[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 27 (Thursday, February 9, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S314-S315]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. KAINE (for himself, Ms. Murkowski, Ms. Sinema, and Ms. 
        Collins):
  S. 317. A bill to guarantee that Americans have the freedom to make 
certain reproductive decisions without undue government interference; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today to join in the 
reintroduction

[[Page S315]]

of the Reproductive Freedom for All Act, a bipartisan bill that would 
restore the previous legal framework that governed abortion access in 
this country for nearly 50 years since Roe v. Wade. This bill would 
ensure the right of women to make certain reproductive choices without 
undue government interference, including the right to obtain and use 
contraception.
  I support a woman's right to have an abortion, and I believe that the 
threshold question of whether abortion is legal needs to be consistent 
at the national level. States can account for regional differences with 
regulations like parental notification requirements, but the basic 
right as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court prior to its decision in 
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization needs to be the same 
regardless of the State in which a woman happens to reside.
  In Dobbs, the Supreme Court abandoned a nearly 50-year precedent that 
had been reaffirmed and on which women had relied for decades. The 
Dobbs ruling was, as the Chief Justice described it, a ``jolt'' to our 
legal system. This action has further divided the country at a moment 
when, more than ever in modem times, we need the Court to demonstrate 
consistency, predictability, and restraint.
  Prior to the Court's decision in Dobbs, I introduced, with Senator 
Murkowski, the Reproductive Choice Act to enact into Federal law the 
abortion rights established by Roe and affirmed by Planned Parenthood 
v. Casey.
  In the wake of the Dobbs decision, I worked with my colleagues 
Senator Kaine, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Sinema to draft a more 
comprehensive, bipartisan bill that would codify the abortion rights 
articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe, Casey, and Whole Women's 
Health v. Hellerstedt, as well as the contraception rights first 
articulated in Griswold v. Connecticut and later clarified in 
Eisenstadt v. Baird and Carey v. Population Services International.
  Our legislation would enshrine important abortion and contraception 
rights into Federal law without undercutting basic conscience 
protections that have been in place for decades and that are relied 
upon by healhtcare practitioners who have religious objections.
  Our goal with this legislation is to do what the Court should have 
done--provide consistency in our laws that Americans have relied upon 
for nearly half a century regarding the ability to make certain 
reproductive choices.
  This bill would ensure that the legal framework in place before Dobbs 
is reinstated as the law of the land. Our bill accomplishes this goal 
by tracking the Supreme Court's language in the seminal cases I 
mentioned.
  Specifically, and consistent with decades of Supreme Court 
jurisprudence, the Reproductive Freedom for All Act provides that a 
State may not impose an undue burden on the ability of a woman to 
choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability. 
During this time, States may enact reasonable regulations to further 
the health or safety of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy, 
unless such regulations impose an undue burden.
  After fetal viability, a State may regulate or even proscribe the 
ability of a woman to terminate her pregnancy but not when such a 
termination is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman.
  Moreover, by codifying Griswold, Eisenstadt, and Carey, the bill 
makes clear that a State cannot prohibit an individual from obtaining 
or using contraceptives.
  Finally, the legislation specifically preserves conscience 
protections that have been relied upon by healthcare providers who have 
religious objections.
  The best path forward for our country is to reinstate the legal 
framework that was in place before the Supreme Court issued its ruling 
in Dobbs. Our bill would enshrine into law the important protections 
articulated in the Supreme Court cases that I mentioned without 
undercutting statutes that also have been in place for decades.
  I urge all of my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation.
                                 ______