[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1129-S1136]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume legislative session to consider the motion to proceed to S.
3275, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 420, S. 3275, to amend
title 18, United States Code, to protect pain-capable unborn
children, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 3:30
p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees.
The Senator from Alaska.
Nomination of Katharine MacGregor
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, very briefly, here this afternoon,
beginning at 3:30, we will have a series of votes that include the
nomination of Katharine MacGregor to be the Deputy Secretary of the
Department of the Interior. I would like to provide my support for this
nomination.
I want to thank my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee for working with me to report then re-report Ms. MacGregor's
nomination, which moved out on a bipartisan basis.
I thank the majority leader for filing cloture on her nomination
before the recess so we could confirm her this week.
She has a lot of work to do at Interior, and we need her on the job.
She did very well at her confirmation hearing last year. She has
significant experience on the issues she will face as Deputy Secretary,
having worked here on Capitol Hill for 10 years, as the principal
deputy and Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, as
well as the Department's Deputy Chief of Staff, and, most recently,
exercising the authority of the Deputy Secretary.
Ms. MacGregor's nomination has drawn the support of dozens of groups,
including some in my State: Alaska Federation of Natives, Arctic Slope
Regional Association, Doyon Limited, American Wind Energy Association,
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Public Lands
Council, and many others.
I personally share those groups' confidence that Ms. MacGregor will
do a good job as Deputy Secretary. I think she is well qualified. She
has the right experience to succeed in this role. I think she will be a
fine asset for Secretary Bernhardt and the rest of the Interior team. I
would urge my colleagues to support her full confirmation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 916
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, later this afternoon, we are going to
have two votes on motions to proceed. They are procedural votes to go
forward on two pieces of legislation relative to the issue of abortion.
Those of us in public life know full well that this is a very
controversial issue. There are people who feel very strongly on one
side and very strongly on the other.
These votes this afternoon will not resolve that conflict. They don't
try to. What the Republican majority under Senator McConnell has
decided to do is to bring back for a vote two items we already voted
on. We know the outcome. We can virtually predict within one or two
votes what it is going to be.
At the end of the day, Republicans will turn to a special interest
group and say: We told you we could call this every year. We did it.
We will have Members who will vote their conscience on both sides of
the aisle, but the net result of that is not going to be to change
anything for the better in the United States, when it comes to the
issues that challenge us.
What I would like to do is to come to this floor with a radical idea.
I have an idea how we can come together, regardless of our position on
that issue, and do something constructive for this country. Let me tell
you what I have in mind. The United States currently ranks 32 out of 35
industrial nations when it comes to infant mortality. That is right--32
out of 35 when it comes to the survival of babies in the United States
once born.
A 2018 report published in Health Affairs by Global Health
characterized the United States of America as ``the most dangerous of
wealthy nations for a child to be born into.'' What they found was that
U.S. babies--babies born in the United States--are three times as
likely to die of premature birth and more than twice as likely to die
of SIDS than babies in comparably rich countries. Every year, more than
[[Page S1130]]
23,000 infants die in the United States, largely due to factors that in
many cases could have been prevented: low birth weight, maternal health
complications, prematurity.
Babies of color are particularly at risk. Black infants are twice as
likely to die in America as White infants, a disparity that is greater
than it was in the year 1850 in this country.
We are not only losing babies, we are losing mothers, as well. Listen
to this statistic. The United States is one of only 13 countries in the
world where the rate of maternal mortality--mothers dying during the
birth process, related to pregnancy or childbirth, for up to a year
postpartum--is worse than it was 25 years ago. We haven't moved
forward. We have moved backward when it comes to mothers surviving
child birth.
Nationwide, more than 700 women die every year as a result of
pregnancy and more than 70,000 suffer near-fatal complications. More
than 660 percent of these deaths are preventable.
Sadly, much like with babies, the tragedy of maternal mortality is
even more pronounced when you look at communities of color. In the
United States of America, women of color are three to four times more
likely than White women to die as a result of pregnancy. If you think
it has something to do with poverty and wealth--that is what I
thought--there is no correlation. The only correlation is race.
In my State of Illinois, I am sorry to report that if you are an
African-American woman, you are six times more likely than a White
woman to die in childbirth. That is why Congressional Representative
Robin Kelly, in the House, and my colleague Senator Tammy Duckworth and
I, in the Senate, have joined in introducing the MOMMA's Act.
First and foremost, more than anything, this bill would expand the
length of time that a new mother can keep her Medicaid health coverage.
Currently, Medicaid only has to cover women for 2 months after
the child is born. Our bill would expand that to a full year. The
Medicaid Program pays for 50 percent of all births nationwide--44
percent in Illinois. It is a big part of the treatment of women who are
giving birth to children. This program is vital for new moms and
babies, and it makes no sense that a new mom's health coverage is
terminated 2 months after she has given birth. Why don't we stick with
her so she can live? Why don't we do something affirmative to say that
we are committed to mothers and children on a bipartisan basis,
regardless of our position on any other issue?
The MOMMA's Act would also provide access to doulas, as well as
improve implicit bias and cultural competency training among healthcare
providers. Too often Black women are ignored or not taken seriously by
healthcare providers. Doulas can help provide education advocacy and
support for women whose voices today are being ignored. Our bill would
establish national obstetric emergency protocols and ensure
dissemination of the best practices for healthcare providers dealing
with moms and babies. Finally, it would help to standardize maternal
and infant health data collection reporting so we have a better idea of
what is happening and why.
Our bill is supported by the American Medical Association, Families
USA, the March of Dimes, the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and the Black
Mamas Matter Alliance. Our bill is supported by these and many other
public health and provider organizations because it would save the
lives and improve the lives of moms and babies.
We can debate the issue of abortion back and forth all day. We know
how the votes are going to turn out, and we know nothing is going to
occur. Why don't we come together on something bipartisan that says we
are all dedicated to reducing the incidence of infant mortality and
maternal mortality in this country? Isn't that one thing we can agree
on? That is my challenge to this Senate Chamber.
Leader McConnell has made it clear that he has no intention of
allowing the Senate to debate and pass legislation that will actually
help families in need. I hope he is wrong. Instead, he wants us only to
vote on controversial judicial nominees and politically charged anti-
choice legislation that has no chance of passing. If he is serious
about wanting to save the lives of babies and their mothers, I hope
that he will make an exception for the MOMMA's Act.
I would like to make a unanimous consent request.
I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from
further consideration of S. 916, the Mothers and Offspring Mortality
and Morbidity Awareness Act, also known as the MOMMA's Act; that the
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be
considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. SASSE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would
like to address Senator Durbin's comments and his unanimous consent
request through the Chair.
First, I am glad the Senator from Illinois wants to reduce infant
mortality rates and wants to reduce maternal mortality rates. I agree
on both of these goals.
On the subject of infant mortality, the Senate is going to vote on
one infant mortality bill in about an hour. The senior Senator from
Illinois said a moment ago that there are two anti-choice pieces of
legislation this afternoon. For reporters and the public paying
attention, Lindsey Graham's bill is about abortion. I support Senator
Graham's bill. I don't exactly agree with the characterization of it as
leading with the anti-choice language, but it is an abortion bill.
The second piece of legislation we are considering today is not in
any way an abortion bill. The anti-choice legislation rhetoric that you
are using doesn't have anything to do with the actual legislation that
we are considering this afternoon.
Yet I hope that you would consider on the Born-Alive Abortion
Survivors Protection Act the fact that it is addressing some cases of
mortality by making sure babies who have survived abortion get care.
These are babies who are already born and outside the mother.
The Senator's passionate speech about infant mortality suggests that
either we are doing more cynical posturing around here or that folks
plan to actually support this bipartisan piece of legislation. I hope
it is the latter. I sincerely hope that the Senator would vote in
accord with the positions he took earlier in his career and that we
would vote in favor getting important stuff done on this legislation.
In addition, as for the comments he made on the subject of maternal
mortality rates, I agree with him. Many of these tragedies are
preventable and, I believe, despite being the second or third or fourth
most conservative Member of the Senate by my voting record and
believing in small government, I agree we underfund a lot of these
pieces of public health investment, and I would like us to do more to
address preventable maternal tragedies as well.
Therefore, in a moment, I am going to ask if the senior Senator from
Illinois would agree to modify his unanimous consent request to include
the Grassley amendment. I will use all of the appropriate parliamentary
language at the end but, for public understanding, this amendment, the
Grassley amendment, would give States $2.5 billion new dollars to
address maternal health and at-risk communities. In addition, this
amendment would give $200 million to address maternal mortality under
the Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant Program. We are
talking about more funding, fully offset, for at-risk moms--no
politics, no gimmicks. It is in line with the policies that the senior
Senator from Illinois was just advancing.
It is my belief the pro-life position is pro-baby, pro-mom, and pro-
science. If the Senator from Illinois wants to spend another $2.7
billion to help moms, I am aligned with him. It would be great if we
could get that done forever. If, however, we are trying to change the
subject from the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and that
means we can't advance a deal to protect these moms and babies, that
would be disappointing.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify his request to
include
[[Page S1131]]
the Grassley substitute amendment, which is No. 1240. I ask unanimous
consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from its consideration
and that the amendment be considered agreed to; that the bill, as
amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I do not question the sincerity of my colleague. I know
you come to this issue with a sincere heart. I don't question that at
all. What I am saying to you is that you and I could spend the rest of
this day and the next on this floor debating the issue of abortion, and
we are not going to resolve it--not in this Chamber, not in this
country.
What I am asking you to do is look beyond the current issues that are
coming to the floor this afternoon and try to find some common ground--
Republicans and Democrats--on the issue of maternal mortality.
You have to be shocked, as I am, to read these numbers about the
babies and mothers who are dying, particularly babies and mothers of
color. If we can do something as a nation to show we truly do care
about this, even though we have differences on this issue of abortion,
wouldn't that be a breakthrough for this Chamber? I think the people
across this country would applaud us and say: They finally did
something. They finally came to an agreement.
What I propose is the MOMMA's Act, which is a good bill and is one
that I think should pass. The Senator has proposed an alternative. Here
is an idea. Listen to this radical idea: What if we bring the MOMMA's
Act to the floor and agree that we will debate an amendment--any
amendment one would want to offer? Do you know what it would be? It
would be like the U.S. Senate. It would be the Senate. Think of it. The
Senator as a Republican and I as a Democrat would actually be debating
an issue that would make a difference in America. We would be putting
our best ideas up for a vote on the Senate floor. How about that for a
motion?
We are not going to get anywhere with the Senator's proposal this
afternoon, because we have passed it before. We know the outcome. We
know the final vote. I would say the Senator's alternative proposal,
which was once offered by Senator Grassley on the floor when I tried
this before, is just inadequate. The resources aren't there to deal
with the scope and gravity of the problem.
So why don't we do this? Why don't we act like Senators? Why don't we
do something on a bipartisan basis and bring an issue to the floor that
truly counts and that people care about? It would be a breakthrough. It
might make a headline. It might even make a tweet somewhere. This is
not the way to do it--that it is the Senator's way or my way.
What I would suggest to the Senator, though, is to bring it to the
floor and to join me in doing it on a bipartisan basis. Appeal to
Senator McConnell to finally let the Senate be the Senate. The Senator
knows we have people who come to the Galleries here who look down at
these desks and say: You know, I think there used to be Senators who
sat at those desks who actually legislated, who actually debated, who
actually had amendments. Last year, under Senator McConnell, we had 22
amendments on the floor of the Senate. Why not more than 22?
That is it. We are not talking about anything else. If the Senator
truly wants to join me on this floor in a bipartisan debate on this
issue of infant and maternal mortality, let's do it. For the time
being, I have to object to what the Senator has proposed. Please, I
didn't question the Senator's sincerity in bringing up this issue, and
I hope he won't question mine in suggesting we ought to be the Senate
and debate this issue.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Is there an objection to the original request?
The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. SASSE. Madam President, in reserving the right to object and in
turning this all the way around, we have an objection to an objection
to an objection, but let me just agree to the last point my colleague
from Illinois made.
I think it would be great if this Chamber had 80 or 90 or 95 or 100
people in it instead of how it is now. We are at three today, which is
a high-water mark. Usually, there are one or two people in here.
Senator Barrasso is here. We have four. We are setting a record.
I don't think a lot of us think that the month we all spent here was
ideal. Last month, during the impeachment, there was one thing that was
new in that a lot of Senators spent time talking to each other. So, to
the Senator's grand point of wishing we were debating, we are aligned.
I do want to say one more thing before I object, which is the Senator
said he is not questioning my sincerity. I appreciate that. The Senator
asked that I not question his sincerity, and I am not. I am questioning
his logic, though, because he summarized it as if there were two issues
at play. He said anti-abortion legislation and maternal health funding.
Yet there are three issues at play on the floor today.
One of them is Lindsey Graham's pain-capable bill, which is a pro-
life piece of legislation. One of them is Senator Durbin's funding
request about maternal delivery health. Those things are true, but
there is a third thing which, again, he obscured by saying the debate
here is that of funding maternal health or of having anti-abortion
legislation. The piece of legislation we are voting on today--the Born-
Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act--is not about abortion. I am
pro-life, and I am going to support Lindsey Graham's bill. Yet the bill
we are voting on does not change anyone's access to abortion. It
doesn't have anything to do with Roe v. Wade. It is about babies who
are already born. This morning on TV, those on CNN made up this insane
phrase. They said it was a fetus that had been born. What the heck is
that? It is another way of saying they don't want to debate the actual
debate we are having on the floor today.
We are going to vote once on Lindsey Graham's pro-life legislation,
and I am going to support it. We are also going to vote on a piece of
legislation called the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
These are about babies who are born, who are outside their mothers.
What is actually happening is that the senior Senator from Illinois is
wanting to obscure the debate because he wants to use euphemisms about
choice so that we don't have to admit to the American public that what
is actually happening on the floor today is probably going to be like
it was last year--with 44 Democrats filibustering an anti-infanticide
bill.
There is nothing in the bill that is about abortion--nothing. It is
about infanticide. That is the actual legislation. We have 44 people
over there who want to hide from it and talk in euphemisms about
abortion because they don't want to defend the indefensible because
they can't defend the indefensible. We are talking about killing babies
who are born. That is the actual legislation we are voting on today in
the Senate. That is what the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection
Act is. Is it OK in the eyes of the U.S. Senate for us to say: ``Well,
you can't actively kill the little baby. You can't take a pillow and
put it over her face and smother her to death, but you can back away
and kill her that way''?
That is what Ralph Northam--the disgraced Governor of Virginia--was
talking about when he said: Well, once the baby is born, if she
survives an abortion--and we wish that it would not happen--then we
will figure out a way to keep her calm for a little while, while the
doctors debate what they want to do. What he means is, kill the baby,
and that is the legislation we are voting on today.
There are three buckets. Lindsey Graham's Pain-Capable Unborn
Child Protection Act is a bill about abortion. There is another bill
that is about babies who have already been born.
News flash, CNN: If you are a baby and if you have been born and if
you are outside of Mama, nobody calls that a fetus. You just want to
call it a fetus because you don't want to cover the actual story that
is being voted on in the Senate today.
[[Page S1132]]
Then there is a third piece of legislation, which is Senator Durbin's
counterproposal about maternal preventable deaths and investments in
that category. I am interested in that category as well, but the
Senator from Illinois doesn't actually want to talk about the
legislation that is on the floor, so he is changing the subject.
Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, infanticide should be a crime, and it
is. That is what the Senator from Nebraska will not concede. He thinks
he has come up with a novel idea--that you shouldn't be able to kill a
baby with impunity in America. It is not novel. It has been in Federal
law for over a decade, and it is in State laws all across the United
States. If one has any doubt about it, be prepared to write down a
name--the name of Kermit Gosnell. Thirteen years ago, I believe it was,
this physician was convicted of infanticide. He is now serving life
without parole, plus 30 years. To argue that the Senator has some novel
idea that infanticide should be a crime and that we don't cover it now
under the law is just not accurate, and it is not factual. That is why
I think the Senator's bill is unnecessary.
This bill is necessary. Mothers are dying and babies are dying, and
we can do something about it. It doesn't matter whether one goes to a
pro-life or to a pro-choice rally; we all agree that this is something
we can do on a bipartisan basis.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. SASSE. Madam President, just for the record and just so we all
have it clear, the Senator talks about infanticide, and he is right.
Active infanticide is illegal under Federal law as there are no crimes
for it in half of the States.
More fundamentally, what the Senate is considering today is passive
infanticide. Whether they are born in glistening NICUs at fancy
hospitals, with a lot of rich cars in the parking lots, or whether the
babies are born in the unfortunate circumstances of abortion clinics in
strip malls, whether they are 1 day old or 5 days old, it turns out
that they die if you wander away from them and deny them care. If you
don't give them warmth and if you don't give them food, they die.
Passive killing, passive infanticide, is not illegal under Federal law.
The Senator said infanticide is illegal, and he is half right. Active
infanticide is illegal under Federal law. You cannot take a pillow and
smother a newborn baby to death. What you can do and what does happen
in abortion clinics across America--and it is why we held a Judiciary
Committee hearing on this 2 weeks ago so as to hear from medical and
legal community experts who know what the practice looks like--is the
taking of that vulnerable, innocent, little, tiny fetus, putting her on
a cart, walking her down the hall, putting that cart in a closet, and
leaving her to die by exposure. That is what we should prevent, and
that is what this legislation is about.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor to support the two
pro-life bills being considered this week and to stand with my friend
and colleague from Nebraska in his efforts to promote the legislation
that is before us, for both of these bills promote respect for innocent
human life.
Senator Lindsey Graham's Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
would ban nearly all abortions at 20 weeks of pregnancy. As a doctor, I
know that it is medically proven that babies do feel pain at 20 weeks.
Americans overwhelmingly oppose these third-trimester abortions. Yet
the United States remains one of only seven countries in the world to
allow abortions after 5 months. This group includes China, and it
includes North Korea. We need to do much better. The Graham bill puts
us on higher ground with the rest of the world. It says, at 5 months,
which is 20 weeks, abortion on demand must stop. It includes exceptions
for rape, for incest, and for the life of the mother. I strongly
support this effort by Senator Graham, and I applaud him for his
tremendous work on this issue.
I also stand here on the floor to say I strongly support what Senator
Sasse has been saying about his specific bill, the Born-Alive Abortion
Survivors Protection Act. Senator Sasse is another champion on life
issues. The Sasse bill affirms that infanticide is illegal. It upholds
the right of all U.S.-born babies to full medical care. Every baby born
in this country deserves every chance to live. All doctors must do
everything in their power to save babies who survive abortions.
Both the Graham and the Sasse bills fully protect mothers from either
prosecution or penalty. Both measures demonstrate character, and they
demonstrate courage. These are bills that care for our children, and
they do what is medically right.
Thanks to all of those who work to protect innocent human life, we
are here on the floor, debating, promoting, and asking for a vote to
pass this legislation. I urge all Senators to support these life-
affirming bills.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. LOEFFLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. LOEFFLER. Madam President, at the heart of this debate is life.
When I reflect on the importance of protecting innocent life, the story
of Ellie Schneider comes to mind. She is a child who was born at just
21 weeks 6 days in Kansas City. Ellie is one of the youngest babies to
survive, in the United States, a premature birth. She was born so early
that most hospitals in Missouri would not treat her, except for the
faith-based hospital St. Luke's.
She weighed only slightly more than a can of soda and was about as
long as a piece of paper. She weighed just 14 ounces. At 21 weeks, the
odds were stacked against her, but she is a fighter. Through the power
of prayer and an incredible medical team, Ellie is now a healthy, happy
2-year-old girl. She brings endless joy to her family.
Her inclusion in the President's State of the Union Address is a
powerful testament to life. Ellie is an example that every child is a
blessing worthy of protection, and we have a moral obligation to defend
the born and unborn.
In today's political climate, it is easy to forget that there are
both Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, and people
from every religious affiliation who believe in protecting the human
rights of the unborn. I am proud to be a cosponsor S. 311, the Born-
Alive Survivors Protection Act. It sends a clear message by
establishing the real consequences for those who kill or abandon
innocent children after they are outside the mother's womb. We should
all be able to agree that once born, each baby deserves the right to
proper access to medical care.
I also proudly support S. 3275, the Pain-Capable Unborn Protection
Act, which places much needed restrictions on elective abortions on
children at 20 weeks post-conception. It is unconscionable that America
is one of only seven countries that does not have a 20-week abortion
ban. These countries include China, North Korea, and Vietnam.
While it is disheartening that this type of horrific practice needs
congressional action, I am glad there are commonsense pieces of
legislation that can address the atrocities of late-term abortion and
severely punishes those in the business of taking the lives of our
youngest human beings.
I pray that the American people will recognize that lives hang in the
balance, will stand with us to get our Nation back on the right track,
and will fight for the born and the unborn. Being a voice for the
voiceless requires us to take important steps, like passing the Born-
Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and the Pain-Capable Unborn
Protection Act.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
[[Page S1133]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Capito). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Madam President, I rise today to oppose my
colleagues' legislation that would limit women's healthcare choices.
These bills that are being introduced are part of a wave of efforts to
turn back the clock on women's healthcare.
In my home State of Nevada, with the only majority-women legislature
in the Nation, we are moving in the opposite direction. We have been
fighting to protect a woman's right to choose for decades. I am
inspired by women like Sue Wagner, the first woman elected as Nevada's
Lieutenant Governor, whose grit and leadership sparked a movement in
the 1990s to enshrine women's reproductive freedom in the State's
constitution.
Just this year, with women at the helm of the Nevada legislature, the
Trust Nevada Women Act was signed into law to remove undue burdens on
reproductive rights. Nevadans understand that reproductive rights are
part and parcel not just of women's health but of their economic
security. When women can't control whether and when they have children,
they are more likely to struggle financially. Eighty-three percent of
Nevadans are pro-choice, and I stand with them.
I am going to continue to fight for what the American people want:
comprehensive healthcare and reproductive justice. Bills to protect
women's health are what we should be voting on, like the bipartisan
legislation to cover preexisting conditions, to reduce prescription
drug prices, to prevent violence against women, and many more that are
languishing, unfortunately, on Leader McConnell's desk. That includes
pushing for meaningful legislation to protect mothers and babies at a
critical time in their lives, like the Healthy MOM Act to expand
healthcare coverage for pregnant and postpartum women.
Leader McConnell is more focused on passing an extreme political
agenda than on protecting women's health in Nevada and across this
country. You know, we really have to stop the assault on women's right
to choose and their reproductive healthcare. The rights of American
women to make their own health decisions should not be up for debate.
These are our fundamental rights, and they are worth fighting for and
protecting.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SASSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SASSE. Madam President, this afternoon, we are going to vote on
the simplest bill in the history of the U.S. Senate. It is the simplest
bill we have ever considered here. It says that if a newborn baby
survives an abortion, she deserves medical care. That is the bill. That
is it.
Sadly, a lot of Senators are going to come to the floor, and they are
going to read or they are planning to read--I hope they will
reconsider--but they are planning to read talking points that were
written for them by Planned Parenthood, and they are going to talk
about a whole bunch of stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the
bill we actually have before us.
Senators are going to muddy the issue, and, sadly, too many in the
press are going to report with headlines like ``Abortion Restrictions''
and with anti-science jargon like ``A Fetus That Was Born.'' That was
an actual portion of the headline this morning: ``A Fetus That Was
Born.''
Sadly, a lot of folks seem determined to look the other way. Looking
the other way from the issue that we are considering today in this body
shouldn't be an option, so let's start with four straight, undeniable
facts--four simple facts.
First, Federal law does not criminalize the denial of care to newborn
babies who survive abortions. Federal law doesn't criminalize the
denial of care to babies who survive abortions.
Second, we know that babies sometimes survive abortions, and the data
backs that up. If Senators don't like this inconvenient fact, they can
take it up with the CDC and the States that have mandatory reporting
about babies who survive abortions.
Third, this bill, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,
simply says that if a baby survives an abortion, she should get the
same degree of medical care that any other baby would get at that same
gestational stage. It is really important--same care that would be
provided to any other baby at the same gestational stage.
It is a short bill. I know my colleagues are busy, but all of them
could read the bill. So instead of coming to the floor and reciting
prepackaged talking points that Planned Parenthood wrote for you, take
a few minutes and actually read the bill, and you will find that the
talking points don't actually match up with the actual bill you are
called on to vote on today. Those are the facts.
Finally, this is not about abortion. My colleague, the senior Senator
from South Carolina, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has a
really important piece of legislation that he is going to speak on in a
moment, and I am going to support his legislation. It is a really
important pro-life piece of legislation. I am in favor of it.
But my legislation, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,
is not actually about abortion. It is about babies who have already
survived a botched abortion. My legislation is not about Roe v. Wade.
It is about what happens after a baby is already born when an abortion
failed to accomplish the purpose it had--the sad purpose, in my view--
the purpose it had to terminate that pregnancy. This is about the
babies who have already been born. This is about whether that baby who
has survived the abortion and is now lying on the abortion table or on
the medical table--whether or not that cold, naked baby alone has a
right to medical care.
We all know the answer. The answer is, of course she does. Every baby
dies if you leave her to passively die of exposure. Whether she was
born in a gold-plated hospital with a lot of fancy, expensive cars in
the parking lot outside that NICU unit or whether she was born in the
unfortunate circumstances of an abortion clinic in a strip mall, every
little baby who has already been born--they will die if you deny care
to them. So, of course, we shouldn't do that. Of course, the U.S.
Senate should stand up and defend those babies.
We all know that denying care to the most vulnerable among us is
barbaric, and this body ought to be able to stand 100 to 0 against that
barbarism. It is inhumane, and it is passive infanticide, and the
Senate should today condemn and prohibit that practice. Is that
practice what my colleagues really want to defend? I can't believe they
do.
The 44 who filibustered this legislation a year ago this week, when
you talk to them one to one, they get really uncomfortable, and they
try to change the subject to all sorts of other culture war debates
because they don't want to have a conversation about the actual
legislation and the actual babies we are considering today. Why?
Because they are scared to death of Planned Parenthood's army of
lobbyists, that is why. It is not because any of them really want to
defend the morally reprehensible and the morally indefensible practice
that is passive infanticide. None of them want to defend it. They are
just scared.
Last year, 44 Senators filibustered this legislation. They said that
it was OK to look the other way while newborns were discarded. They
said that Federal law should not ensure that these babies are treated
with care. They seem to have a hard time saying that human beings
outside the womb have the same right to life as you and I ought to have
and that we get care; we need care. They need care, and they should get
care.
Put down your talking points. Please read the bill before you vote
today. Read the expert testimony that the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee allowed us to hold in his committee room 2 weeks ago, where
we brought in both medical and legal experts to talk about what happens
in these abortion clinics.
For those in this body who are not on the Judiciary Committee or who
didn't do the preparation for today's vote, I want to summarize the
testimony of one of the people who came before our
[[Page S1134]]
Judiciary Committee--Jill Stanek, who now works for the Susan B.
Anthony List. She was at an Illinois hospital in the 1990s and early
2000s. Here is a quote from her:
Of 16 babies Christ Hospital aborted during the calendar
year 2000, four that I knew of [were born alive, and they]
were aborted alive.
That is 25 percent--4 out of the 16 abortions at that hospital.
She continues:
Each of those babies--[there were] two boys and two girls--
lived [somewhere] between 1\1/2\ and 3 hours. One baby was 28
weeks' gestation [age]--7 months old--and weighed two pounds,
seven ounces.
Numbers from the CDC and the States that report data on abortion
survivors--that is about 8 of the 50 States that do some reporting and
data collection on this--tell a story of babies who were breathing,
whose hearts were beating, who stretched their arms, wiggled their
fingers, and kicked their legs. This is the actual data. You want to
talk about being pro-science--being pro-science is pro-baby.
What happened to the babies? Medical practitioners have testified
before Congress about walking into rooms where living babies were lying
naked and alone on countertops, where they would be left to expire by
themselves--alone, cold, naked, and denied care.
Opponents of this bill don't want to deal with the facts. They prefer
to stick to talking points and claim that this never happens. If they
will not listen to the medical experts, perhaps they will take the word
of the Governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam.
In January of last year, disgraced Governor Northam was explicit
during a radio interview in which he said that a baby born alive during
an abortion ``would be kept comfortable. . . . then a discussion would
ensue'' about whether that baby should be left to die. That is actually
what Governor Northam was talking about on the radio in Virginia.
What he did is make the terrible faux pas of saying in public the
true stuff about this procedure and this practice of walking away and
backing away from these babies and letting them die. He just decided to
talk in public about the reality of what happens in some of these
abortion clinics.
Governor Northam is not an outlier. Just 3 weeks ago, one of the
Democratic candidates for President was asked point blank on national
television about infanticide: Would he be comfortable if a mother
invoked infanticide to kill her now already born-alive child? Mayor
Buttigieg's response: ``I don't know what I'd tell them.''
Really? Somebody asks you if you can kill a baby who has already been
born, and you say you don't know what to say?
Every one of us, especially somebody running for the highest office
in the land to uphold the laws--laws that promise to protect the right
to life--should be able to say without any hesitation that leaving
babies to die is unacceptable.
This isn't horrid stuff, people. There are actually some horrid
debates we have in this Chamber. This isn't one of them. This is about
babies who have been born alive and whether you can decide to kill
them. There is really no debate to be had here, which is why so many
people who were planning to speak on the other side decided not to
speak this afternoon, because you can't defend the morally
reprehensible procedure that is backing away, that is passive
infanticide.
There are no exceptions. There are no special circumstances. We
should protect every human being, no matter how small they are, no
matter how weak they are. And if the Senate says that it is OK to
ignore born-alive babies, what we are really saying is that we are OK
with a society where some people count more than other people. We would
be saying that we want a society where some people can be pushed aside
if other people decide those folks are inconvenient, a society where we
can dispose of you if you happen to come into the world a certain way.
It is unbelievably telling that Planned Parenthood, NARAL, which is
the extremist abortion lobby and their armies of lawyers and slick
public relations teams and influence peddlers, cannot draw this line.
It is pretty amazing.
This bill is not about abortion. Again, I want to be clear. We are
voting on two things today. One of them is a piece of legislation about
abortion. It is the pain-capable bill. Lindsey Graham, the chairman of
the Judiciary Committee, is going to speak in favor of it in a minute.
I am an original cosponsor of his legislation. I support it, and I am
going to wholeheartedly vote for it.
But the other piece of legislation we are going to vote on today
isn't actually even about abortion. This should be 100-to-0 no-brainer.
This bill is not about Roe v. Wade. This bill will not change one word
of abortion law in the United States. My colleagues can vote up or
down, but they can't pretend that they don't know the stakes of what we
are talking about.
America is a country built on the beautiful principle of equality,
and the terms of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act are
intended to reflect that. A child born alive during a botched abortion
should be given the same level of care that would be provided to any
other baby born at that same gestational stage, which is just to say
that a born-alive baby is a human being with fundamental human dignity,
which is undeniable. They should receive the care and affection due to
every other human being.
Today, we have a chance to advance our commitment to human dignity.
We can protect those babies who come into the world under the worst of
conditions. We can welcome them into a world with love and hope and
help and care.
My colleagues, please do not turn your backs on those babies.
I yield the floor.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, today, we will be voting on two very
important bills: the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and the
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. I would like to thank my
colleagues Senator Graham and Senator Sasse for their leadership on
these bills, and I would like to thank Senator McConnell, for his
efforts to bring these bills to the floor for a vote.
First, I want to talk about Senator Sasse's Born-Alive Abortion
Survivors Protection Act, a bill which I have cosponsored that would
ensure that a baby who survives an abortion will receive the same
treatment as any child naturally born at the same age, without
prescribing any particular form of treatment.
That is just morally right, and I don't see why there would be any
disagreement about it. This bill is not even about abortion; it is
about infanticide.
Twenty-eight years ago, I came down here to tell the story of Ana
Rosa Rodriguez. Here is what I said:
Mr. Chairman, there is a big misconception regarding
abortion and the issue of women and their right to protect
their bodies. It is not that right that I object to, but the
right that is given them to kill an unborn fetus--an unborn
child.
I want to share with you a story that my colleague, Chris
Smith told some time ago on this very floor. Ana Rosa
Rodriguez is an abortion survivor. At birth she was a healthy
3 pound baby girl except for her injury--she was missing an
arm.
Ana survived a botched abortion. Her mother attempted to
get an abortion in her 32nd week of pregnancy when she was
perfectly healthy--8 weeks past what New York State law
legally allows. In the unsuccessful abortion attempt the
baby's right arm was ripped off, however they failed to kill
Ana Rosa. She lived.
Pro-life supporters agreed that nightmare situations like
the Rodriguez case are probably not common, but abortion
related deaths and serious injuries occur more frequently
than most people are aware.
It is amazing that we can pay so much attention to issues
such as human rights abroad and can allow the violent
destruction of over 26 million children here at home. We are
fortunate that Ana was not one of those children-she
survived.
That was in 1992. But today, we still don't have explicit Federal
protections for the babies who survive the brutal abortion process. As
I said, this issue is not about abortion but about caring for a baby
outside the womb.
The need for these protections has become even clearer as we see
States like New York and Illinois allow abortion for virtually any
reason up until the point of birth and support infanticide by removing
protections for infants born alive after a failed abortion.
Just a few years after that speech, in 1997, I was on the floor with
my good friend former Senator Rick Santorum to try to pass the partial-
birth abortion ban and end the horrific practice
[[Page S1135]]
of late-term abortions. Fortunately, we won the battle against partial-
birth abortions and finally ended that practice in 2003. That ban was
upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007.
But we have yet to pass legislation banning late term abortion.
Only seven countries allow abortion after 20 weeks, including the
United States and North Korea. That is horrific. The U.S. is supposed
to be an example in regards to global human rights; yet we are on par
with North Korea when it comes to protecting the unborn.
Senator Graham's Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would help
roll back this horrific practice by prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks
post-fertilization, when we know babies can feel pain.
This is another commonsense bill that should not divide us along
partisan lines; a baby is a baby whether in or outside of the womb, and
each baby deserves a chance to live as an individual created in the
image of God.
There still much more we need to do to end the abortion on demand
culture, but thankfully, we have the most pro-life President in
history.
This January, President Trump became the first sitting President to
attend the annual March for Life rally in Washington. Hundreds of pro-
life Oklahomans joined the President and tens of thousands of Americans
to march. I had the chance to meet many of these Oklahomans, many of
them extremely young--as young as high school. They asked me how to
respond when the radical left attacks their views. I told them to be
kind, but not to be afraid to voice their opinions--after all, they are
right.
Under President Trump's leadership, we have protected the Hyde
amendment, reinstated and expanded the Mexico City policy, and stripped
abortion providers like Planned Parenthood from using title X funding
for abortions.
The need to stand up for our babies is as important today as it was
in 1992 and 1997. I am looking forward to building on our successes
under President Trump to end the practice of abortion on demand and to
ensure that we protect babies who survive abortions.
We will overcome evil with good by upholding and affirming the
dignity and inherent worth of every human being. We will keep fighting.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I rise in opposition to S. 3275, the
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and S. 311, the Born-Alive
Abortion Protection Act. These two dangerous bills infringe on the
doctor-patient relationship and hinder women's constitutionally
protected right to choose. Make no mistake, these bills are nothing
more than a reminder that Republican discrimination toward women knows
no boundaries. President Trump, his administration, and Senate
Republicans think reproductive freedom is still up for discussion. It
is not.
I am here to set the record straight for Leader Mitch McConnell and
my Republican colleagues. Women's reproductive health decisions should
be left to women and their healthcare providers. That is it.
This time last year, the Born-Alive Abortion Protection Act failed to
advance on the Senate floor. I was proud to vote against this bill
then, and I hope more of my colleagues will join me in voting no on
this bill now. Doing so will safeguard the right for an individual to
make their own health choices, without interference from the Federal
Government.
The Senate floor is not the only battleground for reproductive
rights. Anti-Choice State legislators are continuing to assault
reproductive freedom through the enactment of State laws restricting
choice. Cases challenging these laws are working their way through the
judicial system, including to the U.S. Supreme Court. There, the laws'
supporters hope that the conservative justices will not only uphold
these damaging laws but will go further and overturn Roe v. Wade,
effectively ending this bedrock decision that ensures equality,
privacy, and reproductive freedom.
Women across the Nation are facing imminent threats to their
constitutional rights, to their personal liberty, and to economic
freedom. Now more than ever, we must do everything in our power to
raise our voices against this extreme, rightwing agenda of
discrimination. This is more than a debate about access to safe
abortion services. This is about fighting for gender equality. This is
about continuing to ensure access to the opportunity that comes from
quality, affordable healthcare. And this is about making sure that
access to reproductive healthcare is never restricted.
Women's rights are not negotiable. Republicans may intend to continue
advancing their radical anti-choice agenda, but I will never back away
from the fight against it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, before Senator Sasse leaves, I say to
the Senator, I just can't thank you enough for the passion and the
persuasion you bring to these issues. You speak from the heart. You
speak with reason. You make a lot of sense, and over time, you will
prevail. Just stick with it. Your day will come.
What he is saying is, if you try to abort a child, and the child
survives the abortion, shouldn't the doctor and the nurses and
everybody involved treat the child the same as if they came into the
world some other way? I think the answer is yes.
Really, these two pieces of legislation are about us as a nation.
This is 2020. Who are we as Americans? To me it is odd that we even
need to have a discussion about this. I am just perplexed that this is
even a problem.
Abortion is legal in the United States. There are certain
restrictions on it, but I just can't believe we can't rally around the
idea that if a baby survives the procedure and is alive and breathing
and functioning, medical science doesn't kick in to save the baby. It
is just--I don't know. I don't know what happened. What happened to our
country that we are even talking about this? It is 2020, for God's
sake. It is not 1020.
Anyway, just hang in there, Ben. Your day will come.
My legislation--I have been doing this for a few years now. We are
one of seven nations in the world that allow abortion on demand at 20
weeks, along with North Korea, Vietnam, China, Singapore, the
Netherlands, and Canada. What would this legislation do at 20 weeks?
This is about the fifth month in the birthing process.
The bill is called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Why
do we call it that? Medical science has determined that a child at 20
weeks is capable of feeling excruciating pain. So if there is an
operation to save a child's life or to repair a medical defect at 20
weeks, they provide anesthesia to the child because, during the
surgery, the child feels pain. You can see that when a child is poked,
they actually repel against the poking.
The bottom line is, I find it odd that medical science requires
anesthesia to save the baby's life, but during that same period, you
can dismember the child. That is what we are talking about here.
What kind of Nation are we if, at the fifth month--this is 20 weeks
into the birthing process--we are one of seven nations that allow
abortion on demand? There are exceptions for the life of the mother--
that hard decision if the mother's life is impacted by the child, and
we will leave that up to the family--and if the pregnancy is as a
result of rape or incest. But beyond that, we want to eliminate
abortion on demand at the 20-week period because, I would argue, that
doesn't make us a better nation. It doesn't advance anybody's cause.
The bottom line is, based on medical science, we know that this child
has nerve endings intact. Medical encyclopedias encourage young parents
to sing to their unborn child during this period of development because
they can begin to associate their voice and recognize who they are. I
find it odd that we would encourage young parents to sing to their
unborn child at 20 weeks; we require anesthesia to save the child's
life; but we are also a country that allows the child to be
dismembered. It makes no sense to me. They have exceptions that make
sense: life of the mother, the result of rape or incest where there is
no choice at all.
The bottom line is that these two pieces of legislation are going to
continue to be advanced until they pass. It takes a while for America
to kind of get focused on what we are saying here because abortion is
an uncomfortable topic to talk about, particularly in the
[[Page S1136]]
early stages of the pregnancy. But what Senator Sasse is saying is that
in the case of the child surviving an abortion, there is really not
much to talk about. We should protect the life that is now a being. The
baby survived. I don't know why the baby survived. I don't know how the
baby survived. I just know that decent people would want to come to the
child's aid once she does survive.
Just imagine what it must be like, after the baby survives the
abortion, to be left unattended for 1\1/2\ to 3 hours. That says a lot
about us as a nation. I just think we are better than that.
It is kind of odd that we even have to have this debate, but
apparently we do because this happens more than you would ever think.
Babies actually survive abortion, and the rules in this country are
that you just let it die. There is no longer required care. That, to
me, as Senator Sasse said, is barbaric. It doesn't make us a better
people, and it really doesn't affect the abortion debate because the
baby survived.
My legislation is about us as a nation too. How does abortion on
demand in the fifth month advance the cause of America? I don't think
it does.
We have exceptions in those instances where it is a tragic choice
between the life of the mother and the unborn child and in the cases of
rape or incest, which are tragic and criminal, but generally speaking,
we would like to get ourselves out of a club of seven nations that
allow abortion on demand at a time when the parents are encouraged to
sing to the child and you have to provide anesthesia to save the
child's life because you would not want to operate on a baby in a
fashion to hurt the child.
I dare say that if you are a doctor and you try to save the baby's
life at 20 weeks through surgery and you don't provide anesthesia, you
are going to wind up getting yourself in trouble. I find it odd that
the law would allow the dismemberment of the child even with
anesthesia, but that is where we are.
To Senator Sasse, I say that you are an articulate spokesman for your
legislation. One day, we will prevail. It took 15 years to pass the
late-term abortion ban. It is going to take a while, but our day will
come.
At the end of the day, the sooner America can get this right, the
better off we will be.
With that, I yield the floor.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 420, S. 3275, an act to amend title
18, United States Code, to protect pain-capable unborn
children, and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Tim Scott, Joni Ernst, Roy Blunt, Tom
Cotton, Kevin Cramer, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Chuck Grassley,
Marsha Blackburn, Richard Burr, Mike Rounds, Mike Lee,
John Hoeven, Shelley Moore Capito, Mike Braun, Steve
Daines, Lindsey Graham.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 3275, a bill to amend title 18, United States
Code, to protect pain-capable unborn children, and for other purposes,
shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms.
Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator
from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote or change their vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 44, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 57 Leg.]
YEAS--53
Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Casey
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Loeffler
Manchin
McConnell
McSally
Moran
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS--44
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Jones
Kaine
King
Leahy
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Klobuchar
Sanders
Warren
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are
44.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the
remaining votes in this series be 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________