[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 34 (Monday, February 25, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Page S1423]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Eric D. 
Miller, of Washington, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth 
Circuit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 S. 311

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am on the floor to talk about a vote 
that simply should not have taken place this evening. It was a vote on 
yet another attack from our Republican colleagues on women's health and 
their right to access safe, legal abortions--this time in the form of 
an anti-doctor, anti-woman, anti-family piece of legislation that 
medical experts strongly oppose. Republicans have spread a lot of 
misinformation about this bill, so let's be clear what it is not about 
and what it is actually about.
  This bill is not about protecting infants, as Republicans have 
claimed, because that is not up for debate, and it is already the law. 
This bill is also not at all about ensuring that appropriate medical 
care is delivered, because it would make it harder for healthcare 
providers to provide high-quality medical care that their patients need 
and deserve.
  The leading nonpartisan organization of OB/GYNs in our country has 
said this bill should never become law. It calls it ``gross legislative 
interference into the practice of medicine'' and ``part of a larger 
attempt to deny women access to safe, legal, evidence-based abortion 
care.'' In fact, 17 top health and medical organizations wrote to 
Congress to insist that Democrats and Republicans vote this bill down.
  Since this bill is not about infants or appropriate medical care, I 
am sure many people are wondering what exactly it is about. What would 
this bill really mean for women and families and healthcare providers?
  If you are a woman, this bill would mean, if you were one of the 
very, very few women who needed an abortion late in your pregnancy, you 
could be legally required to accept inappropriate, medically 
unnecessary care--care that may directly conflict with your wishes at a 
deeply personal, often incredibly painful moment in your life--because 
politicians in Washington decided their beliefs mattered more than 
yours.
  If you are a medical provider, this bill would supersede your years 
of medical training and your oath to deliver the best possible medical 
treatment to your patients. It would apply a one-size-fits-all set of 
requirements that does not reflect the reality that every pregnancy is 
different, and it would subject you to criminal penalties if you were 
to choose to let medical standards, not politics, drive the care you 
offer to your patients.
  For families who struggle with the painful reality that the children 
they had hoped for could not survive, as is tragically the case in many 
of the cases we are discussing, this legislation would take precedence 
over families' wishes as they grieve.
  This bill is government interference in women's healthcare, in 
families' lives, and in medicine on steroids. As I said, it is anti-
doctor, anti-woman, and anti-family. It has no place in becoming law. 
Its proponents claim it would make something illegal that is already 
illegal. So why are we debating this legislation that would take women 
backward when there are so many ways we should be advancing medicine, 
improving women's healthcare, and supporting families? As far as I can 
tell, it is because this bill is about something that Republicans care 
about more than almost any other priority; that, unfortunately, is the 
rolling back of women's constitutionally protected rights and trying to 
take us back in time before the Roe v. Wade decision.
  Since day No. 1 of the Trump-Pence administration, this party has 
pulled every possible stop to appeal to its extreme anti-abortion base. 
Just last week, the Trump-Pence administration put forward a rule that 
would prevent healthcare providers at clinics that are funded through 
the title X family planning program from so much as informing patients 
about where to get an abortion even if that patient directly asks them 
for advice. This rule means trusted medical providers across the 
country may not be able to serve women and men who rely on them for 
contraception, cancer screenings, and more--all because Republicans are 
determined to make abortion impossible in the United States. That is 
just one of many examples.
  To recap, this bill is completely unnecessary. It is harmful to women 
and families, and it would criminalize doctors. It is intended to do 
nothing except to help Republicans advance their goal of denying women 
their constitutionally protected rights. I am against it in the 
strongest terms. Everybody who cares about women, families, and doctors 
and about upholding the Constitution should be too, so I am glad the 
Senate voted tonight to stop this anti-doctor, anti-woman, anti-family 
bill from going a single step further.
  The next time Republicans want to have a conversation about 
protecting infants and children, I am happy to talk about the babies 
and children who have been separated from their parents at the border 
or about improving access to early childhood education or about making 
sure coverage for maternal healthcare and preexisting conditions is not 
taken away. These are problems that do exist and that do need to be 
solved, and we are just as ready and willing to work on those as we are 
to stand up and say ``absolutely not'' to this harmful bill.