[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 21, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2993-S2994]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                Abortion

  Mr. President, people are following what is happening in States like 
Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi, where State legislatures are 
considering legislation on the issue of abortion.
  I know this is a very inflammatory and divisive issue. I have seen it 
firsthand throughout my political career. I have good friends who are 
on one side of the issue, who smile and say hello but wouldn't vote for 
me in 100 years because of this issue. I have others who passionately 
support me because they are on the other side of the issue. For some 
people, it really is the litmus test on how they will vote for a 
candidate.
  For over 40 years, we have tried to reconcile this issue, this basic 
question: When does life begin? In Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court 
said: We are going to base it on the concept of viability, 
survivability of the fetus, as to an individual's right when it comes 
to making this decision as opposed to society's right or 
responsibility.
  Over the years, there has been a lot of debate as to whether that Roe 
v. Wade decision was right or wrong. We have seen a lot of different 
efforts to change it--some successful and some not--and we have seen 
subsequent Supreme Court cases which redefined Roe v. Wade as well.
  Now we have a group who believes they can move forward on this in the 
State of Georgia and in the State of Alabama. What they have proposed 
is much different from what we had accepted as the norm for decades. 
For example, they have eliminated any exceptions for rape and incest. 
Most people understand that victims of rape and incest should be viewed 
differently from others, but in the State of Alabama, they eliminated 
those exceptions in the law they have just passed.
  Why are they doing that now when Federal courts in the past have--in 
the immediate past--decided they can't go that far? It is because they 
believe that because of the actions of the U.S. Senate, it is going to 
change in the courts. This President has appointed two new Justices to 
the Supreme Court--Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. The belief is, even though 
they have told us over and over again that Roe v. Wade was settled law, 
if this new law in Alabama

[[Page S2994]]

makes it across the street to the Supreme Court, they may use this 
Alabama law to overturn Roe v. Wade.
  On a regular basis here, we continue to bring judges before us who 
have extreme views on this subject and, without much debate, give them 
lifetime appointments to the Federal bench--district and circuit court 
judges, several of whom are before us this week.
  I have heard from them in the committees. Just last week, we had 
Judge Vitter from Louisiana. She is a person who has blamed Planned 
Parenthood for deaths and has said at one point that she believes that 
contraception--the pill--was dangerous to women. That was her 
conclusion without scientific evidence to back it.
  She just got a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. Those are 
the kinds of nominees who are brought to us by this administration. So 
is it any wonder that the Alabama legislators were encouraged to think, 
if we can pass this law and just get it to the right Federal judge, 
somebody under the Trump administration, we are going to overturn Roe 
v. Wade? I think that would be a serious mistake if it happens.
  The overwhelming majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade. Yet a 
total of 30 States have now sought to restrict the rights of women to 
make that healthcare decision, and some would directly or virtually 
reverse Roe v. Wade. What we are facing is not a few far-right 
politicians making a statement out of mainstream. This is a systematic 
effort by Republicans and State legislators to restrict women's 
reproductive rights and ultimately overturn Roe v. Wade.
  What else do these State legislators have in common? They rank among 
the lowest when it comes to gender representation and women in power. 
Meanwhile, here in the Senate, Republican Leader McConnell has lined up 
even more extreme ideological judicial nominees who have records of 
restricting women's rights.
  Just last week, as I mentioned, the Republican majority confirmed Ms. 
Wendy Vitter, who once promoted the concept that contraceptives cause 
cancer and claimed that Planned Parenthood kills 150,000 women a year. 
That anyone can make those statements and then be approved by this 
Senate Chamber for a lifetime appointment to a Federal bench tells you 
the standards being used by the Trump administration and by the 
Republicans in this body. She was confirmed to a lifetime appointment.
  This week, the Senate is considering Mr. Daniel Collins, who has been 
nominated to the Ninth Circuit over the objections of both California 
Senators. He filed an amicus brief in support of Hobby Lobby petitions 
to deny female employees of that corporation contraceptive care, and he 
has argued that pregnancy clinics need not follow a local notification 
law informing patients about their options when it comes to birth 
control.
  Also, this week, we are considering North Carolina district court 
nominee Kenneth Bell, who once wrote in an op-ed, and I quote, ``There 
is no middle ground'' on this issue of abortion.
  Missouri district nominee Stephen Clark is before us as well. He 
spent much of his legal career litigating against reproductive rights 
and access to contraceptives.
  These are the nominees to take lifetime appointments on the Federal 
court. You have to bring together the action of Alabama with the action 
on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Alabama is setting up the test case. 
The Republicans in the Senate are setting up the courts in the hopes 
that they will rule in their test case to put an end to Roe v. Wade and 
to say that despite the support of a majority of Americans, women do 
not have the last word when it comes to their own bodies, their own 
lives, and their own pregnancies.
  That is what this is about today in America on our political scene. 
That is certainly what the next election is all about, as well--
division of America, the rights of women, and the rights of individuals 
to make their own decisions about their own bodies.
  I hope that the Republican leaders who have expressed their 
misgivings about the Alabama legislation will do much more than that. I 
hope they will join us in trying to maintain some sort--if not a 
consensus, some sort of understanding about how we deal with this 
extremely divisive issue.