to terminate that pregnancy.
If the bill before us today--the 20-week abortion bill--had been the
law of the land back then, sadly it would have jeopardized and
endangered her health.
Well, 18 years later she came back to see me. I learned she was able
to do what was best for her family in terminating that pregnancy. That
was her decision with her doctor and her husband. But she was given a
second chance. Soon after, she became pregnant again. This time she was
thankful to give birth to a healthy baby boy. When she came to see me,
she told me about her son Nick. She said he had become a star football
player and had a bright future ahead of him.
If this bill had been the law of the land, this woman in Illinois--
and others like her--would not even have had the choice to terminate a
pregnancy for her own health protection and for the opportunity to have
another baby. That is the challenge we face when we try to spell out in
law all of the medical possibilities, limiting opportunities and
decisions to be made by individuals under the most heartbreaking
circumstances.
This bill has other issues. The fact that the rape and incest
exceptions, which have largely been built into the law to this point,
would be changed dramatically by this law raises questions as well.
There is a requirement, as I understand it, in this law that victims of
incest would have had to report to a law enforcement agency that crime
of incest before they would even be able to terminate a pregnancy under
these circumstances. That is not even realistic--to think some young
child in a household, who has been exploited by another member of the
family, would think to go to a law enforcement agency and report that
other member of her family before they could qualify to terminate a
pregnancy in this circumstance.
That shows the extremes this bill goes to. I hope we will defeat this
measure. I sincerely hope the other Republican Presidential candidate,
who is going to try to shut down the government over the funding of
Planned Parenthood later in the week, does not prevail either. We need
to move on to find other issues--not divisive issues but issues we can
build a bipartisan consensus on to make this a stronger country.
We need to address the issue of funding our government and to accept
the responsibilities to move forward in a bipartisan fashion. This bill
does not do that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before we vote on whether to proceed to
H.R. 36, I want to respond to a couple of arguments made by a
Democratic Senator yesterday.
First, that Democratic Senator quoted Hal Lawrence of the American
Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for the proposition that a
20-week fetus is not viable. The American Congress of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, the group Dr. Lawrence represents, has long opposed this
legislation.
According to the Senator I am confronting on this issue, Dr. Lawrence
said the following on May 13, 2015:
In no way, shape or form is a 20-week fetus viable. There
is no evidence anywhere of a 20-week fetus surviving, even
with intensive medical care.
But as explained by the Washington Post Fact Checker of May 26 of
this year, Dr. Lawrence's statement is simply incorrect when applied to
H.R. 36. The bill uses a method of calculating fetal age that is based
on the day that fertilization actually occurred. The legislation would
protect the unborn beginning at 20 weeks after fertilization, which is
the same as 22 weeks of pregnancy, also known as 22-week gestational
age. Gestational age is a measure of calculating the unborn baby's age
that relies on the date of the mother's last normal menstrual period.
It is well established that babies can survive at 22-week gestational
age. As noted in the Washington Post, for example: ``That babies can
survive at 22 weeks gestational age has been known for 15 years.''
Perhaps Dr. Lawrence was confused about what H.R. 36 would
accomplish. The Washington Post Fact Checker article sets the record
straight.
Second, the Senator I am referring to said earlier that abortions
past 20-week fetal age are extraordinarily rare. Some jurisdictions
with the most lax abortion policies don't even collect data on the
stage of pregnancy when an abortion is performed, while other
jurisdictions may have reporting requirements but are not really
enforcing those reporting requirements. Because data on late-term
abortions is not widely available, it is hard to know what hard
evidence really exists to support the claim. We do know that several
hundred doctors, and well over 200 facilities across the United States,
offer abortions after 20 weeks of fetal age.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the Washington Post article I earlier referred to.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, May 26, 2015]
Setting the Record Straight on Measuring Fetal Age and the `20-Week
Abortion'
(By Michelle Ye Hee Lee)
``In no way, shape or form is a 20-week fetus viable.
There's no evidence of a 20-week fetus surviving, even with
intensive medical care.''--American Congress of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists Executive Vice President Hal Lawrence,
quoted in a news article, May 13, 2015
Several readers requested The Fact Checker to examine
claims related to the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection
Act, recently passed by the House. This bill is commonly
referred to as the ``20-week abortion ban.''
The abortion debate is fraught with rhetoric that cannot be
easily fact-checked. But a reader pointed us to the quote
above and asked whether a new study on the viability of 22-
week fetuses can be applied to 20-week fetuses, when using a
different method to count gestational age. To add to the
confusion, states vary in their definitions for gestational
age. The quote above is one example of several instances in
recent media coverage that related to definitions of
gestational age.
This is a technical, but important, part of the bill. The
little-known difference between two methods of counting
gestational age is contributing to inconsistent media
coverage, and could mislead the public, parents and providers
about the bill's provisions.
So what exactly is going on?
The Facts
The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act bans late-term
abortions after the midpoint of a woman's pregnancy, and
before the fetus typically is considered viable to live
outside of the womb. The age of viability has
[[Page S6862]]
been pegged at 24 to 28 weeks. Proponents argue an abortion
ban at younger than 24 weeks, saying fetuses can feel pain
before then--a claim based in complex science and disputed by
the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
(Supporters point to various studies related to fetal
development, compiled here.)
A new study published in the New England Journal of
Medicine on May 7 examined how hospitals differ in whether
and how they treat extremely premature babies, starting at 22
weeks. Proponents of the bill say this study, funded by the
National Institutes of Health, shows that the babies who
would be saved through the 20-week abortion ban could now be
considered viable. Some media reports also echoed the same
conclusions.
Sound confusing? The distinction is this: The bill defines
the age of the fetus as ``post-fertilization age,''
calculated from the moment of conception. This is different
from the widely-accepted definition used by medical
professionals and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, counting the fetus age from the first day of the
pregnant woman's last menstrual period (``LMP'').
Fertilization typically happens about two weeks after the
first day of LMP. The idea is that it is difficult to know
exactly when you became pregnant, but you know when you
started your last period. That is why the bill's supporters
say the 20-week age measured from fertilization essentially
is the LMP-measured age of 22 weeks.
The bill's definition is a more technical and accurate
measure, said Michael Woeste, House Judiciary Committee
spokesman. He noted an excerpt in The Developing Human:
Clinically Oriented Embryology, arguing that the LMP method
is error prone partly because ``it depends on the mother's
memory of an event that occurred several weeks before she
realized she was pregnant'' and that ``the day fertilization
occurs is the most accurate reference point for estimating
age.''
Lawrence's quote at the top of this fact check comes from a
statement during a recent media call. (The American Congress
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, or ACOG, opposed the
bill.) He was referring to the 20-week LMP age, not the 20-
week post-fertilization age.
The rest of his statement during the call explains his
point further and how it ties in with the legislation (and
also wrote an op-ed about it in Time):
``Now, I'd like to talk a bit about why supporters of a 20-
week abortion ban are, quite simply, wrong. There is no
medical milestone associated with 20 weeks. Gestation is a
gradual process, and it can vary depending on the
circumstances, such as the woman's health.
``But still, even accounting for this, the 20-week mark is
just not notable from a fetal development standpoint. More
than 40 years ago, the Supreme Court stipulated that abortion
is legal until a fetus is viable. Well, in no way, shape or
form is a 20-week fetus viable. There is no evidence anywhere
of a 20-week fetus surviving, even with intensive medical
care.
``Unfortunately, some advocates of abortion bans are
pointing to a new study, just published last week, that they
claim heralds 22 weeks as being the new point of viability.
They suggest that we might someday reach viability at 20
weeks. It is essential that we address that now, before this
becomes another myth about abortion that is accepted as
reality.''
We spoke with the main authors of the study, Matthew Rysavy
and Dr. Edward Bell of University of Iowa. They collected
data for nearly 5,000 infants born between 22 and 27 weeks of
gestation (using LMP method) and did not have abnormalities
at birth. These babies are extremely pre-term, as full term
is considered at 39 to 40 weeks, according to ACOG
guidelines.
Researchers found that 22 percent of the babies born at 22
weeks received active treatment, and hospitals varied in
their whether and how they gave treatment to babies born
between 22 and 27 weeks. There were 78 babies born at 22
weeks who received aggressive treatment. Among them, 18 of
them survived (23 percent) to toddler age. Seven (9 percent)
of them did not have severe or moderate impairment by the
time they were toddlers.
That babies can survive at 22 weeks is not a new finding;
it has been known for 15 years, Rysavy said. The point of the
study was to highlight differences in practices and outcomes
between hospitals, he said. Many factors, including
gestational age, influence how well a baby does: ``Our paper
wasn't exactly intended for identifying which infants would
do well.''
The Fact Checker asked if, using the ``post-fertilization''
age definition in the bill, their findings can carry over to
babies at 20 weeks old from the point of conception. Bell and
Rysavy said that would be ``terribly confusing'' to the
public, pregnant women and even to politicians. Bell said the
LMP method is used around the world, and that the time of
conception accurately cannot be ascertained.
``You cannot redefine gestational age based on conception.
. . . The new terms are politician terms. They have no
relevance at all to medicine or biology. They're just going
to confuse everybody,'' Bell said. ``They have the right to
do that for the purpose of making laws, but to me, it just
looks like an attempt to obfuscate and create confusion. We
already have a well-established definition of the length of
pregnancy that has worked just fine, for generations, has
been used forever.''
Rysavy also sent us this diagram, of the American Academy
of Pediatrics' terminology for age during the perinatal
period:
ACOG recommends using LMP and updating the due date with
other measures, such as ultrasounds, since women may have
irregular cycles and there is variability in how long a
fertilized egg becomes implanted in the uterus (thus
beginning pregnancy). Lawrence, in a statement, said: ``The
fact that federal legislation is basing restrictions on
reproductive care based on a non-medical calculation of
pregnancy is evidence of what happens when lawmakers try to
legislate women's health.''
The Bottom Line
New research confirmed that 22-week fetuses, measured from
the first day of the pregnant woman's last menstrual cycle,
can survive. Babies born before that age did not survive. So,
Lawrence is correct that 20-week fetuses, measured from the
first day of the pregnant woman's last menstrual cycle, are
not viable. He is incorrect when using the definition in the
Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
The Fact Checker takes no stance on which definition should
be used. However, we want to set the record straight for the
public and the media. This is a technical point over how
gestational age is calculated. But it is important, as it has
contributed to some misleading headlines, lack of context in
news coverage and general confusion in the public debate. It
also has contributed to the rhetoric on both sides; the
difference between the two definitions has not been clear in
much of the news reporting.
In many way, the debate is similar to how budget figures
can vary dramatically depending on the baseline that is used.
Reporters need to specify exactly what method of measuring
the pregnancy is being used, as the difference is not
trivial.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am opposed to late-term abortions and
would support legislation to ban them except in unusual circumstances.
A carefully drawn, short list of exceptions to apply in those rare
cases should have been included in this bill. Regrettably, the bill
before us provides no exception for when the physical health of the
mother is at risk of serious harm, the most glaring deficiency in this
legislation.
Let me give just three examples of devastating conditions that could
threaten the physical health of a pregnant woman. An extremely serious
condition triggered by pregnancy in some women is preeclampsia, which
tends to develop after the 20th week of pregnancy. This condition can
lead to serious, long-term health consequences for a woman, including
liver and kidney problems, vision disturbances, seizures and strokes.
Another example would be a woman diagnosed with cancer who requires
chemotherapy and radiation but cannot be treated while pregnant. A
massive infection, such as severe sepsis, is yet another case of a
grave illness that could cause grievous harm for a pregnant woman and
to her physical health.
Almost every country in Europe that limits late-term abortions allows
for exceptions for the physical health of the mother. Like these
European countries, States such as Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and others that ban late-term abortions provide
an exception for the health as well as the life of the woman. But the
bill before us does not.
I have advocated that we add language that would provide an exception
when the woman is at serious risk of grievous injury to her physical
health. This is an appropriately high standard to meet, but one that
would allow a woman to terminate her pregnancy when the alternative is
serious harm to her physical health.
Under this bill, a doctor who performs such an abortion after 20
weeks to prevent grievous physical injury to the pregnant woman would
be subject to criminal penalties of up to 5 years in prison.
Do we really want to make a criminal out of a physician who is trying
to prevent a woman with preeclampsia from suffering damage to her
kidneys or liver or having a stroke or seizures? Do we want the threat
of prison for a doctor who knows that his pregnant patient needs
chemotherapy or radiation treatments? If a woman has the terrible
misfortune to have a serious infection of amniotic fluid that threatens
her physical health and her ability to have children in the future, do
we want her doctor to be unable to perform an abortion because he faces
the prospect of years in prison if he terminates her pregnancy?
[[Page S6863]]
The way the rape and incest exceptions to this bill are drafted is
also problematic. I do not question the good motives of the sponsors of
this bill, as I share their goal of prohibiting late-term abortions. My
point, however, is that all of these language problems could be solved,
and then we might well be able to enact a law that would accomplish the
goal of ending late-term abortions except in those unusual cases where
an exception is warranted. Therefore, I shall cast my vote in
opposition to this well-meaning but flawed bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I am a proud pro-life Senator, and I stand
on the floor of the Senate today with a gnawing feeling in the pit of
my stomach. It is a feeling that comes with the knowledge that over the
past 40 years more than 50 million Americans have not had the chance to
have their feet touch the soil of our country. That is why I am
thankful for the opportunity we have this week here in the Senate--an
opportunity to celebrate life and to protect life, God's most amazing
gift of all.
I am proud to have joined my colleague and senior Senator from my
State, Lindsey Graham, in introducing this version of the pain-capable
legislation in the Senate.
The studies are very, very clear that this legislation can save more
than 18,000 lives each and every year. That is right, 18,000 lives each
and every year. We aren't talking about anything other than the results
of sound science. And because of that sound science, we know that at
approximately 5 months babies can feel pain. We know that if a baby
were to need prenatal surgery at that age, they would be given
anesthesia. Why? Because that little life--that little life--feels
pain.
Yesterday, Senator Blunt gave name after name after name of babies
born around 5 months who have gone on to live healthy and full lives.
This is not about pro-choice or pro-life. It is simply about protecting
ten fingers, ten toes, and one beating heart, and bringing the amazing
gift of life.
In our world, out of nearly 200 nations, only seven allow abortions
on demand after 20 weeks--only seven out of 200 nations. Who is among
the seven nations? China, North Korea, Vietnam, and the United States.
Really?
So while I may stand here today with a gnawing in my stomach, I also
stand with hope--hope that we can take a massive step forward in
protecting life--18,000 lives a year--by passing this important
legislation.
America is truly a great nation. So let's improve our reputation and
not lower our expectations because, as John Winthrop said nearly 400
years ago, ``We shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people
are upon us.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time spent in a
quorum call before the 11 a.m. vote be equally charged to each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are about a week away from the deadline
to keep the Federal Government open. Our National Highway System, which
at one time was a matter of great pride, will soon run out of money.
The nominations of 16 consensus judicial nominees that came out of
committee with bipartisan support are languishing on the Senate floor.
We're not allowed to have a vote on the Senate floor about them even
though, in many cases, they are courts with judicial emergencies. There
is still strong support in the Senate for passing meaningful
immigration reform as we did 2 years ago by a 2-to-1 margin,
Republicans and Democrats. Now, those are just a few of the pressing
issues that the Senate should have been working on this month. Instead,
the Senate Republican leadership has wasted 2 weeks on political show
votes. And with a government shutdown looming, Senate Republicans plan
to use this week to continue their relentless attack on women's health
care.
Republicans brought us to this brink just 2 years ago, and, once
again, they are trying to use Americans' access to health care as
leverage in a fight over funding the Federal Government. This time,
though, Republicans also seem intent on holding hostage the
constitutional rights of women as part of this political exercise.
Frankly, what I hear when I go home is the American people, including
women across this country, have had enough.
It is incredible to me that, in 2015, we are debating Federal funding
for one of the Nation's largest and most trusted providers of basic
health care. For nearly 100 years, Planned Parenthood has provided
women's health care and has enjoyed the leadership and support of great
Americans like the civil rights leader, Rosa Parks, who was a member of
the organization's board of advocates.
Over 90 percent of the services Planned Parenthood provides are
preventative, including annual health exams, cervical and breast cancer
screenings, and HIV screenings for millions of American women, men, and
young people. It is these preventive services and only these preventive
services that are paid for with Federal funds.
Republicans are focused on abortion services that are not paid for
with Federal dollars and are otherwise only a very small part of what
Planned Parenthood does. Republicans say it is because of recently
released videos that purport to show wrongdoing on the part of Planned
Parenthood. But these surreptitiously recorded videos were heavily
edited in a misleading way and generated by an organization formed with
an agenda to end safe and legal abortion in our country.
In reality, this partisan debate is nothing more than an opportunity
for Senate Republicans to wage their personal opposition to a woman's
decision to access safe and legal abortions in this country. They are
entitled to their own beliefs. But missing from these arguments are the
stories of women across this country whose health and lives are at
stake when politicians play doctor and tell women they cannot make
their own health care decisions. That is exactly the situation we face
with the bill the Senate will vote on today, which puts women's health
at risk by imposing a nationwide ban on abortions at 20 weeks or more
and criminalizing the doctors who care for them.
The bill before us is as unconstitutional as it is extreme. Federal
courts have repeatedly struck down similar State 20-week bans as
unconstitutional. Just last year, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to
review a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision permanently blocking
Arizona's 20-week-ban law. And this bill makes no exception where the
health of the woman is at risk. The exceptions it does include are
severely limited. It is only if a woman's health has deteriorated to
the point at which she might die is she allowed to have an abortion
under the bill's exception for a woman's life.
The bill's so-called rape exception is, in reality, an overwhelming
bureaucracy requiring survivors to jump through hoop after hoop, such
as filing police reports or going to mandatory counseling. We should
not be forcing these survivors to relive their trauma again and again
before they can access abortion services. How many incest victims do
you think are going to be able to do that, going through all these
bureaucratic hoops? Doctors providing safe abortion care who fail to
comply with all of the bill's requirements would face up to 5 years of
jail time.
Now, it has all these dangerous provisions, but you know what is even
more shocking? This bill has had no committee process in the Senate.
There have been no Senate hearings on this bill, not one single
Republican chairman of any committee in the Senate has held a hearing.
There has been no debate in the Judiciary Committee. We've not had a
chance to hear from women and doctors about the care this bill would
criminalize. I know last Congress, the current majority leader, who is
a friend of mine, repeatedly urged the Senate to follow ``regular
order'' on all legislation. On this bill, there was no regular order.
It was brought straight to the floor. This is not a political point; it
is about what process in this body represents. It gives Senators the
opportunity to grapple with
[[Page S6864]]
the real impact of legislation like this. That is what was lost here.
In Vermont, I witnessed the devastating effect of restricting women's
access to safe and legal abortion. I say this, Mr. President, because I
am the only Member of the U.S. Senate who has ever prosecuted somebody
in an abortion case. When I was a young prosecutor in Vermont, I was
called to a hospital to see a young woman who nearly died from
hemorrhaging caused by a botched abortion. She was unable to obtain a
safe abortion in my state because it was illegal. I prosecuted the man
who had arranged for her unsafe and illegal abortion that nearly killed
her.
Don't talk about hypotheticals. I saw the tragic impact that the lack
of safe legal abortion care had on women and families in my state, and
so I talked to doctors about challenging Vermont's law. In that case,
Beecham v. Leahy, the conservative Vermont Supreme Court called out the
hypocrisy of a statute whose stated purpose was to protect women's
health, rightly asking, ``Where is that concern for the health of the
pregnant woman when she is denied the advice and assistance of her
doctor?'' One year before Roe v. Wade, the Vermont Supreme Court, all
members of it were Republicans, ruled that protecting women's health
required access to safe and legal abortion services, ensuring that
women in our state would no longer be subjected to back alley
abortions. We should not forget that this history was once reality for
so many women in our Nation. That is why I supported our Vermont
Supreme Court's decision that we should not deny women's health by
denying access to safe and legal abortion services.
As we consider the bill before us today, we should also remember what
Beecham v. Leahy and, a year later, when Roe made clear which should be
crystal clear for all of us here today in 2015, abortion is an
extremely difficult and personal choice. And if we truly want to reduce
abortions--as I do, and I suspect most of us do, maybe all of us do--we
should be making sure that family planning services are universally
available. We should support organizations like Planned Parenthood that
can provide family planning services, especially in rural areas and
elsewhere where they might not be available, because that, in itself,
will lower the number of abortions.
I oppose the bill pending before us. I hope that Senators on both
sides of the aisle will do the same. And this Senate, which I love,
ought to turn away from show votes and start leading responsibly so
that we can avoid yet another government shutdown with billions upon
billions of dollars that would be wasted.
Now, some want a shutdown because they think it might help their
campaigns or their press availability. None of them are going to tell
the press when they have that shutdown how many billions of dollars of
taxpayers' money they waste by doing it. So let us remember again, the
Vermont Supreme Court, at that time a very conservative Supreme Court,
in the case of Beecham v. Leahy, when they called out the hypocrisy of
a statute whose stated purpose was to protect women's health, said,
``Where is that concern for the health of the pregnant woman when she's
denied the advice and assistance of her doctor?''
Let's stop the show voting; let's stop playing for whatever group we
want to raise money from for a campaign or for the Presidency by
forcing a shutdown. And let's think about the taxpayers of this country
which are going to try to force a shutdown, then let's put a dollar
figure on it and say how much the grandstanding cost. It will cost into
the billions and billions of dollars and makes this great nation look
foolish around the world.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 230, H.R. 36, to amend title 18,
United States Code, to protect pain-capable unborn children,
and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Joni Ernst, Mike Lee, Mike Rounds, Chuck
Grassley, Tim Scott, Patrick J. Toomey, John Boozman,
David Perdue, Johnny Isakson, James M. Inhofe, James E.
Risch, Steve Daines, Roy Blunt, Roger F. Wicker, John
Thune, James Lankford.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to H.R. 36, an act to amend title 18, United States
Code, to protect pain-capable unborn children, and for other purposes,
shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from
Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 268 Leg.]
YEAS--54
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--42
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Collins
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Boxer
Murkowski
Murray
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). On this vote, the yeas are 54, the
nays are 42.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
Vote Explanation
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today the Senate voted on the Pain-
Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, H.R. 36. While I was unable to
vote today, I would have opposed this bill, which would have amended
the Criminal Code to prohibit any person from performing an abortion
after 20 weeks. As the father of three daughters, I believe that a
woman's health, not politicians in Washington, should drive important
medical decisions. It is critical that we as a nation continue to have
a meaningful and respectful dialogue about an issue we all care about
deeply, and I do not believe that this bill would have advanced that
dialogue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________