[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 2, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Page S467]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 494

  Mr. BRAUN. Madam President, on January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court 
handed down their decision in Roe v. Wade, homogenizing an approach to 
abortion across the country. It is estimated that over 60 million lives 
have been lost to abortion since this decision.
  This resolution recognizes January 22, into the future, as the Day of 
Tears. It encourages Americans to lower their flags to halfstaff to 
mourn the lives lost to abortion.
  I am joined on this resolution by Senators Daines, Inhofe, Blackburn, 
Hagerty, Lankford, Hawley, and Rounds.
  Similar resolutions have passed in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, 
Louisiana, and West Virginia. Representative Jody Hice is leading a 
similar measure in the House. It has 51 cosponsors from 26 States.
  Two weeks ago, thousands of Americans joined the March for Life to 
stand up for the unborn. Later this year, the Supreme Court will issue 
a decision on a case which strikes at the heart of Roe v. Wade. Our 
current abortion guidelines, we only have five other countries that 
would be similar. Two of those countries are China and North Korea. 
What does that say about abortion in America?
  Minimally, the Court needs to return this to the States so that we 
don't have this policy put upon all of the States, at least half of 
which disagree with it. Whatever that decision may be, we must remember 
the millions of lives lost to the tragedy of abortion.
  Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further 
consideration and that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 494. I further 
ask that the resolution be agreed to, that the preamble be agreed to, 
and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  Just weeks ago, we celebrated the anniversary of Roe v. Wade--the 
landmark decision that affirmed the right to abortion and changed so 
many lives for the better.
  Across the country, patients spoke out about their experiences before 
Roe--about how Roe meant they could get an abortion they needed or even 
how, after Roe, they still struggled to get access to abortion. But 
what was present in all of those stories was real fear about what the 
future holds--the fear of what a country without Roe would look like--
because that is what Republicans are pushing for all across the 
country.
  Republicans in Texas passed SB 8, which bans abortions after 6 weeks 
and allows people to sue anyone who helps someone get an abortion.
  In Idaho, bordering my home State of Washington, extreme Republican 
legislators are trying to pass a law modeled after the Texas abortion 
ban.
  Republicans in Mississippi brought a direct challenge of Roe to the 
Supreme Court and have told the Court, in no uncertain terms, they 
believe Roe should be overturned.
  Now, those are just a few examples, and we have got one more here in 
the Senate today.
  The resolution from the Senator from Indiana sends a message that the 
Republican Party knows best when it comes to some of the most personal 
decisions people make about their health and their futures, about when 
and whether to have children, and about what is best for themselves and 
their families.
  Well, they don't.
  In fact, the majority of Americans support Roe and do not want to see 
it overturned. They want a country where everyone can control their own 
bodies and their own futures, and that is exactly what I am fighting 
for so I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BRAUN. Madam President, the Senator from Washington makes the 
point that this is Republicans. This is not Republicans. Of course, 
they are for doing what needs to be done, and that is returning this to 
the States, minimally, taking a decision that was out of context back 
in 1973, when it was made.
  And the opposite of the argument she made would be, Why should the 
Federal Government, based upon the judiciary ruling that was out of 
context, force this on the entirety of the country? When it comes to 
what it allows now--abortions late into a pregnancy--that is not 
supported by most of the country.
  So, minimally, this ought to be returned to the States to reflect the 
views of the different States in this country--50 of them. Over half 
disagree with it, and over half of our citizens would say that it makes 
more sense than what we have now.
  I yield the floor.