[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1107-S1108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           Women's Healthcare

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it must be a day that ends in ``Y'' 
because, once again, Republican Senators are pushing for backward, 
ideological bills to restrict a women's constitutional right to 
abortion. Once again, Republicans are peddling a ban that is blatantly 
unconstitutional. Once again, they are pretending we don't already have 
laws on the books that protect infants and are using that as a pretext 
to drum up fear and misunderstanding about one of the most 
heartbreaking situations a family can face, and are pushing for anti-
doctor, anti-women, anti-family legislation.
  Once again, I am here on behalf of women and men across the country 
to deliver the same message we have already made clear countless times: 
not on our watch. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has indicated he 
wants to pivot to legislating, which makes these two atrocious bills an 
interesting choice because all 100 Senators know they are going 
absolutely nowhere. The truth is, Republicans' charade today is not 
actually about passing laws any more than it is about people's health 
or medical science or what is best for patients. It is really about 
Republicans' crass political calculation that they can fire up their 
far-right base with an all-out war against the constitutionally 
protected right to safe, legal abortion.
  The two bills differ in some significant ways, but they have the same 
consequences. They would criminalize--criminalize--abortion, take 
deeply personal, often painful decisions out of the hands of parents 
and use scare tactics and misinformation to try to weaken strong public 
support for Roe.
  Another thing they have in common? They have already been panned by 
leading medical groups. The American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists has called one of these bills ``an unconstitutional 
attempt to intimidate health care providers and prevent them from 
providing the safe care their patients want and need.'' And they have 
said the other is ``a gross legislative interference into the practice 
of medicine.''
  It is not just medical experts. Families across the country have 
actually faced these decisions, have spoken out to make clear 
politicians should have no part in them. Pressing for these awful bills 
year after year may be nothing more than a cynical political tactic for 
Republicans, but passing them would be an unconscionable exercise in 
cruelty to the people who would actually be affected:
  People like Judy, who is from my home State of Washington. Judy 
learned over 20 weeks into her pregnancy that her son's organs were not 
developing properly. One lung was 20 percent formed. The other was 
missing entirely.
  People like Kate, whose doctor informed her that if her daughter 
survived birth, she would not be able to walk, talk, or swallow and 
likely would not even be comfortable enough to sleep.
  People like Lindsay, who learned her daughter had a fast-growing, 
inoperable tumor growing into her brain and heart and lungs, wrapping 
around her neck and eyes and chest, and making her odds of survival 
incredibly slim.
  People like Darla, who was pregnant with twins when she got the 
unthinkable news that one of her twins had serious medical 
complications. Not terminating that pregnancy could put her other 
twin's healthcare at risk.
  Those are just a few of many stories. There are more families across 
the country who have struggled with the painful reality that the child 
they have hoped for cannot survive. Each of them has spoken out to 
underscore that in those wrenching moments, they wanted to make the 
decision that was best for their child and their family, with their 
healthcare provider. But each of these bills would take the ability to 
make the decision best for that child and family away from women like 
Judy, Kate, Lindsay, and Darla. Those bills would prevent doctors from 
offering the best medical advice, all because extreme politicians are 
more concerned with spreading misinformation and firing up their base 
than they are with actual women's lives. In other words, in the most 
private moments of personal tragedy, these bills would take precedence 
over a family's wishes as they grieve.

  To the politicians supporting these bills, I have to ask: How dare 
you think your opinion is more important here than the knowledge of 
medical experts and the wishes of the family who is affected?
  I don't understand how anyone can think, instead of letting patients 
make their own very personal decisions, that they should have that 
decision made for them by President Trump and Vice President Pence. 
That is exactly what we are talking about today. Why? Even though Roe 
v. Wade has been the law of the land for almost a half a century, even 
though a large majority of people do not want to see that landmark 
decision overturned, Republicans think somehow they can benefit 
politically and fire up the most ideological elements of their base by 
using every tool imaginable to chip away at the right to safe--safe--
legal abortion.
  I am here to say they can try, but women, medical experts, and those 
of us elected officials who trust them are not going to stop calling 
these bills what they are: anti-women, anti-doctor, and anti-family. We 
are going to make clear we oppose every single one of their efforts to 
further chip away at access to safe, legal abortion under Roe: every 
extreme, cruel abortion ban, every fearmongering effort to gin up 
controversy and pretend we don't already protect infants, every far-
right judge they try to pack onto the courts to chip away at Roe v. 
Wade, every barrier to care and information like President Trump's 
title X gag rule, and every new shameful scheme they concoct in their 
all-out war on access to reproductive healthcare.

[[Page S1108]]

  Whatever Republicans try next, Democrats are going to continue 
fighting alongside women and men across the country to protect their 
ability to make their own decisions about their own families, continue 
standing up for doctors' ability to practice medicine without 
politicians getting in the way, and lifting up the stories of real 
people, like Judy and Kate and Lindsey, Darla, and many others--so 
Republicans can't ignore them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am really disappointed to feel like I 
need to come to the floor today to respond to these anti-women, anti-
family bills that have been introduced. Not only would these bills 
interfere with a woman's ability to make her own reproductive choices, 
they would threaten doctors with prison time if they perform abortion 
services that women have a constitutional right to receive.
  These bills are dangerous, extreme, and they are part of an ongoing 
effort by this administration to overturn Roe v. Wade. We don't need 
this legislation to prevent the killing of infants.
  Let's be very clear. Infanticide is already illegal under Federal 
law. In fact, prosecutions have occurred under the current law that 
prevents infanticide. This legislation would do nothing but set up 
ambiguous standards for cases that are often medical emergencies and 
add uncertainty to laws that are already on the books to prohibit 
infanticide.
  This uncertainty will have a chilling effect on the ability of women 
to access the services they need in the United States. The legislation 
we are voting on would also imprison doctors for up to 5 years for 
performing abortions after a woman is 20 weeks pregnant, even though--
even though Federal courts have ruled that this 20-week abortion ban, 
as is proposed under one of these bills, would violate the 
Constitution.
  The 20-week abortion ban bill would only allow for exceptions for 
minors who are victims of rape or incest if those young women report 
that rape or incest to the police. For adult women, the rape exception 
would only apply if she waits 48 hours and gets counseling from a 
healthcare provider that her government--not that she or her family but 
the government--determines is acceptable.
  These exceptions are just shameful because my colleagues know, as I 
do, that almost three-quarters of rape and sexual assaults are never 
reported, often because women have legitimate fears of being victimized 
again. They fear the rapist or the person who has assaulted them.
  More broadly, it is really this simple: We should not be putting 
doctors in prison for providing a woman with the reproductive care she 
chooses. We must always remember that abortions that are performed 
later in pregnancy are almost always done as a result of severe fetal 
diagnoses and the serious risk that the pregnancy poses to the life of 
the woman.
  This isn't a decision that any woman or family wants to be in a 
position to make. It is tragic, and it is heartbreaking. The fact that 
these bills would demean the women who have to make these decisions by 
suggesting that this is something that government should decide for 
them instead of the woman with her family and with her doctor is 
nothing but tragic. I don't understand how people can think the 
government is better positioned to make these personal decisions than 
women and families and their doctors.
  Protecting pregnant women, new mothers, and children is about more 
than scoring political points with anti-choice legislation. It is about 
ensuring that women have access to maternity care. That means prenatal 
care. It means having access to affordable healthcare coverage. That is 
why this legislation rings so hollow. People who are speaking on the 
floor who are supporting these bills are not talking about improving 
the lives of women and children.

  Right now, this administration is in court, backing a lawsuit that 
would tear down the Affordable Care Act despite the fact that there is 
no alternative if the ACA is struck down. If the administration and 
States succeed in striking down the Affordable Care Act, we are going 
to go back to the days when insurance companies can exclude maternity 
care from coverage and when women can be charged higher premiums than 
men. If they succeed, the Medicaid expansion would be gone, and States 
would have fewer dollars to cover more people at a time when 43 percent 
of childbirths in this country are covered and paid for by Medicaid.
  These are the fundamental issues that are at stake for women and 
families across this country. Given these stakes, I am disappointed 
that here we are again, debating two anti-choice bills that the Senate 
already rejected in 2018 and 2019. Nothing has changed since then. This 
is time that is being used, as the Senator from Washington said, just 
to try and stir up the base of some of the Senators who are in this 
Chamber.
  If my colleagues were serious about protecting mothers and children, 
they would join in supporting efforts to ensure that the healthcare 
coverage that families rely on isn't ripped away in court. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose these bills and to vote no when they are 
considered on the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.