[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 79 (Wednesday, May 11, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2430-S2432]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Women's Health Protection Act

  Mr. President, on another matter, later today, the Senate will vote 
on a radical abortion-on-demand bill, which our Democratic colleagues 
are trying to sell as a codification of Roe v. Wade.
  But the truth of the matter is, this bill sweeps aside all of the 
protections, for example, for conscience, for religious liberty, for 
opposing taxpayer funding of abortions, and partial birth abortions. It 
sweeps all that aside and essentially makes abortion available on 
demand from the time of conception until the time of delivery.
  Now, this isn't the first time our friends across the aisle have 
tried to opportunistically capitalize on events to check items off of 
their liberal wish list. In fact, we have witnessed this strategy 
numerous times.
  When the pandemic first hit, the House Democratic whip referred to 
the crisis as a ``tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit 
[their] vision.'' And to their credit, our Democratic colleagues 
certainly didn't squander that opportunity.
  Last year, they crafted a nearly $2 trillion spending bill that 
included most of the far left's outbox, their biggest priorities, and 
they tried to brand it as necessary pandemic relief, which it was not. 
Backdoor funding for Planned Parenthood, a blank check for mismanaged 
union pension funds, money for climate justice--it was easy to see 
through this COVID relief facade because, in the end, less than 10 
percent of the money was directly related to the pandemic, and less 
than 1 percent supported vaccination efforts.
  We saw the same play when it came to election law. States across the 
country established temporary measures during the pandemic to ensure 
that voters could cast a ballot during some of the most worrisome days 
of the pandemic.
  When those temporary procedures were rolled back to what they were 
before the pandemic, our colleagues tried to frame that as voter 
suppression. They resurrected a bill that would force a one-size-fits-
all election formula out of Washington, DC, on every State and 
community in the country and, in the process, hand Democrats a 
permanent governing majority.
  And Democrats tried to cast anyone who opposed their partisan bill as 
attacking the sacred right to vote, which it was not.
  But here we are seeing the same play once again. Our colleagues are 
now trying to seize on the political firestorm from a stolen Supreme 
Court draft opinion to push their radical abortion agenda. And no doubt 
about it, it is truly extreme.
  Just as they did with their pandemic spending spree and election 
takeover bill, Democrats have taken things to the very nth degree, and 
they are pushing for a bill that is far out of line with the views of 
most Americans over this divisive and emotional topic.
  Only 19 percent of Americans say that abortion should be available in 
all cases, with no exceptions--19 percent. That means 81 percent 
disagree.

  Even though the vast majority of Americans oppose unrestricted 
abortion access, that is exactly what this bill would provide. This 
bill would allow for abortions at any stage of a pregnancy. All it 
takes is one healthcare provider who says having the baby would present 
a potential harm to the mother's health, including her mental health.
  And I mentioned yesterday the case of Kermit Gosnell, who ultimately 
was serving life in prison for running an abortion factory involving 
late-term abortions and other illegal abortions performed in 
Pennsylvania.
  So where is the line here? Where is the line?
  Democrats see no line. They don't credit an unborn child with its 
very humanity or else they would see some sort of balancing against the 
mother's right to physical autonomy and the child's right to life 
guaranteed in our Declaration of Independence.
  Is anxiety about motherhood a strong enough diagnosis to allow a 
woman who is 39 weeks pregnant to abort her baby in a late-term 
abortion? Anxiety can be a serious struggle that many prospective 
mothers face. There is no question about that. That is why I have been 
advocating for better access to mental healthcare services for all 
Americans, including expecting and new moms.
  But this legislation is written so broadly that in practice, it 
legalizes abortion for virtually any reason up until the time the baby 
is actually delivered.
  Now, the American people aren't the only ones who oppose unlimited 
abortion on demand. This bill doesn't just codify Roe v. Wade; it goes 
far beyond the abortion policies among other countries, like those in 
Europe, for example.

[[Page S2431]]

  In most European countries, abortion access is restricted after a 
certain point in the pregnancy--in Sweden, it is 18 weeks of pregnancy; 
in France, it is 14 weeks; in Germany, it is 12 weeks; in Portugal, 10 
weeks. Each of these limits are more restrictive than the current law 
in a number of American States, including blue States like 
Massachusetts and Nevada, where abortions are restricted after 24 
weeks. In California, Washington, and Illinois, abortions are 
restricted after viability, an arbitrary line, roughly, 20 weeks of 
gestation--20 to 23 weeks of gestation.
  But under this extreme bill, one healthcare provider could stop an 
otherwise constitutional State law protecting the life of this unborn 
child in its tracks.
  Even though most Americans oppose late-term abortions, our Democratic 
colleagues are running full speed ahead in order to permit it under 
this extreme bill. They are so desperate to make abortion-on-demand the 
law of the land that this legislation has the support of all but a 
handful of Democrats in Congress.
  As the Republican Senate leader pointed out earlier this week, 97 
percent of Washington Democrats are pushing for policies that only 19 
percent of Americans support. This is proof, once again, that today's 
Democratic Party is simply not listening to the American people; it is 
taking its marching orders from the most radical--most radical--and 
extreme members of their own political party.
  Our colleagues are trying to frame this legislation as codifying Roe 
v. Wade, a 1973 opinion 50 years ago. But in reality, this radical bill 
goes much, much further. It doesn't just maintain the status quo; it 
moves abortion policies in the direction of those in the People's 
Republic of China and North Korea and away from those of our friends 
and allies in Europe.
  I would think that is not company we would feel comfortable keeping, 
with the People's Republic of China, run by the Chinese Communist 
Party, and North Korea, the home of Kim Jong Un.
  In addition to allowing abortions up to the time of delivery, this 
bill allows abortions to be used as a method of sex selection, a 
shameful practice that became common in China under its one-child 
policy.
  A number of States have laws on the book that prevent someone from 
having an abortion based on the baby's sex. In other words, the parent 
who is hoping for a son cannot just have an abortion because the baby 
is a girl. But this bill would change that. It would invalidate State 
laws that prevent sex-selective abortions.
  This bill would make further changes that endanger the very women who 
are receiving abortions. For example, it rolls back a commonsense 
provision including requirements that only a licensed physician can 
perform or prescribe an abortion. It removes guidelines for how 
abortion facilities are regulated and maintained, and it removes 
commonsense safeguards like consent laws and waiting periods.
  Along with all of these radical and extreme changes, this legislation 
comes with no guarantees that taxpayers won't be asked to foot the bill 
for these elective procedures, and it provides no protection for babies 
who survive a botched abortion.
  It puts healthcare providers with religious or moral opposition to 
abortion in an impossible position. They have to disregard their 
sincerely held religious or moral briefs or they get sued.
  This isn't the Woman's Health Protection Act; it is the ``Abortion on 
Demand Act,'' without restrictions, without limitations.
  It promotes abortion at a scale far beyond Roe v. Wade and far beyond 
what the vast majority of the American people are comfortable with.
  So this is not a serious effort to codify Roe, and it certainly isn't 
an attempt to reinstate policies that are in line with most Americans' 
view on this very emotional and divisive issue. What this is, is 
pandering to the most radical elements in their party.
  The good news is that Democrats still don't have the votes to pass 
this bill. Given the opposition of the vast majority of Americans, I 
doubt they ever will.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is a debate about the Women's Health 
Protection Act--protecting women's health, protecting half of America's 
population in their right to seek the healthcare they require, 
protecting their ability, half of America, to make decisions about 
their own bodies. How is this a question even up for debate?
  Today, the Senate considers the Women's Health Protection Act. A 
woman's right to make choices about her own body is a constitutional 
right. It was affirmed by the Supreme Court nearly 50 years ago. 
Polling--as if that should be the benchmark by which we legislate--
shows that nearly two out of three Americans believe the fundamental 
right established in 1973's Roe v. Wade should be upheld. Yet here we 
are today--a body of 100, 76 percent of which are male--making 
decisions about the private lives of the nearly 168 million women in 
this country. That is ludicrous.
  The right of any woman to receive the healthcare they choose and seek 
should be important to each and every one of us. Women--our mothers, 
daughters, sisters, aunts, friends--they know what is best for them in 
their own lives. How patronizing to suggest otherwise. How patriarchal. 
How insulting. How dangerous.
  I am the dean of the Senate; I am the longest serving Member of this 
body today. I have worked for decades to support legislation that 
affirms a woman's right to access comprehensive healthcare from a 
trusted provider without interference. The right to comprehensive 
family planning resources--whatever those resources may be--is not only 
a fundamental right to privacy for these women, but it is an important 
public health policy as well.
  In 2019, the Vermont House and Senate, by wide margins, approved the 
Freedom of Choice Act, which guarantees the right to access safe 
abortion care in Vermont. Governor Scott--a Republican--signed that 
bill into law in June 2019. If the Court does overturn Roe, the Freedom 
of Choice Act would protect this healthcare right in Vermont, just as 
the Supreme Court case that was ahead of Roe v. Wade, Beecher v. Leahy, 
does the same. Once again, Vermont is a leader on an issue of national 
significance.
  The unfortunate reality is that 26 other States stand ready to ban 
abortion rights in the absence of Roe. What are the women of these 
States to do? And prominent Republican voices in the Senate even now 
say they would not rule out the possibility that a future Senate and 
Congress would overrule such State laws in Vermont and elsewhere and 
impose a national ban on women's choice.
  And what laws are these States prepared to pass--what resources are 
they prepared to provide--to support these women and the children they 
will bear? The answer we know, and I fear, is none. States will 
determine what you do, but they won't do anything to help you 
afterwards.
  The implications of the Supreme Court's opinion, should a final 
decision mirror the leaked draft, go far beyond reproductive rights. 
For decades, the Supreme Court has stood as an independent arbiter in 
this country. Striking down a constitutional right that has supported 
millions of Americans, not just women, will cause many to lose 
confidence in the integrity of our judicial system. Worse still, it 
could threaten the rights protected under the precedent set by Roe and 
affirmed in other cases. I acknowledge the fear that many are feeling 
right now about that possibility. Certainly, I hear it in my office. 
And that is why we need to pass the Women's Health Protection Act.
  What would the suffragists say of us today? What would the icons of 
the civil rights movement say of us today? A vote against the Women's 
Health Protection Act is a vote against equality. It is a vote against 
women, plain and simple. It is a vote against the progress we have made 
to right the wrongs of inequality. And it is at odds with what an 
overwhelming majority of the American public believes. It says, in many 
States in this country, women will be treated differently than men.
  You know, my sons and grandsons can travel anywhere in the United 
States knowing the law is the same for them. My daughter and 
granddaughters, under this, would know they

[[Page S2432]]

could not be treated the same as they travelled around the country. 
What does that say about America, that our sons and our grandsons will 
be treated differently than our daughters and our granddaughters? Our 
daughters and our granddaughters will be told by some States: You have 
less rights than your brothers or your fathers or your uncles.
  Shame on this Senate today. I stand with women--my wife, my daughter, 
my granddaughters--when I say that I trust them to make the health 
decisions that are best for them. And I will fight against any effort 
to erode those fundamental, constitutional rights. That is what the 
Senate should do; that is what we should do if we truly are going to be 
the conscience of the Nation. That is what this Vermonter intends to 
do.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, last week, we learned that the United 
States Supreme Court is preparing to issue a ruling that would 
fundamentally roll back the constitutional rights of millions of 
American women. It has been reported that a group of anti-choice 
Justices on the Supreme Court are planning to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 
landmark case decided nearly 50 years ago which recognized the 
reproductive rights of women.
  This decision centered on one of the most fundamental rights we have 
as Americans--the right to control our own bodies. For nearly half a 
century Roe has protected a woman's right to make extremely personal 
decisions about her own body, her own healthcare, her own family. But 
now--now we are seeing a clear, coordinated attempt by anti-choice 
politicians to roll back the clock on the rights of American women, 
control what happens to their bodies, and strike down reproductive 
freedom.
  If the Supreme Court moves forward with this action, it will have 
immediate--immediate and devastating--consequences for women's health.
  So let's get something straight: overturning Roe isn't going to stop 
abortions. It is only going to stop women from getting safe abortions, 
and women will die as a result. This will also have a severe impact on 
how miscarriages and other life-threatening medical issues related to 
pregnancy are handled.
  For example, if Roe is overturned, ectopic pregnancies could become a 
death sentence for women in States that ban abortions. This is just one 
example of the harm this will cause.
  This will disproportionately impact women who lack the resources to 
go to other States to seek care, and this will also make it harder for 
women of color to access the care they need.
  Unfortunately, many States across our country already have rigid and 
extreme restrictions on the books, and if Roe falls, many of those laws 
will go immediately into effect. In the States that don't have those 
restrictions, extreme legislatures are pushing new, dangerous, and 
restrictive anti-choice laws as we speak.
  In my home State of Nevada, abortion rights have been enshrined as a 
State law since Nevadans overwhelmingly voted for it in a ballot 
initiative in 1990. This means women across Nevada will continue to 
have access to reproductive care if Roe is overturned. But this year, 
anti-choice politicians are working to eliminate this protection from 
our State code and take away Nevadan women's rights to make decisions 
about their own bodies. This is exactly why the Senate needs to pass 
the Women's Health Protection Act today, to ensure that women in all 50 
States continue to have the right to make their own reproductive 
healthcare choices.
  I helped introduce the Women's Health Protection Act last year 
because it is the best option we have to codify Roe v. Wade into law. 
This bill will codify the right to receive and provide reproductive 
healthcare, and it will prohibit States from enacting rigid, medically 
unnecessary restrictions that make it harder--make it harder--for women 
to access care.
  We are not living in a hypothetical anymore. We are staring a post-
Roe world in the face and the time to act is now.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have also made it clear 
that if they regain control of this Chamber, they will pass a national 
ban on abortion rights and they may go even further.
  I urge every Senator who cares about women, who cares about women's 
health, who cares about women's autonomy and their rights--I urge them 
all to join me in voting to pass the Women's Health Protection Act. 
Nevadans are watching, the American people are watching, and women 
everywhere are depending on us. We cannot let them down.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.