[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1109-S1113]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                Abortion

  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, we are here today to discuss two pieces of 
legislation that will be voted on tomorrow in the U.S. Senate. These 
two important bills address the issue of life, a most basic human 
right--the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and the Born-Alive 
Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
  This first bill, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, would 
end the barbaric practice of late-term abortions after 5 months. It is 
a time, in fact, that the science tells us that babies feel pain.
  The second bill, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 
will protect babies who are born alive after surviving botched 
abortions.
  These back-to-back votes will present an opportunity for every 
Senator and, more specifically, for nearly every one of the Senate 
Democrats to show the American people whether they believe there are 
any--any--limits to radical abortion practices.
  I am joined this evening by several of my esteemed Senate colleagues 
and good friends: Senator Ernst of Iowa, Senator Sasse of Nebraska, and 
Senator Braun of Indiana. These folks, like me, know how important it 
is that we protect the sanctity of life and put an end to the cruel 
practice of late-term abortions and the horrific act of infanticide.
  I founded the Senate Pro-Life Caucus last year because I believe the 
U.S. Senate needed to take bolder action to protect human life.
  In fact, at the State of the Union Address, President Trump invited 
Ellie Schneider and her mother, from Missouri, as his guests. Ellie's 
mother stood proudly as the President shared their story and the 
miracle it was that Ellie was with us that night, healthy and thriving.
  You see, Ellie was born at 21 weeks and 6 days. In fact, she is one 
of the youngest premature babies to survive in the United States. 
Despite the odds being stacked against her, Ellie was given a chance at 
life. Thanks to the grace of God, she is alive and she is healthy 
today.

  Ellie's story and the stories of so many others like her underscore 
how important it is that we put an end to this very cruel practice of 
late-term abortion. It is heartbreaking to know that here in America--
in the United States of America--nearly 12,000 children a year are lost 
to late-term abortions.
  At 20 weeks, science tells us, these babies can suck their thumbs. 
They can feel pain. They can yawn. They can stretch. They can make 
faces.
  In fact, if you have a smartphone, if you are watching tonight, just 
Google 20weekbaby--2-0-W-E-E-K-B-A-B-Y. Here is one of the images that 
will show up on your smartphone. That is what a 20-week baby looks 
like.
  It is unconscionable that preborn babies, after 5 months of 
pregnancy, can be killed, even though they are capable of feeling pain.
  In fact, during this age, preborn babies are oftentimes given 
anesthesia if there is fetal surgery involved.
  Now, here is one of the shocking statistics. The United States is 
only one of seven--seven--countries in the world, which include North 
Korea and China, that allow these barbaric late-term abortions after 20 
weeks. That is a list we don't want to be on, but we are. As Americans, 
we must strive for better. This isn't political. This is about working 
to ensure that every single child has a chance at life.
  The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is a commonsense bill 
and has overwhelming public support. Do you realize public attitude and 
opinion on abortion and late-term abortion keeps swinging in the pro-
life direction? Why is that?
  Well, perhaps one reason is because technology has gotten so much 
better, and 3D ultrasounds give us such a clear picture of what is 
happening there in the womb.
  Look at this picture right here. The images are very clear. I believe 
in a principle that people believe what they discover for themselves. 
Technology is helping young people see that what we are talking about 
here is a baby. It is life.
  Sixty-two percent of voters oppose late-term abortion. This bill is 
something that I firmly believe every Republican and every Democrat can 
get behind. Why can't we at least come together on late-term abortion 
and banning it? Passing this bill would be a major step forward for the 
pro-life cause.
  The next bill we are voting on tomorrow is the Born-Alive Abortion 
Survivors Protection Act.

[[Page S1110]]

  Back home in Montana, this piece of legislation moved through our 
State legislature up to our Governor's desk. It was called the ``Baby 
Born Alive'' bill. It is the same thing. It mandates that if a baby is 
born alive following a botched abortion, the doctor must protect that 
baby and give the same medical care that any other baby would receive.
  Is that really too much to ask for? Honestly, the fact that we are 
having this debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate is astonishing. The 
American people agree. In fact, 77 percent of pro-abortion advocates 
believe that babies born alive should be medically protected.
  Sadly, today there are States that do not offer protections for 
babies born alive. In fact, just earlier this month, in Colorado, State 
legislators killed a bill that would grant legal protections for babies 
born alive after abortions.
  I would like to turn to my colleague from Iowa, Senator Joni Ernst. 
She has been an unwavering, relentless champion for life, and she has 
been a dear friend. She is a great colleague and a great leader on this 
issue of protecting the most vulnerable--these little babies.
  Senator Ernst, would you agree with me that Senate Democrats should 
join us in voting for these commonsense bills that protect innocent 
human life?
  Ms. ERNST. Absolutely, Senator Daines, and I am proud to join you on 
the floor for this colloquy this evening. I will take your place, and I 
have just a few words that I would love to share on these bills as well 
and protecting our unborn.
  Again, I would like to thank the Senator from Montana for arranging 
this colloquy.
  We want to get into some of these commonsense measures that we are 
speaking about this evening. I appreciate the Senator from Montana's 
words, and it is astounding that we are even having this debate on the 
floor of the Senate.
  Very, very commonsense, lifesaving measures are coming before us this 
week, and, first, I would like to step back a little bit and take a 
moment to answer the one key, big-picture question at the center of 
this debate and the debate that we have over life, and the basic 
question there: Is life valuable? And my answer to that question is 
absolutely.
  I see value in every single life, and we all have different ideas on 
how we measure the value of life, but I can boil it down a little bit. 
Some folks would say it is what a human being will bring to this world. 
Now, what that is can be determined by different measures, but what 
impact does a person have.
  Now, some, of course, will see celebrities. They will see athletes. 
They will see trailblazers and scientists and say: Wow, they have made 
their mark on the world, and they contribute so much. There is so much 
impact there.
  But then I see it in everyday, common people at home in Iowa, as 
well. I even reflect upon folks like a friend of my daughter's who grew 
up in our small community of Stanton. He has Down syndrome, and yet he 
contributed so much--and still does to this day--in our home community. 
He is our hometown spirit coordinator at every football game, and he is 
leading everyone in their cheers and supporting our hometown teams. And 
this young man brings so much joy to everyone. I would say that his 
life has made a huge impact on all who know him. We can think of the 
smallest among us as well, that baby in the womb, and how does that 
baby make an impact. As a mother, I know that fellow mothers can relate 
to this as well, but that baby makes an impact even in the womb. The 
experience of pregnancy can change a woman forever, not just physically 
but mentally and emotionally.

  Women I talk to will often comment on the amazing feeling and bond 
they will have with that child who is growing in their womb. They 
experience that heartbeat in the womb. And even to the effects that 
maybe we don't like to reflect on--I remember the swollen ankles I had 
in the last month of pregnancy. No offense to Fred Flintstone, but I 
had Fred Flintstone feet. Even things like that we can reflect on. But 
the impact of having that child stays with me. It changed me forever.
  I know that other mothers know that whether it is from the beginning 
of a pregnancy with a healthy, full-term child or whether it is a scary 
premature birth or, for some, the difficult and life-ending decision to 
abort, the fact remains that the tiny human being carried within us has 
forever left a mark on their mother. This truth spurs me on to fight 
even harder to protect the undeniable value that every human life has. 
Every human life has value.
  So today I stand with my pro-life colleagues in asking our pro-choice 
friends--many of whom are mothers and fathers themselves--to meet us in 
the middle. We may not be able to get on the same page when it comes to 
recognizing the inherent value each of these lives holds, but surely we 
can agree that protecting our most vulnerable from painful death is a 
unifying and humanitarian cause.
  What I would like to do is just tell you the story of my fellow 
Iowan, Micah Pickering. Micah is joining us on the Hill this week, and 
I encourage all of my colleagues to take some time to meet this 
incredible boy. He will be on the Hill tomorrow.
  When I first met Micah, he was just a couple years old, and his 
family had brought him into my office. I had this picture. I had just 
this picture in my office. Micah, then 2 years old, ran over to this 
picture, not knowing it was he, and he pointed at it and he said: ``A 
baby!''
  I started to cry, and I said: ``Yes, Micah, that is a baby.''
  Today Micah is happy, healthy, and he is 7 years old. He was born at 
22 weeks, and that is the age of some of the babies we are talking 
about today--born at 22 weeks. When Micah was born, he was literally 
the size of a bag of M&Ms, a tiny baby.
  Folks, can't we all agree that this is a baby and that babies like 
Micah who survive a premature birth at 20 to 22 weeks--we are talking 
about those who survive at 20 weeks, which is more than halfway through 
pregnancy--are deserving of protection? I agree with that.
  The only difference between Micah and the more than 10,000 children 
who are aborted after 22 weeks' gestation--which is what Micah was--the 
difference, the dividing factor, is that Micah was wanted by his 
parents. His parents, Danielle and Clayton, saw his inherent value.
  The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is a measure that should 
meet the approval standard of my pro-choice friends because supporting 
this bill means giving all of the Micah Pickerings of the world an 
equal, fighting chance. The degree to which a child of any age is 
wanted does not diminish their value, and we have an obligation as 
lawmakers to protect their right to life.
  But if we cannot come together in support of a bill that protects 
viable babies from abortion at the point when they feel pain, then 
surely, surely a baby who survives an abortion attempt deserves the 
same degree of care as any other newborn. Folks, just think about it. 
These babies, their lives--they have already survived a horrific 
abortion attempt and have been given a second chance at life. But 
without our putting the necessary protections in place, these precious 
babies can literally be left to die. Those in the medical field who 
fail to care for these precious newborns need to be held accountable.
  Senator Sasse has helped lead the way in protecting these living 
babies with his Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, a 
commonsense bill that I proudly support. Given that we have an 
estimated 143 babies who died between 2003 and 2014 after surviving 
abortion, it is clear that we need to strengthen the current law. These 
babies deserve the basic medical standard of care regardless of how 
wanted they may have been.
  I implore you to think about the issue of life in a new way, one that 
is very simple. When you think about everyone you have come into 
contact with, whether it is your family, your friends, your coworkers, 
your spouse, even yourself, every single person was at one time a 
defenseless child in their mother's womb. Every life, from the baby who 
has just been conceived, to each and every one of you in this room 
tonight, has value. Whether you are that star athlete, whether you are 
that scientist making new discoveries, whether you are that hometown 
cheerleader, every life has value.
  To my Senate colleagues, we have had this debate before, but I ask 
that

[[Page S1111]]

you consider these bills with new eyes focused on the inherent value of 
life. You have the opportunity to save lives, and I hope you will join 
me in doing so.
  I thank the Senator from Montana for raising this issue this evening, 
and I am proud to be a ``yes'' vote on both of these tremendous bills. 
I hope we can get others to join us in that effort.
  Thank you, Senator.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DAINES. Senator, thank you, and thanks for your very moving story 
about Micah Pickering. It helps to take these ideas and translate them 
directly into these children today, whom you can see there as a little 
baby.
  There are critics of the born-alive bill who would say this horrible 
act that we described here tonight simply doesn't happen. For those who 
say that, they should talk to somebody named Melissa Oden. In fact, 
just last year when we had the born-alive bill on the floor of the 
Senate, I was coming down to speak on behalf of the bill. I was just 
about maybe 50 feet from where I am standing right now, outside the 
doors of the Senate, as I was making my way to speak, and guess who was 
standing outside the door of the Senate. It was Melissa Oden. She is a 
beautiful mother today. She survived a saline-infusion abortion as a 
little baby at about 5 months. She was left for dead, and she was 
discarded--this was in Kansas City, MO--until a hospital nurse heard 
her little cries. This nurse saved Melissa's life, for which we are 
very thankful. It was quite an experience to meet her just outside 
these Chamber doors. Now Melissa herself is a mother.
  I believe we have a duty, an obligation to protect life and 
particularly the most innocent life and the most vulnerable life, like 
a little baby who can be born alive as a result of a botched abortion 
attempt.
  It is my hope that the Members of this body, Republicans and 
Democrats, will vote to support and defend this most basic human right 
and recognize that late-term abortions--I recognize this is a very 
divisive issue in this country, but I would think that on the issue of 
late-term abortions, on the issue of babies born alive as a result of 
botched abortions--can we at least come together where public opinion 
overwhelmingly supports both and say, let's stop these barbaric 
practices. These are extreme positions. They should be outlawed in this 
country. We can no longer simply stand by as our children--we talk 
about children in this country losing their lives to abortion and 
infanticide.
  As Americans, we have an obligation to honor our Nation's founding 
promise enshrined in our Declaration of Independence that all men and 
all women and all human life are created equal and endowed by our 
Creator with these certain inalienable rights--life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness. Think about it this way: Of these important 
rights, you can't have liberty and the pursuit of happiness without 
first having the right to life. This right to life is the first and 
most important of these inalienable rights.
  So I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting these commonsense 
bills to stop this brutal violence of late-term abortions of pain-
capable babies. That is why it is called the Pain-Capable Act. Babies 
are capable of feeling pain at about 20 weeks. That is why, when in 
utero surgery is performed, they administer anesthesia--because the 
baby is feeling pain. That is where we are drawing the line with these 
bills to stop late-term abortion and also babies who are born alive--
which isn't about abortion; this is about infanticide. We must protect 
these innocent babies, standing for life, standing for those who are 
most vulnerable.
  I see that my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Sasse, has come to the 
floor. Senator Sasse authored the baby born alive bill. I am grateful 
Senator Sasse is joining us here tonight in this colloquy.
  Senator Sasse, can you explain the importance of passing the bill you 
have authored?
  Mr. SASSE. Thank you, Senator Daines of Montana and Senator Ernst of 
Iowa. I know Senator Braun is going to be here shortly. I want to speak 
about both pieces of legislation we are going to be considering 
tomorrow. Both of them are very important to distinguish. I know it has 
been brought up a few times tonight, but just to be sure we are all on 
the same page, Senator Graham's Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection 
Act is a very important piece of legislation, and I think my Born-Alive 
Abortion Survivor's Protection Act--both of them, which my colleagues 
here have spoken on, are very important pieces of legislation. They are 
important pieces of legislation, but they are distinct and have to be 
clarified to the American people, via the press, on how they differ.
  These two bills are different, but they are connected by a simple 
question, which is, Will the Senate vote tomorrow to protect babies? 
This is about as straightforward a question as you can possibly have. 
Will the Senate vote tomorrow to protect babies?
  Let's talk first about Senator Graham's legislation. Every mom and 
dad knows what it is like to see your child hurt, to see somebody fall 
down, maybe with something as minor as a scraped knee or a burnt hand 
on the stove or a finger slammed in a car door or a bedroom door. You 
know that experience of a deep breath that is going to be followed by 
the piercing cry. Something drops in the pit of your stomach. Every 
parent knows this feeling. You want to scoop them up. You want to grab 
them. You want to hold them, and you want to take away the pain. You 
would take Tenex for the pain, if you could, to protect your baby from 
that pain. You want to make it stop, and you want them to know that 
they are going to be okay. When your child hurts, you hurt, and it is 
far worse to watch your child hurting than to feel the pain yourself.

  So we have this gut feeling when it comes to pain. When we see 
someone hurting, we know this is not the way the world is supposed to 
be. Pain is not natural. This is not the order of things as it was 
meant to be, and so our heart leaps at the sight of someone in pain--
not just a child, but especially when it is a child, a family member, 
or a friend, or even a complete stranger. When you see somebody in 
pain, we want to make it stop. Human beings are compassionate; that is, 
we feel along with others. When they suffer, we suffer, and so we reach 
out to protect. We want to give comfort.
  Tomorrow, we have the opportunity to extend that reach of care and 
comfort and protection. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act 
would protect babies as early as 20 weeks into pregnancy--that is 
halfway through--by inscribing in law our responsibility to protect 
innocent babies in the womb from the pain that is inflicted by 
abortion.
  The responsibility that we have when a 2-year-old skins her knee is 
also a responsibility that we have when a 20-week-old baby in the womb 
is threatened. The science is clear: Modern medicine is allowing 
surgeons to perform operations on in utero babies, and these intricate, 
amazing--amazing--little operations available nowadays are saving the 
lives of thousands of babies with what would have once been fatal 
conditions. These surgeons frequently administer drugs to the baby, 
just like they do to the mother. These doctors are treating two 
patients--not just one--and they do everything in their power not just 
to advance the health of both of the patients but to protect both of 
the patients from pain. They want to be sure that both patients are 
safe and comfortable and as well cared for as possible.
  Science has shown us that these babies feel pain, and the Pain-
Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is a simple recognition that, 
although the baby in the womb might be mostly invisible to us, we are 
not blind to her needs. We have a responsibility to spread that 
umbrella of law over every vulnerable person, no matter how small. Size 
doesn't determine dignity or worth.
  The question before us tomorrow is, Will the U.S. Senate vote to 
protect these babies? It is pretty simple. You are going to hear lots 
of crazy commentary talking about other stuff than what we are actually 
voting on tomorrow, but what we are voting on is, Should the U.S. 
Senate vote to protect these babies? I plan to vote in favor of 
compassion because I believe that being pro-mom and pro-baby and being 
pro-science are all bundled up together. So tomorrow, we are going to 
consider compassionate pro-science and pro-baby legislation, and I 
implore my colleagues, all 100 of us, ought to be doing the same.
  I also know that, although I am unapologetically pro-life, many of my

[[Page S1112]]

colleagues in this body are not. So tonight, I also want us to talk 
about a different piece of legislation. It is motivated by that same 
care and that same concern with having the U.S. Senate vote to protect 
babies. It is actually a different piece of legislation than Senator 
Graham's important pro-life anti-abortion piece of legislation. I want 
to talk about this second piece of legislation.
  Even if you are unwilling to vote to defend unborn babies, I hope 
that my colleagues would at least consider joining with us in voting to 
protect babies that have already been born. Senator Graham's 
legislation is about protecting babies in utero. We have got a second 
piece of legislation before us tomorrow that is about protecting babies 
after they have already been born.
  Will we acknowledge that a baby outside the womb should not be left 
to die? That is what the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act 
is actually about. One year ago tomorrow, the U.S. Senate, sadly, 
shamefully, shrugged its shoulders at babies who had already been born 
after botched abortions. A bipartisan majority in this body--let's be 
clear--a bipartisan majority voted in favor of protecting these babies, 
but we didn't have enough votes. We didn't have enough votes voting 
with us in this Chamber to break the filibuster in favor of 
infanticide. That is what happened a year ago tomorrow in this Chamber.
  Today, there is nothing in our Federal law that criminalizes the 
denial of care to a baby that has survived an abortion, so when a baby 
lives through an abortion procedure and ends up born and is outside 
mom, there is nothing in Federal law that criminalizes denying care to 
those babies and allowing her or him to die, and we have to change 
that.
  This second bill tomorrow is not actually about abortion. It is not 
about Roe v. Wade. It is about something different. It is about what 
happens after an abortion that didn't succeed in terminating the baby's 
life. When a baby survives and is lying on that table cold and naked 
and alone, what does our society do? Are we a country that protects 
babies that are alive--born outside the womb after having survived a 
botched abortion--are we a country that says it is okay to just sit 
back and allow that baby to die? That baby that is fighting for life, 
is it okay for us to just let that baby die? It is a plain and simple 
question, and we all know what the right answer is. There are hard 
calls that we consider in this body sometimes. There are a lot of gray 
issues. This isn't one of them. This isn't a hard call.
  Since last year's vote, we have brought before this body testimony 
from medical experts who have been involved in abortion procedures and 
who have had in their hands 1-pound little babies that had survived 
abortions. That was the purpose of the Senate Judiciary Committee's 
hearing on this bill 2 weeks ago. In that, we heard testimony that made 
clear why this bill is necessary, and it made clear that the other side 
actually can't confront the arguments head on. That is what happened 2 
weeks ago in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  We were looking at the text of this bill. We had in front of us 
medical experts who had the experience with people who had babies who 
had survived abortions, and they talked about what happened in their 
clinics. Everybody who spoke against the Abortion Survivors Protection 
Act didn't talk about the bill at all. They talked about all these 
other things. Some of them aren't actually hard debates, but none of 
them had anything to do with the legislation that we were actually 
considering. That is because they couldn't actually defend opposing a 
bill that the purpose is simply to prohibit infanticide.

  That is why Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the Big Abortion doctors' 
lobby resorted to simple misinformation. That is all the hearing was by 
those who were opposed to the legislation. They say that what we are 
trying to do is prevent something that doesn't happen. That is not 
true. That is a myth. There are 8 States where we have some reporting 
information. We should have reporting information from all 50 States, 
but in the 8 States that we have, we have information about the babies 
that survive abortions and what happens to them. They wouldn't confront 
those facts, so they just made these blanket statements that this 
legislation deals with something that doesn't happen, but it does, 
which is why we had a hearing and why we brought in experts.
  Then the opponents of this legislation talked about completely 
unrelated things. They said that there are no such things as abortion 
survivors. We would like to introduce you to some of them. Perhaps they 
should also consult the CDC's records. Of the several States I 
mentioned, there were eight that reported data on survivors.
  Or they should talk to the Abortion Survivors Network. They should 
look into the eyes of spouses and friends and neighbors and coworkers 
and parents who are abortion survivors, and they should try to tell 
them that what we are doing is pointless or a waste. They can't do that 
because their position is morally indefensible.
  Who are the spouses and friends and neighbors who are not here today 
because they did not receive lifesaving medical care in their first 
moments of life? The terms of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors 
Protection Act are simple: A child born alive during a botched abortion 
would be given the same level of care that is provided to any other 
baby born at that same gestational stage. That is it. That is all the 
second piece of legislation we are going to deal with tomorrow does.
  It says, when a baby survives an abortion, that baby should get the 
same level of medical care that is provided to any other baby at the 
same stage of gestational development. That is all it does. It doesn't 
create, as opponents charge, some mandate to prolong the suffering of a 
dying child. It doesn't do anything like that. It simply says, if a 
baby survives an abortion, it has to get the same level of medical care 
that would be provided to any other baby at the same stage of 
gestational care that had parents that wanted that baby. It doesn't 
force the doctor to do anything that violates medical best practice. It 
simply says that a baby who survives an abortion is a baby and should 
be treated as such, as a baby, with care and compassion.
  Do Senators in this Chamber believe their own campaign slogans? Our 
colleague from Vermont, who is on the verge of becoming the standard-
bearer for the Democratic Party in our country, has declared: ``The 
mark of a great Nation is how it treats its most vulnerable people.''
  Senator Sanders is right. America is dedicated to the proposition 
that all men and women, all boys and girls, are created equal--even the 
littlest ones, even if they happen to come into the world in the most 
horrific of circumstances and even if they are crippled or inconvenient 
or unwanted. America recognizes the immeasurable dignity of every human 
being, regardless of race or sex or creed or ability. If we are hemming 
and hawing about whether it is okay to let children die of neglect, we 
know we have lost part of our soul.
  Tomorrow, we have a chance to recognize and secure the dignity of 
some of the most vulnerable members of our society. We have a chance to 
protect those babies who come into the world under the worst of 
conditions, and we have the chance to extend to them the possibility of 
life and of love. Tomorrow, we can speak up for the voiceless. We can 
defend the defenseless. We can come to the aid of the innocent.
  This is not about Roe. This is not about politics. It is about a 
simple question: Will the U.S. Senate, tomorrow, stand for the 
proposition that babies are babies and they deserve care? Will the 
Senate vote tomorrow to protect babies?
  I defer to my colleague from the State to the east, Iowa, Senator 
Ernst.
  Ms. ERNST. I thank Mr. Sasse, the great Senator from Nebraska. I want 
to thank him for joining the colloquy and for offering the bill that 
would save these babies that, as he described, are born in horrific 
circumstances. But a baby is a baby, and it is undeniable.
  I do hope that we have a number of our friends and colleagues from 
across the aisle join us tomorrow in that vote and say that, yes, this 
is a life that deserves dignity and a chance and an opportunity. That 
is what we are asking for. So thank you very much for your work there.
  We will continue our colloquy. We have another speaker that is 
joining us

[[Page S1113]]

from the great State of Indiana. I will yield to the junior Senator.
  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, a little over a month ago--or a year ago--I 
was here with Senator Sasse and asked for a unanimous consent vote. I 
was here, mostly curious to see who might object to a bill that wants 
born alive--where you do everything you can to keep that child alive. I 
was appalled then, and here again, we are talking about the same thing, 
but I think we have got room for optimism.
  We have got two bills that have gotten, I think, more support at this 
stage of the game than in a long time. First on the Pain Capable bill, 
last month, two researchers, with broadly different views on abortion, 
published research in the Journal of Medical Ethics, stating 
conclusively that ``the neuroscience cannot definitely rule out fetal 
pain before 24 weeks.''
  As we continue to learn more about the science of when unborn 
children can feel pain in the womb, the moral imperative to provide a 
cutoff point for abortions grows stronger and stronger. I hope that my 
colleagues, especially on the other side of the aisle, will not deny 
science by allowing abortions to be performed on unborn children 
capable of feeling pain.
  The Born Alive bill--again, we are closer than ever. On a procedural 
vote, we have 53 votes, bipartisan, almost there, with 3 Republicans 
not able to vote. So, theoretically, 56 votes possibly. I stepped up 
here a year ago, and I do it again because I also sense, across the 
country, things are starting to change.
  Millennials are now leaning towards what the solemnity and sanctity 
of life is about, and I think, if we just take guidance from that 
younger generation, it ought to be able to move four Senators to get in 
line and do what seems to be so clear from a moral point of view.
  Some will say that a bill to ensure medical care for babies born 
after failed abortions is unnecessary because it doesn't happen that 
often. That is not a good reason. It doesn't matter how common it is. 
It matters if it is right or wrong. Even if my colleagues do not agree 
with me that every baby conceived has the right to be born, we should 
at least agree that every baby that is born has a right to live. If you 
go back a few years ago, 2015, there were 38 votes for the same bill. 
In 2017, there were 36. A little over a year ago, there were 53, or 56, 
however you want to look at it.

  I plead to citizens across this country, just as I did a little over 
a year ago, to get ahold of your Senators. In States where the sanctity 
of life--the solemnity of life--is important, get ahold of your 
Senators and tell them that we need their votes.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. ERNST. Thank you very much to the junior Senator from Indiana. We 
really appreciate his efforts on these bills as well.
  Again, I think all of us would agree that these are commonsense 
pieces of legislation, and we would love to see some movement coming 
from our friends on the left.
  We have had a wonderful colloquy this evening.
  Of course, again, thanks to the Senator from Montana, Mr. Daines, for 
leading this colloquy and for sharing his time with us this evening as 
we have talked about some of these measures.
  To the junior Senator from the great State of Nebraska, as well, Mr. 
Sasse, thank you so much for authoring the Born-Alive Abortion 
Survivors Act.
  And thanks to Senator Lindsey Graham, of course, for authoring his 
pain-capable bill.
  Again, we have talked this evening about those two bills that really 
hit close to home. I did happen to sit through the Judiciary Committee 
hearing that was led by Senator Sasse a couple of weeks ago, where we 
did talk about the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act. It was true that 
so many of our friends across the aisle were deflecting on the 
legislation. They were talking about a woman's right to choose. They 
were talking about being pro-choice and supporting abortion. The bottom 
line is, this is not a bill that has anything to do with those topics. 
This is about saving babies who are born alive after a botched abortion 
attempt. So I think we have to make that very clear as we move through 
tomorrow's proceedings.
  Again, thank you for the colloquy this evening. It has been very 
helpful in expressing our views about the rights of these babies to 
live and to make a difference in our world.
  With that, we will close out the colloquy, again thanking those who 
are supporting the bills, as well as those who joined us here on the 
floor this evening.