[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 21, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2986-S2987]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                ABORTION

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, over the last year, women's 
reproductive rights have come under a new level of assault. From 
Alabama to Missouri, to Texas, to Georgia, and beyond, over 300 new 
restrictions have been proposed in 39 States--bans on abortion as early 
as 6 weeks, so-called heartbeat bills, arbitrary waiting periods, and 
restrictions on clinics so severe that they force any center that 
performs an abortion to close down, leaving a few of our States with no 
more than a single clinic.
  Ten such bills have now passed into law. These restrictions fly in 
the face of public opinion. The vast majority of the American public 
don't want to see Roe overturned or a woman's right to choose curtailed 
so severely as to render it meaningless.
  I understand why many of my colleagues here in the Senate don't want 
to associate themselves with these extreme anti-abortion laws. Some of 
them have even publicly opposed the law passed by Alabama's 
Republicans, including the House Republican leader and the President. 
But let's face it. There is a sleight of hand going on here, because 
while many of my colleagues don't support these policies out loud, they 
are, at the same time, confirming judges to the Federal bench with 
horrendous records on women's rights, many of whom hold extreme views 
on Roe. These judges, in many ways, have just as much power as State 
legislatures to restrict a woman's right to choose and limit access to 
contraceptives through the courts.
  Just look at some of the judges the Republican Senate has approved in 
the past 2 years with almost unanimous support on the Republican side. 
Look at Leonard Steven Grasz, who wrote about the ``moral bankruptcy 
that's the legacy of Roe v. Wade.''
  What about Amy Coney Barrett? She said Roe v. Wade had been 
``erroneously decided'' and called the ACA's birth control provisions 
``an assault on religious liberty.'' A lot of these judges are not just 
against abortion. They are against contraception. She is on the bench 
for life. Amy Coney Barrett, who said that, is on the bench for life 
and on President Trump's short list for the Supreme Court.
  Let's not forget Justice Kavanaugh, who refused to affirm that Roe 
was settled law and now sits on the one body with the power to overturn 
it.
  Just last week, Republicans confirmed Wendy Vitter, who said Planned

[[Page S2987]]

Parenthood kills 150,000 a year and once pushed the idea that 
contraceptives cause cancer.
  We have more coming down the pipeline. Soon the Senate may consider 
the nomination of Stephen Clark, who belonged to an organization called 
Lawyers for Life. He once compared Roe v. Wade to the Dred Scott case.
  So Republicans are playing a cynical long game here. They refuse to 
comment on the anti-abortion bills but are content to install anti-
choice judges across the Federal bench who will uphold many of these 
very same laws. It is hypocritical. It is sort of like that old 
routine. They are saying: No, no, no, I am not for these laws. Judges, 
approve them. I am supporting judges who approve them.
  It is not fair, it is not right, it is cynical, and the American 
people are going to get wise to it. We are watching the endgame of a 
long and concerted campaign by the far right to erode a woman's right 
to choose through the courts. From the moment that Roe v. Wade was 
decided in 1973, the most extreme elements of the Republican Party have 
plotted its demise.
  The Federalist Society was founded with the intent of cultivating a 
generation of judges loyal to conservative causes. Its founder, Leonard 
Leo, was, above all, an anti-choice advocate--some would say, even 
further, a fanatic. Now that they have a Republican President and a 
Republican Senate, the Federalist Society can push judge after judge 
after judge onto the bench with barely a delay and with barely a 
discussion, where they will have the power to severely curtail a 
woman's right to choose.
  My Republican friends who profess opposition or indifference to these 
extreme anti-abortion bills while voting for hard-right, anti-Roe 
judges are engaging in subterfuge, if not hypocrisy.

                          ____________________