[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 36 (Monday, February 28, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S838-S839]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. Murkowski):
  S. 3713. A bill to codify the essential holdings of Roe v. Wade (410 
U.S. 113 (1973)) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. 
Casey (505 U.S. 833 (1992)); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Reproductive Choice Act with my colleague and friend Senator Lisa 
Murkowski, which would codify the protections for reproductive rights 
established by the Supreme Court's decisions in Roe v. Wade in 1973 and 
affirmed by Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. We are introducing the 
Reproductive Choice Act as a substitute amendment to the Women's Health 
Protection Act before us today and as a standalone bill for future 
consideration.
  Unfortunately, the Women's Health Protection Act goes far beyond 
codifying Roe and Casey. Among other issues, this legislation would 
severely weaken protections afforded to healthcare providers who refuse 
to perform abortions on religious grounds. Rather than just codifying 
Roe's protections, the bill would undercut Federal and State laws that 
have been in place for decades and call into question basic conscience 
protections.
  The Reproductive Choice Act that Senator Murkowski and I are 
introducing today would simply codify the essential holdings of the 
U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade and 1992 decision in 
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. Our bill 
carefully tracks the Supreme Court's language and would provide 
reassurance to women that the reproductive rights they have relied on 
for nearly 50 years will continue to be the law of the land.
  Specifically, the Reproductive Choice Act would make clear in Federal 
law that States may not impose an ``undue burden'' on the ability of a 
woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy prior to 
viability. It would still allow States to enact regulations to further 
the health or safety of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy, while 
stating that regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting 
a ``substantial obstacle'' to a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy 
would be considered an ``undue burden.''
  As is currently permitted under Roe and Casey, our legislation would 
allow individual States to impose restrictions on terminating a 
pregnancy after fetal viability, except when necessary to preserve the 
life or health of the woman. Notably, unlike the Women's Health 
Protection Act, our bill would not restrict laws regarding conscience 
protections, including laws that protect healthcare providers who 
refuse to provide pregnancy termination services for moral or religious 
reasons.
  Women should be assured privacy in making their reproductive choices, 
and I oppose efforts to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 
Roe v. Wade. It is my hope that the Reproductive Choice Act will be 
enacted to ensure that women in this country are able to make their own 
reproductive choices as established in the landmark Roe decision.

[[Page S839]]

  

                          ____________________