[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 164 (Tuesday, September 22, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5743-S5749]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Supreme Court Nominations

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, our Nation has suffered a historic 
loss in the passing of legal giant Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and I 
fear the rush to replace her with just 44 days left before the next 
Presidential election will have grave consequences for the lives of 
millions of Americans.
  As tempting as it is, I am not here to talk about the stunning 
hypocrisy of my Republican colleagues who once opposed filling any 
Supreme Court vacancy during a Presidential election year now changing 
the reasons for doing so like a willow in the wind.
  Well, make no mistake, their willingness to abandon their word in the 
naked pursuit of power and deny the American people a voice in this 
process is truly stunning. Today, I want to talk about the consequences 
of their hypocrisy, not for our process here in the Senate but, rather, 
for the lives and livelihoods of millions of families across this 
Nation.
  Everything Americans care about and depend on is on the line, 
starting first and foremost with their healthcare. President Trump has 
already declared that whoever his nominee is, his nominee to the Court 
will vote to ``terminate'' the Affordable Care Act and reverse Roe v. 
Wade.
  The Trump administration is closer than ever to tearing healthcare 
away from millions of people by overturning the law that gave it to 
them in the first place. It is especially outrageous to see the 
administration threaten the healthcare of millions of Americans at this 
perilous moment in our history--with nothing, by the way, to replace 
it.
  Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, they have said they 
have a better plan. Well, now 11 years later or so, maybe almost 12 
years, we have yet to see what that plan is.
  We are in the midst of a deadly, once-in-a-century pandemic. A 
staggering 200,000 Americans--fathers and mothers, sisters and 
brothers, dear friends and beloved grandparents--are gone forever. 
Meanwhile, millions of people nationwide are infected with the 
coronavirus. To this day, many survivors of COVID-19 are grappling with 
lasting healthcare challenges, from chronic shortness of breath to 
lifelong scar tissue in their lungs.
  We are still learning about the long-term health impacts of 
contracting COVID-19, but here is one thing we do know: Every single 
one of these survivors now has a preexisting condition that makes them 
vulnerable to insurance company discrimination without the protections 
guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act. That is in addition to the 
estimated 135 million Americans who already live with common 
preexisting conditions like chronic asthma, diabetes, and high blood 
pressure, to mention a few.
  Remember what it was like before the Affordable Care Act? A health 
insurance company could refuse to cover you or provide your care or 
even kick you off your plan due to your medical history. A child born 
at birth with a birth defect couldn't get health insurance. The husband 
who had a heart attack couldn't get health insurance. A woman with 
cervical cancer couldn't get health insurance afterward--a preexisting 
condition. We don't want to go back to those days, but that is exactly 
where the Trump administration will take us should they prevail at the 
Supreme Court, as this case is pending before the Supreme Court.
  Now, despite what they say, the Republican mission has been clear for 
a decade: to kill the Affordable Care Act, to strip away healthcare 
from millions of Americans, all the while lying about how they will 
protect individuals with preexisting conditions. It is shameless.
  Just as dangerous is the prospect of a Supreme Court that will 
overturn Roe v. Wade and roll back the reproductive rights of women. 
That is what is at stake with this Supreme Court seat--the basic 
principle that women have a

[[Page S5744]]

right to make their own private medical decisions. The American people 
overwhelmingly believe that women, not the government, should be 
allowed to decide when they have children.
  There is no question that the right to choose is inseparable from the 
past half-century of progress achieved for women's equality in the 
United States. It is that progress that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 
devoted her entire life's work to advancing--the right to pursue their 
own destinies with full equality under the law.
  It is not just healthcare that is on the line; it is our voting 
rights, our civil rights, workers' rights, immigrant rights, and LGBTQ 
rights as well. More than that, it is the right of the American people 
to see their elected representatives enact the kinds of policies they 
support, like bold action on climate change without corporate-backed 
challenges at the Supreme Court undoing their wishes.
  A Supreme Court nominee has never been confirmed this close to a 
Presidential election. Americans are already voting as we speak. Should 
my colleagues in the majority abandon all their prior commitments and 
deny the American people the opportunity to make their voices heard, I 
fear we could do lasting damage to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
  This is an institution that rests on the trust and reverence of the 
American people. Losing that trust and reverence is dangerous. It is 
dangerous. It is dangerous for millions of people who will lose the 
Affordable Care Act's protections. It is dangerous for women who could 
lose their right to choose and all of us who do not want to turn back a 
half-century of progress. It is dangerous for our economy at a time 
when American workers and consumers find themselves at the mercy of 
corporations that have grown larger and more powerful than at any other 
time since the Gilded Age. It is dangerous for the future of our planet 
and safety of our climate at a time when the West is burning, seas are 
rising, and the Earth is warming faster than ever before. Quite 
frankly, it is dangerous for our democracy.
  We owe the American people a voice and a decision that will shape the 
course of history for generations. We owe the memory of Ruth Bader 
Ginsburg and her seat on the Supreme Court more than just another 
political power grab
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, last Friday, our country lost a 
trailblazer for equality, a moral giant, and a lover of justice--the 
great Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, affectionately known as RBG. While 
physically small, she had a towering impact on American jurisprudence. 
While the volume of her voice was not high, her words carried farther 
and had a greater impact than the louder voices that were often around 
her.
  She famously observed that many of the laws on the books that 
pretended to put women on a pedestal actually put them in cages, and 
then she proceeded to bring cases to strike down those discriminatory 
walls. She transformed America's legal landscape, especially in the 
area of gender equality, and that was before she was even appointed and 
confirmed to the Supreme Court.
  On the Supreme Court, with intelligence and persuasion, she was often 
able to bring others to her point of view, and when she couldn't, she 
could write a stinging dissent, which she viewed as a conversation with 
the future. She had optimism in our Nation's pursuit of justice--that 
her dissents would be vindicated in time, and I dare say that they 
already have in so many cases, including her dissent in the voting 
rights case with the reprehensible 2013 decision where, on a 5-to-4 
vote, the Supreme Court took a bite out of the Voting Rights Act. She 
predicted that as soon as that happened, many of the States that had 
been subject to the preclearance provisions would begin to put up 
barriers to voting, and that is exactly what happened.
  Speaking of the future, her deathbed wish communicated to her 
granddaughter--her most fervent wish--was that she not be replaced 
until a new President is installed, whoever that President may be.
  She died last Friday on Rosh Hashanah. It was a moment when the 
country needed to come together to celebrate her life and honor her 
legacy, and that is what so many people did around the country. We saw 
an outpouring of support from coast to coast, north to south, east to 
west. We saw large crowds gathering at the Supreme Court. But here in 
the U.S. Senate, the majority leader didn't have the decency to even 
provide a respectful pause, a respectful timeout to honor that legacy. 
Just over 1 hour after her death was announced, he put out a statement 
announcing his power play--a statement saying that President Trump's 
nominee, whoever it may be to replace her, would get a vote. The 
majority leader rushed to do that despite taking the opposite position 
in March of 2016 when Justice Scalia passed away and President Obama 
nominated Merrick Garland.
  The majority leader rushed to commit to that vote on President 
Trump's nominee even though, in the middle of this COVID-19 pandemic, 
we have not even had a chance to vote here in the Senate on the Heroes 
Act, which passed the House of Representatives over 4 months ago, 
providing emergency comprehensive relief to families and workers and 
small and medium-sized businesses that are hurting from this pandemic. 
We haven't had a vote on that in 4 months. Yet, within 1 hour of 
Justice Ginsburg's death, the Republican leader announced: ``We will 
have a vote'' on President Trump's Supreme Court nominee.
  Our country just reached the grim total of 200,000 Americans dead 
from COVID-19. More Americans have died from COVID-19 than in any other 
country on the planet, and a big share of those dead are the direct 
result of President Trump's calculated indifference--what he describes 
as ``downplaying'' the threat. Well, downplaying a known threat led to 
inaction, and inaction led to thousands more Americans dying than would 
have been the case. That inaction has led to far more economic pain and 
fallout from COVID-19 than had to be the case.

  We wouldn't have all of these schools closed right now if the 
President had taken more rapid action and if we had comprehensive 
universal and rapid testing. But here we are because Trump wanted to 
``downplay'' the threat.
  The President has opposed the Heroes Act, which passed the House of 
Representatives, and there is still no vote here in the Senate on that 
important legislation to help a country in need--so no vote on that. 
But, my goodness, they just couldn't wait to announce, within 1 hour of 
the Justice's passing away, that this Senate would vote on Trump's 
Supreme Court nomination.
  That is despite what Majority Leader McConnell said in 2016. When 
Justice Scalia passed away and President Obama nominated Merrick 
Garland to fill the seat, you heard Senator McConnell and many 
Republicans say: Can't do it. We are in the middle of an election year.
  In fact, the majority leader went so far as to instruct his 
Republican Members not even to meet with Merrick Garland. They didn't 
even have a hearing for Merrick Garland. The majority leader and so 
many Republican Senators said: Oh, we can't do that because primary 
voting has begun in this 2016 Presidential election year. Primary 
voting has begun. It is underway. It is important to let the American 
people weigh in on the Presidential election and then allow whoever 
wins that Presidential election to make their nomination to the Supreme 
Court.
  That is what we heard from Senator McConnell and so many of our 
Republican Senate colleagues back in 2016--that democracy required that 
the people's will be heard in the Presidential election year.
  Well, it turns out that all of that was just a pure political ploy; 
that we are going to see one set of rules for Democratic Presidents 
like Barack Obama and another set of rules from the Republican majority 
for Republican Presidents like Donald Trump. The dishonesty and rank 
hypocrisy is obscene, and the American people, regardless of party, see 
it for what it is.
  But as bad as the hypocrisy and the dishonesty is, this is about even 
more than that. In fact, it is about much more than that. It is about 
the future direction of our country and the direction of justice in our 
Nation. It is about whether we have a Supreme

[[Page S5745]]

Court that truly stands for equal justice under law, as Justice 
Ginsburg did. It is about whether we will protect women's rights, as 
Justice Ginsburg did throughout her career before and after being on 
the Supreme Court.
  We know where President Trump stands on that. We know he was asked 
during his Presidential campaign on national television about a woman's 
right to reproductive freedom. He said that women who would choose to 
have an abortion should be punished--should be punished. And he has 
said that he will appoint a Justice who will make sure that is what 
happens. That is what he said.
  We are going to see a Justice who wants to strike down workers' 
rights and protections, and we are going to see a Justice who wants to 
destroy the Affordable Care Act.
  The Affordable Care Act provides important protections to the 
American people during ordinary times. It is especially important now, 
as we face this COVID-19 pandemic. We know it has been the goal of 
President Trump and Republicans for years to destroy and overturn the 
Affordable Care Act. After all, I think many of us remember being right 
here on the Senate floor in the summer of 2017. The Speaker of the 
House, Paul Ryan, and a majority of Republicans in the House at that 
time had passed a law to overturn the Affordable Care Act. President 
Trump was itching to sign it. But here in the Senate, we defeated that 
effort by one vote--one vote in the U.S. Senate.
  Why did that happen at the time? A lot of people thought it was a 
forgone conclusion that this Republican majority Senate would vote to 
strike down the Affordable Care Act. It is because the American people 
rose up and said: Hell no. People with diabetes, cancer, heart disease, 
and other preexisting health conditions, and so many other Americans 
said: Do you know what? This isn't a partisan issue. It is not a 
partisan issue if I have cancer or diabetes or asthma or other 
preexisting conditions. Don't take it away.
  Guess what. COVID-19 is not a partisan disease either. It will strike 
people, of course, regardless of political party.
  So the American people got to the phones, got to social media, 
occupied people's offices, and they said: Hell no. And by one vote, we 
protected the Affordable Care Act here in the U.S. Senate
  That should have been the end of the story, but it wasn't because 
what Republicans could not do through the democratic process here in 
the U.S. Senate, they decided to take to the courts. President Trump 
and his Attorney General Barr are in court right now, trying to do 
there what they could not succeed in doing here in the U.S. Senate--
trying to destroy and overturn the Affordable Care Act.
  Guess when the Supreme Court hearing on that Affordable Care Act case 
is scheduled to take place: November 10--November 10, 1 week--1 week--
after the November 3 election.
  So we see the power play here: Jam through a Supreme Court nominee. 
Put them on the Court in time for that hearing so they can hear the 
case and be part of overturning it.
  Make no mistake, President Trump has pledged to appoint a Supreme 
Court Justice who will knock down the Affordable Care Act. We don't 
know who it is going to be, but we know it is going to be somebody who 
the President believes will strike down the Affordable Care Act.
  How do we know that? Here is what Candidate Trump said: ``If I win 
the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing unlike 
Bush's appointee John Roberts on ObamaCare.'' That is Candidate Trump 
in June of 2015.
  Here is what Candidate Trump said on another occasion:

       I'm disappointed in [Justice] Roberts because he gave us 
     ObamaCare. He had two chances to end ObamaCare. He could have 
     ended it by every single measure and he didn't do it, so [it 
     is] disappointing.

  He says this on numerous occasions--numerous occasions.
  He also tweeted out that in 2012, he supported--this is 2012 when 
now-Senator Romney was running for President. Donald Trump tweeted out 
then: I am 100 percent supporting Mitt Romney's position that we need a 
Justice on the Court to strike down ObamaCare.
  So nobody should be playing any games. The President has told us he 
is going to nominate somebody to strike down the Affordable Care Act. 
That hearing is scheduled 1 week after the November 3 election.
  All of those issues are at stake right now. It appears that we have 
enough Republican Senators who have said that we will proceed to 
consider the nomination. They have abandoned the position that Mitch 
McConnell, the Republican leader, and so many Senators took in 2016 
with Barack Obama--President Obama--when they refused to provide a 
hearing. So we are going to proceed. But let's remember the President 
has pledged that he will nominate somebody who will get rid of the 
Affordable Care Act and who will strike down a woman's right to choose. 
That is what the President has said.
  Just as the American people began to get to the phones and on social 
media and to contact their Senators in the summer of 2017 when 
healthcare was at risk, when the Affordable Care Act was at risk, we 
need to make sure that the word gets out again. Back in 2017, we 
stopped that from happening by one vote in the U.S. Senate because the 
American people understood what was at stake.
  Here we are now, in a global pandemic. Instead of focusing on the 
pain the American people are feeling at the moment, instead of allowing 
us to vote on the Heroes Act, we have this Republican majority trying 
to power through a Supreme Court nominee to strike down the Affordable 
Care Act, to do through the courts what they were unsuccessful doing 
here on the Senate floor in the summer of 2017.
  Let's recognize the consequences of this abuse of power and the 
impact and harm it will do to the American people. Let's take the 
advice and dying wish of Justice Ginsburg: Allow the American people to 
speak on November 3 and then allow whoever is sworn in on inauguration 
day in January to put forward a nominee to be considered by the U.S. 
Senate.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The Senator from Mississippi.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3072

  Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, in a few moments, I will ask 
unanimous consent for the Senate to take up and pass legislation I have 
introduced to protect women from harm and to protect their health.
  This is such an important issue to me as a Senator, as a woman, and 
as a mother. I am pleased several of my Senate colleagues have joined 
me on the floor to discuss this important issue, and I look forward to 
hearing their remarks as well.
  Twenty years ago this month, the Food and Drug Administration 
approved, for the very first time, the abortion pill known as 
mifepristone. It did so under the immense pressure from the Clinton 
administration and its pro-abortion allies. However, when the FDA 
approved this drug, it recognized the serious risk of complications and 
life-threatening side effects that can be caused by this drug. Because 
of the risk of harm, and even death, the FDA put in place certain rules 
to protect the health of women. These rules are known as risk, 
evaluation, and mitigation strategies--or REMS for short--because they 
work to mitigate the risks posed by this drug to women.
  These commonsense rules require a woman to see a doctor to get the 
drug, to be fully informed of the potential side effects and how she 
can seek followup treatment for those life-threatening side effects, 
and to offer her informed consent before being prescribed the drug.
  These simple, commonsense rules have been in place to protect the 
health of women for over 20 years. Recognizing their importance, I 
introduced the SAVE Moms and Babies Act last year to codify these rules 
into law to make sure they remain in place to protect women from these 
serious side effects. However, pro-abortion forces oppose even these 
basic protections for women's health and have been working to undermine 
them, putting women at serious risk.

  This summer, a judge in Maryland issued a nationwide injunction 
canceling these REMS rules for the entire country. We knew this was 
coming. Back in April, I led 150 Members of Congress, including 38 
Members of this

[[Page S5746]]

body, in warning the FDA about this issue, and now pro-abortion 
advocates have found one activist judge to rule in their favor, putting 
women's health at risk in the middle of a pandemic.
  Even with the REMS rules in place to protect women's health, a 
substantial number of women end up needing lifesaving surgery or blood 
transfusions following chemical abortion. Sadly, some women have even 
died from these dangerous drugs.
  Make no mistake, no protections mean more adverse events for women. 
These protections ensure that a doctor could examine the woman to see 
if she has an ectopic pregnancy or is RH negative. These conditions can 
seriously increase the risk of harm to a woman taking this drug.
  No REMS protections means at-home abortion without medical oversight, 
putting women at risk of bleeding out and dying alone without a doctor 
to help her. No REMS protections mean that every State health and 
safety law that protects women from harm will be at risk. No REMS 
protections mean mail-order abortion without physicians providing the 
screenings recommended by the doctors and scientists at the FDA.
  That is why it is more important than ever to pass my bill, the SAVE 
Moms and Babies Act, to codify into law the important FDA REMS rules 
that protect women from the dangers inherent in mail-order, do-it-
yourself chemical abortions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, an abortion is always tragic, as it involves 
the taking of an innocent human life, one that has yet to draw its 
first breath or commit its first sin. In the case of a chemical 
abortion, it sometimes takes two lives: that of the baby and that of 
the mother.
  Advocates for this procedure will say that it is simple, it is easy, 
it is convenient, and it is safe. They claim that it is a good and 
valuable form of ``healthcare'' for women, but nothing could be further 
from the truth. The grim and gruesome reality is that this barbaric 
practice wreaks havoc on women's bodies and destroys the tiny bodies 
growing within them.
  So just how does this procedure work? The details are not pleasant. 
First, the mother is given a pill that blocks progesterone. This, of 
course, is a hormone that is necessary for pregnancy, and it breaks 
down the lining of her uterus. Without progesterone, you see, the baby, 
whose heart is already beating, is starved to death and dies in her 
mother's womb.
  Then, 24 to 48 hours later, the mother is given a second pill, one 
that empties her uterus by causing severe contractions and bleeding, 
mimicking early miscarriage. It can last anywhere from a few hours to a 
few weeks.
  Planned Parenthood will try to gloss over the truth here, as 
elsewhere, claiming that a hot shower and some ibuprofen are enough for 
a quick recovery to get the mother back on her feet, but, on average, 
the miscarriage lasts between 9 and 16 days and can last for as long as 
30 days. Thirty days--that is a long time.
  Most of the time these abortions are done at home. The mother is left 
to suffer alone, without care or medical attention, without supervision 
from a doctor or a nurse, and often without any followup whatsoever 
until 7 to 14 days later, if ever, keeping in mind that many of them 
don't get any followup care at all.
  The result? Well, women have suffered tragic, gruesome, and horrific 
experiences using the abortion pill. It has caused nearly 4,200 adverse 
medical events, including more than 1,000 hospitalizations and nearly 
600 instances of blood loss requiring transfusions.
  Some women have even died. The FDA has reported 24 maternal deaths 
from the abortion pill just since its approval in 2000, and those are 
just the officially reported ones that we know of that have happened 
with the regulations we currently have in place. Based on the 
assumption that those regulations are in place, that is still a really 
high rate at which they die.
  Some women need corrective surgery after taking the abortion pill and 
others require lifesaving procedures. And, somehow, we call this 
healthcare. This is not like popping a Tylenol. This two-step abortion 
cocktail poses severe risks to women, not even to mention their unborn 
babies.
  In fact, abortion pills are one of only a few medications that 
require what is known as a risk evaluation and management strategy, a 
drug safety program that the FDA requires for medications with serious 
risks. Yet some are pushing to further expand access to these drugs and 
even further loosen the regulations around them.
  Some activists are even pushing for access to the abortion pill by 
mail, meaning that the patient would never even have to be seen in 
person by any medical professional at all--not a medical clinic, not a 
doctor, not a nurse--nothing in person.
  The standards of care surrounding this practice are already reckless, 
they are already harmful, and they are already causing misery, injury, 
suffering, and death. In fact, they are unacceptable standards of care 
for women and for babies. The last thing we should be doing is making 
them even worse, making them even more vulnerable than they already 
are.
  So setting aside for a minute how you feel about other issues related 
to unborn human life in this area, let's just talk about this issue for 
a moment. Let's just talk about whether this issue is really one that 
we want to expand, where we increase the amount of misery, the amount 
of suffering, and the amount of carnage that would occur as a result of 
more people gaining access to this deeply flawed, very dangerous form 
of so-called healthcare.
  That is why we ought to support the bill put forward by my friend and 
colleague Senator Hyde-Smith. The SAVE Moms and Babies Act would 
prohibit the FDA from approving new abortion drugs, from loosening any 
regulations that exist on already approved abortion drugs, and from 
dispensing abortion drugs remotely or through the mail.
  The purpose of healthcare is to heal, to preserve, and to protect 
human life. A chemical abortion happens in the first trimester of life, 
up to about the tenth week of pregnancy, when an unborn baby already 
has a beating heart, when an unborn baby already has a growing brain, 
and when the growing baby already has 10 fingers and 10 toes.
  She deserves a shot at life, at the beginning of life, at the front 
door, and she deserves to not have it taken away and, literally, 
flushed down the drain. Mothers deserve the utmost care, protection, 
and support as they nurture the human life inside of them, not medical 
harm and not medical neglect.
  Our healthcare system should protect and care for them both, and our 
laws should uphold the immeasurable dignity and worth of both. This 
bill is a step in the right direction, and I implore all of my 
colleagues to support this legislation
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hyde-Smith). The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I thank the Presiding Officer, Senator 
Hyde-Smith, and Senator Lee for organizing this colloquy and 
participating in it in support of the Support and Value Expectant Moms 
and Babies Act. I love that title: Support and Value Expectant Moms. 
Isn't that great? We should.
  I am a doctor--not an obstetrician, but, nonetheless, I have 
delivered babies. As a doctor, my mission was to save lives--I don't 
practice anymore; I use the past tense--and improve health outcomes for 
all patients.
  We are here talking about chemical abortions. Chemical abortions 
don't do any of that. The health risks can be severe, obviously, for 
the unborn child but also, potentially, for the mom, and, particularly, 
when the mother has this without supervision by a healthcare provider.
  The total absence of medical support is the total absence of care, 
and using potentially dangerous chemicals without medical support can 
lead to the absence of health. If Americans care about a woman's 
health, they should be concerned when such procedures are allowed.
  Yet chemical abortions are on the rise. I am told that in 2017 they 
represented nearly 40 percent of all abortions. Due to a recent court 
case, women can begin to receive these through the mail, prescribed 
without even receiving a physical exam.
  Now, the mom who selects that may not know the potential 
consequences, but, as a physician, I do. The potential

[[Page S5747]]

complications include, for example, if the mother has what is called an 
ectopic pregnancy, where the unborn child and the placenta are not in 
the womb but are outside of the womb. If that occurs and these pills 
are taken--the pill known as Mifeprex, RU486--it can cause that 
pregnancy to rupture, and instead of the bleeding coming out as the 
child would, through the vagina, it means that internal bleeding 
occurs, which can result in the mother's death.
  Chemical abortions have four times the complications that surgical 
abortions do in the first trimester, and as many as 6 percent of women 
taking these abortion drugs require surgery to complete the abortion--
potentially painful and life-threatening and, of course, horrific for 
the unborn child.
  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has stated 
that ``compared with surgical abortion, medical abortion takes longer 
to complete, requires more active patient participation, and is 
associated with higher reported rates of bleeding and cramping.''
  The bill we are discussing today, the SAVE Moms and Babies Act, or 
the Support and Value Expectant Moms and Babies Act, takes substantive 
steps to protect the health of women and the unborn child. The bill 
prevents approval of new abortion drugs by the FDA, keeps the risk 
evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, protocol, and curtails 
abortion pills from being dispensed by mail or through telemedicine.
  I introduced the Teleabortion Prevention Act of 2020 in February, 
which requires a doctor to physically examine a pregnant mom before 
prescribing any abortion-related drugs and requires a followup 
appointment. We actually want women to receive healthcare, by 
healthcare providers who care about their health.
  If Senators in this body really care about women's health, they 
should join with us to stop these do-it-yourself abortions. Preventing 
abortion protects unborn babies, but preventing chemical abortions 
protects women.
  Let's work together to protect women by passing the SAVE Moms and 
Babies Act to forever end dangerous chemical abortions.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Cassidy). The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3072 and the 
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent 
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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. The FDA 
approved mifepristone nearly 20 years ago, and leading medical 
organizations have made clear that restrictions on it like those that 
are in this bill are not based on evidence or patients' best interests. 
This bill is not about science or healthcare or what is best for women 
across the Nation. It is about ideology and Republicans wanting to do 
every single thing they can to chip away at the right to a safe, legal 
abortion.
  Not on my watch. This is far from the only Republican effort to 
ignore the science and the medical professionals and overrule the 
personal decisions of patients across the country.
  At this very moment, they are gearing up to jam through President 
Trump's Supreme Court nominee and strike down Roe v. Wade. But as sure 
as I am standing here today to oppose this effort to restrict women's 
reproductive rights, you can bet I will be standing with women and men 
across the country to oppose that one too.
  I will offer legislation in a moment that actually does work to 
protect and help women and families in a moment, but for now, on this 
request, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Washington.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4638

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are in the middle of a pandemic. Two 
hundred thousand people have died, millions more have been infected, 
and this crisis is nowhere close to being over. But are Republicans are 
offering solutions? Not even close.
  We need to be prioritizing science. Instead, they are offering a bill 
that prioritizes partisan ideology. We need to be making it easier for 
people to get the care they need. Instead, they are offering a bill 
with the sole purpose of putting up unnecessary barriers to care. And 
not only are they wasting time on their partisan war against abortion 
with this bill--which they know is a nonstarter--they are preparing to 
jam through a Supreme Court nominee who would make things even worse.
  They are fighting to not just overturn Roe v. Wade but to strike down 
healthcare for tens of millions of people and strike down protections 
for people with preexisting conditions and to send healthcare costs 
skyrocketing--all during a pandemic.
  I can't believe I have to say this, but we need to be taking steps to 
make this crisis better, not worse, which is why I am going to offer a 
unanimous consent request that the Senate proceed to S. 4638--the 
Science and Transparency Over Politics Act, which Senator Schumer and 
myself and 32 other Democrats introduced today.
  Unfortunately, we have seen the Trump administration repeatedly take 
dangerous steps to undermine and overrule the experts at our Nation's 
public agencies. We have seen the President spread lies and 
misinformation and conspiracy theories about their work. We have seen 
his officials meddle with key scientific reports and apply pressure to 
promote unproven treatments. And we know this interference can damage 
public confidence in the science-based guidance our experts issue to 
help save lives and in their efforts to evaluate a vaccine and make 
sure it is safe and effective. We just can't let that happen.
  This reckless interference didn't start yesterday, and it is clear it 
is not going to stop tomorrow. So I believe Congress needs to take 
action to make it stop.
  The STOP Act would do just that by providing much needed transparency 
and accountability. Given how many Republicans have said we need to be 
listening to the experts and following the science, this bill should 
not be controversial. It should be common sense
  Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee be discharged 
from further consideration of S. 4638, and the Senate proceed to its 
immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am 
disappointed but can't say I am surprised that the Senators on the 
other side of the aisle have objected to the SAVE Moms and Babies Act. 
The Democrats have shown time and again that they would rather put the 
profits of the abortion industry over protecting women. That is what is 
happening again today.
  Make no mistake, the Democrats are trying to change to another bill 
because they want to distract you from what my bill is about. My bill 
is about protecting women from dangerous at-home abortions without a 
physician involved whatsoever. That is what my bill does--ensure women 
have to see a doctor to get this drug, ensure the doctor can examine 
her to see if she has any conditions that might make her at higher risk 
for complications, make sure she is fully informed and consents that 
she is not coerced.
  Democrats objecting to this shows you how far to the left the 
Democratic Party is on abortion. Passing my bill should be a no-
brainer. The REMS rules were put into place by a Democratic FDA to 
protect women. They have been in effect for 20 years, until the judge 
in Maryland fell for some far-fetched arguments from abortion 
advocates.
  The FDA and HHS implement government health and safety regulations to 
protect patients and ensure that doctors are doing their job, to make

[[Page S5748]]

sure that drugs are safe and that patients are not harmed. That is why 
we have an FDA and why we have an HHS.
  I agree with the Senator from Washington State that FDA and HHS 
should do this work based on scientific evidence. That is exactly what 
happened in 2000 when the Clinton administration and FDA scientists 
looked at the evidence and decided these REMS rules were needed to 
protect women from the dangers of this abortion drug.
  Usually, Democrats support science-based health protections but not 
when it comes to abortion. When it comes to abortion, they are in the 
pocket of the abortion lobby and would rather play politics rather than 
protect women's health.
  We can't let Senate Democrats change the subject by trying to bring 
up another bill that is not related to these REMS protections 
whatsoever. We can't let them try to change the subject from women's 
health to their latest conspiracy theory about the President. 
Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  I do ask, invoking rule XIX, that no Senator in debate shall, 
directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator 
or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a 
Senator.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is disappointing that Republicans 
would object to a bill that simply provides much needed accountability 
and support for scientific decisionmaking. It is especially 
disappointing they would object to it during a pandemic and while 
simultaneously pushing for an ideological bill that would undermine 
patient's care and reproductive rights.
  Rest assured, the minority leader, Senator Schumer, and I and the 
rest of our Democratic caucus are not giving up, and we will continue 
to fight on behalf of women and families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, point of parliamentary inquiry: What was the 
statement that prompted the admonition under rule XIX?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Democrats are in the pockets of the abortion 
industry.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion that 
we have had today between my colleague from Mississippi and my 
colleague from the State of Washington. I also appreciate the 
thoughtful insight that the Senator from Louisiana provided in his 
remarks.
  I feel it necessary to address a couple of issues that were raised by 
my friend and distinguished colleague from the State of Washington. 
There are differences that Members have--differences of opinion--when 
it comes to a wide variety of issues.
  When it comes to abortion, people have different approaches they 
take. I know my own view, and I know the views taken by many of my 
Democratic colleagues. But it is important to point out here what we 
are talking about and what we are not talking about.
  One of the first arguments that we heard today from the Senator from 
Washington related to Roe v. Wade. And as long as we are on the topic 
of imputing to another person improper motives or motives not apparent 
on the face of a piece of legislation, if one is going to impute to the 
Senator from Mississippi the intention of undoing a Supreme Court 
precedent, I would like to point out that is manifestly not within the 
scope of this legislation, nor is it the place of any Senator to 
purport to know the subjective motivation behind Senator Hyde-Smith's 
legislation here.
  I am not going to purport to know the reason why she said that. I 
just want to point out, that is not the point of this bill. This bill 
has nothing do with Roe v. Wade. You can feel however you want about 
Roe v. Wade. This isn't it. I know that is a convenient excuse to not 
have to deal with something--something real, something that has to do 
with the lives and the health and the well-being of women, to say 
nothing about the unborn human lives within them.
  From those who would invoke science in opposing this bill, I would 
ask, on what planet does science back the idea we should remove the 
REMS restrictions from this supposed so-called form of healthcare--a 
form of healthcare that, as I mentioned a few moments ago, has resulted 
in thousands upon thousands of complications in the two decades it has 
been on the market? On what planet can one contend that one can't 
support this legislation without being opposed to science?
  Back to the Roe v. Wade question. If every single time someone gets 
up to try to present legislation--legislation that as far as I can 
tell, the Senator from Washington wasn't claiming was outside of our 
legislative purview as Federal lawmakers--if every single time someone 
gets up to try to raise legitimate questions of public policy regarding 
the health, safety, and welfare of the American people, of the American 
patient, of American women subjected to very serious side effects from 
a piece of legislation--if no one can present legislation without being 
accused of trying to undo a 1973 court decision, which is, on its face, 
not even at issue in this legislation, then we are going to have a hard 
time carefully considering these things.
  Last I checked, it is our job to decide questions of public policy--
questions that are squarely within our Federal jurisdiction. One could 
argue, I suppose, about whether it was a good idea to put exclusive 
jurisdiction over the regulation of pharmaceuticals in this country 
under the FDA. One could make that argument.
  I don't understand the Senator from Washington to be making a 
federalism argument. If she wants to have that conversation, I would 
love to have that with her. That would be fantastic. In fact, I would 
love to raise federalism concerns anytime we are discussing anything 
because it is far too seldom invoked here.
  But that is not what this is about. What that argument was about was 
instead that the Senator from Mississippi supposedly is trying to 
overturn Roe v. Wade. And it couldn't possibly be the fact that she is 
there genuinely concerned about the thousands upon thousands of 
injuries that have been sustained as a result of this barbaric form of 
so-called medical treatment. It can't possibly be that.
  If that is the case, if those who were so determined to make 
everything about Roe v. Wade--if they are right and if they were to 
have their way, then I guess we can't discuss anything even related to 
women's health that affects pregnancy.
  Surely, that is not the argument. That can't be the argument. I don't 
think anyone, regardless of how they feel about Roe V. Wade, regardless 
of how they feel about government's role in abortion or not, if what we 
are talking about is the fact that we ought not loosen certain 
restrictions so as to allow people to gain access to an abortion 
cocktail that is dangerous under many circumstances, especially when it 
is administered without any kind of direct medical supervision or 
attention, if that is where we are, that is not good. That is messed 
up. Something is terribly wrong if we can't have a conversation about 
women's health without being accused of wanting to undo an entire line 
of precedent dating back to 1973.

  Look, guilty as charged. I have my own views about that line of 
precedent. Those views are no secret. Those views are well-founded as a 
matter of science. They are well-founded as a matter of hundreds of 
years of American constitutional law, of common law, but I understand 
they are not the only views.
  You cannot simply walk in here and say that because this addresses a 
type of abortion procedure, because Roe v. Wade reached the conclusion 
that it did, anyone who proposes a piece of legislation like the one 
proposed by Senator Hyde-Smith today necessarily has as its object--
that her subjective motivation behind filing that legislation is the 
undoing of Roe v. Wade, and because that is her supposed subjective 
motivation, we can't even have the conversation about what this does 
for women's health--to say: Let's draw the line, and let's not remove 
the REMS restrictions. Let's not let people order these through the 
mail and be administered these dangerous drugs without direct medical 
supervision.
  The next line of reasoning used by the Senator, my friend and 
distinguished colleague from the State of

[[Page S5749]]

Washington, is that we are in the middle of a global pandemic. Yes, we 
are, but last I checked, that doesn't prevent or preclude us from 
discussing and addressing other things, from the funding of the 
government to Presidential nominees whom we confirm or don't confirm. 
That doesn't preclude us or excuse us from considering other pieces of 
legislation. I am struggling to understand how the existence of a 
global pandemic means that we can't even address another type of 
epidemic--one brought about potentially as a result of the abusive 
prescription and reckless misuse of abortion-inducing drug cocktails. 
This is beyond my ability to understand.
  It is also beyond my ability to understand how a simple requirement 
that before one of these drugs is administered, the patient should have 
at her disposal a medical examination and some kind of medical 
attention. Nothing about Roe v. Wade says that you can't have laws 
restricting the manner in which abortions are performed. Nothing about 
Roe v. Wade says that a State or Congress itself may not require that 
abortions be performed by healthcare professionals under the 
supervision of a board certified medical doctor. Nothing about Roe v. 
Wade carries any implication for this. This legislation simply says: 
Let's make sure that medications like this are not used to harm 
American women.
  I have other colleagues wishing to discuss this topic and other 
topics. Let me say this: Human life matters. Every human life means 
something. You can't snuff it out and pretend it doesn't exist, because 
it does. Every life matters to God. It matters in the universe. Whether 
you believe in God or not, life matters. You can't pretend it doesn't 
exist. Every life is unrepeatable, irreplaceable. We should vow to 
protect it.
  For those who aren't interested in protecting unborn human life, 
let's at least focus on protecting the human lives that we all agree 
exist. That is what this legislation is about. Shame on us if we can't 
even do that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana
  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Lee for an 
impassioned and effective argument.
  I rise here today in support of my colleague Senator Hyde-Smith's 
SAVE Moms and Babies Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor. I am 
disappointed that my colleagues would object to this bill to help 
safeguard and help expectant mothers.
  The SAVE Moms and Babies Act would improve women's health by 
protecting important safety mechanisms put into place by the FDA. The 
Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy is an essential mechanism which 
ensures that drugs with serious safety concerns are used and prescribed 
correctly.
  My Democratic colleagues and the abortion lobby may expect Americans 
to believe chemical abortion pills are safe to use and should be 
available online without an in-person physician consultation, but here 
are the facts: Between 3.4 and 5.9 percent of women taking chemical 
abortion drugs require surgical intervention to complete the abortion. 
This meant 10,000 women in 2017 alone needed surgery after taking an 
abortion drug. Chemical abortion has four times the complications as 
surgical abortion during the first trimester. The risk of complications 
are particularly worsened in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. Women 
with ectopic pregnancies have suffered serious injury and even death 
from taking chemical abortion drugs.
  I am disappointed this Chamber could not come together today to 
support Senator Hyde-Smith's timely, needed, and important bill to 
protect women's health.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, 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. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COTTON. I know of no further debate on this nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There being no further debate on the 
nomination, the question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the 
Sonderling nomination?
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Johnson), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Johnson) would have voted yea.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), 
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Michigan 
(Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. McSally). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 189 Ex.]

                                YEAS--52

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Jones
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Loeffler
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Thune
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--41

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Capito
     Harris
     Johnson
     Sanders
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tillis
  The nomination was confirmed.