[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 79 (Wednesday, May 11, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2433-S2439]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Women's Health Protection Act

  Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, abortion is a heavy issue. We are used to, 
in this body, debating marginal tax rates and debating spending bills, 
but this issue is different. This debate cuts to the heart of who we 
are, what we owe each other, what kind of society we want to preserve, 
and what kind of society we want to build. The moral weight of this 
debate is heavy.
  Social media, of course, makes it worse; makes it ugly; makes it 
stupid. There is too little grace. There is not enough compassion. 
Honesty and genuine good-faith disagreements are really hard to come 
by. To talk about abortion well, we need to actually listen to each 
other, and we need to try to understand the best arguments of the other 
side's and take those arguments seriously.
  For Democrats, debating well has to start with recognizing that most 
Americans believe that unborn lives deserve to be protected at some 
point during a pregnancy. It is deeply human and deeply compassionate 
to recognize the humanity of an unborn life. Scientific advances like 
ultrasounds give us a glimpse into the lives of the unborn, first in 
black and white and now in 3D, and it is going to be clearer and 
clearer over time what that little baby is. Any honest conversation 
about abortion must grapple with the fact that every abortion begins 
with two lives and destroys one of them. It is deeply wrong to ask 
Americans to participate in an act that they know takes an innocent 
life.
  For Republicans to debate well, we need to be willing to be honest 
about the fact that, for some women, pregnancy can be frightening and 
painful. Many situations are not ideal situations. Pregnancy changes a 
woman's life in a way that is absolutely unique in the human 
experience. There is no equivalent to pregnancy. There is no example we 
can compare it to. That is why the pro-life cause is not and cannot 
ever primarily be about legislation or about policy, as important as 
those can be. The pro-life cause must start with active compassion for 
moms and babies and especially women whose first thoughts upon learning 
that they were pregnant was: I can't do this.
  To the pro-life movement, I want to recognize your patience and your 
perseverance over decades. We should commend the ethic of love, 
persuasion, and prudence that has brought us to the place we are today.
  Pro-lifers show up for women and for babies every single day. I see 
it all over Nebraska, and I know that it is true across all 50 States.
  Pro-lifers and especially pro-life women support women through 
pregnancy care centers. They work in local communities to build support 
networks. They are persuading their neighbors and are growing a 
movement that supports life.
  We don't have the massive war chest, the army of lawyers, or the 
fancy PR shops that Planned Parenthood does, but what we do have is 
truth and love.
  Thousands of pregnancy care centers provide women and their babies 
with free help--with lots of free help. The volunteers who show up 
every day to help these women obviously don't do it for money; they do 
it out of love.
  Thousands of pro-life families adopt kids every year, and their 
hearts overflow with love as they welcome a new child into their 
families. That is the core meaning of the pro-life movement. It is not 
about legislation first or about legislation second or about 
legislation third.
  Advocates for abortion-on-demand are doing a lot of fearmongering. We 
have heard some bizarre speeches on the floor in the last couple of 
days that are so disconnected from the reality of the text of the 
legislation that is before us. So much of what they are pushing is 
wildly out of touch with the public and wildly out of touch with modern 
science.
  We already know that America's abortion laws are far, far more 
permissive than Europe's and that, on this subject, our laws have a lot 
more in common with the human rights abusers China and North Korea than 
with anything in French law. The legislation before us today would make 
our laws even more extreme. Depending on how you count, we have the 
fourth to seventh most extreme pro-abortion laws of any of the 200 
nations on Earth, and the legislation before the Senate today would 
make the U.S. position even more extreme.
  There was a time when the Democratic Party talked about abortion as 
being safe, legal, and rare--safe, legal, and rare. Not anymore. This 
legislation is not from your mom's Democratic Party.
  In recent years, we have taken votes on my legislation, the Born-
Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. It is a pretty simple, 
straightforward bill that aims to protect babies who survive botched 
abortions. There are no restrictions on abortion access in my bill, 
just a simple requirement that, if a baby is born alive in an abortion 
clinic, she must receive the same level of care she would have received 
had she been born in a hospital. That is it. Yet Senator Schumer and 
the abortion lobby have filibustered this legislation over and over. It 
is so weird.
  So here we are today. The abortion industry's lobbyists have bullied 
Leader Schumer and all but one courageous Democratic Senator, my friend 
Joe Manchin, into an extreme position that doesn't reflect even the 
majority opinion of the Democratic Party today, let alone the position 
of Americans.
  This bill today is ugly, winner-takes-all politics. It is full of 
aggressive pro-abortion provisions. Let's consider just a few.
  One, it would formally create a national right to abortion up until 
the moment of birth in all 50 States, and it would undo even State-
based partial-birth abortion bans.
  Two, today's legislation would prohibit States from requiring 
parental consent to perform abortions on a child.
  Three, it would prohibit States from passing any laws to ban sex-
selective abortions. It would ban any laws that States would have to 
try to prevent sex-selective abortions.
  It would create a right for nondoctors to perform abortions, putting 
women at severe risk of complications and botched procedures.
  It would remove conscience protections that keep Americans from being 
forced to perform or fund abortions if they have moral objections. 
Think about that. It would force Catholic hospitals to perform 
abortions. That is new. That is gross.
  Where is the tolerance? Where is the compassion? Where is the 
humanity? Where is the attempt to understand that the majority of 
Americans want there to be prohibitions on abortions at some point in 
the pregnancy?
  Americans don't want the kind of radicalism we see in this bill 
before us today. In recent polling, 65 percent of Americans say they 
support banning abortion in the second trimester, and 80 percent of 
Americans support banning abortion in the third trimester. Why? Well, 
one of the reasons is because they have seen a lot of images of what a 
baby looks like in utero in the second and third trimester.
  Just to reiterate, contrary to the last, I guess, couple of speeches 
ago, the last speech on this topic on the floor, 80 percent of 
Americans want to see abortion banned in the third trimester. It is 
hard to get 80 percent of Americans to agree on anything, and yet 80 
percent agree that third-trimester abortions--the kind of thing that 
this bill wants to make sure is explicitly championed--States could not 
prevent and prohibit third-trimester abortions. That is what this bill 
is about.

[[Page S2434]]

  This bill is incredibly extreme. There is no moderation in this bill, 
just brutal indifference hiding behind euphemisms. Fortunately, it 
won't pass. Unfortunately, our debate about it isn't very honest here. 
Fortunately, the pro-abortion lobby isn't winning. Majority Leader 
Schumer will earn kudos from Planned Parenthood for this show vote 
today, but he is not going to convince anyone.
  As we look beyond today's gross vote, as we look to the future, our 
focus should be on continuing to grow the pro-life coalition in this 
country. We can and we must build support across the country for an 
ethic that protects life.
  I want to lock arms with pro-life Democrats and work to build a 
culture of life. If we can pair certain pro-life laws with increased 
spending on prenatal care and safety nets for struggling moms, count me 
in. I am for that kind of big, new coalition. Let's do it.
  This movement is about hearts and minds. We have got to have 
difficult conversations and love, and we have got to reject the kind of 
extremism that Senator Schumer is putting on the floor today pursuing 
this bill. We have got to focus our work on our local communities, on 
changing our neighbors' minds, on understanding each other, and on 
setting an example by putting moms and babies first.
  The answer, after this bill fails today, is to remember that love is 
stronger than power, and that is why life is going to win. Being pro-
life means being pro-science, pro-mom, and pro-baby. It means starting 
with love, not with legislation. Happily, it definitely doesn't mean 
starting with the grotesque legislation that will be voted down this 
afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Rosen). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, last week, a draft opinion was leaked 
out of the Supreme Court, which never happens. It literally has not 
ever happened until now. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court called 
it a betrayal of the Court.
  That leak sparked protests all over the Nation and in Washington, DC, 
but not because two centuries of protocol in the Supreme Court was 
violated; it was because the Court dared to say that when the Supreme 
Court ruled in 1973 on Roe v. Wade, it made a mistake. In the draft 
opinion that was released, it stated that the opinion of 1973 exceeded 
the constitutional boundaries.
  For 200 years, legislatures determined when life began, but in 1973 
the Court determined that States cannot protect its youngest citizens 
of their State and created a new standard called viability, a standard 
that had no statement in the Constitution and no statement in Federal 
law. They literally created the viability standard on the spot.
  The draft opinion from February of this year states that that should 
not have been done in 1973 and that the people in each State, in the 
legislatures, should determine when life begins and that they should 
have that decision based in law.
  Apparently this body, including the Democratic majority, agrees at 
least with the basic finding of the Court's draft decision because the 
Court says these issues should be settled in legislative branches, not 
in the Court. And so today, a week after that draft opinion is out, 
Senator Schumer has called up a bill to actually vote on Roe v. Wade--
and not just vote on Roe v. Wade, vote on a very simple decision: When 
does life begin?
  The real question that comes up is, ``When is that child a child,'' 
because in the most simple of questions, for those two little ones whom 
I know, only a short time before would have been in the womb. So the 
simple question that this body is dealing with today is pretty 
straightforward: Who gets to decide whether she lives or dies? Who gets 
to pick that?
  I think she should live, and for that simple statement that I believe 
she should have a chance at life, I have been called a totalitarian, 
radical extremist because I believe her life is valuable. What kind of 
upside-down world do we live in, when people who believe children are 
valuable are the extremists, are the radicals, are the totalitarians?
  The day before Mother's Day, the headquarters for Concerned Women for 
America, a pro-life organization that speaks up for the millions of 
women who believe children are valuable, was attacked and vandalized. 
On Mother's Day--Mother's Day--just let that soak in for a minute. On 
Mother's Day, someone tried to burn down a pregnancy resource center in 
Wisconsin that provides baby formula, baby clothing, and diapers to new 
moms and provides ultrasounds to expectant moms. That facility they 
attempted to burn down, and then they spray-painted on the wall outside 
the building: ``If abortions aren't safe then you aren't either.''
  Instead of that being condemned by the media, a journalist from 
Rewire saw the news story on the attack in Wisconsin and immediately 
tweeted out:

       More of this. May these people never know a moment of peace 
     or safety until they rot in the ground.

  Also, on Mother's Day, protesters showed up at Catholic churches 
around the country to protest the Catholic Church's stand for this 
little girl and for life. Protesters also showed up over and over in 
the last week at the Justices' homes to chant on bullhorns and to 
threaten the Justices because they dare to follow the Constitution.
  A CNN commentator tweeted out:

       Concrete barriers being put up around the Supreme Court. 
     Now we just need to lock them in there and keep them away 
     from us--and cut off their internet access so they can't send 
     us more opinions based on pro-rape judicial theory from the 
     1600s.

  I have heard it all week--all week long on this floor, tweeted out by 
journalists, tweeted out by activists--simple statements like this: 
equity, privacy rights, bodily autonomy, healthcare decisions, freedom 
to choose, reproductive rights, basic civil rights.
  All those are euphemisms for she dies. Why are people so passionate 
about this? Because it is not just a person in this conversation; she 
is in this conversation. Her future, her opportunities--that is what 
this conversation is about. And, for that, I am being called a radical 
extremist because I believe she is valuable.
  Last weekend, when I was at home, I ran into someone just out and 
about who wanted to talk to me about this issue, about life, who was 
very passionate about the freedom to be able to take her life just 
hours before she is born. And in that conversation, as we got back and 
forth on it, I asked him very simply: You know it is Federal law right 
now that we protect turtle eggs. Turtles--if you destroy a turtle egg, 
it is a Federal offense with a very big fine. If you destroy an eagle 
egg, it is a very big offense with a Federal fine. Do you find that 
odd?

  I am just in dialogue with this person: Do you find that odd that in 
Federal law we protect an eagle egg, acknowledging that is an eagle 
inside that egg, and we protect a turtle egg, saying we acknowledge 
that is a turtle inside that egg, but we allow the destruction of 
children?
  And, to my shock, they responded: Well, turtles and eagles are 
endangered so they should be protected.
  And I am called the extremist because I happen to believe she is 
precious and, just because there are billions of other humans around, I 
don't think she is disposable.
  What are we really talking about? We are talking about the right for 
people to be able to speak out to their elected officials, in every 
State, and for each State legislature to decide on the issue of life. 
That is what we are talking about.
  If the draft opinion ends up being the final opinion from the Court, 
it doesn't end abortion in America; it pushes it back out to every 
State and every legislative branch, including this one, to be able to 
have a State-by-State and a national dialogue on this simple question: 
When does life begin?
  Some people will say at conception, as I do, and, quite frankly, as 
science also agrees with. That is cell division. That is unique DNA. 
All the makeups of her life and of my life and every other person in 
this room's life were there at cell division and conception in the 
earliest days.
  Every single cell in the woman's body is exactly the same, has the 
same DNA in it, except for those cells. Those cells are different. They 
have different DNA in them. Why is there different DNA in those 
particular cells than

[[Page S2435]]

every other cell in the mom's body? Because that is a different body 
that is there. That is why.
  Some people believe that life begins at conception. Some people 
believe at heartbeat. Some people believe at 15 weeks, as the 
Mississippi law is challenging. Some people believe at viability, 
others at birth.
  Why don't we have that conversation? Why don't we have that dialogue? 
Because, quite frankly, as I think about life and I look at this baby 
and I look at this baby--for some reason, there are a whole bunch of 
people who say that baby is alive and that baby is tissue and not 
alive. Some people would look at this baby and this baby and would say: 
totally different, completely different; this baby is alive and needs 
to be protected, and that baby is just tissue--which is so strange to 
me because that baby and that baby look a lot alike to me.
  I can count fingers on both. In fact, as funny as it is, they are 
both in the same position, which, by the way, for my wife and I, we 
call this the touchdown position, how babies sleep with their hands up 
over their heads. And lots of babies do that, including mine did. This 
baby is in the touchdown position and sleeping, and this one is too.
  What is the difference between these two? I don't see this as alive 
and tissue. That looks a lot like a baby to me. And, for that, I am 
called the extremist and the radical.
  This baby sucks their thumb in the womb, responds to their mom's 
voice, feels pain, has unique fingerprints, has unique DNA, kicks 
around like crazy. What is the difference between those two? Time. That 
is it. That is the only difference. Just time.
  So what has been brought to the floor today? What has been brought to 
the floor today is this bill--this bill--the Women's Health Protection 
Act of 2022. Interestingly enough, that is the last time this bill uses 
the word ``woman.'' It doesn't use the word ``woman'' anytime after the 
title. It stops after that. I find that interesting.
  Let me talk you through a couple of things that are in this bill. 
Section 2 of the bill defines ``abortion services'' and details it out 
but also has a nice little note that is tucked into the definition 
here. It defines ``viability'' and says:

       The term ``viability'' means the point in a pregnancy at 
     which, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating 
     health care provider, based on the particular facts of the 
     case before the health care provider, there is a reasonable 
     likelihood of sustained fetal survival outside the uterus 
     with or without artificial support.

  Interestingly enough, it just basically says the doctor that is there 
that is providing the abortion can determine when the child is viable 
or not viable.
  We all get the joke on this. We know what this really means. This 
bill is not about viability; this bill is about whatever age, at 
whatever time anyone wants to perform an abortion--at any moment.
  In my State, we are a State that has medical marijuana laws. They say 
it is not recreational marijuana; it is medical marijuana. You have to 
have a medical prescription from a doctor to be able to get it. Do you 
know how you get it? The medical marijuana place actually has a doctor 
that you can just call that will write a script for you that will write 
it for no matter what. You can say: My left toe hurts every other 
Thursday. And they would say: Great, that is a medical condition, and 
you get a medical prescription for it.

  We get the joke. If the person actually selling the product is the 
one actually prescribing it, that means you can do it at any point. 
This bill, itself, protects that individual, saying they can define 
viability and they are protected in their definition of it.
  This bill is not about protecting children prior to viability. This 
bill is about aborting at every single stage of pregnancy, all the way 
up to the end, no matter how late that abortion is.
  The bill doesn't just stop there. Not only is there no limit for 
restriction on abortion, it gives a statutory right to abortion. Even 
though 71 percent of Americans believe there should be some limits to 
abortion, this bill says no, there can't be.
  Then it reaches into every State and abolishes any restrictions that 
may be on abortion at all in any State. For instance, if a State says 
there has to be more information given to a woman, like an ultrasound 
or just information about this child, it abolishes that, so a State 
cannot inform the mom before the abortion. That is prohibited.
  It also abolishes any other restriction on telemedicine. It abolishes 
any requirement any State has on safety or health. It used to be--I 
heard the term from the pro-abortion crowd--``safe, legal, and rare.'' 
This strips away the ``safe'' term on it and says every restriction 
that is out there on safety has to be stripped away; no State can put a 
restriction out there on this.
  It takes away any right of any State to actually restrict abortions 
being carried out on minors without parental consent. It strips away 
any kind of waiting period laws.
  It also strips away religious exemptions. What does that mean? If a 
doctor or physician says: I don't want to carry out an abortion; I 
believe that is really a child right there, not just a lump of tissue, 
then that doctor says for their conscience sake--through this bill: I 
am sorry, your conscience doesn't matter any more. It strips away all 
conscience protections.
  What is interesting is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was 
passed in 1993. It has never ever been accepted until this bill. This 
bill, literally, reaches into the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and 
says: Your religious conscience doesn't matter. It is an abortion. Get 
over it. That is what this bill says.
  This is not some simple codifying Roe bill. This is telling the 
Nation: I am sorry, you may think that little girl is a little girl and 
is valuable; we think she is disposable. No.
  Listen, pro-life Members here, like myself, have fought to make 
adoption more affordable, expand the child tax credit for the unborn, 
continue to provide assistance, food, healthcare to needy families, 
maternal health. We should all be working to support women in very 
difficult days, but she matters in this conversation. We can't lose 
track of that.
  Mother Teresa once made the comment:

       [I]f we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, 
     how can we tell other people not to kill one another?

  You may say, well, that is Mother Teresa's opinion that that child is 
a child. I would also tell you, it is Joe Biden's, as well. Joe Biden 
also made the statement just last week. The Dobbs' decision is about 
the ability to abort a child--to abort a child was President Biden's 
statement. I agree.
  The conversation right now on the floor is what is her future? What 
happens next will decide a lot. I can assure you, I am going to speak 
about the rights for every single child and will declare, again, any 
child is valuable. If people call me a radical for believing children 
are valuable, so be it, but I think it tells us a lot about our culture 
that I am the radical one because I believe she has a hope and a 
future.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, like many Americans, I was 
profoundly disappointed to learn from news reports last week of the 
Supreme Court's draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Roe has 
been the law of the land for nearly 50 years. Generations of women have 
relied on its protections in shaping their lives. In fact, most 
American women have lived their entire lives knowing they have the 
right to make decisions about their own bodies.
  Now, the Supreme Court appears ready to take that right away with the 
stroke of a pen. If it does this, I believe that this Court would be 
ignoring precedent and gutting a half-century of progress for women. 
And in doing so, the Court would devalue women's health and women's 
lives.
  Make no mistake: If this draft opinion becomes final, the 
consequences would be serious and would affect women throughout our 
country. The impacts could be devastating. According to an analysis by 
the New York Times, approximately half of U.S. States are poised to ban 
or severely restrict access to abortion if this opinion becomes final.
  Some States, including Texas and Oklahoma, have already passed laws 
banning abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy. That is before many 
women even know they are pregnant. Those laws are unconstitutional 
today under Roe, but could be put into effect immediately if the Court 
strikes Roe down. Other States may go even further, either by banning 
abortion after

[[Page S2436]]

the moment of conception or by making abortion a homicide, as a 
Louisiana bill would do.
  And several across the country have bans in place that lack any 
exceptions, including for rape or incest. These would take effect 
immediately if Roe were overturned. If these draconian State laws go 
into effect, women would lose the ability to make a decision about a 
pregnancy after experiencing a traumatic sexual assault; women could be 
forced to endure a pregnancy, even if that pregnancy could possibly 
kill them; and women could lose access to important fertility 
treatments like in vitro fertilization, a medical advancement that many 
people rely on to build their families.
  These State laws could also add to the already monumental pain 
associated with miscarriage by dangling the threat of criminal charges 
over the head of any woman who loses a child during pregnancy.
  The majority of Americans alive today do not remember a time before 
Roe became the law of the land. They don't know what it was like before 
the United States recognized this important right. I remember the days 
when abortion was illegal. I remember passing a hat in college to 
collect money so a classmate could go to Mexico for an abortion.
  Women who could not afford to travel were forced into even more 
dangerous alternatives at home. They were often forced to self-induce, 
sometimes with a fatal result. It is these women, many who cannot 
afford to travel to another State for an abortion, who will be harmed 
the most by the Supreme Court's decision if it becomes final.
  If this draft opinion should become final, around half of all 
American women would find themselves living in States that make access 
to safe abortion care difficult or impossible. And the harm from this 
decision will fall disproportionately on low-income, at-risk, and 
minority women. Forty-nine percent of women who have had an abortion 
live below the poverty line. And these women would be forced to travel 
long distances at great cost in order to secure an abortion.
  For example, women who live in Mississippi now have to travel an 
average of 67 miles, one way, to receive an abortion. If the Court were 
to strike down Roe and abortion clinics were forced to shutter, women 
would have to drive on average nearly 500 miles, one way, to reach an 
out-of-state abortion clinic. That much travel would be impossible for 
many women, particularly those who already have young children at home, 
those who cannot afford the cost of the flight or gas money, or those 
who cannot take time off from work.
  Furthermore, studies have shown that there is a direct link between 
lack of abortion access and maternal mortality. An analysis by the 
Center for American Progress shows that between 2010 and 2015, when 
several States enacted new laws restricting abortion access, the 
maternal mortality rate rose by 136 percent.
  Let's be clear: Restricting a woman's legal access to abortion 
healthcare will not stop women from seeking out that care. It will only 
make the process of seeking an abortion much less safe. Many women will 
be forced to endure unregulated and dangerous procedures, while others 
will attempt self-managed medication abortions at home. Lives will be 
lost.
  In conclusion, this potential decision by the Supreme Court would 
have dangerous consequences for millions of Americans. We reduce the 
value of a woman's life when we take away her ability to control her 
own body.
  Now, Congress must do everything it can to ensure that individuals 
are able to access critical medical care and make the best decisions 
possible for their health. It is more important than ever that Congress 
passes the Women's Health Protection Act to safeguard Federal 
protections for women seeking abortion care. We cannot stand idly by 
and allow the lives of women everywhere to be endangered by this ill-
conceived effort to overturn our fundamental rights.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I come to the floor in support of 
codifying Roe v. Wade through the Women's Health Protection Act.
  As the Senate considers this vital piece of legislation today, I feel 
duty bound to impress upon my colleagues the grave implications should 
we fail to protect a women's freedom to choose.
  After all, the right to choose is a fundamental right. It is the 
right to bodily autonomy--to decide when and how and with whom to start 
a family.
  It is a right that, when faced with one the hardest decisions of 
their lives, grants women in America the peace of mind of knowing the 
decision is between them, their doctor, and their faith--no one else.
  Last January marked 49 years since Roe v. Wade was decided--49 years 
since the fundamental right for women to make their own medical 
decisions became the law of the land.
  For nearly half a century, Roe v. Wade has been decided, affirmed, 
and reaffirmed as a legal bedrock of the constitutional right to 
privacy.
  Overturning it would take us back to a place no one wants to go. A 
dark place in history that would open the door to overturning settled 
decisions on critical issues.
  It would jeopardize fundamental rights like the right to gay 
marriage, to private consensual sex between adults, and even 
contraception.
  Voting rights, civils rights, and LGBTQI rights would all be on the 
chopping blocks.
  It is an existential threat, not just to women, but to EVERY 
American.
  I, for one, refuse to accept this version of our country.
  I refuse to go back to the days when women, particularly low-income 
women and women of color, were subjected to government intrusion by 
male politicians who think they know best.
  One of these women is named Dorothy Carlos, an 81-year old 
constituent of mine in Englewood, NJ. After graduating from high 
school, Ms. Carlos planned to go to nursing school and then maybe 
become a doctor. The year was 1958. After weeks without a check-up, she 
went in for an exam and found out she was pregnant. Ms. Carlos was 17 
years old at the time. In an instant, her dreams of going to nursing 
school were dashed. This was before Roe v. Wade and before the right to 
choose.
  The day Ms. Dorothy Carlos' life completely changed was nearly 65 
years ago, but she still remembers it like it was yesterday. Not going 
to nursing school meant that she had to go on public assistance, 
relying on Medicaid and food stamps to provide for her family. Not 
having the freedom to choose stopped her career in its tracks--and when 
she called my office last week, her main concern was for the women who 
would be put in a similar position without the right to choose.
  So I say again, I refuse to go back to the days when women like Ms. 
Carlos had their dreams deferred because they didn't have control over 
their own bodies. I refuse to go back to the days when abortion was 
illegal and, therefore, unregulated--when thousands of women a year 
were hospitalized and even died as a result of unsafe procedures--
because, make no mistake, banning abortion does not stop abortions from 
happening; it just stops safe ones from being carried out. Despite what 
others refuse to accept, abortion is an integral part of maternal 
healthcare.
  Just ask Monica Attias, who bravely shared her story just a few days 
ago about how an abortion saved her life. Twenty-two years ago, Monica 
had complications during her second pregnancy that left her in a 
medically induced coma. Her husband Philippe was told that she had a 
one in four chance of survival and to prepare for the worst. She 
thankfully survived, albeit with a heart condition that required 
medication.
  However, 9 months after a pregnancy nearly killed her, she became 
pregnant again. Neither her cardiologist nor her obstetrician could 
guarantee that she would survive another one. The best decision for 
Monica Attias was to have an abortion.
  As she puts it, ``I loved the children I had too much to possibly 
allow them to grow up without a mother because she risked her life 
trying to have another child.''
  Given what would happen if Roe v. Wade is struck down, Monica wonders 
if she would have been judged at-risk enough to qualify for a legal 
abortion.
  Thankfully, in New Jersey, the freedom to seek and obtain abortion 
care is protected under law. But in far too many States, 22 to be 
exact, overturning Roe would immediately roll

[[Page S2437]]

back the fundamental right to choose. Many of them would not have 
exceptions for rape, incest, or risks to the mother's life like Monica 
Attias. Some of them would ban abortions after just 6 weeks, before 
women like Dorothy Carlos realize they are pregnant.
  I refuse to go back to patchwork of laws. Rights are rights, and I 
refuse a version of our country where some women have fundamental 
rights while other women are left behind. I refuse to stand by and let 
our healthcare system be split further between the wealthy and the 
working poor.
  The freedom to make medical decisions with your healthcare provider 
belongs to all Americans. Every American has the right to privacy, 
whether you live in Nebraska or New Jersey. We will not be silent as it 
is stripped away.
  It is why we will be voting on the appropriately named Women's Health 
Protection Act, to protect bodily autonomy and prevent government bans. 
The Women's Health Protection Act would end the undue restrictions on 
abortion by repealing the slew of harmful State laws that have shut 
down healthcare clinics and providers all across the country in recent 
years. It would ensure that the protections granted by Roe today are 
the protections granted tomorrow.
  A strong majority of Americans--over 70 percent--have consistently 
agreed that the constitutional right to choose should be the law of the 
land. They support Roe v Wade, despite my Republican colleagues who are 
hell-bent on policing women's bodies.
  These are the same colleagues who call themselves pro-life but refuse 
to fund maternal care, childcare, family leave, access to healthcare, 
education, and will never prioritize equal pay--the same Republican 
colleagues who would force women to give birth while opposing policies 
that benefit mothers, those who, after waging a decades-long war on the 
rights of 169 million women in our country, are now more focused on a 
leak than on the consequences of their misguided actions.
  Today, let us reaffirm that women deserve to have the full range of 
options available when it comes to something as personal as the 
decision to start a family. Let us unequivocally and unapologetically 
say that reproductive rights are human rights and that an attack on the 
rights of women and girls is an attack on all of us.
  Let us pass the Women's Health Protection Act and ensure that 
reproductive freedom is the law of the land across our country for this 
generation and for generations to come.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 
up to 10 minutes, followed by Senator Murray up to 5 minutes prior to 
the scheduled rollcall votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Senator Lankford just said this bill is all about 
legalizing abortion any time, any place in this country. He is right, 
but I am going to add that this legislation is being discussed for 
political purposes, and we are wasting time on this issue because we 
could be spending time on things that people want.
  I have been hearing the Democrats speak for a year and a half about 
the necessity of getting prescription drug prices down. Why couldn't we 
be talking about that instead of wasting time on this legislation that 
is to make a political point instead of accomplishing something?
  I would like to speak, then, about the very extreme legislation being 
pushed by Democrats--the Women's Health Protection Act. Democrats are 
using a leaked Supreme Court draft--not even a final decision--as an 
excuse to push a very radical legislation that goes beyond public 
opinion or even common sense on abortion. This bill goes much further 
than its stated position to codify Roe v. Wade decision.
  As ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have raised 
many concerns about this legislation. The so-called Women's Health 
Protection Act would invalidate hundreds of abortion-related laws in 
our various States, such as clinic regulations, admitting privileges 
requirements, regulations on abortion-inducing drugs, reflection 
periods, conscience protections, sex selection bans, and limitations on 
the use of State funds and facilities for abortion training.
  Iowa and many other States have taken action on their own to enact 
commonsense restrictions. I don't think this bill is common sense 
because it allows late-term abortions, which could be up even to the 
day of birth. Some States have protected individuals from having to 
perform abortions against their own religious beliefs.
  We can't stand by as those commonsense laws are under attack by the 
Democrats. And this legislation attacks those laws. The bill before us 
would invalidate these State laws and would allow abortion providers to 
set the standard of care for their patients with no oversight from the 
States. It would allow healthcare workers to determine when a life is 
viable, which will lead then to inconsistent practices across the 
country and endanger the lives of mothers everywhere.
  If the bill before us were to be signed into law, the Federal 
Government would send a message to States that enacting laws to protect 
patients and regulate the health and welfare of their citizens is not 
the right of the Federal Government.
  It would allow Congress to intrude on States' rights and nullify 
lifesaving laws on the books. It would invalidate the police powers of 
the State under the 10th amendment in regard to those police powers 
affecting the health of its citizens. In addition, this bill 
establishes no private right for women harmed by abortions.
  How can we, as Congress, stand up and say that we are protecting 
women when, really, this bill disregards any loss of life of babies, 
including full-term infants and even some mothers? Democrats claim this 
bill is a necessary and moderate step. How can a sweeping piece of 
legislation that would overrule dozens of State laws and establishing 
terminating a pregnancy as the only option be classified as a moderate 
piece of legislation? No, this proposed legislation is an example of 
extreme extremism.
  It is unfortunate that the majority is using this issue to appear 
compassionate and concerned about women's rights when, in reality, the 
bill disregards popular and commonsense laws that protect women and 
children across the country. Large majorities of Americans support 
strong abortion restrictions this bill would overturn.
  I understand and appreciate the robust debate around this subject. 
However, I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric of some of my colleagues. 
They refuse to discuss important priorities of what the American people 
want and only want to push one extreme option. Let me be clear. 
Abortion should not be promoted as a default contraception and family-
planning tool. Let's have a productive discussion on what can be done 
to support women and families. It is important to be open with our 
colleagues and peers on our differences, but we must unite to protect 
life because every single life is precious.
  The Women's Health Protection Act is an extreme piece of legislation 
that completely disregards human life. I intend to vote against the 
motion to proceed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Schumer be recognized following my remarks prior to the scheduled 
rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, last week, the country learned that the 
Supreme Court is preparing to overturn Roe v. Wade, and the 
constitutional right to abortion, and make this the first generation of 
women in this country to have fewer rights than their mothers. Think 
about that for a second. My daughter, my granddaughters will have fewer 
rights than I did. I truly never thought I would say that and it breaks 
my heart.
  These past few days have just been heart-wrenching. I have seen the 
emotion and I have felt it. Let me tell you something. As heartbroken 
as people are, they are also mad and you can't blame them. And I am 
mad, too, because we are watching the Supreme Court prepare to drag 
this country backward by half a century.
  Across the country, Republicans and State legislatures are banning 
abortion and they are making it crystal clear they are going to go even 
further. They

[[Page S2438]]

are coming after your mail because they want to make it illegal to send 
abortion medication in the mail. They are coming after your birth 
control. They are coming after Plan B and IUDs.
  And right here in the Senate, they are talking about a Federal 
abortion ban--a Federal abortion ban. That means a ban even in States 
like mine where the right to abortion is now protected. Senate 
Republicans want to make sure women from Seattle to New York cannot 
make their own healthcare decisions.
  For many Republicans, this is just the beginning. But to everyone who 
is scared, everyone who is furious, know this: They have some big 
roadblocks in their way. Me, Senate Democrats, House Democrats, and 
millions of patients across this country who are going to stand up and 
speak out.
  So I rise today to make sure women across the country have their 
voices heard. I rise to make sure Republicans have to show their true 
colors, to make sure every single one of them is forced to go on the 
record when it comes to the right to abortion, when it comes to the 
right of every patient to make their own decisions about their body, 
every mother to make their own decisions about their family, every 
woman to make their own decisions about the future, because while 
Republicans have constantly been attacking the right to abortion--and 
they have been pushing that day in and day out for decades, by the 
way--they have been almost silent on what overturning Roe v. Wade will 
actually mean for people.
  Taking away a woman's bodily autonomy--which, let's be clear, is 
exactly what Republicans are talking about here--impacts her whole 
life. Forced pregnancy limits a woman's entire economic future. It 
takes away her ability to determine the direction of her own life. It 
forces women to be pregnant and give birth when they don't want to, no 
matter their individual circumstances. It hurts people in real and 
irreparable ways.
  I know, after so many decades of precedent, an end to the right so 
many women have lived with their entire life seems completely 
unthinkable, but this is real. This is happening. And Republicans have 
been preparing for this for decades.
  We are about to see a tidal wave of abortion bans across the country, 
so this vote today will force Republicans to face up to the hurt and 
suffering they have caused and will cause, the lives that hang in the 
balance.
  We all know that if Roe falls, the heaviest burdens will land on 
those who already face the greatest challenges: mothers who are barely 
scraping by. It is Black women who already face a severe maternal 
mortality crisis. It is indigenous women, especially those on Tribal 
lands, who suffer from violence at unprecedented levels. It is women 
with disabilities, who may already face discrimination in routine 
medical care. It is women in rural communities, who have less resources 
and are often already forced to drive miles to get the care they need. 
It is immigrant women, especially undocumented women. It is our gay and 
trans neighbors, whom Republicans never seem to miss an opportunity to 
scapegoat or bully.
  People in my State need to know this will impact them, too, and many 
of my colleagues know I am not one to grandstand or exaggerate the 
scope of a crisis that comes before the Senate. When I said this was a 
five-alarm fire, I meant it. We need to be clear-eyed that this will 
impact all of us.
  For one thing, we know the healthcare crises caused by abortion 
bans--and that is what they are: crises--will stretch across State 
lines. When Texas passed a law letting people sue strangers for getting 
or providing an abortion, desperate patients rushed to Oklahoma, only 
for that State to pass an extreme ban as well, meaning more patients 
traveling even farther, with fewer options to get the care they need. 
We are seeing this firsthand in my home State of Washington. After 
Idaho passed a draconian abortion ban of its own, my State had to brace 
for incoming patients surging into Washington.
  So there can be no question, if Roe is struck down nationally, if 
individual States across the country ban the right to abortion, people 
in every single State will live with the painful consequences of that 
decision, and they will not forget that Republicans are the ones 
responsible for this.
  Let's also remember that Republicans have been clear, they have been 
explicit even, that they are not going to stop at Roe, they are not 
going to stop at the State level, and they are not going to stop at 
abortion. I can't say this enough. Republicans are already talking 
about passing a Federal ban on abortion. Republicans are already 
talking about how Griswold, the case that struck down a ban on birth 
control, might have been ``wrongly decided.'' Republicans are already 
talking about banning IUDs, Plan B. They even held a vote a few weeks 
ago to undermine our Federal Family Planning Program and make it harder 
for people to get birth control.
  It is clearer than ever that because of Republicans' extremism, not 
only is the right to abortion at risk but other important rights are as 
well. That is why people are so scared, and that is why they are so 
shocked.
  Someone back home said to me last week: What can I tell women in our 
State so they don't worry?
  I said straight up: I am not telling anyone not to worry. I am 
scared, and I am frightened for women in this country more than I ever 
have been before.
  I am very fearful, but I am also determined, and I know people across 
the country do not want to go backwards. They do not want politicians 
planning their families for them. They do not want politicians forcing 
people to stay pregnant. They do not want this to be the 
first generation of women with fewer rights than their mothers, which 
is why today we are now voting on the Women's Health Protection Act.

  What this bill does is simple. It follows the Constitution and nearly 
half a century of precedent and gives the patient the right to get an 
abortion no matter where in America that patient or doctor lives. And 
the question every single Senator today is asked is simple as well: Do 
you trust women? Do you trust patients? Do you trust doctors? Do you 
believe every American should be able to make deeply personal decisions 
about pregnancy and parenting according to their own beliefs, without 
government interference?
  If your answer is yes, then your vote on this bill should be as well. 
If your answer is no, if you think women should have fewer rights, if 
you think it is OK for Republican politicians to force someone else to 
stay pregnant or give birth when they don't want to, you are going to 
have to go on the record and let your constituents know that you think 
your personal opinion matters more than their own medical decisions. 
And you better believe no one will forget this.
  I yield the floor.
  (Disturbance in the Galleries.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senate will 
be in order. Thank you.
  Expressions of approval are not allowed by the Gallery.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, may I first thank my dear friend and 
colleague from Washington for her powerful and heartfelt words and for 
her leadership as well.
  Now, the question before the Senate is simple. As women's rights face 
their greatest threat in half a century, will this Chamber step into 
the breach and protect the basic right to choose? Will we enshrine into 
law what courts have held for decades--that decisions women make about 
their pregnancies belong to them and them alone--or will five unelected 
Justices, presiding without accountability in a courtroom across the 
street, take a fundamental right away from millions upon millions of 
women in this country?
  In a few minutes, it will be time for Members to vote. The 
legislation before this Chamber is straightforward. It would codify 
what Americans already believe: that the right to choose whether or not 
to have an abortion belongs to women, not elected politicians. It will 
preserve the safeguard that conservative Justices seem ready to strike 
down in just a few weeks.
  If they follow through with their decision, the United States, which 
has always aspired to the expansion of rights, will take a shameful and 
repressive step backward. Our kids will grow up in a country with fewer 
rights than those who came before them.

[[Page S2439]]

  This decision, if formalized, would be remembered as one of the worst 
and most damaging cases in the entire history of the Supreme Court. So 
this is not a theoretical exercise, oh, no. Protecting the right to 
choose at this critical moment is one of the most consequential votes 
we could possibly take, and the American people are watching. The 
public will not forget which side of the vote Senators fall on today. 
They will not forget who voted to protect their freedoms. And they will 
not forget those responsible for the greatest backslide of individual 
liberties in half a century.
  Across the country, the hard right is hell-bent on sending women's 
rights back to the stone age, and we in the Senate must respond. We 
must respond to radicals who want to ban abortions as early as 6 
weeks--before many women know they are pregnant. We must respond to 
extremists who want to prosecute and imprison women and doctors for 
carrying out an abortion, and even friends who merely provide rides to 
clinics could end up in jail. We must respond to the swell of hard-
right ideologues who openly champion restrictions without exceptions 
for rape or incest. We must oppose the vision that MAGA Republicans 
clamor for--forced pregnancies, punishment for women and doctors, and 
zero exceptions for rape or incest. This is not what America wants. I 
hope it is not what Members of this Chamber want either.
  I implore everyone whose conscience has been jolted over the past 
week to vote in favor of today's measure. Indeed, I implore everyone 
who cares about the rights of not just women but of all Americans to 
support this measure because if five unelected Justices are allowed to 
decide the fates of millions of women, if the rights women have relied 
upon for 50 years wither away like ash, if we do not take a stand now 
to protect a woman's right to choose, then, mark my words, it will be 
open season--open season--on our God-given freedoms in this great and 
grand country. Today, it will be Roe. Tomorrow, it will be a national 
ban on abortion and beyond that, something even more dreadful.
  We cannot allow this shameful backslide to happen. We cannot allow 
the whims of MAGA Republicans to bully the rest of the country into 
submission.
  I urge my colleagues, take a stand. I urge my colleagues and 
Americans to fight back. I urge Americans and everyone here to defend 
the right to choose. I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
  I yield the floor.