[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 77 (Monday, May 9, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Page S2371]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                Abortion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, 2 years ago, the Senate Democratic 
leader rallied a crowd on the steps of the Supreme Court and threatened 
Justices by name if they did not resolve an abortion case the way he 
wanted. Here was the quote:

       I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: 
     You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. 
     You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these 
     awful decisions.

  This incitement triggered rare public rebukes from the Chief Justice 
himself and even the liberal American Bar Association. But, apparently, 
the radical left heard their marching orders loud and clear.
  Since the precedent-setting leak of a draft opinion last week, the 
left has set out to harass and intimidate sitting judges as they 
consider a pending case. We have seen angry crowds assemble at 
Justices' private family homes. Activists publish a map of their 
addresses. Law enforcement has had to install a security fence around 
the Supreme Court itself.
  Trying--trying--to scare Federal judges into ruling a certain way is 
far outside the bounds of First Amendment speech or protest; it is an 
attempt to replace the rule of law with the rule of mobs.
  It appears this may possibly be flatout illegal. There is a Federal 
law on the books that criminalizes ``pickets or parades with the intent 
of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer'' at 
locations--listen to this--that include a judge's ``residence.''
  Last year, Attorney General Garland's Justice Department was quick to 
treat the concerned parents of America like potential domestic 
terrorists. But, curiously, I haven't heard any announcement about how 
the DOJ may handle these intimidation tactics aimed directly at Federal 
judges.
  Washington Democrats have gone out of their way to fuel the 
hysterical, potentially dangerous, climate. The President's statement 
about the unprecedented leak didn't condemn it. His Press Secretary has 
repeatedly appeared to endorse rallies at judge's private family 
residences as long as they don't turn into outright violence.
  The senior Senator from Massachusetts stood on the Supreme Court 
steps and shouted:

       We are gonna fight back.

  Democrats are renewing their calls to break the Senate in order to 
pack the Court. They want to destroy two institutions for the price of 
one.
  One liberal Georgetown law professor helpfully summarized their 
mission as follows: He explained this past weekend that the key moral 
difference between this pressure campaign and the January 6 riot is 
that, in this case--now listen to this--``the mob is right.''
  So what has generated this reckless outrage? What is the Armageddon 
over which Democrats want to break the Senate, pack the Court, and 
condone potentially illegal rallies outside judges' family homes? Here 
is the case in question: whether the State of Mississippi can enact an 
abortion law that would still be more liberal--more liberal--than laws 
in Germany, France, and Switzerland.
  This is the case that is driving these hysterics, the possibility 
that abortion laws might begin to move away from China and North Korea 
and closer to Germany, France, and Switzerland? That is what has 
prompted the calls to destroy our institutions and surround Justices' 
family homes. That is why a pro-life nonprofit in Wisconsin got a 
Molotov cocktail through its window and activists called for 
disruptions of Sunday worship.
  Today's Democratic Party is profoundly out of step with the American 
people on this issue. Their extreme position ignores modern science and 
public opinion.
  Leader Schumer wants the Senate to vote again on a Democratic bill 
that would effectively legalize abortion-on-demand through all 9 
months. Their bill is written to protect abortionists rather than 
mothers. It would roll back health regulations. It would attack 
America's conscience rights and religious freedoms. It would overturn 
modest and overwhelmingly popular safeguards like waiting periods, 
informed consent laws, and possibly even parental notification. And it 
is written so that, in practice, it would allow elective abortion until 
birth.
  Democrats' extreme position is radical on a global scale and wildly 
unpopular with the American people. Only 34 percent of Americans 
believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases into the second 
trimester. That drops to 19 percent in the third trimester, but that is 
what the Democrats' bill would allow in practice.
  Every Senate Democrat but two and every House Democrat except a 
handful has put their name on this as cosponsors. That means 97 percent 
of Washington Democrats support a position that only 19 percent of 
Americans actually want. I will say that again. Ninety-seven percent of 
Democrats in Congress are cosponsors of an outcome that has 19 percent 
public support.
  Notwithstanding inflation, energy insecurity, open borders, a violent 
crimewave, and a war in Europe, Democrats want to spend this week 
explaining their extremism. Some Democrats even want to try again to 
break the Senate in order to ram this through. I have clearly stated I 
will never, never support smashing the legislative filibuster on this 
issue or any other. Yet Democrats want to wreck our institutions over 
their fringe position that Americans do not share.
  I can understand why my colleagues want to distract from their 
governing record. Their policies have created a living nightmare for 
working families. But Democrats' extreme and unpopular position on 
abortion is not going to bail them out. It just gives Americans yet 
another reminder that the radicals are running the show.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Duckworth). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________