[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 78 (Tuesday, May 10, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2395-S2404]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Women's Health Protection Act

  Ms. WARREN. Madam President, I rise today to urge the Senate to take 
action to protect abortion rights and defend our constitutional rights.
  A far-right, extremist Supreme Court wants to force their views on 
every American. Roe v. Wade has protected the right to a safe, legal 
abortion for nearly 50 years. Though Republicans have tried to 
challenge it in court many times, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed Roe 
over and over and over again--until now.
  So what changed? Why is something that is repeatedly referred to as 
``settled law'' on the threshold of being swept away like so much dust? 
Why is a law that literally tens of millions of people have depended on 
to protect access to a safe, legal abortion suddenly about to 
evaporate?
  We don't arrive here accidentally. We are here because Republican 
politicians have spent decades plotting for this moment. They have 
cultivated extremist judges. Groups like the Federalist Society have 
screened possible candidates and drawn up lists of which possible 
candidates could and could not be counted on. Extremist donors spent 
billions in dark money so that their preferred ideologues could chip 
away at people's fundamental rights and do it from the Bench. 
Republican candidates for office pledged to support Justices who would 
get rid of Roe v. Wade. And, finally, when all of that still wasn't 
enough, Republicans stole two seats on the Supreme Court, all to force 
their unpopular minority agenda on the rest of America.

  I am here to sound a warning. Republican extremism has been carefully 
nurtured for years. Now Republican extremism is spreading, and now it 
is obvious that Republican extremism knows no bounds.
  Let's talk about the facts--the facts of Republican extremism--and 
let's begin with who pays the price for Republican extremism. Changes 
in abortion laws will have terrible consequences, but those 
consequences will not fall equally on everyone. No, those with money 
will always have the option to leave the State or leave the country to 
travel where abortion is safe and legal. No, the people who will pay 
the biggest price will be the most vulnerable among us--the mama 
already working two jobs to help make ends meet to support the children 
she has; the women working jobs who have no paid leave and who can't 
take 3 days off work to go to another State; the women in South Dakota 
scrambling to make an appointment at the only abortion clinic in the 
entire State; the 12-year-old who has been molested; the person who has 
been raped; the women in Texas who need lifesaving care their doctors 
can't provide; and the women all across the country, especially women 
of color, already facing shamefully high maternal mortality rates--
because in America, carrying a pregnancy to term is 43 times riskier 
than a legal abortion.
  These are the facts about overturning Roe v. Wade, and these are the 
people--disproportionately low-income women, women of color, and women 
in rural communities--who will pay the price for Republican extremism.
  Overturning Roe is just the beginning. Republican State legislatures 
all across the country have already been emboldened by this Supreme 
Court, introducing hundreds of anti-abortion bills this year alone. 
States are now introducing bills to declare it a crime for someone to 
obtain an abortion, for someone to provide an abortion, or for someone 
just to help someone locate where they might get an abortion.
  And where will the Republican extremists turn next? Will they 
investigate every miscarriage? Will they put every obstetrician and 
gynecologist on the watch list? Will they monitor location data for 
every person who pulls into the parking lot of a Planned Parenthood 
clinic?
  Let's be absolutely clear about what will happen if this decision 
stands. Republicans want to do more than criminalize abortion; they 
want to criminalize women for making decisions about their pregnancies 
and their own health. This isn't theoretical. It is already coming to 
pass.
  In Texas, where abortion has been virtually inaccessible to millions 
of Texans for the last 8 months, a young woman has been charged with 
murder for an alleged self-induced abortion.
  An Oklahoma law has passed that would outlaw abortion even in the 
case of rape or incest. But what Republicans are really after is 
criminalizing women's very bodies.
  In Louisiana, Republicans are pushing for the most extreme bill yet, 
legislation that would classify abortion as a homicide. If enacted, 
this bill could criminalize women for using certain forms of birth 
control or even for having a miscarriage that she had no control over.
  And we know who will be the most affected by the overcriminalization 
of women's bodies. It will be women of color who are already 
overpoliced and face the greatest barriers to accessing healthcare.
  The intrusiveness of these State laws is vile. Efforts to give 
fertilized eggs ``personhood'' rights and to criminalize abortion could 
make IVF procedures criminal, depriving someone who wants to get 
pregnant the only option available to her.
  As some States get more and more aggressive about intruding into the 
private lives of millions of women, just this weekend, the Republican 
leader, Mitch McConnell, signaled he is open to even more extremism. He 
said that a nationwide abortion ban was ``possible'' if Republicans 
retake the majority--a nationwide abortion ban applicable in every 
State, including those States that are currently working overtime to 
protect access to abortion; a nationwide abortion ban applicable to 
girls who have been molested and to people who have been raped and to 
women who are already working three jobs to support the women they 
have. Republican extremism is spreading. Republican extremism knows no 
bounds.
  For me, this isn't about politics; this is personal. I have lived in 
a world where abortion was illegal. I learned early on that when the 
law bans abortions, only safe and legal abortions will actually be 
banned. I lived in a world in which women bled to death from back-ally 
abortions, a world in which infections and other complications 
destroyed women's futures, a world in which women's educations and 
lives were derailed by an unplanned pregnancy, a world in which some 
women took their own lives rather than continuing with a pregnancy they 
could not bear.
  I have also lived in a world where abortion is legal. For decades, 
expanded access to abortion has allowed people to make decisions about 
their own bodies and lives, promoting access to life-changing 
opportunities and careers that have previously seemed out of reach. But 
the Republican extremists and the extremist Justices they have put on 
the Supreme Court just don't care. They want to send us back to the 
days when women's rights to control their own bodies and their own 
futures simply did not exist.

[[Page S2396]]

  American freedoms are under attack. The liberty of more than half our 
population is under attack. Republicans have planned long and hard for 
this day, and now that it is here, we must stand and fight.
  Tomorrow, the Senate will vote on the Women's Health Protection Act 
to enshrine the right to an abortion in Federal law. We need the 
Women's Health Protection Act to prevent radical rightwing State 
legislatures from ever enacting extreme bills like Texas's SB 8 or 
Mississippi's 15-week ban. With WHPA, we will take the steps necessary 
to protect our human rights. It is just that simple.

  And for everyone who says we don't have the votes in the Senate to 
get this done, I say, then get in the fight and give us the Senators 
who will get it done. Don't tell us what we can't do to stop Republican 
extremism; get in the fight to help us beat these abortion restrictions 
into the dirt. Get in the fight to recognize the dignity and liberty of 
every American.
  After this vote, there will be no ambiguity. Every American will know 
exactly where their elected representatives in Congress stand, and 
every Senator will have to explain whether they defend the right of 
every person to have control over their own bodies and their own 
futures or whether they will stand by as women's constitutional rights 
are brazenly stripped away.
  Whenever this Court strikes down freedoms and rights guaranteed by 
the Constitution, Congress must defend Americans every single time. I 
am angry that a group of unelected ideologues on the Supreme Court 
think that they can turn current law upside down and dictate to tens of 
millions of people across this country the terms of their pregnancies 
and their lives.
  But the Supreme Court does not get the last word on the right to a 
safe and legal abortion. The American people, through their leaders 
right here in Congress, can take action. And that is why I will vote to 
support the Women's Health Protection Act. That is why I will fiercely 
oppose any threat to our liberty. And that is why I will continue to 
fight with every bone in my body to protect the right of every woman to 
control her own future.
  Republican extremism is spreading. Republican extremism knows no 
bounds. Tomorrow, we have a chance to fight back, and we will fight 
back.
  I have lived in a world where abortion is illegal, and we are not 
going back--never.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, when I introduced the Women's Health 
Protection Act in 2013--yes, in 2013, almost 10 years ago--the idea 
that Roe v. Wade would be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court was 
virtually unthinkable. We accepted 50 years of established precedent, 
long-accepted law in this country--as something that was virtually 
unimaginable.
  Women relied on it. Our society took it as a core principle of our 
constitutional law, much as Brown v. Board of Education, Marbury v. 
Madison, Roe v. Wade, tenets and pillars of constitutional law in this 
country. And when we asked nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court, the 
three most recent of them--and I personally asked this question--is Roe 
v. Wade established law, they said to us that they would rely on stare 
decisis, which for everyday Americans is, basically, we will follow 
established precedent as articulated year after year by the U.S. 
Supreme Court.
  The now well-reported Alito draft of an opinion overturning Roe v. 
Wade came like a thunderbolt, an earthquake, a seismic blow that 
constitutional scholars thought was unthinkable.
  The draft itself is strident and brash. It is disrespectful in a way 
that Supreme Court opinions never are. It is unprecedented in its tone 
and approach, saying that Roe v. Wade was egregiously wrong, failing to 
accurately portray what it held and the reasons for its holding.
  There is no question in my mind that the Court, in its final opinion, 
will smooth the edges of that draft. It will try to tone down the 
rhetoric. It will dress it up. But the result will be the same. No 
matter how the Court may try to dress it up, it will have the same 
impact on millions of Americans and their families because the U.S. 
Supreme Court is poised to issue the most radical ruling in recent 
history--perhaps in the entire history of the United States--the most 
extreme contraction of fundamental constitutional rights in the history 
of the United States.
  Let's indulge ourselves for a moment in a belief in the American 
dream and the exceptionalism of America, which is to expand rights and 
liberties. The story of America is expanding freedoms and liberties for 
all of us, not reducing it, restricting it. But this Supreme Court is 
poised to eradicate a fundamental right that millions of Americans have 
relied on for half a century. The Court has signaled that it will 
inflict an enormous leap backwards, with incalculable costs and chaos 
for countless women and their families. If the Court indeed overturns 
Roe, 23 States have laws that would immediately go into effect to be 
used to restrict the legal status of abortion.
  Today, 90 percent of American counties already lack a single abortion 
provider--not one in 90 percent of American counties--and 27 cities 
have become so-called abortion deserts because people who live there 
have to travel 100 miles or more to reach a provider. Without the 
protections of Roe, this situation will become even worse for millions 
of Americans. Women in Louisiana, just to take one example, will be 630 
miles from the nearest abortion clinic. Women in Florida, Texas, 
Mississippi, Utah, and many other States would be in a similar 
position. Access to reproductive freedom will depend on a woman's ZIP 
Code, not on her personal choices or her needs.
  Abortion bans without Roe will disproportionately impact low-income 
women in those 23 States poised to ban abortion.
  Justice Alito--perhaps not surprisingly--fails to address the ways 
that the Court's ruling will disproportionately impact communities of 
color all around the United States. There is an issue here of racial 
justice because these restrictions disproportionately affect Black 
women and other racial minority communities. Today, fewer than 1 in 10 
abortion providers are located in neighborhoods where the majority of 
residents are Black. That is a simple, straightforward fact of life. 
And the closure of clinics will make it only worse.
  The simple fact is that Dobbs will turn back the clock. It will roll 
back protections relating to fundamental rights.
  May I say that the same people who argue that mask requirements 
designed to protect public health infringe on their fundamental 
liberties are perfectly happy sending the government into a hospital 
room as a couple makes an incredibly difficult, personal life decision. 
The same people who see masks as an infringement on bodily autonomy are 
perfectly happy with the government telling a woman who comes to a 
hospital, possibly in mortal danger of internal bleeding from an 
ectopic pregnancy: You will have to die. No doctor can help you.
  That is not bodily autonomy; that is not liberty.
  After the Court's final decision in Dobbs, today's young women, the 
young women of 2022, will have fewer rights than their grandmothers. 
Young women today will have fewer rights than two generations ago. To 
someone who recalls the seminal decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973 and the 
promise of that moment, it is unacceptable.
  I was a law clerk to the author of Roe v. Wade in the term after he 
wrote the opinion. Justice Blackmun and the Court decided by a 7-to-2 
majority--7 to 2; Justice Blackmun was appointed by a Republican 
President--that this right is fundamental. Whether you criticize the 
decision--and there have been plenty of people who criticized that 
opinion--it has been established law, relied on, incorporated in 
precedent after precedent. And now, in the Women's Health Protection 
Act, we ask that it be incorporated in statute, that the Roe v. Wade 
standard be enshrined and embodied in a statute, just as Connecticut 
did in its State statute in 1990--a law that I championed when I was in 
our Connecticut State Senate.
  In lieu of well-established Supreme Court precedent, Justice Alito 
relies on a 17th-century English jurist who advocated for marital rape 
and who tried women for witchcraft. This isn't just judicial activism; 
this is extremism. This is fringe history cloaked in a judge's robe.

[[Page S2397]]

  And do you know what is conspicuously absent from Justice Alito's 
radical draft opinion? What is absent is women. Justice Alito gives 
absolutely no credence to the empirical evidence before the Court--
evidence offered by health experts and economists who demonstrate the 
ways in which women have relied upon abortion access to make decisions 
about their health, their lives, their careers, and their future. 
Instead, he gestures at the fact that women have the right to vote as 
evidence they don't need the right to control their lives and their own 
bodies. I am sorry, but the right to vote is where rights begin; it is 
not where they end.

  And we know the truth, whether or not Justice Alito acknowledges it: 
The Court's world without Roe would not just impact one segment of 
society, one demographic, one geographic area; it will affect all of 
us. One in four American women will undergo an abortion in her 
lifetime--one in four.
  To the men of America, all of you love someone, you know someone, you 
treasure someone who has had an abortion, who has needed an abortion. 
You can't sit this one out.
  It is all of us, men as well as women. We all have a stake in this 
radical decision that will affect all of America and make us a lesser 
nation with fewer rights and liberties.
  The Court's draft opinion in Dobbs is just the next step in a 
multidecade fight which the Court has waged on abortion access. It has 
already shown willingness to dramatically curtail the right of a 
pregnant person to decide whether and when to have a child. Just ask 
women in the State of Texas. They are living in a State without the 
protections of Roe v. Wade, with a dangerous anti-abortion law, SB 8, 
which contains a 6-week abortion ban. Six weeks is far before many 
women even know they are pregnant, as all of us in this Chamber know.
  Texas's dangerous law deputizes private citizens to enforce the 
State's onerous abortion law. In Texas, a rapist can sue a doctor if 
they provide an abortion to a rape survivor. Someone who drove their 
sister to a healthcare clinic where she has an abortion could be sued, 
again, by anyone in the United States--anybody--with a $10,000 
government prize money waiting for that bounty hunter. This is 
extremism--extremism--in a judge's robes.
  I am proud to say that the State of Connecticut today has a law--
literally, the Governor signed this law today--making sure that people 
are protected in Connecticut against those kinds of bounty hunters. My 
hope is that other States will follow Connecticut in providing that 
kind of basic protection.
  It has never been more urgent for the Congress at the Federal level 
to pass the Women's Health Protection Act. The Women's Health 
Protection Act would protect rights established by 50 years of Court 
precedent, protecting the right to an abortion prior to fetal 
viability. It would put an end to laws like the 15-week ban on abortion 
that is now before the Court in the Dobbs case.
  Importantly, as well, the Women's Health Protection Act would put an 
end to medically unnecessary restrictions posing as health restrictions 
that single out abortion care with one goal in mind: to block and 
impede access to safe, needed healthcare--laws like the so-called TRAP 
law, or targeted regulation of abortion providers; such as minimum 
measurements for room size or hallway width that have no rationale 
other than the transparent desire to curtail access; laws that require 
providers to offer medically inaccurate information when providing 
abortion care, like in Alaska, Kansas, Mississippi, Texas, and West 
Virginia, where healthcare professionals are forced to tell women--give 
them medically inaccurate information about links between abortion and 
breast cancer. It would put an end to a reality where our doctors are 
required by law to lie and mislead about the risks of a safe medical 
procedure, and it would restore an evidence-based approach to informed 
consent.
  In short, it would essentially guarantee the right that exists now, 
and it will exist until the Supreme Court rules that you can decide 
whether and when to have children.
  Let us be very clear about what the Women's Health Protection Act 
does and what it doesn't do. It does not force any unwilling medical 
provider to perform abortions if they wish not to do so. It says that 
doctors, nurses, and hospitals may provide abortion care, not that they 
must do so.
  This measure is an evidence-based, scientific approach to the 
protection of women's healthcare, and it restores a future where all of 
us are free to make personal decisions that shape our lives, our 
futures, and our families with dignity and respect, without political 
interference in a decision made between a patient and a doctor, much as 
all healthcare decisions should be.
  The implications of the Court's draft decision in Dobbs and what we 
are expecting from the Court in coming weeks simply can't be overstated 
or exaggerated, but it would be foolish to believe that the Court's 
conservative supermajority will stop even at Roe.
  Justice Alito's draft opinion, even if it is never issued by the 
Court, is the road map where this Court will go in the future. It is 
permeated with support for the notion that ``fetal personhood,'' a 
dangerous theory furthered by States like Louisiana that seek to make 
abortion a crime of homicide from the moment of fertilization, if 
adopted, the Court's novel, invented theory of personhood could and may 
well lead to nationwide prohibitions on abortion. And most recently, 
just over the weekend, the minority leader of the Senate has made clear 
that in a post-Roe world, a Federal ban on abortion is on the table; so 
did State officials who spoke over the weekend.
  It is more than a cloud on the horizon; it is an impending, real, 
imminent storm upon us. A ban nationwide on abortion, that would 
override even the States like Connecticut that are seeking to legislate 
protections for women that will make us a safe harbor and haven.
  The draft opinion also invites challenges to a host of fundamental 
rights that were also not widely recognized in 1868, the moment in 
which Justice Alito freezes us in time. He literally freezes 
constitutional rights regarding reproductive liberties in that long-
gone moment.
  The draft opinion cast invites challenges to a host of fundamental 
rights, including contraception, Griswold v. Connecticut; interracial 
marriage, Loving v. Virginia; same sex marriage, Obergefell v. Hodges; 
and sexual intimacy between consenting adults, Lawrence v. Texas.
  You don't need to be a constitutional scholar to understand the clear 
and present danger to American democracy in this draft opinion.
  This Court may dress it up, but the results and the reasoning will be 
the same: radical extreme fringe--and directly contrary to what three 
nominees testified in their confirmation hearing. Oh, we respect 
established precedent, of course, stare decisis, fundamental principle.
  The legitimacy and credibility of this Court is deeply in peril at 
this moment, and our democracy really depends on the credibility and 
respect that the American people accord the Supreme Court of the United 
States. It has no armies or police force. It has no power of the purse. 
Its authority depends directly on trust and credibility, the sense of 
legitimacy that the American people accord it.
  In the United States, public support for legal access to abortion is 
at the highest it has been in two decades, a cruel irony for this 
Court. And today the overwhelming majority of voters believe that 
everyone should have access to the full range of reproductive 
healthcare, including annual screening, birth control, pregnancy tests, 
and abortion. It is a matter of health.
  And at the same time, millions of Americans across this country are 
absolutely terrified. They are angry and horrified about what the 
Supreme Court is poised to do because they depend on accessible women's 
healthcare. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe and we have taken no 
legislative action, we will find ourselves in a nation where young 
women of this country, not only have fewer rights than their 
grandmothers, they have fewer rights than any of them thought possible.
  We have to resolve that we are not backing down, we are not going 
away, we are not going back in time. It has never been more urgent to 
elect people, Members of this body, who will protect fundamental 
rights. And I guarantee that in elections to come, reproductive rights 
will be on the ballot. The women

[[Page S2398]]

and men of America will mobilize. They will be galvanized on this issue 
because the Women's Health Protection Act will be on the ballot, and we 
will have more votes in this body so that Members will be held 
accountable for what they do or fail to do. And, ultimately, the 
American people and the world are watching.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, at the National Prayer Breakfast in 1994, 
Mother Teresa famously said:

       I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is 
     abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct 
     killing of the innocent child.

  She went on to say:

       Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the 
     people to love but to use any violence to get what they want. 
     That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is 
     abortion.

  That was Mother Teresa at the National Prayer Breakfast here in DC in 
1994. I agree with those words. Frankly, it is shameful that the 
Democrats and pro-abortion activists have resorted to despicable 
tactics--some even illegal, some violent--in a last-ditch effort to 
intimidate the Justices in the Dobbs case to get the outcome that they 
want.
  What began with the unprecedented leak of the majority draft opinion 
last Monday has quickly devolved into protesting at the Justices' 
homes, threatening and disrupting church services, vandalizing 
pregnancy resource centers that offer support services to pregnant 
moms, and even throwing Molotov cocktails at the offices of a pro-life 
organization. Frankly, it is chilling. It is unacceptable. We cannot 
let the far left's outrageous behavior obscure the fact that the Dobbs 
draft opinion authored by Justice Alito is a triumph of the 
Constitution and the rule of law.
  There is no right to abortion in the text, in history or structure of 
our Nation's founding document, and the draft opinion masterfully 
marshals 98 pages of argument and evidence to demonstrate that very 
fact.
  This watershed decision would be a tremendous victory for the fight 
for life and turn the page on a dark chapter of our Nation's history in 
which more than 62 million unborn children have been tragically killed. 
If the draft opinion stands--and I pray that it does--it transfers that 
power from unelected judges and gives it back to the American people, 
back to legislatures and elected representatives to enact compassionate 
laws that protect unborn babies and their mothers.

  If the Democrats exploiting the unprecedented leak of the majority 
draft opinion, if it is to stir up the far left base and intimidate 
Justices, that is not bad enough, they are now trying to pass a radical 
bill to impose abortion on demand without limits across the entire 
country, even up to the moment of birth. Leader Schumer has once again 
scheduled a vote for tomorrow on the ``Abortion on Demand Until Birth 
Act.''
  Now, my distinguished colleague from Connecticut used the words 
``radical'' and ``extreme'' a number of times in his remarks. Let me 
tell you what is radical and extreme about what is going to be voted on 
tomorrow. This is barbaric. It is a radical abortion bill that would 
mandate that every single State be a late-term abortion State like 
California or New York, where unborn children can be brutally aborted 
up to the very moment of birth.
  Let me say that again, the Democrats would allow abortion up until 
the very moment of birth itself. The Democrats' radical abortion bill 
would confer special benefits on the predatory abortion industry and 
eliminate popular State laws that protect both pre-born children and 
their mothers.
  Commonsense laws requiring parental involvement in abortions for 
minors, health and safety standards for abortion facilities, informed 
consent laws, late-term abortion limits, bans on sex-selective or Down 
syndrome selective abortions, and conscience protections for doctors 
who don't want to perform abortions would be eliminated. That is how 
radical this bill is that will be voted on tomorrow.
  Under this radical abortion bill, an unhatched sea turtle would have 
more protections than an unborn human baby. If you look at Federal law, 
if you were to take or destroy the eggs of a sea turtle--now, I said 
the eggs, not the hatchlings, that is also a penalty, but the eggs--the 
criminal penalties are severe, up to a hundred thousand dollar fine and 
a year in prison.
  Now, why? Why do we have laws in place to protect the eggs of a sea 
turtle or the eggs of eagles? Because when you destroy an egg, you are 
killing a pre-born baby sea turtle or a pre-born baby eagle. Yet when 
it comes to a pre-born human baby, rather than a sea turtle, that baby 
would be stripped of all protections, in all 50 States, under the 
Democrats' bill that we will be voting on tomorrow.
  Is that the America the left wants? I would ask my Democratic 
colleagues if the pre-born child in the womb is not a living human 
being, then what is it? Unborn babies feel pain, unborn babies have a 
heartbeat, they smile, they yawn, in fact, just last week in a telling 
slip of the tongue, President Biden himself admitted that abortion 
involves a child. A child. That is correct.
  This is, in fact, the truth and the brutal reality of abortion that 
every abortion kills a precious child, the Democrats have tried for 
decades to avoid admitting this. And the science is clear, it has come 
a long way since 1973. It is time for the law to catch up with great 
advances that have been made in science and technology, in medicine, 
that indisputably show the humanity of an unborn child.
  Instead, however, the Democrats' radical abortion bill denies the 
science. It would completely erase pre-born children from the law. That 
is chilling. Under the Democrats' bill, a pre-born child simply for the 
crime of being unwanted, inconvenient, or unplanned could be subjected 
to brutal dismemberment procedures in which the unborn child bleeds and 
feels excruciating pain as she dies from being pulled apart limb from 
limb.
  The Democrats' abortion bill would codify an extreme abortion regime 
that is aligned with seven Nations that would have the most brutal--the 
most brutal laws that relates to abortion, also includes China and 
North Korea. That puts the United States in that category if this were 
passed.
  It would impose abortion up until the moment of birth, without any 
limits, in all 50 States. In a nutshell, this radical bill would make 
the United States of America one of the most dangerous places in the 
world to be a pre-born child.
  As I asked my colleagues in the hallway on the Democrats' side, give 
us just one restriction you might put in place for abortion, you just 
don't hear a response for that.
  In tomorrow's vote, I pray that my colleagues will reject this 
horrific and barbaric legislation and take a stand for the most 
vulnerable among us. As the Justices continue to deliberate in the 
Dobbs case, I pray the Court will resist the intimidation tactics of 
the far left. By sticking to the Constitution, and repudiating the 
unprincipled and abominable Roe and Casey decisions, the Court has the 
opportunity to make history and strike a blow for justice for the most 
defenseless among us. The American people, those born, and millions yet 
unborn, deserve nothing less.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, late last Monday, an unprecedented leak 
of a draft Supreme Court document opinion in the case of Dobbs v. 
Jackson Women's Health was published.
  In reaction, SCOTUSblog, a leading Supreme Court blog stated:

       This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin.

  Chief Justice Roberts called the leak ``absolutely appalling.'' Yet 
the White House is mute on this point.
  And folks back home in Kansas? Well, they are aghast as well. They 
all agree--at least every Kansan I have talked to--this leak is a blow 
to the integrity of the Court and a blow to our faith in this hallowed 
institution.
  In the days since the leak, we have also seen Democrats and their 
activists utilize another frequent strategy they deploy when things 
don't go their way: violence and disruption.
  We have all seen the disgusting multitude of images of pro-life 
offices being vandalized and bombed, and we all bear witness of 
Catholic masses disrupted on Mother's Day--on Mother's Day, of all 
days. Is nothing sacred in

[[Page S2399]]

this country anymore? We have seen the threatening violence at the 
personal homes of Supreme Court Justices. Yet, for days, the White 
House was quiet. And just like the riots of the summer of 2020 and the 
looting that continues today, the White House turns a deaf ear to 
violence, and they swallow their tongue when the violence supports 
their own agenda.
  Listen, these threatening so-called protests at the Justices' homes 
are a violation of the law of this land. They are not valid protests. 
These are attempts to intimidate and influence the Court to destroy the 
independence of this judiciary.
  This violence is wrong. It is evil. It is an attack on Christianity. 
It is an attack on the faith and values that this Nation were founded 
upon. Americans know it. We all feel the hatred.
  I have to note, Americans understand the majority leader has provided 
no such condemnation but, rather, has decided to once again bring back 
his ``Abortion on Demand Act'' to the Senate floor. This bill is the 
most egregious, the most horrific attack on the lives of unborn 
children and the health of moms in American history. If Democrats had 
their way, these babies--these twin babies I delivered more than a 
decade ago--could have been aborted the moment prior to the C-section.
  The overturning of Roe v. Wade simply returns this emotional issue 
back to the States, to the elected voices of the people--no more, no 
less.
  The Mississippi Dobbs case simply protects life after 15 weeks, when 
a baby can feel pain, when a baby can recognize its mom's voice, when a 
baby can recognize the voice of its sibling. But let me tell you 
exactly what the Democrats' extreme ``Abortion on Demand Act'' would 
do. It goes far beyond Roe v. Wade.
  This bill invalidates any and all State laws that protect not just 
the unborn child but the health and well-being of the mom as well.
  It likely leads to American taxpayer dollars funding abortions at 
home and around the world.
  Next, it is truly an attack on our faith. This bill will tie up 
faith-based hospitals in courts for not offering abortion services.
  This bill allows sex-based abortions.
  It eliminates the requirement for informed consent of the patient or 
parental consent.
  This bill eliminates conscience protections. As an obstetrician 
myself, this hits near and dear to my heart. This bill is an attack on 
my faith and an attack on the faith of many doctors and nurses who 
refuse to take part in abortions. They would be forced out of their 
professions. They would be forced out of medical schools, out of 
residency programs. So many aspiring students would decide not to go 
into medicine.
  This bill is a total disregard to the mother's health by placing no 
value on the mom's life and well-being. This radical bill eliminates 
the health standards of a surgery center for this procedure to be 
performed in a surgery center. In fact, this bill would allow these 
services to be offered in a garage or a back-room apartment.
  Shockingly, it provides the right to provide abortions to any 
healthcare provider--not necessarily a physician but to certified 
nurse-midwives, nurse practitioners, a physician assistant. This bill 
will lead to the death and infertility of many, many women. This 
procedure is not a simple procedure. It should not be placed in the 
hands of inexperienced people. This type of procedure is only done 
after 4 years of undergraduate, 4 years of medical school, and probably 
2 or 3 years of residency. In the most skilled of hands, this type of 
procedure can lead to serious loss of life.
  Finally and more specifically, this bill strikes down State laws that 
restrict telehealth abortions. These are chemical abortions, and they 
would become a common means of birth control--again, leading to many, 
many more visits to the emergency rooms for these women who are taking 
medicines unsupervised.
  Finally, I have to correct something one of my friends across the 
aisle said. He stated that we from the pro-life community would not 
treat women with ectopic pregnancies. Nothing is further from the 
truth. This case of Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with treating ectopic 
pregnancies. I personally have treated hundreds of women with ectopic 
pregnancies. I believe that life begins at conception, but treating an 
ectopic pregnancy is a life-threatening situation for the mom. And the 
Catholic Church supports the treatment of ectopic pregnancies. But that 
is the type of scare tactic my colleagues across the aisle want to use.

  Finally, let me just conclude with this: I never imagined I would be 
fighting harder to save the lives of moms and babies on the floor of 
the Senate than I did in the emergency room or the delivery room in my 
obstetrics practice for some 30 years.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, my colleagues and I are here today to 
highlight the fact that our Democratic colleagues have shown the 
American people how truly radical they are when it comes to abortion.
  The Women's Health Protection Act--what I believe should be better 
known as the ``Abortion on Demand Until the Moment of Birth Act''--
casts a vision of abortion in America, one utterly without limitation.
  Federalism is one of the truly genius ideas behind the U.S. 
Constitution. Federalism means that we make the majority of our 
decisions at a more local level rather than at the national level. When 
we rely on the principle of federalism, more people across the country 
have more reason to be content with the laws they have. People have a 
greater say in the legislative process at the local level, which means 
they get more of the kind of government they want and less of the kind 
of government they don't want.
  For nearly the last half-century, the decisions in Roe v. Wade and 
Planned Parenthood v. Casey have abused the Constitution by reading 
into the Constitution a right that exists nowhere in the Constitution.
  These wrongly decided cases have wreaked havoc on public trust in 
government, on the republican nature of our government, on the public's 
understanding of the Constitution. More gravely, these decisions have 
permitted the euphemistically described ``termination'' of 63 million 
American lives. That is more than 45 times the number of American lives 
lost in war since the founding of our Nation--every war combined. 
Forty-five times that. Let that sink in for a minute.
  Abortion is a tragedy. It is one that is scarring our Nation's 
history because of what it says about how we respect human life. Those 
scores of millions of lives represent--each and every one of them--
unique and unrepeatable genetic makeups and identities and potentials. 
They represent the loss of Americans of all races, varying physical and 
mental abilities, all political affiliations and professions, with many 
targeted because of their race, sex, or disability. Their termination 
is a loss of ideas, of innovation, and of compassion. Those abortions 
erase all potential families and communities. Those abortions represent 
the loss of infinite potential, connection, and love. Abortion is a 
tragedy that scars our history.
  So when I read Justice Alito's draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson 
Women's Health Organization, I was elated--elated--because it relies on 
federalism and a sound reading of the Constitution to reassert that 
there is no constitutional right to an abortion. Just because a 
combination of lawyers wearing robes 48 years ago decided that would be 
the case does not make it so. Our Constitution is difficult to amend, 
and it is deliberately that way. They didn't follow this procedure; 
they tried to circumvent it, and they were wrong.
  Regulating abortion is a matter reserved for the American people and 
their elected representatives, not nine unelected Justices. For that 
very reason, a number of people have turned against it, and because 
they can't characterize it the way that it actually is, they 
mischaracterize it.
  Then they go so far as to encourage people to show up to the homes, 
the private residences, of the Supreme Court Justices in question. 
There is no reason to do this that doesn't involve an implicit threat 
of violence. When you show up at someone's home, you are sending an 
unmistakable message: We know where you sleep. That is why this is 
expressly prohibited under Federal law. There is a Federal criminal law 
prohibiting this under 18 U.S.C. section 1507.

[[Page S2400]]

  Now, stunningly, the White House--the White House--the President's 
personal spokesperson, Jen Psaki, just in the last few hours, has 
repeated this charge, has encouraged people to do this, saying:

       We certainly continue to encourage protests outside of 
     judge's homes.

  This is wrong, and I call on the President of the United States 
personally to undo this. He is encouraging unlawful behavior that is 
inherently dangerous and is inherently threatening.
  This radical bill that has emerged in the days immediately following 
the leak of the Dobbs draft opinion is shrouded in the lie of 
protecting women's health while allowing for killing babies by any 
means, however gruesome, violent, atrocious, heinous, or cruel, right 
up until the moment of birth, preempting any State laws that might 
choose to protect life. Those late-term abortions not only kill viable 
babies, but they are unreasonably needlessly cruel, and they are 
extremely dangerous procedures for the mothers themselves.
  Unlimited abortion is also widely unpopular. Only 17 percent of 
Americans believe that is the right policy. Among medical 
professionals, the feelings are similar. Research shows that over one-
third of OB-GYNs in America would not even refer a patient for an 
abortion. But this bill as written would require those same doctors not 
only to refer but also to provide abortions or risk their employment, 
notwithstanding any ethical objection they may have to it, 
notwithstanding any religious objection they may have to it.
  By waiving the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, carving it out--the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, as it is known, a religious 
liberty protection enacted by an overwhelming supermajority of 
Democrats and Republicans--this bill would require hospitals and 
healthcare workers to perform abortions in violation of their own 
religious convictions.
  With this bill, Democrats in the House and the Senate are attempting 
to take this issue away from the people, away from the States, and 
force their radical abortion agenda on the American people as a whole. 
Now, make no mistake, this is their vision for America, fully funded by 
the abortion industry. It also perpetuates the tragedy of abortion--one 
that is a scar on our country's history.
  I hope and pray that State legislatures across the country will 
follow the example of the State of Utah and pass laws to protect the 
lives of preborn babies and their mothers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, every year in schools around our country, 
students are taught about the Declaration of Independence. This 
remarkable document outlines the ideals on which the United States was 
founded and the principles on which our government and our very 
identity as Americans are based.
  Perhaps the best known and most quoted line from the Declaration is 
that line about all being endowed by their Creator with certain 
unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit 
of happiness.
  From our earliest days--when such a concept truly was revolutionary--
to the present day, as Americans, we believe in the dignity and value 
of every human person. This is an ideal that we should always aspire 
to. And in the spirit of that conviction, I believe that our Nation has 
a moral responsibility to protect unborn children--to protect life.

  Through amazing advances in science, families and medical 
professionals now know that at 15 weeks, a baby can feel pain; a baby 
can move fully formed fingers and toes; a baby has a fully developed 
heart, pumping 26 quarts of blood per day.
  Despite what these advances in modern science tell us, the current 
abortion policy in the United States is more in line with communist 
China and North Korea. We are only one of seven countries around the 
world that allow abortion to take place past the point at which a baby 
can feel pain in the womb--one of seven countries in the world. Some 
Americans might be surprised to learn that even in progressive Europe, 
47 out of 50 countries have limits on abortion after 15 weeks.
  Yet the legislation before the U.S. Senate would block States from 
protecting the unborn and enshrine late-term abortion into our Federal 
law. Going beyond codifying Roe v. Wade, this sweeping legislation 
would strike down commonsense, broadly supported laws that many States 
have adopted since that decision, including laws meant to protect the 
health and safety of mothers. This bill does nothing to protect the 
health and safety of women, and it would certainly not protect the 
unborn. And it would make these sweeping changes contrary to the wishes 
of the majority of Americans.
  In fact, recent polling found that 61 percent of Americans say 
abortion should be either illegal or that the policy decisions 
associated with abortion should be left up to the States.
  So I would urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, given our 
increased knowledge and understanding of how babies develop, given our 
understanding of the science. This is simply the wrong direction to 
take public policy.
  I also want to take a moment and acknowledge that the issue of 
abortion is a very tough one for so many Americans, and, given recent 
developments, this is a topic on the minds of many Hoosiers and many 
Americans. I understand that. I want to reiterate my commitment to 
helping mothers and families choose life and supporting them in that 
choice. We must ensure mothers and unborn children are cared for, 
loved, and supported, and this includes increasing the resources 
available to help women facing unexpected pregnancies. We must support 
America's 2,700 pregnancy centers that provide vital services to 
millions of people each year at virtually no cost as well as provide 
more support for adoptive services.
  These steps are vital as we seek to further promote a culture that 
promotes values and protects life. Now, let's remember and live up to 
that founding American ideal. We believe in the dignity and value of 
every human person.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. I commend the Senator from Indiana and join him and my 
other colleagues in decrying the legislation that we will be asked to 
move to the floor tomorrow. But before I speak on the substance of the 
bill, it needs to be reiterated why this bill is even before us.
  The only reason we are debating this bill today is because of the 
extreme and unprecedented breach of protocol that took place at the 
Supreme Court. The leaked draft in the Dobbs case was a full-blown 
assault on the U.S. Supreme Court and on the independence of our 
judiciary. It was an attempt to incite mob pressure against the 
Justices, which has, in part, succeeded by inciting pressure against 
the Justices in an attempt to bully them into changing their final 
votes.
  And I do trust, based on the information that we have about the nine 
Justices, that that attempt will not be successful.
  We saw over the weekend disturbing videos of protesters outside the 
homes of Supreme Court Justices. There is growing concern for the 
safety of our Supreme Court Justices and the safety of their families.
  This is shameful. A Supreme Court Justice should never have to fear 
for his or her safety or the safety of their families for doing their 
jobs. We, as elected Members of the Congress, are subject to public 
opinion. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be subject to public 
opinion and should never have to fear for their safety.
  The leak and the mob reaction should be condemned by both parties in 
the strongest possible terms, and yet there have been very few voices 
on the other side of the aisle addressing this matter. Certainly, the 
majority leader of the Senate has not said a word about the outrage of 
the leak or the mob protests, nor has the President of the United 
States.
  What happened to respect and care for our institutions?
  Instead of protecting the Court, our Democratic friends seem to be, 
whether inadvertently or not, legitimizing this attack on the Court by 
moving to consider extreme legislation which is out of touch with the 
mainstream of Americans.
  So now let me speak briefly about the legislation. It has been said 
that

[[Page S2401]]

this is a mere codification of the Court's holding in Roe v. Wade. That 
is, in fact, not the case. Instead, the bill that we will be asked to 
move to the floor tomorrow is an attempt to expand abortion 
dramatically across this country, to expand abortion in a way that only 
a small handful of the most repressive governments on the face of the 
Earth permit.
  The bill would eliminate even the most modest protections for unborn 
children across all 50 States. It would force all 50 States to allow 
gruesome late-term abortions that even the political left all over 
Europe have long ago outlawed.
  As my friend from Indiana said earlier, some 47 European countries 
generally ban abortion after the first 15 weeks. Banning abortion after 
14 weeks are our allies of France and Spain; banning abortion after 13 
weeks, Finland; banning abortion after 12 weeks, Germany, Belgium, 
Italy, Switzerland--certainly not governments that are thought of as 
prisoners of the extreme right. The nation of Portugal generally bans 
abortion after 10 weeks.
  Of course, as we know, the Mississippi law that brought this case to 
the Supreme Court, the Dobbs case, has a slightly more permissive 
provision than even these friends that I just mentioned from Western 
Europe. It would be a 15-week ban.
  But this bill that we are asked to vote on tomorrow, which certainly 
will fail, would push America further outside of the global mainstream 
than we already are--and we already are way outside this mainstream.
  Because of scientific advances, we know that an unborn child's 
heartbeat begins at 6 weeks. We know a child can feel pain as early as 
20 weeks. Many of us, including my wife and I, have put the sonograms 
of our grandchildren, have displayed them on our refrigerators in our 
homes. What we know about the development of children--their faces, 
their eyelashes--has brought about a change in the minds of many 
Americans.
  In 1996, 56 percent of Americans called themselves pro-choice. Only 
33 percent said they were pro-life. But because of science and because 
of those sonograms and because of what we know about their ability to 
feel pain--their movements, their eyes blinking, their eyelashes--today 
the two sides are just about evenly split, pro-choice and pro-life. But 
even those who identify themselves as pro-choice are deeply opposed to 
late-term abortions. And make no mistake about it, if somehow the 
Schumer bill tomorrow were to pass, late-term abortions would be legal 
in all 50 States.
  Eighty-one percent of Americans think that late-term abortions should 
be illegal. Our friends on the Democratic side should think about that. 
This bill goes against 81 percent of American public opinion in that 
regard. Sixty-five percent say abortions should be illegal in the 
second trimester--not the third trimester, in the second trimester--65 
percent of Americans.
  I hope our Democratic friends across the aisle think about that 
before they vote for this extreme piece of legislation brought by the 
Democratic leader, which would put us in league with the People's 
Republic of China with all of their respect for life, with North Korea 
with its deplorable record of respecting human life. With those two 
countries and five others on the extreme left, it would put us in 
league with them. That is not where the American people want us to be.
  If a State has a 24-hour waiting period, for example, the Schumer 
bill tomorrow would outlaw that. Taxpayer funding of abortion, the Hyde 
amendment, which prohibits this and has done so for decades and 
decades, would be abolished. The parental rights of teenage girls to 
have a say and to be able to counsel their daughters on the pivotal 
decision about having an abortion would be eliminated by this.
  Religious exemptions. A practicing Catholic, who deep in their soul 
understands this to be infanticide, would be required, if they are a 
physician, to perform an abortion with no religious exemption.
  Is that what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are hoping 
for? It is what they would get if the Schumer bill were to pass.
  This is not a serious attempt at consensus building. This bill simply 
reflects, regrettably, the iron grip that Planned Parenthood has on one 
of our major political parties in this country.
  We will reject this effort tomorrow. I commend my colleagues who 
intend to stand with the American people and vote no on this attempt to 
rank us with the worst regimes on the face of the globe and impose 
late-term abortions on the entire country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I am on the floor here today to address 
the same topic as my colleague who just spoke. And before I jump into 
prepared remarks, I wanted to offer just a few points of rebuttal 
because on this topic it seems so frequently that we all talk past each 
other and don't generally listen to one another.
  The Women's Health Protection Act of 2022, which I lead with Senator 
Blumenthal, would, indeed, codify Roe v. Wade, but it would 
additionally give clarity to the States about what further restrictions 
they could put in place.
  I hail from the State of Wisconsin, where our State legislature, over 
many, many years, has brought forth all sorts of measures--some of 
which have been signed into law, many of which have been challenged in 
court, and some of which have been vetoed--but these are restrictions 
on access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare, including abortion 
care, that limit access, that make it much more difficult, which is 
what Roe v. Wade intended to prevent. They have nothing to do with the 
health or the life of the mother. In fact, in some cases, they actually 
do harm to maternal life and health.
  There are measures in places across the United States that deal with 
the corridor width of clinics--the corridor width. It would force, if 
these laws were to go into effect, many clinics to have to either 
reconstruct themselves or move. This is clearly something meant to 
limit access.
  There are laws and bills that relate to admitting privileges at local 
hospitals, which are absolutely not medically necessary and will allow 
all the area hospitals to team up to deny those privileges, and then 
the clinic won't have a physician able to work there. There are 24-hour 
waiting periods.
  I listened to what my colleague had to say about the blanket 
overturning of Roe v. Wade. It would mean, when a woman's life is in 
jeopardy at some point in her pregnancy, she wouldn't have the ability 
to save her life and her reproductive health because she wouldn't have 
access to abortion care.
  Then to characterize this bill as extreme, in my mind, is so opposite 
the truth because, to me, what is extreme is forcing, say, a teen to 
bring a rapist's child to term or forcing a young woman to give birth 
to her sibling in cases of incest.
  My colleague talked about the polls. I don't know what he was looking 
at. He was talking about pro-choice versus anti-choice. Everything I 
have seen shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans believes 
that Roe v. Wade is settled law and should remain in place and that 
only a small percentage believes it should be overturned in its 
entirety.
  In going on to my prepared remarks, I rise today to join my colleague 
Senator Richard Blumenthal in support of the Women's Health Protection 
Act of 2022--a bill that would protect a woman's right to access safe 
abortion care throughout the United States, no matter where she lives, 
without unnecessary and unwanted political interference.
  Congress is responsible for enforcing every American's fundamental 
rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Throughout history, when States 
have passed laws that make it harder or even impossible to exercise 
those rights, Congress has taken action to put in place Federal 
protections.
  I want to remind my colleagues of this responsibility. I also want to 
share a story from one of my constituents.
  Angela and Abby, her wife, knew they wanted to start a family, so 
they sought treatment at a fertility clinic in Wisconsin. In 2019, 
after years of trying, Angela became pregnant. It was a pregnancy they 
had wanted more than anything, but Angela soon found out that she had 
what is called a molar pregnancy. This occurs when a tumor

[[Page S2402]]

forms instead of a healthy placenta. Her pregnancy was not viable. Her 
doctors moved quickly, and Angela had a safe and legal abortion.
  She wrote to me earlier this week:

       Had abortion been illegal, I would have died.

  Access to a safe abortion saved Angela's life. For others, an 
abortion kept a family out of poverty or allowed them to complete their 
educations or start careers. Abortions have protected women from being 
tied to their rapists and have spared them of the emotional and 
physical trauma of carrying an unviable pregnancy to term.
  I was only 10 years old when Roe v. Wade was decided. For 50 years, 
just about, this decision has stood. In the words of Justice Kavanaugh, 
it is ``settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court,'' but, apparently, 
precedent means nothing. Access to safe and legal abortion is under 
direct attack as an activist Supreme Court appears poised to legislate 
from the bench and take a constitutionally protected right away from 
tens of millions of Americans.
  For women like Angela, the gravity of this draft decision from the 
Supreme Court cannot be overstated. Americans can remember when back 
alley abortions killed and sterilized women across the country. This 
decision, if finalized, will not stop abortions from happening; it will 
only prevent safe abortions from happening. It will disproportionately 
impact poor women and women of color, who will not have the privilege 
of making their own healthcare decisions. If Roe is overturned, 13 
States would immediately ban abortions, and others, of course, would 
move to do so.
  If Roe is overturned and we don't pass the Women's Health Protection 
Act, Wisconsin women will be taken back to the mid-1800s. What do I 
mean by that? We have a law on our books in Wisconsin which 
criminalizes abortion procedures. If Roe is overturned, doctors in 
Wisconsin would be charged with felonies for performing abortions and 
face up to 6 years in prison and $10,000 in fines. The rights of 
victims of rape and incest would be taken away. The right for women to 
choose for themselves and their families would be taken away.
  I sure am not taking women in Wisconsin back to 1849, and we cannot 
allow an activist Supreme Court to leave this generation of women 
behind with fewer rights than their mothers and their grandmothers 
enjoyed.
  The Women's Health Protection Act is the only bill that can put an 
end to the restrictive State laws that have already put thousands of 
women in jeopardy. The legislation meets the urgent need to protect the 
provider, patient relationship; to protect the healthcare professionals 
who provide care; and to protect the freedom and constitutional rights 
of women to access this care.
  I believe a woman's right to choose is protected under the 
Constitution, and so does a clear majority of Americans want Roe v. 
Wade to be upheld. It is our responsibility to take action for women 
like Angela and on behalf of the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to proceed to the 
Women's Health Protection Act of 2022.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. SMITH. I thank Senator Baldwin for her thoughtful remarks.
  Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Women's Health 
Protection Act, and I urge my colleagues to join us in standing up for 
fundamental rights to freedom, autonomy, and self-determination.
  Make no mistake: That is what this vote is about--who has the power; 
who has the freedom to decide when your own health, livelihood, and 
life are on the line.
  There is nothing more American than the values of freedom and 
individual autonomy; yet the U.S. Supreme Court is about to declare 
that women in this country are not guaranteed the freedom to make their 
own private decisions about abortion.
  Justice Alito, Mitch McConnell, Senate Republicans, and radical 
Republican State legislators around the country believe that they 
should have the power--that they know better than American women, whose 
lives and stories they will never know.
  To that, I say: How dare they?
  When I worked at Planned Parenthood, I saw firsthand the capacity of 
women to make good decisions about their health, their bodies, and 
their lives. To suggest otherwise is insulting to the dignity of women 
as full, adult human beings and as equal citizens of this Nation, but 
that is where we are. Justice Alito's draft opinion is a wake-up call 
and a call to action. Reading his opinion was like a gut punch, but it 
was not a surprise, and it didn't just happen.
  This is the result of a decades' long campaign by Republicans and 
their dark money donors to put anti-choice Justices on the Supreme 
Court, to overturn Roe, and to strip women of their constitutional 
rights. This is why this vote is so important. For the first time in my 
living memory, the Supreme Court is about to take away a fundamental 
constitutional right, and it is important that Americans see who is on 
their side and who is responsible for this.
  Extremist Republicans have been working for this goal for decades; 
yet, now that this moment is almost here, they keep trying to change 
the subject. In fact, they want to talk about anything but, including 
when they spread misleading information about what the Women's Health 
Protection Act would really do, which is to put the protections of Roe 
into statute.
  So why are Republicans running from this issue after having 
campaigned on it for years?
  Well, it is because Americans don't want to overturn Roe, and anti-
choice Republicans know this. They know that they are on the wrong side 
of history and on the wrong side of public opinion and of over half the 
American electorate. That is why this vote is so important. We will not 
let them dodge their responsibility for this outrageous attack on 
women's freedom.
  Now, some Republicans are saying that this is all a bit of a tempest 
in a teapot. They say: Don't worry. All the Supreme Court is about to 
do is to hand power back for the States to decide on abortion.
  Colleagues, do not believe this. The American people deserve to know 
where this goes next.
  Today, we are fighting on the Senate floor to preserve in law the 
basic protections of Roe v. Wade, but extremist Republicans have been 
clear. Their end goal is to secure a nationwide ban on abortion. As 
Senator McConnell said this weekend: It is not a secret that the Senate 
Republican caucus is opposed to reproductive rights and that, if Senate 
Republicans win the majority, a nationwide ban is ``worthy of debate.''
  That is the post-Roe future if Republicans are in charge.
  Even though a majority of Americans in all States believes that 
abortion should be legal, Republicans have been clear that a nationwide 
ban is their goal. At the same time, Republican State legislators are 
brazenly moving forward. They are moving forward with extremist 
policies that go way beyond depriving women of their essential 
freedoms--they punish and criminalize women.
  Take, for example, a Missouri mother of two, facing a high-risk 
pregnancy, who travels to Illinois for an abortion because she is 
worried about being there for her existing children. Missouri 
Republicans want her to be labeled as a felon when she returns homes.

  Take a woman in Louisiana who has an abortion after her IUD failed 
and she had an unexpected pregnancy. Louisiana Republicans want her 
convicted of homicide.
  Take the Texas woman, who hoped and prayed for years for a baby, only 
to have her doctor find a fatal fetal anomaly at 22 weeks. Texas 
Republicans want her to carry that pregnancy for another 18 weeks, no 
matter the risk to her life and no matter the trauma she faces as 
people congratulate her on her upcoming baby when she knows she will 
never know that child.
  So I say again, how dare these Republicans think that they know 
better than the women who live these stories.
  This is the post-Roe world that Republicans want, and we won't stand 
for it. If you think this struggle doesn't affect you or someone you 
care about, think again.
  One in four American women will have an abortion--women who are 
Democrats, Republicans, Independents, women from all places and all 
religious faiths. For these women, abortion isn't

[[Page S2403]]

about politics; it is about healthcare. Most of them never expected to 
be part of this statistic, but life doesn't always go as we plan. Every 
day, women deal with situations they never imagined, and they deserve 
the freedom and the autonomy to decide for themselves what to do and 
what is best for them.
  With this vote to pass the Women's Health Protection Act, we are 
showing whom we stand with and what we believe--the fundamental freedom 
of people to make the best decisions for their health, their families, 
and their futures.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the 
following Senators to be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled 
vote: myself for 20 minutes, Senator Toomey for 5 minutes, and Senator 
Brown for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am not sure I will use all 20 minutes, 
but you never know on a subject this important and this vital to women 
and families across the America. It may take a little more than a few 
minutes to talk about this issue, and that is that 70 percent of 
Americans believe that we should not overturn Roe v. Wade or a woman's 
right to her own reproductive choice.
  This is so critical that 70 percent of Americans are in agreement. 
This was part of a Pew Research report. Twenty-five percent don't 
agree, and about 5 percent are not sure what they think. But anybody 
who thinks this isn't about settled law or about mainstream views in 
America is wrong because it is about almost 50 years of settled law, 
and it is about what mainstream Americans believe are their 
constitutional rights. That is why it is so important for us to listen 
to those Americans and their long-held beliefs, starting with the laws 
that we got from England and baked into our Constitution, the right to 
privacy.
  Yes, people are right. The word ``privacy'' isn't mentioned, but it 
is in various amendments believed to be rights within the Constitution. 
But we have a Supreme Court made up of men and Ivy League institutions 
who now discuss in a decision--we don't really know exactly where it 
came from--this notion that privacy and a woman's right to her own 
reproductive choice somehow doesn't deserve stare decisis--that is, 
predicated on previous law--and somehow isn't in the Constitution.
  Well, I have got news for a lot of people. If you have a Supreme 
Court that is going to take a run and run from privacy in the 
Constitution, as this decision does--as this decision does--it barely 
mentions the case law predicated that made decisions about a woman's 
right to privacy based on those issues. It is barely mentioned.
  Now, I am sure it is because those Justices decided, if they had to 
agree that privacy was really there as a right, which we as Americans 
believe it is--against the government's unwarranted search and seizure 
on you, the government spying on you, the government taking action 
against you that has not been followed in law--you know, I spent 2 
years on the Judiciary Committee, and I really couldn't believe this.
  Somebody told me--actually, a conservative judge passed this 
information on. If you ask them whether they believe in Roe v. Wade or 
settled law, they will tell you: Oh, yeah, it has been there. But if 
you ask them whether they believe in rights to privacy enumerated in 
the Constitution and do they believe in the penumbra of rights that 
basically give us this right that Griswold v. Connecticut, that Casey 
v. Planned Parenthood was decided on, a true, true conservative who 
wasn't going to uphold the law will tell you they didn't believe in 
that.
  So that is the conundrum. We had a bunch of the smartest guys in the 
room from Ivy League schools who came here and hoodwinked the Senate, 
saying things like: Oh, I will follow or I think stare decisis is very 
important. Yet the same people are about to put their name on a 
document that says we don't really think there is any strong holding 
here. We don't think there is any strong case. Well, there is a case. 
There is a case for privacy.
  I remember my first days on the Judiciary Committee, when John 
Ashcroft, then-Attorney General, tried to come before the committee and 
make light of the fact that the government was spying on Americans. 
When I said to him: Mr. Ashcroft, this is a serious issue of the FBI 
and others using software technology to spy on the lives of Americans, 
he said: You remind me of a joke.
  I couldn't believe it. I remind him of a joke? And he went on to tell 
the story about how a little boy sat on Santa Claus's lap, and he said: 
I know whether you have been bad or good. And he says: Oh, you are not 
a Santa Claus; you are John Ashcroft. He thought this was hilarious, 
and I reminded him that not everybody in America was laughing.
  Now look at where we are, 20-some years later, fast-forwarding on the 
rights to privacy that we have in the United States and how every day 
we have to fight for those rights to privacy.
  I know the Presiding Officer knows this because he has joined me on 
these issues, particularly as it relates to children's online privacy 
issues and so many other issues that this body and this institution are 
going to have to decide on, but Americans know--70 percent of them 
agree that this is a mainstream, settled issue and now are shocked to 
find that, somehow, somebody is proposing something to overturn it.
  I am not even sure people understand. I just had a conversation with 
somebody who said: Oh, you mean they are going to give some rights to 
men in determining the pregnancy and some rights for women?
  I said: No. They are talking about making abortion illegal. They are 
talking about passing a law that takes the reproductive rights and 
choices of women and turns them back into the dark ages.
  This person got it right away. They said: Who do you want caring for 
women--someone in a back alley or a trained healthcare professional?
  That is really what we are talking about here. American healthcare 
technology has come to the point that women who do not want an unwanted 
pregnancy can have the choice of a morning after pill. There are lots 
of different ways for them to deal with planned and unplanned 
pregnancies. Yet this institution wants to tell them, by the Supreme 
Court, that they don't have a privacy right; that it doesn't exist; 
that Connecticut v. Griswold, which, if you think about it, was about 
contraception--it was really about whether women at the time had the 
right to have contraception and plan pregnancies.
  I know the Presiding Officer knows about this time period. We both 
come from big families. We know all about big families.
  All of a sudden, in that decision, in Connecticut v. Griswold, the 
right to privacy--the penumbra of rights within the Constitution--was 
determined to say that women have the right to control their bodies and 
have contraception. The fact that this is not the basis of upholding 
the law after almost 50 years--I can't even explain how unbelievable it 
is that somebody would not fully discuss and cite it. And if they don't 
believe in the penumbra--but I am guessing the reason they don't want 
to even discuss the penumbra of rights is because they know darn well 
we live in an age and time in which privacy needs utmost protection, 
and individuals need people like us to be voting for things that are 
going to protect individuals' rights of privacy in the era of big 
government, of big corporations, of undue intrusions in, yes, even our 
own healthcare. We need protection.
  We are now here talking, though, about overturning these rights that 
affect the healthcare lives of women. We are not talking about the 
healthcare of men. We are not sitting here--I can't tell you how many 
times in the last 15 years that I have been here that every budget 
decision, every major almost-going-over-the-fiscal-cliff when John 
Boehner was the Speaker--oh, if we don't have a vote to get rid of a 
woman's right to choose--every budget issue down to the last wire is 
always about whether you are going to get rid of a woman's right to 
choose. It has been the fight of the other side of the aisle all along 
to try to say they are going to control women's bodies and women's 
healthcare choices.
  We know that you are not going to get rid of abortions if you pass 
this

[[Page S2404]]

law. You are not going to get rid of them. When we passed Connecticut 
v. Griswold and Casey, that is when we basically went down the road of 
making sure that women weren't killed in back alley abortions. We 
actually saved lives of women, and we started getting people to take 
care of planned pregnancies and make progress of having people on 
contraception.
  We are not going to get rid of abortions by listening to the Supreme 
Court or passing something. They will happen. It will go back to any 
back alley approach or other issues to try to deal with it.
  So I ask my colleagues: What are you thinking when you are advocating 
for a return to pre-Roe? What exactly do you think is going to happen 
in the United States of America? I can tell you, you are going to leave 
women without the ability to control their own bodies, without the 
ability for them and their doctor to make decisions.
  So many of these issues are about that woman and her doctor making a 
decision. You know, we make laws to deal with the parameters and the 
exceptions to the rule. This is a process by which we have laid out 
what we think is reproductive healthcare choice and then directed 
people to deal with their physician on these issues. But the other side 
would like to take these issues to the extreme and say that women have 
gone too far on their own healthcare choices.
  I guarantee you, there are many times where it is a decision between 
the life of the mother and the life of a child. Do we really want 
government making that decision, or do we want the physician and the 
individual woman making that decision?
  I ask my colleagues: Do you believe the right to privacy exists 
within the Constitution or are you like the Supreme Court? You don't 
believe in the decisions of previous Supreme Court Justices? You don't 
think they have solid standing because you don't believe that privacy 
is a long-held view of the United States? I guarantee you, it is 
fundamental to who we are as a country, and it is fundamental to who we 
are today and why individual women should have that right and have that 
protection.
  But people aren't even thinking about the broader impacts. Secretary 
Yellen testified today:

       Eliminating the right of women to make decisions about when 
     and whether to have children would have very damaging effects 
     on the economy and would set women back decades. Roe v. Wade 
     . . . enabled many women to finish school and increase their 
     earning potential.

  No one has even talked about exactly how this would work. I am 
confused about how it would work State by State. I will also tell you, 
this Supreme Court really--I don't even know what to say about it 
except for when I interviewed one of the Supreme Court Justices, who I 
am pretty sure is making this decision--I said: This is very important 
to the State of Washington because the people of the State of 
Washington have voted to make Roe v. Wade the law of our State.
  And he said: Oh, Senator, Senator, you are mistaken.
  I said: I am mistaken about my State, about what happened?
  He said: You mean your legislature voted.
  I said: No, sir, the people in my State voted by initiative in the 
nineties to codify these rights into our State law because that is what 
the people of my State believe.
  So the arrogance of this Court, you can see, continues not to listen 
to the views of 70 percent of Americans.
  I believe that you should be able to ask Justices what their judicial 
opinion and philosophy is. They should tell you. If these Justices did 
not believe that this was the law of the land and should be upheld, if 
they didn't believe in these rights of privacy, they should have told 
everybody clearly.
  But it is hardly in the mainstream view of Americans.
  Tomorrow we will have a chance to say whether we believe in these 
privacy rights, whether we believe in a woman's reproductive choices, 
whether we believe that 50 years--just about 50 years--and 70 percent 
of the American people are worth listening to. I would listen and pass 
this legislation tomorrow because I guarantee you, if it is not just 
this privacy right, why are you going to trust them on any other 
privacy decision in the future if they are not going to be fighting to 
uphold your privacy rights on women's reproductive health?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.