[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 11 (Thursday, January 18, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S270-S275]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            PROTECTING LIFE

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I want to get a chance to address an 
ongoing conversation that is happening in Washington, DC, right now and 
will be over in the next 36 hours. As unusual as this may sound, with 
all of the drama that is happening here, just outside this building 
there are tens of thousands of people--most of them students--who are 
gathered in Washington, DC, preparing for something called the March 
for Life. This has happened for decades now. Students and adults come 
from all over the country to Washington, DC, to quietly speak

[[Page S271]]

for those who cannot speak for themselves--children still in the womb--
and to be able to speak out for the protection of life.
  It is an interesting conversation that has a tremendous amount of 
science, a tremendous amount of faith, and a tremendous amount of heat 
around it, as some individuals don't want to discuss the issue of 
abortion or would simply say: That is a woman's choice; we need to set 
that aside and ignore it.
  There is a whole group of students who arrive here saying: Wait a 
minute. That child in the womb has 10 fingers and 10 toes, unique DNA 
that is different from the mom and different from the dad. The child 
feels pain in the womb and has a beating heart. That doesn't sound like 
tissue to me; that sounds like a child.
  They are raising great issues that, quite frankly, science reinforces 
as well.
  Last week, I had the opportunity to be able to stop by one of the 
great research facilities in Oklahoma. They are doing tremendous 
research on cancer, on MS, on Alzheimer's, and a lot more. I stopped by 
one of the labs and talked to one of the scientists there. They are 
actually doing research on zebra fish.
  Now, as odd as this may sound, they are actually taking zebra fish 
eggs and developing those eggs. As they are first beginning to hash out 
of the eggs, they are injecting them with a gene that they know to be 
cancerous in humans, allowing that to be able to develop in the zebra 
fish and seeing the abnormalities there. Then, they try to treat it 
with different drugs to be able to see if once they get the 
abnormalities, they can reverse it. They are literally taking the zebra 
fish, creating problems, and seeing if they can fix them.
  They are going into great detail. The microscopes, the work, the 
millions of dollars that have gone into this research are all for one 
simple thing--the ability to be able to cure diseases that affect human 
life.
  As a culture, we have determined that life is valuable. Human life, 
especially, is valuable and precious. The challenge that we have is 
determining when that life begins. I and millions of others believe 
that life begins at conception, when that child has a different DNA 
than the mom or the dad. That tissue is not just the mom's tissue at 
that point; it is growing independently. There is no difference in that 
child in the womb and the child that is in the backyard playing, 
laughing, and going down the slide, other than time. There is no 
difference.
  Last year, Cleveland Cavaliers' guard J.R. Smith and his wife had 
little Dakota. When I say ``little Dakota,'' I mean little Dakota. She 
was born at less than 1 pound at 19 weeks of development. She left the 
hospital 5 months later at 7 pounds, 4 ounces--7 pounds, 5 ounces, 
actually.
  When she left the hospital, it was a remarkable event. It was 
celebrated all over social media--this guard with the NBA Cleveland 
Cavaliers and this beautiful child leaving.
  Dakota is now 1 year old, and it has been interesting the stir that 
happened around her birth as a lot of people stopped and thought about 
a child that small and that young. It was interesting. The CNN articles 
that came out at the same time as little Dakota's birth noted that a 
child at 23 weeks of development has a 50 to 60 percent chance of 
survival now. Science has changed a lot over the last several decades. 
A lot has happened. It is remarkable to hear the stories of surgeries 
that are happening in utero.
  In 1995, Roberto Rodriguez actually went through surgery still in the 
womb. He had major problems in his left lung, and at 20 weeks, they 
went in and did surgery in utero, fixing his left lung. It allowed him 
to finish out his term, and 13 weeks later he was delivered healthy. 
Little Roberto Rodriguez is now 22 years old.
  This technology is not new anymore. In many ways, the science has far 
surpassed what were our conversations here in America dealing with 
policy around children.
  Back in 1970, when the Supreme Court passed Roe v. Wade, they had 
this whole conversation about viability and that government has a right 
to be able to step in and protect children at the moment that they are 
viable. Well, in the 1970s, that was very different than what it is 
now. Now we see children at 21, 20, 22 weeks of development being born 
and being natural, healthy, great children. We need to be able to catch 
up in law.
  We may disagree on a lot of things on life. As I have already stated, 
I believe life begins at conception. In this body, I know there are a 
lot of conversations, saying: How do we actually get to a sense of 
commonality and common ground on these issues.
  Well, let me just lay down three different areas where I would say 
that maybe we could find some common ground on these three areas. 
Though we may disagree on when life begins, can we at least agree that 
Americans have the freedom of conscience? Can we at least agree on the 
late-term abortions, when a child is clearly viable? And can we at 
least agree that when a child is born alive, they should be protected? 
Let me just hit those three very quickly.
  The first one is just basic freedom of conscience, allowing an 
individual to be able to live out their conscience. I spoke to several 
nurses just a few months ago. When those nurses were hired at the 
hospitals they worked in, they told the individuals in HR and the 
physicians they worked with that they believed life begins at 
conception and they had a moral and conscience belief that they wanted 
to protect children. They were told at that moment: You will not have 
to participate in abortions. We understand your conscience belief, and 
we will protect your conscience belief. For years, they did not. Then, 
suddenly, they ran short in nurses at one moment, and they pulled each 
of them in at different times and in different hospitals and in 
different States. They told the stories that they had been pulled into 
a procedure, being told on the way in: We need you in this procedure--
arriving only to find out it was an abortion they were being forced to 
assist with. They were appalled to be part of the death of a child 
rather than protecting the life of a child. Each of them was told: You 
will lose your job if you don't participate in the taking of this 
child's life. That is an unfair place to put them in.
  Individuals should be able to have the freedom of conscience and 
should be able to live out their moral and spiritual beliefs. I would 
never go to an abortion doctor and force him to peacefully protest 
against his own abortion clinic. That would be absurd. But for some 
reason, pro-abortion hospitals see no issue in at times compelling a 
staff member to participate in something they find objectionable, even 
when they made their stance clear.
  We should never force a person to administer a lethal injection in a 
prison if they have a moral objection to the death penalty. That seems 
only reasonable. We are rightfully furious when a man threatens a woman 
with firing if she doesn't respond to his advances. No one would say 
that if she doesn't like his advances, she could just go find another 
job. But for some in our culture, they want to look away when that same 
man threatens a woman with firing if she doesn't violate her conscience 
and help perform an abortion. They are willing to tell her: Just quit 
and go find another job. What is the difference?
  We wouldn't compel a vegan to eat meat at the company barbecue, would 
we? Why would we compel a person to assist in the taking of a life when 
they are personally offended by the practice?
  The right of conscience should be protected for every person. 
Religious intolerance is a personal choice, not a legal requirement in 
America.
  Late-term abortions are another area where I think we should be able 
to find common ground, and we should be able to protect these children. 
We should agree that elective late-term abortions should be ended in 
America. This is an elective abortion after 5 months of pregnancy. When 
the child's nervous system is fully developed, they can feel pain at 
that point.

  We in America, because of the pro-abortion lobby and the activists 
who are around them, have lost track of this simple fact: We are one of 
seven nations in the world that allow elective abortions after 22 weeks 
of gestation. In fact, of these seven nations that allow abortions 
after 22 weeks of gestation, three of them--Canada, Singapore, and the 
Netherlands--allow elective abortions only until 24 weeks, just 2 weeks 
later. But there are only four countries in the world that allow 
elective abortions at any moment. Are you

[[Page S272]]

ready for this club? There are four nations that are like us: the 
United States, Vietnam, North Korea, and China. That is it. Those four 
nations allow elective abortions at any stage. That is a horrible club 
for the United States of America to be in. Those countries are some of 
the worst human rights violators in the world, and that is the elite 
club in which we find ourselves.
  The pro-abortion lobby is so powerful and so wealthy, and they are so 
engaged, they are not willing to relent that even one child's life 
could be protected, even when they are clearly viable, leaving the 
United States in this horrible collection with Vietnam, North Korea, 
and China on abortion policy. At 5 months old, a child in the womb can 
kick, stretch, yawn, smile, suck its thumb, and feel pain. It is a 
viable child.
  Late-term abortions represent only 1.3 percent of all abortions in 
America. I would contend we should stop this practice altogether. There 
are 191 nations that don't allow this--191 nations. There is no reason 
we should not as well.
  This is interesting. The Washington Post heard several people quote 
that statistic about seven nations are the only nations that actually 
allow any abortions at this late stage. Those three that I mentioned--
the Netherlands, Canada, and Singapore--allow them up to 24 weeks but 
not after that. So they ran their famous Fact Checker on this issue. 
The Washington Post ran through all of it and looked at it and said: 
This sounds like this is not correct. They ran through the whole study, 
looked at it, fact-checked the whole thing, and at the end of it came 
back and said: No, it actually is correct. What seemed a dubious 
statement in the beginning they fact-checked and gave what the 
Washington Post calls their elite Gepetto qualification--that means no 
Pinocchios; true statement.
  We should be able to resolve this. I have made no secret that I 
believe that life begins at conception, but I would say to this group 
that not everyone agrees with me on this, but we should at least be 
able to protect life when it is viable.
  Let me add one more detail to this that is painful to even discuss. 
Of those late-term abortions that occur--those 1.3 percent of abortions 
that occur during this late time period--the child is too large and too 
well developed to actually have a traditional abortion procedure, so 
the abortions are done by the abortion doctor reaching in with a tool 
into the womb and literally pulling the child's arms and legs off, 
allowing the child to bleed to death in the womb and then pulling its 
parts out a piece at a time. Why do we allow that in America? As I 
said, 191 other nations do not. All of Europe does not. When is the 
last time you heard me say our social policy needs to catch up with 
Europe? We are better than this.
  One last statement, because I have some colleagues who want to join 
me in this conversation. We should be able to agree on a simple 
principle: that if an abortion is conducted and it is botched and 
instead of destroying the child in the womb, the abortion doctor 
actually induces the delivery--in those rare cases, the current 
practice is, when the child is delivered, everyone in the operating 
room backs away and allows the child to die of exposure on the table, 
because they can't actually take the life anymore; it has been fully 
delivered.
  Kermit Gosnell sits in prison right now because, as an abortionist in 
Philadelphia, he was in the practice of delivering children and then 
killing them after they were delivered. It is already a crime to 
physically take the life of that individual, so the current practice 
is, if they mess up the abortion and deliver instead of destroy, they 
just allow the child to die on its own, crying on the table. Can we as 
Congress and as Americans at least agree that it is barbaric to watch a 
crying child on the table slowly die; that at least at that moment of 
delivery, we would agree a child is a child when we can see all 10 of 
their fingers, see all 10 of their toes, and hear their voice crying on 
the table? This is an issue that shouldn't be controversial. This is an 
issue for which we should find great compassion.
  I would challenge this body, when we deal with conscience and when we 
deal with late-term abortions and when we deal with children who are 
born alive, that we find resolution in those areas.
  I am aware this is a difficult topic. I understand that for many 
people, this conversation is painful to even consider and that for the 
millions of American women who have experienced abortion in their 
personal lives, this is painful to even consider. But I am also aware 
that until we talk about these hard issues and resolve them, they will 
continue to advance.
  We are better than this as a nation. Let's prove it in the way we 
treat our most vulnerable.
  With that, I ask unanimous consent for colloquy time with some of my 
colleagues, and I would like to be able to recognize Senator Blunt from 
Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I am here with the Senator from Oklahoma--
and we are about to be joined by the Senator from Iowa--to talk about 
the topic Senator Lankford just said is difficult to talk about. When 
you actually stand up and explain what is going on, it is hard to 
imagine that we still let these things happen.
  I would suggest to the Senator from Oklahoma that we could talk about 
the fact that the minds of people have changed on this issue. Almost 
all change their minds once we explain the two things the Congress is 
focused on this year. Polling on this shows that I believe 63 percent 
of all Americans now believe that these late-term abortions should not 
be allowed to occur.
  As Senator Lankford pointed out so well, the countries that allow 
this to happen are not the countries whose social policies we would 
want to be aligned with, including China and North Korea, which have a 
stated purpose of eliminating children for no other reason than just 
population control, and they wind up eliminating more female children 
than male children in that process because apparently their belief is 
that the male child has more economic value going forward. Why would we 
want to be aligned with countries that look at these issues that way or 
just simply think the pain should be allowed?
  The House has passed the pain-capable bill. Where are we now in the 
House on the born-alive bill? Is it to be voted on this week, or has it 
been voted on already?
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, the House passed both the pain-capable 
and the infant protection born-alive bills in prior months. The Senate 
has yet to take that up, and it is our hope in the Senate to be able to 
bring that up for real dialogue in conversations in the days ahead.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I think the pain-capable bill was passed by 
the House in October.
  We have thousands of Americans coming this week, focusing on 
tomorrow, to talk about this issue. These two bills are two of their 
priorities, but of course their priority is to honor life. The March 
for Life is designed to do exactly that.
  Clearly, the March for Life--now in its 45th year--is not a 
celebration. It is not an anniversary or a celebration; rather, it is a 
time to remember that there is a lot that we still need to do to ensure 
that our society is a society that values every human life no matter 
how small, no matter how vulnerable, no matter how little capacity that 
life has to protect itself. And the way that society, I think, has 
decided to deal with this is looking at things like partial-birth 
abortion, the description of which was every bit as bad as the 
dismembering abortions, but Congress stepped forward on that topic. 
Some people who performed that particular act didn't stop doing it, but 
they are in trouble when you find out they have done it.
  So thousands of people from all over the country--in fact, tens of 
thousands of people; it is a number that I believe is always 
underreported. Based on looking at the March for Life crowd and any 
other crowds we see here, I guarantee that the final number--if you 
take any of those crowds and look at them, I believe there is a 
willingness to ignore the thousands of people who come in buses from 
all over the country, in the worst possible weather more years than 
not, to stand up and say: We don't want this to happen.
  I think young people are increasingly more and more defensive of the 
idea of

[[Page S273]]

life and more and more offended about the places where we have chosen 
not to draw the line. How can you possibly justify a baby who is born 
alive and the process that Senator Lankford just described where you 
can't take that life but you can step back and not do anything to save 
that life, or the uniquely troubled countries we are involved in that 
allow developed children--boys and girls, 10 fingers, 10 toes, the 
ability to feel pain--to inflict that pain on those children at that 
time.
  The American people don't support this. Almost nobody who understands 
what is going on supports it. But if you are asked in polling, I think, 
as I said earlier, 63 percent--more than 6 out of 10 Americans--say: 
How can we be continuing to let that happen?
  So supporting those who come here, responding to those who understand 
this--and certainly the two Senators on the floor here--the Senator 
from Iowa and the Senator from Oklahoma are among the best advocates 
for life, among the best advocates for getting information out about 
life, about adoption, about what happens and what our laws allow and 
the laws of other countries don't allow.
  Certainly I will be welcoming the March for Life this year in 
Missouri and other States. The Vice President last year became the 
first Vice President in the history of the country to speak to March 
for Life and made it clear where his views were and where the 
administration stands.
  The missing component here to do the right thing is in Congress 
itself. We have an opportunity to step up and do that. We need to have 
this debate on the floor because people, once they enter into this 
debate, realize it is not a debate that they want to be in, because the 
wrong side of this is the side where slightly more than a handful of 
countries allow it to happen, what we allow to happen.
  I am pleased to be here on the floor with Senator Lankford and 
Senator Ernst.
  I yield to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleagues from 
Oklahoma and Missouri, and we will be joined shortly by the Senator 
from Montana as well.
  I am rising today to discuss the importance of protecting and 
celebrating life.
  As I travel across the State of Iowa, I have had the opportunity to 
hear directly from families whose lives have been changed by the 
innovative, life-affirming services offered by their local pregnancy 
resource center. There are so many more stories of vulnerable lives 
saved all across the country, not just in Iowa but all across the 
country.
  I would like to begin by recognizing the critical, on-the-ground 
actions of these pregnancy resource centers, maternity homes, and 
adoption agencies across the country that are changing and saving 
lives. I want to thank them for all they do.
  Since coming to Washington, I have tried to hold Congress accountable 
to do its part to protect the most vulnerable in our society. The 
Senator from Missouri has mentioned that we can measure a society, and 
ours is a great society, but we can do more to protect those who are 
vulnerable. For example, last January, I introduced legislation to 
defund Planned Parenthood while protecting women's healthcare centers. 
As I have stated time and again, taxpayers should not be forced to foot 
the bill for roughly half a billion dollars annually for an 
organization like Planned Parenthood that exhibits such disrespect for 
human life. Despite what they may claim otherwise, Planned Parenthood 
is not the Nation's preeminent provider of women's healthcare. For 
example, Planned Parenthood facilities don't even perform in-house 
mammograms. They don't do that. Community health centers, on the other 
hand, continue to greatly outnumber Planned Parenthoods. They provide 
greater preventive primary healthcare services, regardless of a 
person's ability to pay.
  Additionally, last April, President Trump signed my legislation into 
law that ensures States are not forced to provide entities like Planned 
Parenthood--the Nation's single largest provider of abortions--with 
Federal title X dollars.
  I am grateful to have worked with Congresswoman Diane Black, a dear 
friend in the House; my Senate colleagues, who are with me here today; 
and President Trump to make sure States are not forced to award 
providers like Planned Parenthood with taxpayer dollars through title X 
family planning grants.
  Another effort my colleagues and I continue to work on is passing 
Senator Graham's Pain-Capable Unborn Children Protection Act in the 
Senate. Whenever I discuss this bill, I cannot help but share the 
remarkable story of a very special family from Newton, IA.
  In July 2012, Micah Pickering was born prematurely at just 20 weeks 
postfertilization--the very age at which this bill would prohibit 
abortions. When he was born, Micah was only--if you can imagine it--
about the size of a bag of M&Ms, about the size of the palm of my hand. 
Yet Micah was still a perfectly formed baby with 10 fingers and 10 
toes.
  When I first met Micah, he was just a few years old, and he came to 
visit me in my office. We had a photo of Micah when he was just born. 
Again, folks, he was the size of the palm of my hand, a little bag of 
M&Ms. I had that photo in my office. Little Micah ran up to that photo, 
and he pointed at it and said: Baby.
  And we said: Yes, Micah, that is a baby. That is a baby.
  Just a few months ago, I had the opportunity to visit again with 
Micah and his parents in my DC office. I can attest that now at 5 years 
old, Micah remains a happy, healthy, energetic little boy. Stories like 
Micah's show all of us that at 5 months, an unborn child is a child--
just as Micah would say--a baby.
  There is also significant scientific evidence that at 5 months of 
development, these babies can feel pain. Yet there is no Federal law 
protecting these vulnerable babies from abortion. As a result, every 
year in our country, the lives of thousands of babies just like Micah 
end painfully through abortion. Currently, the United States is 1 of 
only 7 countries to allow abortions at 5 months of gestation. We are in 
the company of China and North Korea. Folks, this is unacceptable.
  There is much work to be done in the ongoing fight to protect life. 
We understand that. As folks from across the country travel to 
Washington to ``March for Life'' this week, I am urging my colleagues 
to join me in calling for a vote on this critical legislation that 
recognizes these unborn babies as the children they are and provides 
them the same protection from pain and suffering that all of our 
children deserve--again, as Micah Pickering would say, ``a baby.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I would like to ask Senator Sasse to 
join us for this colloquy as well.
  Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I say thank you very much to the Senator 
from Oklahoma and thanks to the Senator from Montana for spelling me. I 
have been sitting in the Presiding chair during this colloquy, so I 
have not been on the ground floor able to participate, but I would like 
to associate myself with this colloquy and with the leadership of the 
Senators from Oklahoma, Missouri, Iowa, and Montana.
  I, too, know Micah, and it is an amazing thing. I wish all 100 
Senators had a chance to know Micah and his family. I also want to 
associate myself with the comments of the Senator from Oklahoma, as he 
began this, that we are one of only four countries in the world that 
allow elective abortion at any time for any reason. Our peers in this 
are North Korea, China, and Vietnam, and it is a genuine shame. The 
American people need to understand that, and this body needs to grapple 
with that reality.
  As the Senator from Missouri said, it is special to be a part of the 
rally and march over the next 36 hours because the college kids who are 
coming here understand this far better than the general public. There 
is a movement in this country to want to respect and celebrate life, 
and good things are happening generationally with this cause.
  I want to associate myself with this colloquy and thank the Senator 
from Montana for spelling me from the chair. Thank you.

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, this is a difficult issue for so many 
people because it is intensely personal for so many people. We 
understand full well the grief some families have when this

[[Page S274]]

topic comes up because there are millions of men and women who they 
know their child has been aborted. We get that. We want to have 
incredible compassion for them as they struggle through some of the 
most difficult decisions of their life. We understand that when they go 
to the mall and they watch a small child laugh in the food court of the 
mall, they wonder in the back of their head, ``Would that have sounded 
like my child when they laughed?''
  We get the grief they live with for the rest of their life as they 
process through what some physician told them was tissue, but in their 
heart they know was a child. This is a nation that can set some basic 
principles to help those individuals, to promote adoption, to be able 
to encourage those families and help walk alongside them. We are good 
at grace and compassion as a nation. We can continue to be better at 
it. One of the ways we have to be able to express that is for the most 
vulnerable, for those children who have yet to be born.
  I would like to invite the Senator from Montana to also join in this 
colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I thank Senator Lankford for leading this 
very important conversation. I thank Senator Blunt, Senator Ernst, and 
Senator Sasse for joining us today as well in this discussion.
  Mr. President, 28 years ago, I became a first-time dad. By the grace 
of God, we got to see three more children born after our first child 
David was born. I can tell you, my wife Cindy and I were excited and a 
little bit terrified when we welcomed David into the world.
  As a parent, one of the toughest things is to see your child in pain. 
I remember when David cried, I would have given an arm and a leg to 
stop that pain. I remember when he was just a little baby taking David 
to the pediatrician to get that shot and so forth, and the pain David 
felt and the screams and the crying I think were much harder on the 
parents than on the baby.
  I think we all recognize the pain a child feels after they are born. 
As I have gone on and researched this issue of pain and babies and so 
forth, science tells us that a baby feels pain before they are born. 
Senator Sasse mentioned earlier that we are one of four nations that 
allows elective abortion at any time during a pregnancy. The question 
is, if we were 1 hour before delivery--the baby is 1 hour from being 
delivered--as a nation, can we at least agree that we should have a law 
that says abortions should not be allowed because it is pretty clear 
that the baby is going to feel pain? The question is, at what point do 
we know they feel pain during the pregnancy?
  It is shocking to think our Nation loses 13,000 children a year to 
late-term abortions. We can have the debate about all abortions, but 
today we are focused on late-term abortions. Thirteen thousand children 
a year die from late-term abortions. At 20 weeks, these babies can suck 
their thumb, they can yawn, they can stretch, they can make faces, and 
science shows these babies are also capable of feeling pain.
  Our ears may be deaf to their cries, but we don't have to live in 
ignorance, not when research and even common sense tells us these 
unborn children feel pain. In fact, there is a reason unborn babies are 
oftentimes given anesthesia during fetal surgery. That is why we must 
pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. It is unconscionable 
that we are allowing unborn children as old as 20 weeks--that is 5 
months--to be killed when they can feel pain. In fact, do a Google 
search. If you have a smartphone, are sitting in front of a computer, 
type in ``20 weeks.'' You don't even have to type in ``baby.'' Just 
type in ``20 weeks.'' Then, take a look at the pictures, the images 
that come up after you complete that search. This is one of them. In 
fact, I had my smartphone last night. I said to my staff: I typed in 
``20 weeks'' in the Google search, and this is the image that comes up.
  How can we say that is not a baby? While much of the media turned a 
blind eye to the atrocious acts of Kermit Gosnell, and they didn't 
watch the horrific videos taken undercover at Planned Parenthood 
clinics, many of us did. We did watch, and we cannot sit in silence. 
Most of us would not wish that treatment on even our most hated of 
enemies, let alone a child of any age.
  The United States is just one of seven countries that allows elective 
abortions after 20 weeks. It is not a good list to be on. It is the 
same list we share that has China and North Korea on it. As an American 
citizen, I believe in our founding principle that all men and women are 
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among 
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  As a person of faith, I am called--we are called--to help the most 
vulnerable in our society. As a U.S. Senator, it is my honor to support 
this legislation, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and I 
urge its swift passage.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, there has just been a dialogue--a 
colloquy--here on the floor. I thank Senator Daines from Montana, 
Senator Blunt from Missouri, Senator Ernst from Iowa, and Senator Sasse 
from Nebraska for joining in a dialogue of this basic issue of life.
  In 1973 this week, Roe v. Wade was passed by the Supreme Court in a 
split decision. We are still having this dialogue, and there is still 
an ongoing argument about looking into the womb. We know a lot more 
now--about times now--than they knew in 1973, and we know a lot more 
about the development of a child now than they knew in 1973. We are 
still having this ongoing debate that, I think, is a righteous debate, 
quite frankly. I think it is entirely appropriate for us to be able to 
talk about these kinds of difficult issues and try to find some 
resolution. The American people have these dialogues, and we should 
have them here and be able to bring the debate to the forefront.
  This is not about people whom we hate. It is always interesting to be 
able to get the dialogue and pushback from people who say: You just 
hate people because of whatever reason. It is not true. It is, 
actually, that we love children. That is really the issue. There is a 
vulnerable child in the middle of this conversation, and sometimes they 
don't seem to come up in the conversation about protecting rights or 
about giving people privacy. All of those things are wonderful 
euphemisms, but in the middle of that, there is a very small child who 
is being discussed. We are trying to elevate their voice--to literally 
speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. We think that is an 
appropriate role for government--to speak out for the most vulnerable 
and see if we can find justice for those individuals.
  This week is not only the week that we have the anniversary of Roe v. 
Wade; it is also the week that we celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr. 
Day. I would say that he is a terrific role model in this conversation. 
His basic teaching is that hate doesn't win over a friend, that only 
love can do that. Only love can transform an enemy into a friend. That 
is what we are trying to do.
  To the people who oppose this idea, we get it. We can have that 
dialogue. They are not our enemies, though. Quite frankly, we want to 
respond to their comments in love and say, ``Let's sit down and have a 
reasonable dialogue. Let's express our affection for children,'' and be 
able to talk about how valuable they really are in our society. Let's 
talk about adoption. Let's talk about ways to be able to continue to 
take care of them. In the middle of it, let's talk about a child as a 
child, not just as tissue that is random, because tissue that is just 
random doesn't suck its thumb and smile back at you. It doesn't stretch 
and yawn. It is a child who does that. We want to be able to have that 
conversation.
  I would urge this body to stop ignoring what millions of the American 
people see as the issue. Let's talk about the child, and let's see 
where we are going to go. I think a good first step for us to be able 
to talk about this is with the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, what 
we call the pain-capable bill, which deals with late-term abortions--
very late, 5 months and later--and the issue of conscience.
  Are we really going to compel people to perform procedures they find 
morally reprehensible in the destruction of a child rather than in the 
protection of a child? We should be able to find common ground on 
those.
  Let's then keep the conversation going because it is a reasonable 
thing

[[Page S275]]

for us to be able to discuss. If we cannot talk about life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of happiness in this place, where can we talk about it?
  Again, I thank my colleagues for participating and for their tenacity 
and their compassion and their affection for all Americans whether they 
agree or disagree on this issue. I appreciate very much their 
engagement.
  I appreciate very much the volunteers who are scattered around the 
country right now who are serving women in some of the most difficult 
moments of their lives at crisis pregnancy centers, at women's resource 
centers, and other locations. They are volunteering; they are providing 
clothes; they are providing help; they are providing sonograms and 
pregnancy tests; and they are walking those families through those 
tough days. Thanks to those volunteers as well today, wherever they may 
be, and bless them for the ongoing work that they do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

                          ____________________