[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 21, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2158-S2168]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TAX CONVENTION WITH CHILE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The treaty will be stated.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Treaty Document No. 112-8, Tax Convention with Chile
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Amendment No. 136
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 136.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an
amendment numbered 136.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
further reading of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To add an effective date)
At the end add the following:
SEC. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This resolution of ratification shall take effect on the
date that is 1 day after ratification.
Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1999
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, 1 year ago, the rightwing majority of the
U.S. Supreme Court overturned decades of established precedent and
stripped away the right to abortion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's
Health Organization decision.
In this decision, the Supreme Court overturned the right of the
American people to make decisions about their own bodies and their own
health. That is why, 1 year ago, I filed the Right to Contraception Act
with my colleagues Senators Duckworth, Hirono, Baldwin, and Murray, and
I stood here, much like I am today, to request unanimous consent to
pass our legislation. The House of Representatives passed the bill by a
bipartisan vote of 220 to 195 at that time. Unfortunately, the
Republicans in this Chamber chose to block its passage.
Here is just a short list of what has befallen us since that time.
District court judges have blocked teens from accessing birth control
at federally funded clinics and taken aim at health insurance coverage
for contraception. Extremist State legislators have restricted,
criminalized, and stigmatized reproductive care, including by
suspending payments for emergency contraception for survivors of sexual
assault. And people are left paying more, traveling further, and
working harder to get essential medication.
The threats to contraception are real and happening now. So I stand
here today, once again, to invite every Member of the Senate to join
me, Senator Duckworth, Senator Hirono, Senator Baldwin, Senator Murray,
and the 35 additional cosponsors to pass the Right to Contraception
Act.
Cosponsoring this bill means that you support codifying the right to
obtain and use contraception; enshrining Supreme Court precedent into
Federal law, guaranteeing a healthcare provider's right to prescribe
these products and services and to share information related to them;
preventing the Federal Government and States from interfering with the
right to contraception; and authorizing the U.S. Attorney General,
healthcare providers, and all Americans harmed by unlawful restrictions
to go to court to enforce the rights this bill establishes--because
there is no right without a remedy.
Passing the Right to Contraception Act means setting the bare minimum
standard that the right to contraception should be protected even if
the Supreme Court, once again, overturns settled precedent.
Nine in ten Americans support the right to contraception. This is not
just a moral duty but part of our duty to represent the will of the
American people. The right to contraception is central to life,
liberty, and freedom. This is for every person who wants to live
without politicians in their homes and waiting rooms, especially women,
Black, Brown, indigenous, LGBTQ+, rural, immigrant, low-income, and
disabled Americans most impacted by the failures of this Supreme Court.
With the right to abortion stolen and the right to contraception now
threatened, I urge my colleagues to stand with us and to pass today the
Right to Contraception Act.
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. 1999 and the Senate proceed
to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered
read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this bill is
not about contraception; it is about abortion.
The bill defines ``contraception'' as ``any drug, device, or
biological product intended for use in the prevention of pregnancy,
whether specifically intended to prevent pregnancy or for other health
needs, that is approved by the FDA.''
The FDA has approved dangerous chemical abortion drugs that can also
be used as contraceptives off-label. There is a huge difference between
a drug that blocks fertilization and a drug that can end a life.
This bill also includes a provision that would act as a guaranteed
earmark for Planned Parenthood. Under the bill, the government could
not directly fund a health organization unless it provides abortion
drugs.
Finally, this bill does not respect freedom of conscience for
healthcare providers. It would no longer allow for religious exemptions
for organizations that have deeply held objections to providing
abortions.
The bill uses intentionally vague language to hide its ulterior
motive of protecting access to abortion drugs. For these reasons, I
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. This is an issue that we are going to return to. Justice
Thomas, in his comments on the Dobbs decision, said that the decisions
made by the Supreme Court that extended privacy rights were an
overreach. This Supreme Court began with the Dobbs decision. It is very
clear, because he mentioned it specifically, that the Griswold
decision--the decision to, in fact, protect the right to
contraception--is also now in the crosshairs of the Supreme Court. So
it is imperative that we return to this law to begin the process of
passing legislation to codify this protection for Americans.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2053
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, this Saturday marks 1 year since the
Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade at the urging of extremist
politicians upending 50 years of precedent protecting women's right to
healthcare.
In the year since that decision, half the States in our country have
banned or effectively banned access to abortion. Women in those States
have extremely limited options for getting the healthcare they need.
Those who can afford to travel have no choice but to go to other States
to receive critical reproductive care.
That is what happened to Lauren Hall. She and her husband were
excited that she was pregnant for the first time. But then she learned
that her fetus was developing without a skull--a condition that meant
it wouldn't survive. This condition also increased Lauren's risk of
hemorrhaging. Her doctors at home in Texas refused to help her
terminate the pregnancy, so she had to travel to Seattle, where she was
finally able to get the abortion care that she needed. She is currently
[[Page S2159]]
suing the State of Texas for refusing to give her potentially
lifesaving medical care.
We knew that after the Dobbs decision, stories like Lauren's would
only happen more often and millions of women would lose the healthcare
they need. Even before Roe fell, healthcare organizations in Nevada
were prepared for an influx of women from out of State who needed
abortion services.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh recognized this too. In his concurring
opinion, he indicated that women who have to leave their home State to
get the care they need would be protected by the constitutional right
to interstate travel.
But we could see from miles away in Nevada that the far right would
never stop plotting to roll back women's rights even further. In the
last year alone, we have seen extremist Republicans try to stop women
in our military from getting the healthcare they need. They have come
after safe and effective birth control, and they have even supported a
Federal abortion ban to outlaw reproductive care in all 50 States. And
now we are seeing far-right extremists actively work to bar women from
seeking care in States outside their own.
Let's be clear: This is about controlling women. The far right
doesn't trust women to make their own healthcare decisions, so they
think those decisions should be made by politicians instead. Well, I
don't know about some of my colleagues across the aisle, but I don't
think elected officials should be telling women what to do with their
bodies, and neither do the vast majority of Nevadans.
We are a proud pro-choice State. Back in 1990, Nevadans
overwhelmingly voted to codify a woman's right to choose. And, today,
over two-thirds of Nevadans believe that a woman's healthcare decisions
are between her and her doctor, and that is across all parties--
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.
But even though Nevada is a safe place for women who need healthcare,
far-right Republicans living outside my State are telling women: Oh,
no, sorry. We are making it illegal for you to go there.
This April, Idaho became the first State to make it a criminal
offense for someone to help an individual traveling out of State to
seek an abortion. And elected officials in States like Tennessee,
Texas, and Missouri are trying to punish women for leaving their State
for reproductive care, as well as anyone who helps them, including
their doctors or even their employers.
This is why my colleagues and I are reintroducing the Freedom to
Travel for Health Care Act. One year after Roe v. Wade was overturned,
we need this bill more than ever. Our legislation reaffirms that women
have a fundamental right to interstate travel and makes crystal clear
that States cannot prosecute women--or anyone who helps them--for going
to another State to get the critical reproductive care that they need.
We are talking about upholding a constitutional right to allow women
to travel outside their home State. Now, why do some of my anti-choice
colleagues want to restrict women from moving freely between States?
The answer is simple: They don't trust women to have control over their
own bodies.
Well, I do. And I am going to keep doing everything in my power to
protect women, not just in Nevada but in every State across the
country. We must pass the Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act.
So, Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent
that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further
consideration of S. 2053 and the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration; further, the bill be considered read a third time and
passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon
the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there is an
obsession on the left with abortion. It is becoming all-encompassing,
infecting conversations that we have in the Senate on everything from
the military to the Department of Veterans Affairs to phantom State
laws that don't even exist.
Judges have to bow their policy objectives if they want to be
appointed in this administration. Or those who are already on the
bench, if they don't bow their policy objectives, if they don't bow to
the abortion-centric, abortion-obsessed culture on the left, then all
of a sudden, they are going to face these baseless attacks to their
credibility and even threats of violence.
This bill, properly understood, really should be called the ``Freedom
to Traffic Act.'' You see, to my knowledge, no State--not a single
State--has enacted a law restricting an adult's right to travel across
State lines for purposes of an abortion or otherwise. I am not even
aware of a single State considering such a thing.
And if a State were to even consider it, they wouldn't do it. And if
they did do it, social law would undoubtedly be struck down as
unconstitutional on one of at least several grounds, including the fact
that the commerce clause, article I, section 8, clause 3 of
Constitution has interpreted by the Supreme Court--among other things--
to prohibit any State from treating an article of commerce--including a
good, a person, a thing--in interstate commerce differently based on
its origin or designation, out of State or outside the United States.
States can't cabin their own residents or anyone inside their own
State boundaries. That is well-understood. So they don't have that
authority. But more importantly, we are dealing with a phantom problem,
a phantom law that does not exist. There is not a single State law out
there that restricts an adult's right to travel out of State for an
abortion or otherwise.
What some States do have, and perhaps that is what is causing the
confusion here, are some laws to stop the trafficking of children
across State lines to obtain an abortion without notifying their
parents.
This is well-established. We have laws on the books prohibiting the
trafficking of minors across State lines with good reason. This is very
different than what was implied as a reason why we need to pass this
bill here today. It just isn't true. Those laws don't exist. They are
not on the books. They are not even being considered to be placed on
the books.
These laws are aimed to stop the sexual abuse of children by
prohibiting their adult abusers and those in the abortion industry to
help facilitate that abuse by transporting them across State lines for
the purpose of obtaining an abortion and thus hiding the fact that they
got an abortion from their parents.
There are good reasons for these laws. In 2004, for example, the 14-
year-old daughter of Marcia Carroll was taken by her boyfriend's family
from their home in Pennsylvania, where they lived, to New Jersey--New
Jersey, where parental consent for an abortion was not required at the
time. There, once in New Jersey, they threatened to leave her in New
Jersey unless she got an abortion, which she did, under duress, under
coercion, afraid. The grief and devastation crushed this 14-year-old
girl and her family, who had agreed to keep the baby.
This so-called Freedom to Traffic Act would hamper the ability of
States to punish such criminal and cowardly actions. I don't think
there is anyone here who can defend that--trafficking a child across
State lines for purposes of obtaining an abortion.
Sadly, this is not an isolated incident--far from it. We know from
undercover videos, testimony from other courageous victims and reports
from former employees that Planned Parenthood actively works to hide
these child sexual abuse instances--covering up for adult abusers by
providing their child victims with abortions and failing to report
abuse.
This, again, is another thing that happens. Not only do we distort
the facts, not only do we distort the status quo of the law in this
country, but we also distort key facts when people become obsessed with
abortion, and they see abortion as if it were, somehow, an unmitigated
good.
This bill was just barely introduced in the Senate--I believe as
recently as yesterday. This bill has not been through any committee. It
has not been marked up in the committee of jurisdiction--the Senate
Judiciary Committee, on which I serve. But Democrats think we should
just pass it
[[Page S2160]]
anyway. I guess maybe they are channeling the now infamous words of
former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi when she said ``We have to
pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.''
This isn't how we legislate, and we certainly shouldn't be
legislating when we haven't reviewed the bill, it hasn't been through
committee, we don't know what it says, and the bill's proponents are
badly mischaracterizing what it does and why we need it.
On that basis, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Nevada.
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, as was already pointed out, the
Constitution does protect the right to travel in this country, and
there is no doubt that the Supreme Court has made that precedent clear.
But constitutional rights don't enforce themselves. And my colleagues
on the far right only cloak themselves in the Constitution when it
suits them, and right now, it really doesn't suit them. That is why
far-right Republicans in State legislatures across the country are
working on and passing laws specifically focused on restricting a
woman's right to travel for reproductive healthcare--something I
noticed my colleague from Utah seemed to ignore--Tennessee, Texas,
Missouri, or some of those States.
At the end of the day, let me just touch on this idea that somehow
this legislation is focusing on trafficking of individuals for sexual
exploitation. Now, again, this is a perfect example of some of the far-
right Republicans--when they really can't argue the facts and the law
of something, then they just make things up or they throw inflammatory
arguments out there to try to scare individuals.
But let me just make this clear. As a former attorney general who
worked and continues to work on human trafficking issues that address
the sexual exploitation of adults and minors, this is not trafficking.
And I would say to my colleague in Utah, who knows better, that sexual
exploitation of individuals that this country needs to address, along
with many other countries--and we have passed laws to protect
individuals--this is not it.
What I do know is, instead of addressing the true issue before us,
which is, why can't women be free to travel from a State that has
restricted their right to abortion to my State, where we have chosen to
allow them to get the healthcare they need, the essential healthcare--
it is always fascinating to me that I hear, on the far right, my
colleagues say it is always about States' rights; it is about States'
rights; this is a States' rights issue.
Dobbs basically said in its decision this is a States' rights issue,
but then, when it doesn't suit what they care about, the far right
says: Well, forget those States' rights. Only listen to what we as
elected officials determine you should have. Ignore what Nevada has
done. Ignore the Democrats, the Republicans, the Independents, the men
and the women in Nevada who chose to codify the right of a woman to
choose and seek essential healthcare. Ignore that completely.
That is what this legislation is about. It is about trusting women
and giving them the ability to come to a State like Nevada to seek
essential healthcare for their reproductive rights.
Again, I constantly hear this emotional argument about--and my
colleague from Utah, whom I respect, but he said this--the left somehow
has an obsession with abortion. It is outrageous, outrageous,
inflammatory talk. What we do have an obsession with is freedom and
that every American in this country, whether you are a man or a woman,
should have that freedom, and it shouldn't be taken away from you by
elected officials who think they know better about your healthcare than
you do, who think that they can restrict in their State your access to
healthcare, that they can jeopardize your healthcare and your decisions
about your family and your future because they think they know better.
Mr. President, I just think it is outrageous that one simple thing
that we cannot agree to in this Congress in a bipartisan way is that
women should have that fundamental freedom to travel for their
healthcare needs without being restricted, without being called names,
without being fearful, and we should be protecting those doctors and
the healthcare decisions to do that.
I will say one final thing. We have worked hard in this country to
evolve so that all our medical care is some of the best. We are
fighting right now to make sure that we have access to technology, that
we have access to medical care. We do the research. We do the
development. We have the medical care of the 21st century.
What my far-right Republicans are telling women across this country
is, you can't access that medical care for the 21st century. Do you
know why? Because we think that we should hold you back to the 19th
century. We want to politicize this, and we want to take away your
rights, and so we are going to take you back to the 19th century.
It is outrageous--outrageous that we have to be here in this day and
age. Over 50 years of Roe v. Wade and not one issue that we can see
impeded anybody's rights here, for women across this country and this
fundamental freedom about reproductive rights.
So I am disappointed, but I will tell you what, Mr. President, this
is an issue you are going to see all of us, one after another, continue
to fight. This is an essential fight for women in this country and
their rights and their freedom to choose--the freedom to choose and not
have somebody else dictate what they should or shouldn't do with their
bodies; not to have somebody else dictate, based on whatever their
religion is or their rights, that they know better than somebody living
in an issue that is so personal to them, that they can be dictated to
in this day and age.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is important to point out that this
legislation makes no distinction between those covered by it, whether
they are children or adults, and that is my whole point, is that one of
the problems with this is that it would block the effectiveness of
State statutes that are there to protect children against interstate
trafficking for the purpose of getting them abortions in another State
without the knowledge or consent of their parents. That is an issue.
Yes--and I do maintain--I am not aware of a single State law that
prohibits a woman from traveling out of State, an adult woman from
traveling out of State. If such a law exists, I am not aware of it, and
if it exists despite my nonawareness of it, it is unenforceable. It
would be deemed invalid instantaneously. You can't do that.
But what this would do, since it makes no distinction between
children and adults, is it would halt the operation of these States'
State laws designed to protect children from interstate trafficking for
the purpose of obtaining an abortion, which is very often necessary in
order to conceal child sex perpetrators and child traffickers and what
they are doing.
Now, my colleague and friend from Nevada, the distinguished Senator
from Nevada, referred to this--kept characterizing the ``far right.''
Now, to my knowledge, nearly every Republican in this Chamber is pro-
life. There are a few variations along the way, but nearly all of us
are pro-life. To call all of us far right is excessive, and it is
unfair. It is unfair especially because there is a mischaracterization
also of why we believe what we believe. At least I can tell you what I
believe about this.
She refers to States' rights. I never call it that. Why? Well,
because States don't have rights; States have authority. Authority is
sort of the inverse polar opposite of a right. A right is something
that you have that protects you from actions by the State, by the
government, protects you from the authority of the collective, coercive
force that is government. So they aren't States' rights; this is State
authority. And that is really how we arrived here. That is really where
we have been for the last half-century.
While people are, on the left, bemoaning the depravation of a right,
I challenge each of them to tell me where in the Constitution it talks
about abortion. Of course, the word ``abortion'' doesn't appear in the
Constitution, but what part of the Constitution actually confers that
right? That is the problem we are getting at
[[Page S2161]]
here, and that is what I would like to address here for a moment.
You see, because in Washington, it sometimes starts to feel like we
are up against an immovable object and where progress is measured in
inches and then victories are sparse and hard-fought, and occasionally
the tides turn and something significant happens and there is a seismic
shift.
One year ago, we experienced such a seismic shift when the Supreme
Court issued its landmark decision in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson
Women's Health. But to fully appreciate the significance of that
historic moment and that decision, we must first understand the journey
that got us to this point in the first place. So let's rewind the clock
50 years, all the way back to 1973, when the Supreme Court handed down
its ruling in Roe v. Wade, a decision that--to say that it legalized
abortion doesn't really capture the image. It centralized power in
Washington, DC, over abortion policy decisions, and then it kept that
power not in the legislative branch of the Federal Government based in
Washington, DC, but across the street at the Supreme Court in nine
lawyers wearing black robes who have been sworn in as Justices, by
removing the American people's ability to make decisions through their
duly-elected lawmakers regarding abortion. It was a moment that
completely reshaped the American people's ability to impact abortion
policy.
So for nearly five decades after that decision, this power to
determine abortion policy rested ultimately with the Supreme Court.
Sure, the Supreme Court would leave enough wiggle room to leave the
impression that lawmakers--primarily at the State level, of course--
could make law, but the Supreme Court was constantly inventing and
reinventing what the standard was, what was and what was not a
permissible restriction on abortion.
You see, this is what happens when you make up a nonexistent
constitutional right, when you just decide that something is really
important, that you feel so strongly about it that it must be in there,
that it has to be in the Constitution because it is so important. When
you take away the constitutional text from the words of the document,
all of a sudden, you are left in this sort of no-man's land where you
have to make things up as you go along.
The result was chaos--49\1/2\ years of chaotic manipulation at will
of the law. A State would do one thing; the Supreme Court would strike
it down. Another State would do something slightly different; the
Supreme Court would uphold it, sometimes changing the standards along
the way.
But in Dobbs, the Supreme Court recognized the constitutional
importance of keeping the power with the people, affirming that they
have a legitimate interest in protecting the lives of the unborn and
that they possess the authority to enact laws that reflect their
values.
You see, remember a moment ago when we talked about the difference
between authority and rights. They are the opposite of each other.
Rights protect you from authority.
So when the Supreme Court decided as a matter of policy that it was
so passionate about abortion in 1973 that it had to be in the
Constitution, they effectively wrote it into the Constitution even
though it is not there. They made it utterly impossible for people's
elected representatives--either in their State legislative bodies,
entities of local government, or, where appropriate, in Congress--to
make most of the laws, and ultimately those were all subject to the
will and the whim and the caprice of the Supreme Court. They did that
because they deemed it part of the Constitution. But when you just deem
something a part of the Constitution, that doesn't make it a part of
the Constitution.
I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who once asked rhetorically the
question: If you call the tail of a dog a leg, how many legs does the
dog have?
He asked the question.
Someone answered: Five.
He said: No. Wrong. It is still four. Just because you call the tail
a leg doesn't make it a leg. The dog still has four legs.
This is still the Constitution. There still is nothing in here that
says, by the way, that people can't make laws to protect the lives of
the unborn unless the Supreme Court decides that they are permissible
based on its own meandering standards ultimately untethered from the
text of the Constitution or from 400 years of Anglo-American legal and
jurisprudential tradition.
So in Dobbs, they restored this power back to the people. In Dobbs,
it reaffirmed the fundamental belief that every human life is sacred,
and every human life is deserving of protection. In Dobbs, the Court
recognized the decisions of deeply personal and morally significant
matters should be made closest to the people they affect.
Unfortunately, in the wake of Roe, we have witnessed a really dark
chapter in our Nation's history. This decision wrongly declared that
abortion was a right, despite no mention of it anywhere in the
Constitution. A decision ushered in a new era, one that forced us to
tolerate some of the most barbaric of practices: late-term abortions,
gruesome procedures that practically no American supports became a
stain on our society.
Even as those cases were litigated, the gruesome procedures were
described, some of the most hardened lawyers could barely tolerate
mentioning or even listening to the words describing the procedures.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Will the Senator yield for a question about how long
he plans to speak, just for the convenience of others?
Mr. LEE. Sure. I anticipate I will be finished within 5 minutes.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I appreciate that very much. Thank you.
Mr. LEE. We refuse to accept this as the new status quo. We knew
something had gone terribly, terribly wrong.
The Dobbs decision brought us a glimmer of hope. It reaffirmed the
fundamental belief that every human life really is sacred and is
deserving of protection and is capable of being protected within our
constitutional system.
Finally, we are empowered to exercise our constitutional prerogative
and resume our efforts to protect the lives of the unborn and end these
unspeakable horrors.
And so this issue of States' rights--again, these are not States'
rights. That is oxymoronic. And we call it federalism, State authority.
So this victory of Dobbs, it is not just a victory for States'
sovereign authority; it is also a victory for humanity because when we
are told by the judicial branch of government, contrary to fact that
the Constitution tells us that we cannot, may not, must not protect
unborn human life, that really does grave damage to humanity.
The victory in Dobbs is a reminder that we can't afford to turn a
blind eye to the moral and ethical implications of our laws. We must
proceed in a way that protects the innocent and defend against the
atrocities allowed under this lofty-sounding but ultimately barbaric
platitude of choice.
Even with this victory, we still have a long way to go. Contrary to
the assertions of many on the Democratic side of the aisle, the Dobbs
decision did not make abortion illegal. It did nothing of the sort.
While many States have passed laws that protect preborn children--and
I applaud them for doing so--others have expanded their abortion laws.
Late-term and partial-birth abortions are still a reality in many
States. This isn't something that I celebrate. I disagree with those
laws. But I don't live in those States. And the important thing is that
the people in those States are making those laws. And most of the time,
it is in the States, and not here in Congress, where things not
rendered Federal by the Constitution should be decided.
As we approach the 1-year anniversary of Dobbs, I believe we are
dutybound to remember the millions upon millions of innocent lives
lost, the pain and suffering endured, and the resilience of the men and
women who fought for those who could not fight for themselves, who have
no voice and therefore had to have others speak on their behalf.
We should be inspired to build a society where every life is
cherished, where compassion triumphs over convenience and cowardice,
and where the horrors of abortion become a distant memory, especially
the horrors of abortion forced upon us by a judicial oligarchy utterly
untethered from the text of the Constitution.
[[Page S2162]]
The Dobbs decision represented a turning point the moment when we
said: Enough is enough. Now we are positioned to acknowledge that every
life, from conception to natural birth, deserves our protection and our
compassion and our care. And, yes, in some States they are going to do
that differently than in others, but the fact that they are going to do
it differently in one State or another doesn't mean that they don't
deserve protection.
So as we celebrate this milestone, I hope we can remain committed to
this cause. Let us never forget the horrors hoisted upon us by Roe and
the significance of the Dobbs decision in restoring sanity and
compassion to the laws that guide our Nation. Together we can forge our
future, where the rights of the unborn are safeguarded, where the
dignity of every human being is cherished, and where the dark days of
the past remain only as reminders of our resolve to create a better
world.
In the face of adversity, remember that change is possible. Remember
that we possess the ability to achieve great things. Our Nation's
health and strength lie in the people's hands, and together we can
shape a future where every life is valued.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to support my
colleague and friend Senator Cortez Masto in her efforts to bring this
legislation not only to the floor but to passage.
This has been a long, long trail of broken promises and false
assertions. It began with the broken promises and false assertions of
judicial nominees who came before the Judiciary Committee to assure us
that the protections of Roe v. Wade were a precedent and that they
would respect precedent. Of course, that all evaporated.
We then heard the argument that this was ``States' rights.'' My
friend from Utah may not like the phrase, but it is one that his side
has used over and over and over again. Call it States' rights or call
it federalism, the notion was that all we were doing was opening this
up to States.
But you heard right here on the Senate floor that the notion that
every pregnancy is subject to the control of the government from the
moment of conception. That does not allow for a differentiation between
one State and another.
And now that the States' rights assertion has been proven false, now
that it is clear that there are many Members not only of Congress but
of State legislatures who want a nationwide ban on women's ability to
make these reproductive choices, it becomes clearer and clearer why
this particular bill is so important. It is only a matter of time until
we see those bills being voted on in legislatures, trying to
criminalize a citizen of one State if they go to another State to get
this kind of care or trying to create a nationwide abortion ban.
However you call it, it will intrude on the ability of women to go
and seek this care. And what we are seeing already is women with
troubled pregnancies, for whom there is an indicated treatment, unable
to get the treatment that medical science knows is the right treatment,
whether it is twins, one of whom isn't viable, or a woman's ability to
have further pregnancies if this one is not terminated, or the ability
of a woman to simply be treated for sepsis, for instance, before it
turns to life-threatening and not have to wait and look at the watch
and let her get sicker and sicker, knowing that the end is the same, in
any event, but putting her life and health at risk in order to allow
the will of a bunch of State legislators to turn up in the examination
room or the treatment room with her and her family and her doctor. For
all of these reasons--because the proponents of a nationwide abortion
ban, because the proponents of undoing Roe v. Wade, have simply been
incredible for too long--we simply have to assume the worst.
And this bill is an important and sensible way to make sure that if
the Presiding Officer's State or my State want to allow that freedom
for women, that women can come there and get the care that they need--
very often, in a troubled pregnancy, for their own or their future
children's or the siblings' well-being. So for all those reasons, I
wish we had the chance to vote on this and look forward to future
chances.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The Senator from Minnesota.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 631
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, as we know, this Saturday marks the
1-year anniversary of the day the U.S. Supreme Court decided to
overturn half a century of precedent on a woman's right to make her own
healthcare decisions.
I appreciate the remarks of my colleague from Rhode Island and all of
my colleagues who are here today.
When they made this decision, it went against the 70 to 80 percent of
Americans who believe that this decision should be made by a woman and
her family and her doctor and not by politicians. As a result, as we
predicted that day, women across the country are at the mercy of a
patchwork of State laws governing their ability to access reproductive
care.
In States like Texas, women have been forced to carry pregnancies for
days after learning that their baby would not survive because their
doctors can't legally provide care unless their life is at risk.
And then there was the heartbreaking story about the 10-year-old girl
in Ohio who had to go to Indiana to get an abortion after she was
raped--10 years old. People said it was some kind of a hoax. It wasn't.
It was real. And everyone in this Chamber knows it.
The Supreme Court's decision threatened women's health and freedom.
And to this day, it demands a legislative response, not a response
where the women of Texas are told that they have different rights. In
fact, no rights compared to women in Minnesota or even in our next-door
State of Wisconsin. Part of that is codifying Roe v. Wade into law.
That is true.
We must also address the full scope that women are facing, the full
scope of threats right now. Recent reports have illustrated how social
media companies are collecting and data brokers are selling location
data that could be used to identify women seeking reproductive
healthcare services.
We know that the collection of this data, we know that people on both
sides of the aisle understand that this has ramifications beyond women
seeking abortion care. They could have anyone, man or woman, seeking a
mental health provider, an addiction clinic, counseling therapy--all of
it--the rules are murky, and the data is being collected and sold.
That is why I am leading the UPHOLD Privacy Act with a number of our
colleagues, including Senator Warren and Senator Hirono. And that is
why I am seeking unanimous consent to pass this legislation.
Our bill sets commonsense limits on how companies can use people's
personal data. First, it bans data brokers from selling location data.
Women making their most personal healthcare decisions should be able to
go to their doctors' appointments and consult specialists without
worrying that the data about their location where they are going to be
or are will be purchased or sold.
Second, it says you can't use health data for commercial advertising
purposes, period. That means companies can't use data from fitness
trackers or browser histories to sell ads, all healthcare data.
Third, it gives consumers more say over how their personal healthcare
information is used by allowing them to request that their data be
deleted.
It also places limits on what health data companies can collect about
Americans. Consumers deserve to be in the driver's seat when it comes
to determining how their personal health data is used. This legislation
does just that.
It is past time that we update our privacy laws, in general, and I
hope we get that done by the end of this year. But we must also update
our health privacy laws to reflect the reality of how social media
platforms and data brokers are profiting off our data.
In a world without Roe, this couldn't be more urgent. I supported,
with a Republican, limits on this health data to begin with, and now,
as we are in this post-Roe world, as I know, it becomes even more
important.
I invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in
declaring that these Big Tech companies cannot sell
[[Page S2163]]
off, through data brokers, our private personal healthcare and that our
decisions should never be a tool for profit. This is not a radical
proposal. It is completely common sense.
As we get closer to marking a year without Roe v. Wade, I continue to
stand with my colleagues in the fight for reproductive freedom. We
stand firmly on the side of the American people who have come together,
time and time again, in Kentucky, in Michigan, in Montana, and in the
middle of the prairie in Kansas to defend reproductive rights. We will
not settle for a reality in which our daughters have fewer rights than
their mothers and their grandmothers.
As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from
further consideration of S. 631 and the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time
and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid
upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Madam President, this bill presents a solution in
search of a problem. Unfortunately, it appears that the intent of this
legislation is to treat abortion as healthcare, to prevent pro-life
entities from sponsoring ads designed to help provide women and girls
with trustworthy support during pregnancy, and to make it harder for
States to enforce their own laws protecting life and the most
vulnerable.
When it comes to ensuring patient privacy and healthcare, I believe
there are bipartisan solutions to be found that we can all agree on.
One-sided efforts to promote abortion are not the way for us to find
common ground on this issue.
I would also like to point out that this bill has not received a
hearing or markup in the Commerce Committee, which would be a great
opportunity to have.
I would like to turn now to recognize that this Saturday will mark
the first anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Dobbs
v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. I am incredibly proud that this
victory for the pro-life movement, reversing the moral stain of Roe v.
Wade, came out of my State of Mississippi. I am amazed and grateful
that in God's sovereign plan, a law introduced by my friend,
Mississippi State Representative Becky Currie, ultimately achieved what
I and so many have prayed for, for 50 years now, to restore the
sanctity of life.
My friend, Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, our State's
solicitor general, Scott Stewart, and the many others in the AG's
office worked tirelessly to represent our State's direct challenge to
Roe.
After a draft of the Dobbs majority opinion was shamefully leaked,
the conservative Justices resisted disgraceful intimidation tactics and
threats to their own lives. They stayed true to their judicial oaths to
uphold and defend the Constitution.
The Supreme Court recognized correctly in Dobbs that the Constitution
does not confer a right to abortion and that Roe was ``egregiously
wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it
was decided.''
While the Dobbs decision did not end abortion in America, it took a
monumental step in returning the issue back into the hands of the
people and their elected representatives. Today, as a result, 14 States
are protecting unborn children through all 9 months of pregnancy.
Several others now protect babies at the point where they have a
heartbeat, at 6 weeks, and still others at 12 weeks. One recent study
found that there were more than 24,000 unborn children saved from
abortion in the first 9 months since Dobbs. That is 24,000 miracles,
because that is what a child is--a miracle.
But it is not just the States that can protect life after Dobbs. We
in Congress also have a responsibility to protect life and stop the
Democrats' extreme pro-abortion agenda.
It saddens me deeply that Democrats in Congress continue to advocate
for appalling legislation that would impose legalized abortion on
demand up until to the moment of birth across all 50 States. Their
legislation is even more radical than Roe was and would eliminate even
the most modest pro-life protections, like parental involvement laws
and bans on sex-selective abortions. Democrats cannot name a single
limit on abortion they support--not one.
The American people, however, reject this extreme position. A new
Tarrance Group poll this month found that three-fourths of voters
oppose allowing abortions through all 9 months of pregnancy and support
at least some limits to abortion.
More Americans continue to reject abortion when they learn more about
the child in the womb--when they can hear the child's heartbeat, when
they can see them suck their thumbs and yawn in an ultrasound, and when
they learn that they can feel pain.
Despite this, the Biden administration's FDA and Department of
Justice continue to allow the abortion industry to obstruct the will of
pro-life States by illegally flooding the mail with do-it-yourself
abortion pills, turning post offices into abortion centers. These
actions not only endanger women's lives and their health, but they
violate longstanding Federal laws that clearly prohibit the mailing of
abortion drugs.
Finally, we also must advance policies to support pregnant mothers in
choosing life. In particular, we need to support the work of pregnancy
centers. More than 2,700 pregnancy centers across the country provide
critical medical and material support for women and families facing
unplanned pregnancies to choose life rather than abortion.
This is the promise of the Declaration of Independence: that all men
are created equal and endowed by their Creator with the inalienable
right to life.
Thanks to the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs, 1 year ago this
week, we can finally begin the hard work to make good on the promise
for unborn Americans too.
Finally, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Just a few specific responses. First of all, this bill
is very specific. It addresses health and location data, and, as I
noted before, I continue to believe that we need Federal privacy
legislation, in general, to address other privacy needs. But this bill
is targeted at sensitive health data when it comes to location.
And I know it was the conservative members of the Supreme Court who
actually issued the broad decision to overturn half a century of
precedent on a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions. And
this bill is a targeted response on one issue, and that is to set
commonsense limits on how companies can use people's personal data.
I just also wanted to respond to the issue of mifepristone, which was
temporarily thrown out by one judge in the State of Texas, and that is
now pending before several different courts. A different decision was
made in another court, in Washington State. But I will note that the
statute referred to, which would somehow limit this drug that was
approved by the FDA decades ago and has been found safe in dozens and
dozens of countries across the globe--that law that was referred to was
actually enacted, the Comstock Act in 1873--1873--when they treated
pneumonia with bloodletting, when the Pony Express existed, and, which
I know, is 10 years before they even did the ``Yellowstone'' prequel.
So if my colleagues want to move backward to that time period, those
are the laws they are citing. I believe the people of this country want
to move forward.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1297
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, listening to this debate today, I
can't believe we are having these debates in 2023. It is just stunning
to me that we are having to debate privacy and the ability to make your
own reproductive health decisions and all the ramifications for it. But
here we are.
So I rise today to speak up for American women, the doctors who care
for us, and our freedom to make our own healthcare decisions. What a
novel idea that, in the United States of America, we would be able to
make our own healthcare decisions.
[[Page S2164]]
But thanks to a radically conservative Supreme Court and radicals in
State legislatures, reproductive freedom is no longer a constitutional
right in the United States.
Roe v. Wade protected our freedoms for 50 years, until it didn't.
Nearly half of the 50 States have already banned abortion or are likely
to do that--half. And, sadly, this change is already making American
healthcare worse. It just breaks my heart to hear about the individual
situations of women.
In Michigan, fortunately, we are in a situation where the people of
Michigan have stood up for reproductive freedom. But to see the women
coming into Michigan, the people who are pregnant coming into Michigan,
who are coming in to get help that they can't get in their own State,
it just breaks my heart.
A poll of OB/GYNs released today by the independent health policy
research organization KFF shows the effects. Sixty-four percent of OB/
GYNs surveyed said that the Dobbs decision has increased pregnancy-
related deaths. Now think about that: 64 percent of the doctors--of the
OB/GYNs surveyed--said that this Supreme Court decision has increased
pregnancy-related deaths.
Seventy percent of OB/GYNs said that the Dobbs decision has made
racial and ethnic inequalities in healthcare worse. And 68 percent of
OB/GYNs--the doctors serving women--say that the Dobbs decision has
made it harder for them to manage their patients' pregnancy-related
emergencies, including women who desperately want their babies. They
are desperate for this. They want to have this child. And something
comes up, and it breaks their heart and their family's hearts. And
there is an emergency that may threaten their life, and doctors are
saying that it is harder for them to respond in an emergency.
Just think about that: 68 percent of doctors say that this Supreme
Court decision makes it harder for them to keep patients alive.
These doctors know what they need to do to save lives. In many
States, they are just not allowed to do it. How could that be in
America in 2023?
And even doctors in States like Michigan--and I am proud to say we
now protect reproductive freedom in our constitution, voted on by the
people of our State, overwhelmingly, last November. But even we aren't
immune from that.
A State law in Texas allows vigilantes to sue doctors even in States
where abortion is legal. So much for States' rights. And radicals in
other States are scrambling to pass similar legislation.
That is why we need the Let Doctors Provide Reproductive Healthcare
Act. Thank you to Senators Murray and Padilla and Lujan and Rosen for
leading this effort, and I am proud to be their partner, as we all are.
This bill would ensure that healthcare providers in States where
abortion is legal--States' rights; it is legal--can keep providing the
reproductive healthcare their patients need. And it would help protect
patients across the country who choose to access reproductive
healthcare in a State where it is legal.
I trust Michigan doctors. Michigan doctors know what their patients
need. What Michigan doctors and their patients don't need are Texas
legislators standing in their exam rooms.
It is time to pass this legislation to protect doctors and to protect
their patients. So, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous
consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further
consideration of S. 1297 and the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time
and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid
upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. BUDD. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I object to
S. 1297 for a simple reason: It would make it easier for unborn life to
be ended.
Last year's Dobbs decision brought renewed hope to Americans who
believe in the sanctity of each and every life, including life in the
womb. After 49 years, a new culture of life has begun to take hold
across our country. But this bill would actually take us backwards.
This bill would allow abortion on demand in pro-life States so long
as the patient is from another State. This bill would expose doctors
and nurses who work in religious organizations, clinics, and
hospitals--it would expose them to costly lawsuits if they stand by
their deeply held beliefs. This bill would violate the spirit of
bipartisan Hyde protections by providing 80 million taxpayer dollars to
the abortion industry.
I was elected to save as many unborn lives as possible, and this bill
puts more unborn lives in danger; therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, let me say two points to my colleague.
First, fundamentally, this is about who makes medical decisions. Do we
trust women? Do we trust the person who is pregnant? Do we trust their
ability to work with their doctor? Who makes the decision in the United
States of America? We stand with the women of America.
The second thing I will say is that it is so difficult for me to hear
over and over again about the sanctity of life when I lead the
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, where we have to fight
every day to make sure food is available for children who are born.
The House of Representatives just passed an agriculture
appropriations bill that gutted WIC, which is the Women, Infants, and
Children Program for newborn babies and moms, to get them started in a
healthy life.
When we can't pass quality standards for Medicaid births, which are
half the births of this country, because we have had objections on the
other side of the aisle for years about somehow having quality
standards for prenatal care and birth, it is very hard for me to listen
to the idea that we ought to be protecting--it is not just the unborn.
It is the born. It is the children. It is the moms. It is the quality
of life that we fight for every day, for food, healthcare, and so on.
So I find it very hard to listen to that language.
I am very disappointed that there is an objection to a bill that
would let doctors practice healthcare to protect women and babies.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, before she leaves the floor, let me say
to my seatmate on the Senate Finance Committee how much I appreciate
her passion and leadership on this critical issue.
I note that the Presiding Officer is also one of the outspoken
members on the committee on this issue.
This has been a terrific debate coming from our side, and I thank my
colleague for her comments.
It has been a year since the atrocious decision of Dobbs v. Jackson
Women's Health Organization. I remember reading the leaked decision in
the press early last May and realizing with dread that the Court was
going to strike down Roe v. Wade. My first reaction was that the Court
has set in motion a catastrophe for the health, safety, and privacy of
American women. To the horror of the 36 million women living in States
that have already banned abortion or are likely to ban access to
abortion, unfortunately, my prediction was right.
The Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs tossed out half a century of
legal precedent, curtailed the fundamental rights of women, and
jeopardized the health and safety of millions across the country. The
Court defied the American people, who are living with the grim reality
that some of the Nation's most powerful people are eager to violate
their privacy and their basic right to make their own decisions with
respect to healthcare.
So the last year has been a nightmare for millions of women in
America. It has been especially felt by those living in the more than
20 States that have passed laws banning or severely restricting access
to abortion.
The personal stories that you hear if you spend time listening are
gut-wrenching. Women in Texas who desperately wanted to be parents and
suffered pregnancy complications nearly died trying to access
lifesaving care. Yet they were told they weren't sick enough to get it.
Far-right politicians
[[Page S2165]]
are suing healthcare providers for providing care to a 10-year-old who
had been raped--raped--and was pregnant. The cruelty apparently is the
point.
I am proud to be from Oregon, where abortion remains legal. We have
some of the most pro-choice laws in the country for those seeking
reproductive health care. That is because, in Oregon, we understand
that people can make the best decisions for themselves and their
families. But even in Oregon, you can't take freedom for granted.
Extreme Republicans won't stop until they pass a national ban on
abortion, and they are trying.
A national 6-week ban was introduced in Congress right after the
Dobbs decision came out. Anti-abortion advocates sought out a lone
judge in Amarillo, TX, to ban mifepristone, which is widely and safely
used in medication abortions nationwide. The FDA approved the safe and
effective medication for dispensation more than 20 years ago. I
organized the first congressional hearings about this drug as a Member
of the other body in 1990. This effort was never based on some extreme
or some political agenda; it was based on one proposition--that science
ought to be making the judgments and not politics.
I came to the Senate floor in February and called on the
administration to do everything it could to keep the lifesaving
medication on the market. Thankfully the far-right extremists haven't
won yet, but, as a number of my colleagues have said today correctly,
we are not home-free as that case moves through the courts.
Contrary to what Justice Kavanaugh told us in concurrence of Dobbs,
anti-abortion zealots are not leaving these matters up to the States.
Several States are trying to restrict freedom of movement,
criminalizing women who travel to other States for an abortion or even
the person who gives them a ride. Think about that. You can't sugarcoat
that. They are talking about enacting laws that reach beyond State
borders, and that hearkens back to some very dark days in our history.
This has always been about control, and one speaker after another on
our side has said that through the course of the day. This is about
politicians inserting themselves in exam rooms and in the private
decisions about whether and when to start a family.
I care about this issue for several reasons. Right at the heart of my
concern is Americans' right to privacy. That right to privacy is what
makes America, America.
As women grapple with the strictest State laws that threaten their
health and take away their privacy, they also face a crisis of digital
privacy and what we have come to call uterus surveillance. Governments
are weaponizing the most personal and private data about women's bodies
and healthcare and using it against them. I and a number of colleagues
on our side have been sounding this alarm for years that location data
leached from phone apps is ripe for abuse. States where extremists have
restricted or banned abortion--that goes straight to a five-alarm
crisis.
We also know that shady data brokers have tracked women to and from
Planned Parenthood centers. They have and will sell this information to
anybody with a credit card. And in States where abortion is illegal,
anything women say or read online can be used against them. Researching
birth control online, updating a period tracking app, even just
carrying a phone into the doctor's office--you name it--it is potential
evidence for the prosecution. The possibilities are endless and
frightening.
As to our laws governing women's sensitive private health data, as we
think about what is ahead, we have to recognize that those laws have
been outdated and weak for decades. I commend the administration for
drawing attention to this issue and being interested in shoring up
loopholes in our laws.
More has to be done. We have seen over this past year that Republican
State attorneys general and Governors are ready and willing to discard
women's privacy in their quest to prohibit access to reproductive
health care.
This has been a horrific year, but as my colleagues have said on the
floor this afternoon, we are going to be resolute. All the bills that
the group led by Senator Murray, my colleague, the President of the
Senate--they are common sense. They are common sense, the package that
my colleagues have offered today for unanimous consent. They go a long
way toward protecting women and healthcare providers.
I just want my constituents to know and I want my colleagues here in
the Senate to know I am on the program. I don't think this is the time
when we can even take for granted any of these concerns--not a one. The
whole question of access to healthcare, the right to privacy, making
sure that States' rights really mean States' rights and not tracking
people down across the country--these are all priorities that my
colleagues have laid out very, very well.
As long as I have the honor to represent Oregon in the U.S. Senate, I
am going to be working with all of them.
The fact is, as we close--and it seems like we are getting ready to
wrap up--I think it is clear that the American people are on the side
of my colleagues over here who have spoken today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Right to Contraception Act
Ms. BALDWIN. Madam President, earlier this afternoon, my colleague
Senator Markey asked unanimous consent to advance the Right to
Contraception Act. There was an objection heard, but I wanted to come
to the floor to voice my strong support as a cosponsor of the Right to
Contraception Act.
Across the country, women are frightened. They are frightened that
after decades of progress in advancing their rights and freedoms, they
are watching an activist Supreme Court ignore precedent and strip away
their rights and freedoms.
For nearly six decades, American women have come to rely on their
right to control when and if they are going to have a family, including
through the use of contraception. In fact, about 90 percent of women in
the United States have used contraception.
In 1965, the Supreme Court correctly decided Griswold v. Connecticut,
reaffirming that our Constitution guarantees the right to privacy. This
particular case was over a Connecticut law that banned the use of
contraception and imposed penalties, including up to 1 year in prison
for doing so. The Supreme Court correctly overruled the law as an
invasion of the right to privacy and determined that Americans could
use contraception should they choose without government interference.
At the time, the majority opinion reasoned that there were many
implied rights that Americans have within the Constitution. On a basic
level, this is obvious. Not every single right we are due could be
written into our Constitution. So this concept of ``implied rights'' is
the foundation for various rights that Americans have come to rely on
and, frankly, never think twice about, like the right to learn a
foreign language or to travel across State lines or to live with your
own family.
Famously, 8 years after Griswold was decided, the Supreme Court used
a similar legal foundation--the constitutional right to privacy--to
rightly decide in Roe v. Wade that women in the United States have the
right to abortion care.
But, despite Roe being the law of the land for nearly 50 years and
``settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled to respect
under principles of stare decisis,'' according to Supreme Court Justice
Brett Kavanaugh, it was thrown out the window.
This Saturday will mark the 1-year anniversary since this activist
Supreme Court--crafted, of course, by anti-choice Republican
politicians--stripped 22 million women and counting of their freedom to
control their bodies, families, and futures; 1 year since women lost
the right to an abortion nationwide; 1 year since women in my home
State of Wisconsin were sent back to 1849--and I didn't misstate that,
1849--living under an archaic law that effectively criminalizes all
abortion procedures; 1 year since women in America became second-class
citizens.
Sadly, that fateful decision that overturned Roe v. Wade put more of
Americans' rights on the chopping block.
In Justice Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion, he explicitly said
that the rationale used to overturn Roe should be used to overturn
cases establishing
[[Page S2166]]
the right to contraception, the right to same-sex consensual relations,
and same-sex marriage. Justice Thomas wrote that the Court ``should
reconsider'' all three of these decisions, saying the Supreme Court had
a duty to correct the error in these decisions.
He was essentially providing an open invitation to litigators across
the country to bring their cases to the Court, inevitably instilling
fear among millions of Americans.
Let that sink in.
With the right to abortion care already ripped away from tens of
millions of Americans, a Supreme Court Justice essentially asked for
someone to bring him a case so he could rip away one of the only tools
many women have left to control if and when to have a family--that
being having access to contraception.
Americans have spoken loudly and clearly that they do not believe
that a woman's right to control her own body is an error or that the
freedom for someone to love whom they love is an error. We cannot rely
on an activist Supreme Court to protect our rights and freedoms.
Congress must act.
So I stand here, with the backing of 9 in 10 Americans who support
access to all forms of birth control, to call for the Senate to listen
to our constituents and pass the Right to Contraception Act. Our
legislation is simple and common sense. It would guarantee the legal
right for individuals to get and use contraception, and it would stop
politicians or the government from trying to get in the way, and that
is it.
Americans want the right and freedom to control their own
reproductive healthcare without interference from judges or
politicians. In my home State of Wisconsin, where women are already
living under an 1849 criminal abortion ban, access to contraception is
absolutely essential. Every person should have the right to control
their own bodies, families, and futures no matter where they live.
Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who advocated for the
right to privacy, called it ``the right to be left alone.''
So I stand here to reiterate this sentiment and to tell Washington to
pass our legislation and give women the right to be left alone.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Abortion
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, 1 year ago, Americans lost a
constitutional right for the first time in history, and they didn't
just lose it--Republicans ripped it away.
Just 1 year now after the Dobbs decision, more than 22 million women
have lost their right to an abortion, and no corner of our country has
been spared from the fallout. Abortion providers in States where
abortion is legal, like in my home State of Washington, are being
overworked and just totally overwhelmed with patients who have had to
wait weeks and travel hundreds of miles to get an abortion.
Then there is the wave of other appalling Republican attacks on
abortion: proposals to charge grandmas and older sisters with human
trafficking if they drive a minor out of State for an abortion,
prosecute abortion providers--doctors--as criminals, ban emergency
contraceptives like Plan B, and let's not forget the partisan lawsuit
on mifepristone to rip safe medication abortion off the shelves in all
50 States.
You know, when you listen to patients about what this all means and
when you hear the actual stories--the nightmares--that Republicans are
putting women in this country through, they are heartbreaking: parents
driving miles and miles because their child was raped, their child is
pregnant, and abortion is banned in their State; doctors being forced
to forgo providing lifesaving care because they fear Republican
politicians will put them in jail for doing their jobs; women facing
miscarriages, left bleeding, unable to get the care they need for days
on end.
One woman learned that her fetus had no skull--had no chance of
survival--and she still could not get abortion care in her State.
Another woman learned that she had an ectopic pregnancy--a serious,
life-threatening condition. She was not able to get an abortion.
Instead, when she was at death's door, she ended up having to get a
hysterectomy. Why? Because Republican politicians decided that their
views mattered more than her health and mattered more than her family.
Let's be clear. The vast, overwhelming majority of Americans stand
with women and support the right to choose abortion. In every place
abortion rights were on the ballot last November--every single place--
abortion rights won. Still, the Republicans are ignoring their own
constituents and doubling down on their extreme anti-abortion politics.
Just now, when we tried to pass other basic protections--and I mean
the most simple, most straightforward protections imaginable,
protections that just say, yes, you can travel to another State for an
abortion; that, yes, doctors can provide an abortion in States where it
is legal without fear of being thrown into prison; that, yes, we will
protect the right to birth control; that, yes, we will keep your online
health and location data private so it cannot be used against you--the
Republicans said: No, we are not going to let you do that.
One Senator on the floor earlier said that legislation that restricts
a woman's right to travel is really about protecting minors from
trafficking. Seriously? That is outrageous, and I was absolutely--and I
mean absolutely--outraged to hear him say that. I hope that the
American people understand what those laws mean.
What it means is that a grandmother who is taking her 17-year-old
granddaughter--who was raped or who, maybe, just wants to make her own
personal healthcare decision--to a State where abortion is legal could
be jailed. States like Idaho have passed these laws that restrict
travel. What they do is hold the young women captive in their own State
and threaten anyone who might help them get the care they need with
time in prison. Those kinds of laws and proposals in other States are
an appalling attack on the rights of women and our most basic right as
Americans to travel freely within our own country.
I absolutely refuse to let a Senator or anyone twist the reality of
these truly heinous laws being passed to hold women captive and to
force them to stay pregnant no matter what.
Now, Republicans have basically adopted two approaches to the
healthcare crisis they have caused: one, to double down with
increasingly extreme, dangerous proposals or, two, to stick their heads
in the sand whether that means pretending this isn't a problem,
pretending it is not really their fault, or hoping it will fade away.
But there is just no forgetting the unforgivable pain the
Republicans' policies have caused.
There is no forgetting the fear of being pregnant when you don't want
to be or the heartbreak of learning a pregnancy is not viable or the
horror of learning it is life-threatening and knowing you have no
control over your body.
There is no forgetting the panic of calculating how many thousands of
miles you will have to travel to get care or how many days you will
have to take off of work and wonder how you can possibly get the care
you need and whether you will face legal action for doing so.
There is no forgetting being investigated for having a miscarriage or
for driving your kid across State lines to get an abortion or hearing
your doctor tell you they cannot act to save your life because they are
afraid of going to jail.
People across this country are facing those realities every single
day.
Women are heartbroken and terrified, but they are also mad. They are
determined, and they are speaking out. They are not going to settle for
a country where they don't have the fundamental freedom to decide what
happens to their own bodies--where their daughters and granddaughters
have fewer rights than they did just a few years ago--and neither am I.
We on the Democratic side are going to stand up and tell our stories.
We are going to make our voices heard, and we are going to fight here,
on this side, to restore the freedoms that Republicans took away.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, let me first salute my colleague from
the State of Washington. She has really shown extraordinary leadership
on this
[[Page S2167]]
and so many other issues. She asked us to gather today, on the first
anniversary of the Dobbs decision, to really reflect on what has
happened to America in 12 months.
I am saying that 2 months ago the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I
chair, held a hearing on the devastating consequences of the Dobbs
decision on the women and doctors who are affected by it. We did it 2
months ago because the news was pouring in of incidents which had to be
told and shared with the American people. Growing reports of chaos and
harm caused by that decision are so alarming that we decided to move up
our fact-finding to 2 months ago.
There was one witness I will never forget. One of the people we heard
from that day was Amanda Zurawski. She shared some of the most
heartbreaking testimony I have ever heard, and I have heard a lot.
Last August, in the second trimester of her pregnancy, Amanda
suffered a catastrophic medical condition which ensured that she would
lose her much loved and much longed-for baby. What is more, without
medical care to help manage her miscarriage, Amanda was in grave risk
of dying herself. But she was denied that medical care for one reason--
she lived in the wrong place--because Amanda Zurawski lived in Texas,
which was one of the first States to impose a near-total ban of
abortions after Roe v. Wade was overruled. So Amanda waited at home, in
agony, for days. Then sepsis set in. Her husband rushed her to the
hospital. Hours later, her daughter arrived stillborn. Amanda spent the
next 3 days in the ICU, fighting for her own life.
Amanda 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 eight-hour drive.
Developing sepsis--which can kill [very] quickly--in a car in
the middle of the West Texas desert, or 30,000 feet above the
ground, is a death sentence. . . . So all we could do was
wait.
This was Amanda's first baby. Tragically, because of the trauma her
body endured, she may never have another.
And she is not alone. This is happening to women across America.
Every day brings us another heartbreaking story of a woman who is
denied healthcare, another story of a woman whose life was needlessly
put at risk by the Dobbs decision.
According to a new survey, nearly two-thirds of OB/GYNs say the Dobbs
ruling has worsened maternal mortality rates in the United States,
which were already the worst of any developed nation, and 70 percent of
these doctors say the ruling has deepened racial disparities in
maternal and infant healthcare. These findings are from a survey
released this week by KFF, known as Kaiser Family Foundation.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the AMA
both warned that the Dobbs case would unleash an immediate healthcare
crisis in our country. With the first anniversary of this ruling, those
warnings, sadly, have come true.
Just 100 days after the Dobbs decision, 22 million Americans of
reproductive age--almost one out of every three women in America--found
themselves living in States where abortion is now illegal or highly
restricted. Abortion is now completely banned in 14 States, leaving
large swaths of the country without care. Some statewide bans include
jail time for healthcare providers who perform abortions. And make no
mistake: Unless we act, more and more severe restrictions are coming.
The last year has exposed the true aim of the anti-choice extremists.
They want a national ban. Medication abortions account for more than
half of all abortions in America. More than 20 years ago, the Food and
Drug Administration approved the drug mifepristone as safe and
effective for use in medication abortions. Yet anti-abortion groups are
now seeking in Federal court to ban its use in every State in America.
The impact of abortion restrictions in any State are felt well beyond
that State's borders. In my State, largely as a consequence of near-
total bans in many surrounding States, the number of abortions
performed by Planned Parenthood in Illinois increased by 54 percent
last year. That increase was driven largely by women from out of State
seeking access to abortion that is now outlawed in their home States.
As a result, wait times to obtain abortions have increased dramatically
in our State.
In addition, some anti-choice extremists are seeking to deny women's
right to abortions through increased threats and violence against
abortion clinics.
We saw this recently in Illinois, when a man rammed his car into a
building that was being renovated to serve as an abortion clinic in the
Danville area. He also tried to set fire to the clinic; but,
thankfully, he was stopped.
According to the National Abortion Federation, last year saw a huge
increase in violence at abortion clinics, and a disproportionate
increase occurred in States like Illinois that protected women's rights
to reproductive care.
Personal decisions about healthcare should be made by individuals and
their doctors, not by politicians with an ideological agenda. That is
why I strongly support the four measures that my Democratic colleagues
have offered to today to protect women's rights to travel to receive
healthcare, protect patients' data privacy, protect healthcare
providers' ability to provide abortions in States where it is legal,
and protect the right to contraception. It is hard to imagine that in
2023, we are actually facing the prospect of losing a woman's right to
contraception, as well as access to reproductive healthcare.
The Dobbs ruling has sown chaos, fear, and division. It has usurped
doctors' rights to make the best healthcare decisions for their
patients. Doctors live in fear of these new laws, whether they include
criminal liability for what was good medical practice and still is.
They have stripped women of their right to make healthcare decisions
and given the power to politicians. It is now up to Congress to protect
women and healthcare providers from the results of this disastrous
ruling.
(Mr. OSSOFF assumed the Chair.)
Mr. President, you were at the Judiciary Committee today. We had a
hearing on LGBTQ rights, and there was some extraordinary testimony. A
16-year-old came to us who has gone through a change to her status.
This young woman, 16 years of age, explained how she realized at the
age of 10 or 11 that she was really inclined toward being a woman and
not a man. She sought counseling, through her understanding parents,
sat down with doctors, and they began working through the psychology of
that decision, the importance of it.
Fortunately for her--and she testified--her parents were supportive
of her all the way. We were lucky to have Dr. Ximena Lopez at the
hearing as well. She practices medicine in Texas. She is an
endocrinologist who treats patients just like this young 16-year-old
girl.
She disabused us of many of the myths which are outstanding when it
comes to healthcare for those who are in a trans situation. No, there
are no surgeries early in life on these children who are making this
decision. Yes, medications are held back until puberty to make sure
that they are doing the right thing at the right time. Yes, parents are
consulted every step of the way.
These are important and critical decisions which parents and families
make every day across America. Every day. They are decisions based on
the advice of a doctor, as well as what is right for your child. They
are decisions that parents will never forget. I know; I have been
involved in them. And they are decisions which really would determine
the future lives and the well-being of so many individuals.
To think that so many legislatures across the United States are now
regulating and putting criminal penalties on the conduct of that doctor
who was before us today is heartbreaking. It defies medicine. It defies
science. It is politics, pure and simple. The same thing is true on
this issue of women's reproductive healthcare.
We have got to leave these basic decisions, fundamental decisions, to
the families who are affected by them directly, to the women who are
affected by them directly. We have got to say to the doctors across
America: Follow the science. Practice good medicine. Don't let a local
legislature divert you from the best treatment of your patient to make
sure that they come out of this process in a very positive way.
[[Page S2168]]
It is a sad moment in America that we are debating these things and
debating whether or not to rely on sound medical judgment. In the end,
that is the only thing we can count on.
I am glad that we had the hearing today, and I am glad that we
gathered on the floor to make a record out of what is happening in our
great Nation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
____________________