[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.

                          ____________________