[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1081-S1082]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                PROTECTING PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILDREN

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, earlier this week the Senate Judiciary 
Committee held a hearing to discuss the level of care babies who are 
born alive should receive. You heard me correctly. We had a hearing in 
the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss the level of medical care a 
baby that is born alive should receive.
  As heartbreaking as it is to even ask that question--as if there were 
more than one option--this is a real debate and something that needs to 
be paid attention to.
  There are actually some folks who think it is appropriate for doctors 
to provide something less than the highest standard of care to babies 
who survive abortions, and there are those who believe babies who 
survive abortions should receive the same level of medical assistance 
as any other baby. That is certainly where I stand. I believe that all 
life is precious and that every baby deserves a fighting chance.

  I can't imagine that there is a divergence of view on this topic. Of 
course, public opinion polling, for what that is worth, shows that the 
vast majority of Americans agree. Last year, a poll found that more 
than three-quarters of Americans support providing medical support for 
babies who survive abortions. It is hard for me to believe that there 
would be 25 percent on the other side of that, but, suffice it to say, 
the vast majority of people agree with the proposition that the same 
medical standard of care should apply.
  Unfortunately, there are people who make up that 25 percent in 
government who are in high-ranking positions and who wield a great deal 
of influence on this question. Take, for example, Virginia's Governor 
Ralph Northam. About this time last year, he made

[[Page S1082]]

comments which were deeply disturbing about how to care--or rather, not 
care--for certain newborn babies.
  He was caught during an interview. I would like to think he misspoke, 
but he certainly didn't claim that. This was actually his view. He said 
that after the baby was delivered, it would be kept comfortable. The 
baby ``would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family 
desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and 
the mother.''
  What would be the subject of that discussion, whether the baby would 
live or die? Presumably so. Instead of providing prompt care to save 
the baby, Governor Northam--who is, by the way, a pediatrician, of all 
things--believes that you should sit down and decide whether to let the 
child live or die. That is not healthcare. That is infanticide.
  In response to Governor Northam's comments--which, apparently, he 
spoke not just for himself but for a significant segment, maybe the 25 
percent in that poll I mentioned earlier--our colleague from Nebraska, 
Senator Sasse, introduced a bill called the Born-Alive Abortion 
Survivors Protection Act. This legislation is very straightforward. It 
would require doctors who treat babies who survive an abortion with the 
same lifesaving care that other infants receive. It sounds like common 
sense, right? Well, common sense apparently is not all that common in 
some quarters.
  You might think that surely there are already protections that exist 
for that newborn baby. That has to be the law already, right? Sadly 
not. There are no Federal laws requiring healthcare providers to care 
for these babies just as they would any other infant in their care.
  Sadly, many of our Democratic colleagues in the Senate are just fine 
with that. When the Senate voted on this legislation last year, 44 
Democrats voted against it--against it. But for those of us who are 
aligned more with the 75 percent of Americans who believe all babies 
deserve that care, we are not fine with that.
  This legislation would build on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act 
of 2002, which actually passed the Senate unanimously at the time. That 
bill clarified that any infant born alive at any stage of development 
is a person--again, a statement of the obvious--regardless of the 
manner in which they were born.
  Now it is time to clarify that each person will receive appropriate 
medical care, no matter what their circumstances and how they happened 
to be delivered and born.
  One of our witnesses in today's and Tuesday's hearings was Dr. Robin 
Pierucci, a neonatologist at Bronson Methodist Hospital. Dr. Pierucci 
discussed the medical standard of care for babies born alive and 
concluded that ``we are always obligated to care, whether or not we 
have the ability to heal.''
  I agree with her. There should only be one side to this question--the 
side that advocates for equal medical care for newborns, the side that 
believes that all infants deserve a fighting chance, the side that 
believes that life is precious and must be protected.
  When I attended this hearing, it reminded me of an article that was 
written back in 2004 by one of my favorite writers, Peggy Noonan. She 
was talking about a Presidential candidate, General Wesley Clark, 
running that year for the Democratic nomination for President. She 
quotes an interview that General Clark had with the publisher of the 
Manchester Union-Leader, Joseph McQuaid. Here is how the conversation 
went.
  General Clark says: I don't think you should get the law involved in 
abortion.
  McQuaid said: At all?
  Clark said: Nope.
  McQuaid said: Late-term abortion? No limits?
  Clark said: Nope.
  McQuaid said: Anything up to delivery?
  Clark said: Nope, nope.
  McQuaid: Anything up to the head coming out of the womb?
  Clark said: I say it is up to the woman and her doctor, her 
conscience. You don't put the law in there.
  Back when the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it made clear that 
at some point, once the fetus is viable, you are dealing with more than 
just the interest of the mother. I know the whole debate over abortion 
is divisive in this country, but at some point you have to realize you 
are not just talking about one person but two people, and each of those 
individuals has rights, and the State certainly has an interest in 
protecting a vulnerable child.
  In my State of Texas--and I dare say in Florida and in every other 
State in the country--we have child protection laws in place which say 
if you witness child abuse or neglect, you have a legal duty to report 
it. Again, the law says, if you see a child that is being abused or 
neglected, you have a duty to report it, and if you don't do it, you 
are guilty of a crime.
  How in the world we could reconcile these ideas that it is somehow OK 
to deliver a child, even though it is a botched abortion, and not have 
a legal, much less a moral, duty to care for that child is 
irreconcilable.
  I think it is really important for the Senate to stand on the side of 
life. This is not an abortion issue. This is a matter of equal 
protection under the law and whether we are going to fulfill our duty 
to protect the most vulnerable among us--the children, who might 
otherwise be abused or, certainly, neglected.
  I am proud to cosponsor this legislation and to stand up firmly on 
the side of our most vulnerable citizens.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________