[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 74 (Tuesday, May 2, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1452-S1454]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Women's Health Protection Act

  Mr. President, we have sure learned a lot since the Dobbs decision 
was handed down.
  Roe v. Wade was controversial, but after 15 years, we had reached 
something of a balance in terms of what was allowed and what wasn't 
allowed on a national basis. Then came the Dobbs decision and the 
repeal--overruling--of Roe v. Wade, and for the first time in the 
history of the United States, a constitutional right which women had 
enjoyed for 50 years was removed from the law. It never has happened 
before.
  The American people have united together in support of the belief 
that reproductive rights are a fundamental right and that extremist 
politicians have no business dictating the healthcare decisions of 
women and their doctors.
  Just a few days ago, Republican lawmakers in two States failed to 
pass restrictive abortion laws, and they were not blue States--far from 
it: South Carolina and Nebraska. Cheers actually erupted outside the 
Nebraska Legislature when the proposed abortion ban failed.
  To some, the failure of these abortion bans in Republican-controlled 
States may be surprising, but if you have been paying attention over 
the last year since the Dobbs decision was handed down, it is no 
surprise. In the months since that decision, at least a dozen States 
have enacted near-total bans on abortion, and the number of horror 
stories that are emerging from those States is staggering--stories of 
rape victims as young as 10 years of age being denied healthcare 
because of restrictive State laws governing abortion; an 11-year-old 
victim of sex trafficking also denied an abortion under one of these 
State laws; stories of women being forced to flee their home States to 
access basic reproductive care service; stories of pregnant women 
suffering miscarriages, being turned away by doctors until their lives 
are at risk because these abortion bans are so vague and so poorly 
written that healthcare providers are afraid to provide lifesaving care 
until the women are in an extreme situation. And the laws surrounding 
abortion--and miscarriage management--seem to be changing almost on a 
weekly basis. So much confusion and chaos.
  Now, one of the most striking features of the Dobbs decision itself 
was the almost complete absence of discussion of one subject. The 
subject: women. In a 79-page ruling, women received a few paragraphs 
from Justice Alito on the Supreme Court. This author of the majority 
opinion defended his disregard for women's lives by arguing it is 
``hard for anyone''--Justice Alito said, ``and in particular, for a 
court--to assess . . . the effect of the abortion right on society and 
. . . on the lives of women.''
  That is from the man who wrote the decision, the Dobbs decision that 
repealed Roe v. Wade. He said it was kind of difficult to assess the 
impact it would have on the lives of women. He was sure right about 
that.
  Mr. President, perhaps the Court's conservative majority should have 
paid closer attention to the briefs filed by medical professionals like 
the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the 
American Medical Association, who gave Justice Alito and the majority 
on the Supreme Court fair warning about what was going to

[[Page S1453]]

happen--an immediate healthcare crisis across America. Sadly, their 
prediction turned out to be true.
  Now, last week, as the Presiding Officer will remember, in the 
Judiciary Committee, we had a historic hearing about the horrific 
consequences of the Dobbs decision. One of our witnesses, I still 
remember to this day. It was one of the most compelling pieces of 
testimony I have ever seen. Her name is Amanda Zurawski. She gave one 
of the most heartbreaking presentations I had ever heard.

  Amanda lives in Texas, you see, one of the first States with a near-
total ban on abortion that took effect after Dobbs. She endured 18 
months of fertility treatments in a desperate attempt so that she and 
her husband could become pregnant. When she finally did, her husband 
was over the moon, so excited and so happy. They named their soon-to-be 
little girl Willow.
  Last August, in the second trimester of her pregnancy, Amanda didn't 
feel right. She called her doctor, who told her to come in as quickly 
as possible. After the exam, Amanda and her husband received a 
heartbreaking diagnosis: Her cervix had dilated prematurely; the loss 
of her baby was inevitable.
  Amanda asked what could be done, what was the right thing to do for 
the ``respectful passing'' of her baby and to protect herself so that 
maybe there would be another attempt and she could become pregnant 
again.
  To her shock, her doctors in Texas told her that there was nothing 
they could do because of the State's new anti-abortion law--laws that 
threaten doctors with fines up to $100,000 and up to 99 years in prison 
and losing their medical license.
  Amanda's doctors tried to find another hospital nearby that could 
possibly help her. Those hospitals all had the same response: Because 
of Texas's new anti-abortion law, they refused to do anything to 
provide care for Amanda.
  She told our committee:

       People have asked why we didn't get on a plane or in our 
     car to go to a state where the laws aren't so restrictive. 
     But we live in the middle of Texas, and the nearest 
     ``sanctuary'' state is at least an 8-hour drive. Developing 
     sepsis--which can kill quickly--in a car in the middle of the 
     West Texas desert or 30,000 feet above the ground is a death 
     sentence, and it's not a choice we should have had to even 
     consider. So all we could do was wait.

  She waited 3 agonizing days, developing a raging fever and 
dangerously low blood pressure. Sepsis had set in. Her husband rushed 
her to the hospital. Several hours later, her daughter arrived as 
predicted: stillborn. Amanda spent the next 3 days in intensive care in 
the hospital fighting for her own life. She has spent the last 8 months 
battling trauma and depression from this experience, as well as the 
medical fallout from delayed treatment, including complications which 
may make it difficult for her ever to bear a child.
  That is the new law in Texas. It almost killed her.
  During last week's hearing, we also heard from Dr. Nisha Verma. She 
is an OB/GYN. She has chosen to stay in practice in Georgia despite 
knowing that ``Georgia's laws threatened to make [her] a criminal for 
providing lifesaving care to her patients.''
  Dr. Verma told our committee:

       Imagine looking someone in the eye and saying: ``I have all 
     the skills and the tools to care for you, but our state's 
     politicians have told me I can't [lift a finger.]''

  She reminded us that the United States already has the highest 
maternal mortality rate of any wealthy nation. Restrictive abortion 
laws, she said, are making pregnancy even more dangerous for American 
women.
  Regrettably, some of our Republican colleagues tried to make last 
week's hearing about something they called ``late-term abortions'' and 
``partial-birth abortions,'' both medically inaccurate terms. In their 
fearmongering, what they neglected to note is that abortions after 21 
weeks of pregnancy account for less than 1 percent of abortions in 
America, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
  They also failed to acknowledge that in the very rare instance when 
abortion happens late in pregnancy, it is generally because a woman's 
life is in danger or a fatal fetal anomaly has been discovered--or 
because a woman wasn't able to get the abortion earlier due to 
restrictive State laws.
  And as Dr. Verma correctly noted, hypotheticals of patients seeking 
an abortion until the moment of birth ``does not reflect the reality of 
abortion . . . It simply doesn't happen,'' this doctor said.
  For nearly 50 years, abortion opponents said their only goal was to 
return the right to decide abortion laws to the States. It is now clear 
that that was not true; dismantling Roe v. Wade was always the first 
step.
  The real goal is to systematically strip away access to abortion 
nationwide, and that is exactly what they are trying to do. For 
example, many congressional Republicans submitted a brief urging one 
Federal judge in Texas to issue a nationwide injunction blocking the 
use of a medication abortion pill, mifepristone, a drug the FDA 
approved more than 20 years ago, found to be safe and effective--safer 
than Tylenol.
  Congress needs to stop this chaos. The bill, Women's Health 
Protection Act, will restore the protection of abortion access across 
the country, consistent with Roe v. Wade.
  That testimony about what that young mother went through in Texas was 
an eye-opener. I couldn't help but think of my own daughter and my 
family and what I would have done if she was in a situation where she 
faced death and had to be sicker for the doctors to finally act and 
save her life.
  She waited 3 days in that intensive care unit to finally survive and 
go on with her life, but her life may never be the same. I pray that 
she will have an opportunity to have another child someday.
  But it gets down to the bottom line, Mr. President--and I think you 
understand as well as I do. I am an attorney; I am not a doctor. And if 
I am asked to make a decision about something as complicated as what to 
do with a 10-year-old who happens to have been a victim of rape and 
pregnant, I am going think twice and ask people who know what to do for 
a living, medically trained people, who can make the right decision for 
the people who are involved in that process.
  To sit here in State after State and have these decisions being 
made--for instance, to say you can't have an abortion anytime after 6 
weeks of a pregnancy--I know enough about that experience from my own 
family experience that many women will never know the answer to that 
question in the first 6 weeks, and yet the law is being written by 
politicians and legislators who think they know better. Many of them 
couldn't consider passing any courses in medical school, but they are 
going to write the medical law now. In fact, insert into the 
examination room and emergency room State-elected officials who are 
going to be hovering over those doctors and threatening them with 
hundred-thousand-dollar fines and 99 years in prison if they guess 
wrong.
  What have we come to in this country? I think the American people 
understand how desperate we are at this point with the chaos that we 
face. I can only hope that the election will make a difference. I think 
it will. I really sense that there is a realignment in this country. 
The women, in particular, but many families are deciding that the 
Republicans have just gone too far with the Dobbs decision. And what is 
happening across this country is not only chaotic, it is immoral. It is 
immoral to have a young woman like Amanda face death when she was 
trying to do everything possible to have a baby and be a mother and 
then have the terrible diagnosis which told her her child was not going 
to live. That is where we are today.
  I hope that the Senate Judiciary Committee can continue to bring this 
item before the American people so they can hear clearly what we face 
after the Dobbs decision by the Supreme Court.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S1454]]