[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 195 (Thursday, December 15, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7212-S7213]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 401
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, it is another time for me to be back on
this floor again to talk about an issue I have talked about before, but
it is a little bit different this time.
I have brought to this floor several times and have asked for
unanimous consent for a very, very simple bill called the Conscience
Protection Act. The Conscience Protection Act is a bill that would
protect religious liberty and freedom and conscience benefits for
healthcare workers across the country. It is really not that
controversial. In fact, let me show you how noncontroversial this
really is.
When the church amendments, years ago--decades ago, even--were put in
by Congress to be able to protect the conscience rights of individuals
and entities that object to performing or assisting an abortion or a
sterilization in violation of their religious belief and conscience,
that passed this body 92 to 1. So 92 to 1, this body voted and said: Of
course, we want to protect the rights of individuals and not have to be
compelled to perform an abortion if it is against their moral faith.
That seems normal. In a normal conversation everywhere else, that would
be straightforward and simple--until now.
Here is what is happening now: A nurse who had told her employer that
she did not want to perform an abortion, that she had a moral objection
to that, worked in this hospital. One day, the hospital was running
short on staff, and so they called her in, didn't tell her what the
procedure was, and when she walks into the surgery area, the doctor
looks at her and says: Don't hate me--meaning, we know full well what
your belief is--but we are short-staffed, and we need another nurse;
you are going to do this. The hospital informed her: You will lose your
job if you don't do this right now, when everyone knew what her moral
conviction was.
Now, the way that the law is set up, it is set up to say, for that
person who had an entity deliberately violate her moral conscience,
then the government steps in and presses against the employer and says:
You can't do that. That is the way it is supposed to work. In fact,
that is the way it was working until Xavier Becerra came in to HHS,
looked at the case, and dropped it and said: You get no recourse--
because the administration is pro-abortion. It doesn't matter what your
belief is; it is what the administration's belief is.
So the response to that is pretty straightforward: Allow an
individual who has been harmed to have what is called a private right
of action; that they don't have to wait for government to intervene on
their behalf to have a private right of action so that an individual,
if government doesn't intervene on their behalf, they can intervene.
I have brought that to this floor several times, and I have been
told: That is controversial. That is divisive. Then this week,
President Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act on the White House
lawn with a special feature in it called a private right of action. So
if individuals who felt--and the language says--that they were harmed
because of the disagreement of others on their same-sex marriage, they
didn't have to wait on government to be able to intervene on their
behalf; they could do it.
I was told this was belt-and-suspenders. I was told, of course, the
government is going to step in on their behalf; but in case they don't,
they need a private right of action so that they can stand up for their
own beliefs.
It is fascinating to me that what I have asked for for people of
conscience who don't want to perform abortions but are compelled to do
so by their employer, that was a radical concept, that we couldn't have
a private right of action for them, but it was required in the Respect
for Marriage Act. In fact, I brought an amendment to take that out to
say: This is going to lead to a lot of lawsuits. And my colleagues
said: Oh, no. Oh, no. And voted against that.
So now I am going to ask a very simple question: Is this body going
to give a private right of action to some people they philosophically
believe in, but other people they philosophically don't believe in
don't get that same right? Are we going to discriminate today against
people of faith and say: You do not get this right; other people do?
That is my simple question for today.
This is not a radical request. This is a real-life issue that is
occurring right now, where this administration will not intervene on
behalf of individuals who have a religious, longstanding moral
objection to being compelled to perform an abortion.
Let's give them their private right of action so that employers don't
feel like this administration can look the other way and they can do
whatever they want to their employees or fire them, regardless of what
their religious beliefs are.
This used to not be a radical concept. It was 92 to 1. This is not
intended to be a radical concept today. It is a simple statement: Is
this body going to discriminate against people of faith today? That is
my question.
So, Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent
that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be
discharged from further consideration of S. 401, and that the Senate
proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be
considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, 6 months
ago, the Supreme Court ripped away the right to abortion; and, since
then, Republicans have enacted abortion bans in States across the
country. The outcry against Republicans' cruelty has been loud and
clear and overwhelming.
In every single State where abortion was on the ballot, voters backed
abortion rights. They made their voices clear: Women must be able to
control their own bodies. They want us to protect abortion access. They
want us to stand up against the wave of extreme bans and bills and
partisan attacks on abortions and on doctors from Republicans.
That is exactly what this bill is, another attack on abortion that
will make it harder for women to get the care that they need.
If my colleague really wants to talk about protecting healthcare
providers, let's talk about the sharp rise in threats and violence
against abortion clinics and what we are doing about that. Let's talk
about the providers back home in my home State of Washington who tell
me they are worried they could be punished for providing an abortion to
patients from out of State. In my State, it is legal.
Let's talk about how Republican State lawmakers have already
discussed a bill to make it a crime to provide abortion care to a
resident even in another State where it is legal.
Yet, if you are one of the many, many doctors and nurses who believe
they have a duty to provide abortion care, this bill does nothing to
protect you for doing your job, not even if your patient's life is in
danger. It is silent on the legal threats that these providers are
facing from Republican States, not to mention the increasing physical
threats that they face. That
[[Page S7213]]
violence, that science speaks volumes about the real point of this
bill.
By the way, if you are a patient, well, then, the message from this
bill is even more clear and even more outrageous. This bill says the
ideology of your boss, of your health insurance company, of your
pharmacist, or your doctor is more important than your personal
decision, your medical needs, or your well-being.
That is dangerous, it is wrong, and I will not stand for it.
Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Apparently, a woman has a right to control her own body
unless her boss compels her to perform an abortion, and then she no
longer has control over her own body--her boss does. And he can tell
her: Perform this abortion against your faith, or I will fire you--and
that is OK.
So choice seems to only go one way. If you choose to perform
abortions, you are accepted in our culture. If you believe a child with
10 fingers and 10 toes and a beating heart and unique DNA and a
functioning nervous system is actually a child, then you are an
outlier, and your opinion doesn't count. The only thing that counts is
you are compelled to take the life of more children and stand there and
watch it. I think that is wrong.
No, this bill doesn't get into--as Senator Murphy said, it doesn't
get into speaking out about the violence against abortion clinics or,
quite frankly, get into the violence on pregnancy resource centers that
have been firebombed by pro-abortion folks, who have been spray-
painted, who have threatened and attacked people who want to give
sonograms to individuals who are pregnant. It doesn't deal with any of
those because, quite frankly, that is a different committee. That is
over in the Judiciary Committee.
This is a very narrow bill dealing with one simple topic. It doesn't
deal with everything on abortion. It doesn't decrease abortions in
America. It doesn't do anything like that. It is simple and
straightforward. It says: Is this government going to compel people to
violate their faith? Apparently, the answer today is yes from this
body; we don't care what you believe. I think that is sad, and I think
that shows how far we have moved as a nation when it used to be 92 to 1
that we would say: If you have a different opinion, that is OK in
America. But now you can't have a different opinion. That is not right.
I would hope this body would speak out and say at some point that we
respect all opinions in America and would speak out for the right of
conscience for people of faith.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). The majority whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled
vote start immediately.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.