[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 78 (Tuesday, May 10, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2407-S2412]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     WOMEN'S HEALTH PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise to express the urgent need to 
pass the Women's Health Protection Act and put an end to the constant 
attacks that have chipped away at women's constitutional rights in this 
country. Now more than ever, it is vital to codify reproductive rights 
and protect other hard-won civil rights as they face renewed threats.
  Last week, POLITICO published Supreme Court Associate Justice Alito's

[[Page S2408]]

draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, which, while not 
final, would strike down Roe v. Wade. This would have an immediate and 
devastating consequence for the health and well-being of tens of 
millions of women of reproductive age across the Nation. Women in low-
income families who could not overcome the financial and logical 
barriers to travel to States with abortion access will suffer the most, 
increasing existing health disparities.
  While this draft opinion is a reminder of what is at stake, we have 
seen the erosion of reproductive rights for decades. Despite the clear 
constitutional rights the Supreme Court established almost 50 years ago 
in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, each year, legislatures across 
the country have passed harmful abortion restrictions in an effort to 
impede a woman's fundamental right to make the best informed healthcare 
decisions for herself and her family. This goes against what I believe 
to be one of the fundamental responsibilities of the Court, which is to 
expand rights, not restrict them.
  Implementing the Bill of Rights, we have seen the Federal courts over 
a period of time protect Americans against the abuse of power, 
including the power exercised by our government. Should this opinion go 
into effect, this would be the first time in memory that the Court 
would act to take away the constitutional rights of Americans. It would 
also be the first time in our country's history when women now would 
have fewer rights than their mothers.
  The reasoning used in this draft decision could also be used to 
undermine other dearly held civil rights in the future. Justice Alito's 
leaked draft opinion laid out a roadmap to overturn other landmark 
decisions that expanded rights, including Obergefell v. Hodges, which 
affirmed marriage equality.
  Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all testified under oath 
before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Supreme Court precedents 
should stand--a bedrock principle of jurisprudence known as stare 
decisis--but they clearly arrived with an agenda to overturn Roe, and 
now, they are making that a reality.
  Senate Republicans and former President Donald Trump bear 
responsibility for nominating and confirming Justices far outside of 
the legal mainstream and damaging our confirmation process and the 
public's faith in the Supreme Court as an impartial arbiter of our 
Nation's laws.
  Senate Republicans deliberately stole the seat that President Barack 
Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill, and they delayed even having a 
hearing for 1 year, effectively shrinking the size of the Supreme 
Court. Senate Republicans then turned around and rushed the 
confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett after the death of Justice 
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, even though early voting had already begun in the 
2020 Presidential elections.
  Overturning Roe goes against public opinion. A recent poll of the 
Washington Post-ABC showed that 70 percent of Americans believe that 
the Court should uphold Roe and that decisions regarding abortion 
should be left to a woman and her doctor.
  Now more than ever, it is essential for the Senate to pass the 
Women's Health Protection Act, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. 
The legislation would protect the right to abortion free from medically 
unnecessary restrictions and create a statutory right for providers to 
provide and patients to receive care. This would codify Roe v. Wade and 
prevent States from continuing to enact restrictions on reproductive 
freedoms.
  Despite the opinion just being a draft and abortion still being a 
constitutional right, States are already seizing on the momentum of 
this draft opinion and moving to limit a woman's constitutional right. 
Since the leak of this draft opinion, legislatures around the country 
are rushing to criminalize abortion and outlaw contraception.
  Just last week, the Louisiana State Legislature advanced a bill that 
would classify abortion as homicide. This adds to the over half of our 
States that have already passed laws to restrict and ban abortion 
access. There are more than one dozen States with anti-abortion laws 
set to take effect immediately if the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. 
Wade.
  The Republican leader, Mr. McConnell, stated:

       If the leaked opinion became the final opinion, legislative 
     bodies--not only at the state level but at the federal 
     level--certainly could legislate in that area.

  Thanks to five unelected, activist Justices on the Supreme Court, 
women are facing the prospect of a Federal, nationwide ban on abortion 
services. We go back to those days where abortions were performed 
illegally in back alleys. We can't let that happen in this country.
  While many States, including my home State of Maryland, have acted to 
expand abortion care, we cannot rely on a patchwork of State laws to 
protect a basic constitutional right. The right to choose is 
fundamental and a decision that a woman should make in consultation 
with a doctor or other healthcare provider free of political 
interference from Federal, State, or local government.
  I urge President Biden and the Department of Health and Human 
Services, the Department of Justice, and other Federal Agencies to use 
their power and to act swiftly to safeguard the reproductive rights of 
Americans.
  There is no denying that this is a bleak moment. We know the battle 
for reproductive rights has been an ongoing struggle with previous 
setbacks. We saw this just a few months ago following the anti-choice, 
pro-vigilante law that the Texas Legislature passed which threatens 
providers with jail time and fines for administering what is still 
federally and constitutionally protected medical care for women.
  We cannot wait any longer. We must do everything in our power to 
ensure access to reproductive services now. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to pass the Women's Health Protection Act, and we will have 
a chance to do that starting tomorrow.
  Throughout my time in Congress, I have been a steadfast supporter of 
reproductive rights, and this will not change. Regardless of the 
outcome of tomorrow's vote or the Supreme Court's final decision, I 
will continue to do everything within my power to ensure that women can 
have access to the care they need.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Madam President, I also rise to speak about the need to 
pass the Women's Health Protection Act. Certainly, the Senator from 
Maryland outlined a very strong argument as to why this fundamental 
protection, this fundamental right, needs to be protected.
  We know right now that we may see the Supreme Court come out with a 
decision to basically end Roe v. Wade and, in the process, end a 
fundamental right that women in this country have had available to them 
for 50 years.
  We can hear all the arguments--and my colleagues will present an 
awful lot of arguments tonight and tomorrow--as to why we need to pass 
this act, but for me, this is personal, a personal experience that I 
had, and it is an experience that, unfortunately, many, many families 
have had. The fact is, as I have shared this story, I have been really 
overwhelmed by people reaching out to me and saying that they, too, 
have a very similar story and how my talking about it brought out their 
willingness to share their experience as well. In addition to that, 
they understand how important it is that we protect Roe v. Wade and we 
protect the right for women to make critical decisions for themselves, 
along with their doctor, and not have politics interfere with those 
decisions.
  My story involves my first wife. When we were married, she was 
pregnant with a child whom we very much wanted. We were looking forward 
to having a second child. In the fourth month, towards the end of the 
fourth month, her water broke--clearly a very dangerous situation.
  She went to go see her physician. Her physician examined her and 
said: With this water breaking, the amniotic fluid has now left the 
uterus. There is no way a baby can survive in this situation.
  They examined her. There was a very faint heartbeat.
  He said: There is a faint heartbeat here, but there is no way this 
baby can survive.
  He said: What I think will happen is you are going to have a 
miscarriage. So

[[Page S2409]]

go home tonight, and you will have a miscarriage, and come in and see 
me tomorrow.
  Well, you can imagine the anguish, the horrible evening, and the 
despair that she was in and I was in. It was a long, long night.
  The next morning, nothing happened. She went back to the physician--
we went back to the physician. He examined her again and said: I am 
really surprised. I don't know why you didn't miscarry because it is 
clear that there is no way this baby can survive in this situation. The 
amniotic fluid is gone; the cushion is gone.
  He said: I don't think I can do anything because there is still a 
faint heartbeat here. I don't know why there is still a faint 
heartbeat. So go home again tonight. I think tonight is going to be the 
night you have a miscarriage.
  We went back again. It didn't happen--another horrible night--
horrible. The mental anguish is intense, and families who have gone 
through this know exactly what I am talking about.

  We went the next day, and, again, he examined her. He said: I can't 
understand this, but this is going on. I am really worried that there 
is going to be an infection here. There isn't the protection there. You 
could go into septic shock. Your health is definitely endangered here. 
The baby can't survive. Without the amniotic fluid, the cushion, the 
baby could lose its limbs.
  There were horrible, horrible, nightmarish kinds of thoughts in our 
minds.
  He said: I am going to go to the hospital, and I am going to say, 
even though there is a faint heartbeat, this is a medical necessity, 
that we have to do a D&C abortion here to protect your health and 
potentially your life if we don't take care of this. So I will go to 
the hospital. Go home, and I will call you and let you know when I can 
bring you in.
  Well, he called. I will never forget the voicemail that was left. He 
said: I am really sorry to say this. I went to the hospital board. I 
explained the medical necessity here, what you are going through, how 
we have to take care of this because it could clearly be a serious 
situation if you go into septic shock.
  And the board said: No. As long as there is a faint heartbeat, you 
can't perform the procedure.
  Then he said: There is no reason for this decision from the hospital 
board. It is not based on sound medicine. It is not based on medical 
practice. It is not based on what is best for your health. This is 
based on politics. Plain and simple, this is politics.
  He goes: I am ashamed that this happened, and I am embarrassed I have 
to call you and tell you I can't do it because the hospital will not 
grant me privileges to do it.
  He said: My advice to you is find a doctor now, immediately, that can 
take care of this procedure.
  Well, you can imagine how scary that is, how frightening that is; and 
who do we call in that situation? We were fortunate in the fact that we 
had a friend who was a hospital administrator at another hospital. He 
got us in to see the gynecologist, OB-GYN at the hospital to examine 
her. We went there.
  He examined her and said: Oh, my gosh, I have to do this procedure 
now. There is no more time. This is getting incredibly dangerous. We 
have to do the D&C abortion.
  He said: You are about to go--the infection is starting. It is going 
to get worse. If I don't do this quickly, you are going to lose your 
uterus. If we don't deal with it quickly, you could very well lose your 
life with the infection that could occur here.
  He immediately performed the procedure.
  Just think of that. One, if we didn't have the opportunity to see 
another doctor who was able to perform it and understood the severity 
of it, my wife at the time, former wife, could have easily lost a 
uterus, could have had significant health impacts, and could have lost 
her life.
  It just kept ringing in my mind what that doctor said: This is about 
politics. This is not about good medical practice. This is not about 
caring about someone's health and caring about their life; it was about 
politics. And that is why we have to protect Roe v. Wade.
  We have to protect the right for women to control their bodies, to 
control their reproductive health. It cannot be a decision made by 
politicians here in this body or other places. This is a real situation 
that families face. As I mentioned, there was an outpouring of folks 
who have come to me who had similar situations.
  I think about Michigan right now. Michigan has a law on the books 
that was written in 1931 that says all abortion is prohibited in our 
State. It doesn't matter whether or not it involves the health of the 
mother, it doesn't matter if it is the life of the mother, it doesn't 
matter if a woman is the victim of rape or incest--it is just simply 
not allowed. I think that is unconscionable. That is what will happen. 
It is a real-life situation that could happen if the Court decides to 
go forward and reverse Roe v. Wade. Situations like what my former wife 
went through and families all across America would not be able to have 
that kind of option.
  If you think about the no exception for rape or incest, you will have 
a 17-year-old girl in Michigan who is raped. She will have no options. 
I know a majority of people in the United States believe that is 
unacceptable. I know a majority of people in the United States believe 
that women have the right to make these most personal, these most 
intimate decisions themselves, with the advice of their physician or 
whoever else that they want to consult.
  This is not about politics. This is not about the opinions of folks 
who think that they know better. Let's preserve the right of women to 
do what they think is best.
  That is why we have to pass the Women's Health Protection Act and why 
I would urge all my colleagues to search their heart and listen to the 
stories that people will tell them and understand that the right thing 
to do is to protect reproductive freedoms and rights in America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, first, I want to thank my friend and 
colleague, the Senator from Michigan, for coming to the floor to share 
his own powerful and personal story and the stories of his constituents 
about why so many of us are here on the Senate floor this evening, and 
it is because 8 days ago, our country received a terrible wake-up call. 
A leaked draft opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States 
indicated that a majority of five Justices may be on the verge of 
overturning the constitutional protections of reproductive freedom set 
forth in Roe v. Wade.
  We don't know if this draft opinion will be the final decision, but 
we do know there is a very high chance that the Supreme Court of the 
United States will soon blow up 50 years of precedent and strip women 
of their constitutional right to make choices about their own body and 
their own self-determination.
  And while the content of this opinion is shocking, it is not totally 
surprising. This is the premeditated outcome of years--years--of 
plotting and planning by the rightwing legal movement and the 
Republican Party.
  Candidate Donald Trump promised the Nation he would handpick Justices 
who would overturn Roe v. Wade. On the campaign trail, he even claimed 
that Roe would be overturned ``immediately'' once he assumed office. 
And he stated on national television that women who receive abortions 
should be punished. Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans made up 
their own rules and then broke their own rules in order to play their 
part in this scheme.
  First, Senate Republicans refused to even hold a hearing on President 
Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, on the grounds that it 
was a Presidential election year.
  Four years later, Senate Republicans rushed through one of President 
Trump's own Supreme Court nominees just weeks before the 2020 election.
  And in between, Senate Republicans carved out an exception to the 
Senate filibuster rule so they could push through all three of Trump's 
anti-choice Supreme Court picks: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy 
Coney Barrett.
  Each of these nominees raised their right hand before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee and swore under oath that they respected the weight 
of judicial precedent. In fact, when Brett Kavanaugh was asked about 
Roe v.

[[Page S2410]]

Wade, he pointed to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which affirmed the 
core holding in Roe establishing a constitutional right to abortion, 
and he called the decision in Casey ``precedent on precedent,'' a 
double precedent.
  But let's be very clear, this draft opinion has no respect for 
judicial precedent. If the draft holds, all three of President Trump's 
nominees to the Supreme Court, along with some others already on the 
Bench, will have deliberately deceived and defrauded the American 
public.
  Rightwing ideologues set out to stack the Court with Justices ready 
and willing to overturn Roe v. Wade.
  Now, this rightwing establishment, this machinery, is on the verge of 
achieving their goal, even though their win will be a horrible loss for 
the reputation of the Supreme Court, a horrible loss for the integrity 
of our Constitution, and most of all, a horrible loss for the American 
people.
  More than half of the women and girls of reproductive age in our 
country live in States that would likely ban or severely restrict 
abortion if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.
  Thirteen States have so-called trigger laws that will kick into 
effect automatically the day Roe is overturned. Nine States have passed 
laws that were struck down in the past because they violated the 
protections of Roe, but those laws could come back if Roe v. Wade is 
overturned.
  Many of these laws we are talking about are extreme. One trigger law 
in Kentucky would ban all abortions at any point in pregnancy, with no 
exceptions for rape, no exceptions for incest, or a situation in which 
a child could be born with a fatal birth defect.

  Another trigger law in Idaho would make providing an abortion at any 
point in pregnancy and under almost any circumstances a felony crime 
punishable by 5 years in prison. A Texas law that is on the books right 
now would put doctors in jail or fine them up to $10,000 for 
prescribing pills for medication abortions through telehealth or the 
mail for women who are more than 7 weeks pregnant.
  And a law that has been on the books since 1931 in Michigan would 
snap back into effect, making nearly all abortions at any point in 
pregnancy a felony. And women who undergo medication abortions would be 
made felons, even in the case of rape and incest.
  Just last week, State legislators in the Louisiana House advanced a 
bill through committee that would allow women who obtain abortions at 
any time in pregnancy to be prosecuted for murder--for murder.
  Experts say that this extreme law could also be used to restrict 
emergency contraception and in vitro fertilization, which is a critical 
process that helps customers with infertility build their families.
  Like many of our colleagues, I have been hearing from my 
constituents, my constituents in the State of Maryland, who have 
learned just how dangerous this situation is for women and families 
across the country. One constituent named Connie shared her story of 
taking emergency contraception after she was attacked and raped by a 
stranger at the age of 18.
  She told me about the importance of being able to make that choice 
about her body and her future instead of potentially becoming pregnant 
because of a rape. Today, Connie is a social worker, a therapist, and 
has a wonderful son.
  I have received other testimonials from constituents across the State 
of Maryland who have shared their stories and expressed their deep 
concern and fear about the Court striking down Roe v. Wade.
  If Roe was overturned, women living in States where safe and legal 
abortion is banned will have to travel away from their homes, away from 
their communities, away from their families simply to exercise control 
over their own bodies.
  Those who lack the money or the time will either be forced to carry 
an unwanted pregnancy to term or find somebody performing abortions in 
the shadows in their States, a throwback to the dangerous back-alley 
abortions.
  In 1965, 8 years before the Roe v. Wade decision, illegal abortion 
accounted for 17 percent--17 percent--of all deaths attributed to 
pregnancy and childbirth. That past could soon be our present.
  So, you see, this Supreme Court decision doesn't just turn back the 
clock on precedent, it turns back the clock on public health as it 
strips women of their reproductive freedoms.
  And in a world where Roe has been overturned, as you drive across our 
great country, your rights will change from State to State as you cross 
each State border. That is the result of taking away a constitutional 
right, and that is why polling shows the great majority of the American 
people do not want the Supreme Court to take away the rights under Roe 
v. Wade.
  Now, I am proud to represent a State that has codified a woman's 
right to reproductive choice. In fact, during my very first campaign 
for public office, the right to reproductive choice was the defining 
issue in my election to the Maryland General Assembly. It was another 
time when there was great fear that a Supreme Court might overturn Roe 
v. Wade.
  And so I ran on the pro-choice ticket, and after I was sworn in, in a 
matter of months, my colleagues and I passed a bill in 1991 codifying 
Roe v. Wade as a matter of Maryland State law.
  But here is the thing, laws like the one we have in Maryland, laws 
like the one we passed back in 1991, will be on the chopping block if 
this decades-long, rightwing project continues to go according to plan 
because the Republicans' ultimate objective isn't just to overturn Roe 
v. Wade; it is to enact a Federal law passed in this Senate and in the 
House banning abortion nationwide.
  Last week, Leader McConnell acknowledged that a national ban on 
abortion was a real possibility during an interview with USA TODAY. 
That should sound alarm bells all over America.
  This has been a two-step process. Step No. 1, strike down the 
constitutional protections of Roe v. Wade that prohibit elected 
officials, whether it is State legislatures or in Congress, from 
enacting laws that prohibit or restrict unnecessarily the right to 
choose. That is step No. 1. It seems we are on the verge of that 
happening.
  Once you clear the way, step No. 2, enact a Federal law in Congress 
banning abortion everywhere in the country, and we have seen exactly 
how extreme those laws can be from the State examples I cited earlier. 
That could happen here if this Republican, rightwing project sees its 
logical end; that Federal law would supersede Maryland's law. If 
Congress passed that law and it was enacted, State laws like those in 
Maryland protecting the right to choose in Maryland would be knocked 
off the books. That is true of other State laws, statutes, that protect 
a woman's right to choose.
  No woman in America would be safe to obtain a safe and legal abortion 
if such a national law were enacted.
  Now, everyone should also understand another huge danger posed by the 
draft. Its flawed logic not only would dismantle the right to an 
abortion, it could also be used to strip away other rights protected by 
the Constitution.
  I have read Justice Alito's draft opinion. I have read all 98 pages 
of it.
  In this opinion, Justice Alito tries to distinguish this case on 
abortion from other cases involving other individual rights. Alito 
claims that this case is special because it involves abortion and the 
State's interest in protecting life, while other cases do not. Well, 
that is obvious on its face, but it misses the bigger danger in Alito's 
opinion.
  Because it doesn't change the fact that Justice Alito's reasoning for 
dismantling the right to obtain an abortion can be used to dismantle 
many other rights that we currently take for granted as well. Justice 
Alito claims that, even as you look at the entire Constitution, you 
cannot find a right to choose for women; that you cannot derive that 
from the Constitution.
  In fact, on page 5 of the draft opinion, Justice Alito writes:

       The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no 
     such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional 
     provision.

  And if we follow Justice Alito's flawed logic, the same could be said 
of a host of other rights that are not specifically named in the 
Constitution. The Constitution doesn't have the word ``contraception'' 
in it. The Constitution doesn't talk about consenting adults engaged in 
sexual relations.

[[Page S2411]]

  Look, this is the thing: Over time, the Supreme Court has recognized 
components of liberty through a close analysis of the Bill of Rights 
and the 14th Amendment, and that includes the right to use 
contraception, the right of consenting adults to have sexual relations 
with who they choose, and the right to marry who you love.
  These are rights the American people don't want elected officials to 
take away, whether they are State legislatures or Members of the Senate 
or the House. But they are all at peril too if the logic of Alito's 
reasoning is played out. And the terrible irony--the terrible irony--
here is those who most claim to oppose government regulations of any 
kind are now the ones rushing to regulate the most intimate, personal, 
and private aspects of American life. They say they don't want 
government having any role in their life--get out of my way--except for 
when it comes to them taking away this right and planning to pass laws 
that would ban abortion nationally, and as I said, open the door to 
going after other liberties as well.
  So those are the stakes that we are facing as we gather here this 
evening in anticipation of tomorrow's vote. And that is why we are 
taking this vote tomorrow. That is why we need to pass the Women's 
Health Protection Act, but even if we fall short this time, having a 
vote now is important. It is important to the country. Democracy 
requires accountability, and it is important that the American people 
know where each of the Senators stands on this issue. It is a 
fundamental question.
  So as we move into November toward the midterm elections, the 
American people will be watching closely how Members of this body vote 
on this fundamental constitutional question. And they will look to see 
who voted to strip away constitutional rights and who rose to protect 
them. And I believe that the majority of this country--the overwhelming 
majority of this country--wants to stand up to protect fundamental 
liberties in the Constitution of the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I will probably get in trouble with 
somebody for saying this, but the question of when life begins, the 
deeper question of what defines life, which biological entities are 
alive or possess independent existence versus which biological entities 
are simply part of something else that is alive--man, those are really 
hard questions.
  I heard my colleague Senator Daines on the floor earlier tonight 
talking passionately about his belief that life begins at conception 
and that humans have an obligation to defend a day-old fetus equally to 
our obligation to defend the life of someone who has been born.
  Now, I disagree. I believe that life begins at birth. I believe that 
our legal obligation towards a born human is different than our legal 
obligation toward an unborn fetus. But on that narrow question of when 
life begins, I don't cast any particular judgment on Senator Daines for 
believing what he believes. His belief system is shared by millions of 
Americans--not the majority of Americans, but a significant share.
  This disagreement that he and I have over when legally protected life 
begins, though, is as significant and as important a disagreement as 
exists--right--because it is about the most foundational questions in 
human existence: What is life? Who decides whether a woman bears a 
child? Who has control over that woman's body? Who has control over the 
most sacred and critical function of a human being, the act of giving 
birth? It just doesn't get any more important than that set of 
questions.
  And given this fundamental disagreement, given the weightiness of 
these questions, given the large number of Americans who sit on either 
side of these questions, I come to one simple conclusion: No 
government, no group of politicians, should make this decision for 
anyone else. This decision about whether to abort a pregnancy, so 
morally complicated, so socially divisive, should and must be left to 
individuals--in this case, to women--to decide.

  Over the course of history, millions have died in fights over another 
weighty moral issue--the question of whether God exists, and if a God 
exists, exactly what form that being takes and what it requires of 
humans. Disputes over religion have eradicated entire civilizations.
  What does this have to do with Roe v. Wade?
  Well, our Founding Fathers decided that there were some topics that 
were so personal, so subject to disagreement and controversy, that 
government should just be barred from registering judgment.
  That is part of the reason why our civilization has not been plagued 
by wars between religious groups--a reality that continues to paralyze 
societies to this day in other parts of the world--because we keep 
government out of the question of which God is the right God. That is 
up to every American to decide for themselves, even though many 
Americans believe that the consequence of observing or following the 
wrong God is serious--eternal damnation, for some. The stakes are huge 
when it comes to religion, but government sits on the sidelines.
  To me, that is an imperfect but instructive corollary to the debate 
over choice and abortion. The decision about whether to have an 
abortion is so personal, and the lack of consensus in the country on 
the question is so unavoidable, as to make government intervention just 
as illegitimate as it would be if government tried to dictate to 
someone which religion they should follow.
  Now, that is not the exact route that the Supreme Court traveled to 
get to the Roe decision, but it helps me understand why, from 1973 
until today, the decision about whether or not to have an abortion has 
been a constitutional right of the individual, not the constitutional 
right of the government to decide.
  Frankly, it has always been really hard for me to square how 
Republicans, who so readily evangelize about small government, about 
the importance of putting families and their decision-making processes 
first, about the evil of public sector overreach, are so enthusiastic 
about the government micromanaging personal decisions about pregnancy 
or marriage or adoption.
  Small government is great, I guess, for corporations, but it is not 
so great when it comes to the most intimate decisions that families 
make.
  And as I have said on this floor before, it is also hard to take 
seriously Republicans' passionate pleas for this body to defend the 
existence of an unborn fetus when they seem to care so little about 
many of the existential threats that are posed to every American after 
they are born.
  Today, this day, over 100 Americans are going to die from gunshot 
wounds, from murders, and suicides. And whether my Republican 
colleagues agree with me or not that stricter gun laws is part of the 
solution to this uniquely American epidemic that plagues those that are 
born, I don't know that I have ever heard a Republican speech dedicated 
to this crisis on the floor of the Senate. I have heard dozens 
dedicated to the cause of those before birth. It seems that after 
birth, life matters a little bit less to some people in this body.
  So that is what I think. And as I said, I will probably get into some 
hot water for admitting that I understand the arguments that people 
like Senator Daines make. I don't agree with his views, but I 
understand them. And my hope is, is that as we begin this debate over 
the future of reproductive choice and health in this country, as this 
debate heats up--because it is not going away. We are taking a vote 
tomorrow, but this is a debate that is going to consume this Nation if 
the Alito opinion becomes law, which I believe it will.
  My hope is that we are honest about the complexity of this debate, 
but the Republicans are equally honest in the claims that they make.
  Let me just briefly tell you what I mean.
  Today, I heard Republican Senators making a whole bunch of claims 
that are just so ungrounded in truth as to diminish the quality of what 
should be a very important debate on a very weighty subject.
  For instance, I heard Senators make the claim that the protesters who 
were protesting outside or near Supreme Court Justices' homes 
threatened violence against those Justices. That was

[[Page S2412]]

an explicit claim made by people who came down to this floor who might 
have heard it on some unreputable website, but it is not true.
  You can object to protesters being outside of public officials' 
homes. It has happened to all of us, by the way, but don't make up 
threats of violence just because it makes for a better story.
  I heard one Senator say that the Women's Health Protection Act, for 
which I will proudly vote tomorrow, allows for garage abortions. That 
is not true. That is just plainly not true.
  Every State requires that abortions be performed in licensed 
healthcare facilities and nothing in the bill changes it. Don't say 
that just because it makes a better story.
  Many Republicans claim that the bill we are taking up tomorrow allows 
abortions up to the date of birth. That is not true either.
  The Women's Health Protection Act does codify Roe v. Wade, but Roe 
only protects a woman's right to have an abortion without restriction 
until viability and then afterward protects for the woman's health or 
risk of death. The bill simply does not expand the circumstances under 
which an abortion can be performed beyond what currently exists in case 
law.
  So I am going to be honest with my colleagues about the admitted 
complexities--the political, moral complexities of this debate. But I 
expect opponents of the bill that we are debating tomorrow to be 
equally honest in the arguments they make as well.
  So I will have a lot more to say about this topic as we begin what I 
think is a debate that will consume this Nation, rightfully, over the 
course of the coming weeks and months, but for today I will leave it 
there.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

                          ____________________