[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 99 (Wednesday, June 12, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4033-S4036]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4368
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, today I rise to speak on an issue that is
incredibly personal and vital to millions of Americans--the protection
of in vitro fertilization.
IVF is a medical miracle that has brought the joy of parenthood to
millions of families who might otherwise have never experienced it. I
am a strong supporter of IVF, and I am incredibly grateful for the
technology that has enabled parents, moms and dads desperate to bring
into the world little boys and little girls, to finally hold a child in
their arms.
It is astounding to note that over 2 percent of all births in America
each and every year come from IVF. That translates to millions of
parents who have been given the chance to bring new life into the
world. To date, more than 8 million babies have been born through IVF.
However, recent developments have caused some confusion and concern
among parents and among those who wish to be parents. The Alabama
Supreme Court's decision to recognize embryos created through IVF as
children under the law has left many prospective parents worried--
understandably worried--about the future legality of IVF.
Now, the Alabama Legislature acted quickly to make clear that IVF is
fully protected in the State of Alabama, but nonetheless confusion
persists.
To the best of my knowledge, all 100 Senators in this body support
IVF. Seeing this confusion--confusion that, unfortunately, has been
fueled by Democrat partisans--I reached out to Senator Katie Britt from
Alabama, and I asked Senator Britt if she would join together in
drafting legislation, Federal legislation, that would be a clear,
straightforward, ironclad protection for IVF.
I believe we should put into Federal law a clear and unambiguous
protection to make clear that no State in the Union can ban IVF, that
no local government in this country can ban IVF.
Senator Britt and I drafted this together. This bill is simple. It is
straightforward. It is clear.
IVF is profoundly pro-family. It is an avenue of hope for millions
struggling with infertility.
To every mom and every dad at home and to every woman and man
desperately hoping to be a parent, know that our bill will ensure that
IVF remains 100 percent protected by law. And this should not just be a
policy or a general affirmation; this should be a clear and
unmistakable Federal law.
We invite our colleagues in the Senate from both sides of the aisle
to join together in supporting this crucial legislation. This should be
a measure that transcends political divides.
A recent poll showed that 86 percent of Americans believe IVF should
be legal and protected. This is an opportunity for us to put partisan
divisions aside and to come together and unite on a shared commitment
to protecting IVF.
That is why in just a moment I am going to ask unanimous consent to
pass this legislation, but before I do so, I want to yield to the
Senator from Alabama, Senator Britt.
[[Page S4034]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mrs. BRITT. Mr. President, I was proud to join my colleague from
Texas in introducing the IVF Protection Act. I am grateful for his
leadership on this important topic.
As a mom, I know firsthand that there is no greater joy in this life
than that of being a mother. IVF helps aspiring parents across our
Nation experience the miracle of life and start and grow a family. That
is why I strongly support continued nationwide IVF access. IVF access
is fundamentally pro-family. For the millions of Americans who face
infertility every year, IVF provides the hope of a pathway to
parenthood.
We all have loved ones, whether they are family members or friends,
who have become parents or grandparents through IVF. Across America,
about 2 percent of babies born are born because of IVF; that is about
200 babies per day. So think about the magnitude of that number and the
faces and the stories and the dreams it represents. In recent decades,
millions of people have been born with the help of IVF. Along with my
colleague Senator Cruz, I was honored to lead Senate Republican
colleagues in a joint statement emphasizing our shared support in
continued nationwide access to IVF.
IVF is legal and available in every single State across America. That
includes my home State, where Governor Ivey and the Alabama Legislature
acted quickly and overwhelmingly earlier this year to protect IVF
access for our State's families.
Today, the Senate has an opportunity to act quickly and
overwhelmingly to protect IVF access for our Nation's families. That is
what the IVF Protection Act would do. It is straightforward, just as
Senator Cruz has said. The bill would give aspiring parents nationwide
the certainty and peace of mind that IVF will remain legal and
available in every single State.
Now, I want to break this down as directly as possible. First, there
is only one bill that would protect IVF access and not stray outside
those parameters; that is our IVF Protection Act. There is only one
bill that would protect IVF access while safeguarding religious
liberties; that is our IVF Protection Act. And there is only one bill
to protect IVF access that could get 60 votes in the Senate, and once
again that is our IVF Protection Act.
However, that is not the bill that Democrats are going to be putting
on the floor this week. Sadly, they aren't interested in a bill to
actually protect IVF access and figuring out how we could get that to
become law. That wouldn't advance their true goal, which is about
partisan electoral politics. If Democrats allowed the IVF Protection
Act to pass today, they would lose a key scare tactic they believe
helps them in November, and that, ultimately, is what this is all
about.
They are in week two of their summer of scare tactics, and eventually
they are going to transition to a fall of fearmongering.
At the end of the day, the American people want secure borders; they
support safe streets; they want stable prices; and they want strong
families. My colleagues across the aisle know that they can't sell the
Biden administration's record on any of these topics. It has been
failure after failure yet again.
So instead, they have to rely on distorting and misrepresenting
Republicans' positions on issues, including our support for IVF access.
The bottom line is, the American people deserve better, and there is no
better path out there than our bill, the path of common-ground
solutions, not show votes or scare tactics.
Again, I want to applaud the leadership of my colleague from Texas.
Senator Cruz has been a champion as we work to make sure that the world
knows that we are going to protect access to IVF. While Democrats
prioritize scaring families, Republicans will continue to fight.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, sometimes the folks at home can find what
happens in parliamentary procedure on this floor confusing, so I want
to explain what is about to happen. In just a moment, I am going to ask
unanimous consent to pass the IVF protection bill into law. One of two
things will happen in response: One, the Democrats in this Chamber can
decide that IVF should be protected by Federal law, in which case this
bill will pass the Senate 100 to nothing; the other thing that might
happen is Senate Democrats will utter two words, ``I object.''
So I want you to listen very carefully to the Senate Democrats. And
whatever else is included in the speech, understand if the remarks end
with the words ``I object,'' then Senate Democrats will have made the
cynical political decision that Democrats don't want IVF protected in
Federal law. They don't want to provide reassurance and comfort to
millions of parents in America because, instead, they want to spend
millions of dollars running campaign ads suggesting the big bad
Republicans want to take away IVF. I get why that could be good
politics, but I hope Senate Democrats are not that cynical.
Understand, again, if you hear the words ``I object,'' Senate
Democrats are saying: No, we will not protect IVF in Federal law
because we want to play politics.
Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule
XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged
from further consideration of S. 4368 and that the Senate proceed to
its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered
read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am not
going to mince words here. It is ridiculous to claim that this bill
protects IVF when it does nothing of the sort. In fact, it explicitly
allows States to restrict IVF in all sorts of ways. It is literally in
the bill text.
Remember, it did not take State lawmakers in Alabama passing a ban on
IVF for clinics in the State to suspend services.
Under this bill, there are a million ways Republican-led States could
enact burdensome and unnecessary requirements and create the kind of
legal uncertainty and risk that would force clinics to once again close
their doors.
Also, even though it is an inherent part of the IVF process that
families will make more embryos than they need, this bill does
absolutely nothing--not a single thing--to ensure families who use IVF
can have their clinics dispose of unused embryos without facing legal
threats for a standard medical procedure. Instead, this bill completely
ignores the matter of what happens to frozen embryos in order to
appease Republicans' extreme anti-abortion allies.
This was intentional, and it leaves the door open to a lot of chaos.
So this Republican bill really is a PR tool, plain and simple. It is
just another way for Republicans to pretend they are not the extremists
that they keep proving they are.
Meanwhile, there are bills some Republicans are pushing for right now
that would enshrine, as a matter of law, that life begins at conception
and that discarding unused embryos is essentially murder.
Senator Cruz himself supported a personhood amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. No way around that. The junior Senator from Texas wanted
to change the U.S. Constitution to give embryos the same rights as
living, breathing human beings. Look, the stone-cold reality is that
you cannot protect IVF and champion fetal personhood.
So I would like to ask my colleagues who are offering this enormously
inadequate bill--and I hope they do answer it directly--do you support
letting parents have clinics dispose of unused embryos, which is a
typical part of the IVF process, or do you support fetal personhood,
which by its very nature will throw IVF access into chaos? Because
until they clearly answer that question--and it is a couple simple
ones--all the claims of supporting IVF will fall obviously short, just
like this bill does. That is why I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington suggested that
this bill does not protect IVF. Let me
[[Page S4035]]
read you the clear statutory language that unambiguously protects IVF:
A State shall not prohibit in vitro fertilization as
defined in section 4(B) of the IVF Protection Act services
and shall ensure that no unit of local government in the
State prohibits such services.
That is clear. That is unambiguous. That is explicit. And that is
ironclad.
Had the Democrats not cynically said ``I object,'' that language
would have just passed the U.S. Senate 100 to nothing, a strong Federal
protection of IVF.
Now, Democrats know that out of 50 States, not a single State is
seeking to ban IVF. They know that the threat that they plan to spend
millions of dollars trying to convince the voters is real, no State is
currently pursuing. They know that Alabama--whose Supreme Court started
this issue--the legislature promptly came into session and acted to
make clear that IVF is protected.
And the Senator from Washington asked a question. I do find it
interesting. She asked a question and wanted me to answer it, but she
is no longer on the Senate floor to hear my answer to the question, but
I will answer it anyway. The Senator from Washington suggests that
those States that pursue personhood amendments, that that is somehow
inconsistent with IVF. The one problem she has is facts and reality
because there are three States--Alabama, Georgia, and Missouri--all of
which have adopted personhood amendments, and all of which protect IVF.
So IVF is legal in Alabama. It is legal in Georgia. It is legal in
Missouri.
So the Democrats maintain that IVF is in jeopardy, and yet the facts
are precisely contrary. Understand why the Democrats just did what they
did. Every Democrat on the ballot is going to tell the voters: If you
don't vote for me, a Democrat, mean Republicans are going to come take
away IVF. And I will tell you the reason they are going to say that is
because the Democrats' record on abortion is extreme and out of the
mainstream. Every Democrat Senator in this body has voted for
legislation that would legalize abortion literally up until the moment
of birth, up to and including the 39th and 40th week of pregnancy. That
is radical. Only 9 percent of Americans support the extreme policy
position of Senate Democrats on abortion. Ninety-one percent of
Americans look at that and say: That goes too far.
Even among those Americans who call themselves pro-choice, a majority
of pro-choice Americans look at the position of the Democrats, and they
say: Wow. Abortion up until the moment of delivery in the ninth month
of pregnancy, that is too much.
So what is the Democrats' political strategy? Don't talk about their
actual record on abortion; instead, try to change the topic to, last
week, contraception and this week IVF.
And they know that no State in the Union is trying to ban
contraception and that no State in the Union is trying to ban IVF.
Every single Senator in this body supports the right to contraception.
Every single Senator in this body supports IVF being protected.
But the Democrats are counting on docile media to pick up their
message and carry their message. They know that the bills we are voting
on tomorrow will fail. That is not a bug; it is a feature. They want
the bills tomorrow to fail. Why? Because this is all about running TV
ads claiming Republicans are opposed to IVF. They know it is false.
And, by the way, one of the reasons the bills will fail tomorrow is
they deliberately trample on religious liberty. You know there used be
a time when there was a bipartisan commitment to religious liberty but
no longer. The Democrats have decided that the First Amendment to the
Constitution no longer matters.
And so the Democrats' bill would, among other things, force a
Catholic hospital to provide IVF procedures, even if it was contrary to
the faith of Catholic doctors performing the procedure. Now, our bill
does not seek to force anyone to do anything. We all have a right to
live according to our faith. So if your faith teaches you not to use
IVF, as a doctor, you should have the right not to say: I am not going
to participate in that.
But understand the Cruz-Britt legislation that the Democrats just
cynically objected to would protect IVF for every parent in the
country, and it would become Federal law, except for one thing: The
Democrats do not want it to because if we pass clear, strong Federal
protections for IVF, the issue that they are planning to campaign on
would go away.
What we have just seen is one of the most cynical displays of
partisan politics to ever occur on the Senate floor. It is designed
deliberately to deceive the American voters. It is unfortunate that
Democrats put politics above protecting parents and above protecting
IVF.
But just remember the next time you hear a Democrat saying--and they
are going to spend millions of dollars saying it--we are the ones who
want to protect IVF, understand we could have passed strong Federal
legislation today, but Senate Democrats don't want a protection of IVF.
They want a campaign issue.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I thank the leadership of the Senators
from Texas and Alabama on this issue that is important to literally
millions of Americans, as the Senators talked about.
First of all, let the record show that, today, the Democrats objected
to the Republican-led IVF Protection Act. The Democrats objected to
protecting IVF.
This is personal to so many people up here, and it is personal to
many Republican Senators. I would suppose a half a dozen of us so far
have a family member--maybe a child or a grandchild--because of IVF or
staff, thanks to IVF. Maybe it is as personal to me as to anybody up
here. For some 30 years of my life, I had the opportunity and the
privilege of delivering a baby most every day. Certainly, I have just
nothing but fond, fond memories in each one of those opportunities to
give a baby to a new mom and dad and just see the smiles on their faces
and see their lives change forever.
But not everybody was that fortunate, and not everybody is that
fortunate, as 10 to 15 percent of Americans have an infertility
problem. There are 10 to 15 percent of married couples who struggle to
have children, and that is why I worked so hard to have an infertility
clinic--a place where people could travel from hundreds of miles to get
help with their infertility treatments. Certainly, there were many
basic things we could do. We helped thousands of women and have helped
them have a baby, but if we weren't successful, the next step was in
vitro fertilization. Personally, I am proud that I participated in
hundreds of IVF cycles--successful cycles--and delivered many, many,
many babies from in vitro fertilization.
The country needs to know that Republicans believe in IVF, that we
support it. I have never heard one Republican Senator up here say
anything else. I have not heard anyone try to take this down. So I am
proud to stand up here today and support Senator Britt's and Senator
Cruz's bill to protect in vitro fertilization.
We are going to have an opportunity tomorrow on a show bill--we will
have a show vote on a show bill. Senator Duckworth's bill on IVF has
poison pills that not many Republicans can tolerate.
The first poison pill is it denies freedom of religion, as Senator
Cruz talked about--freedom of religion. The bill we will be voting on
tomorrow, as far as I am concerned, is unconstitutional. As a
physician--as a Christian physician, as a God-fearing Christian--there
are certain things that I will not participate in, but I happen to
believe that in vitro fertilization is a gift from God, that God has
given us this technology to do good with. And I want to make sure that
we apply that. There will be certain hospitals and physicians who don't
want to participate in IVF, but the Democrats' bill tomorrow forces
that physician and that hospital to participate against their
consciences. I think that is a violation of religious freedom.
The second poison pill in that legislation is that the bill's
definitions are too broad. They create an unlimited, unfettered right
to all reproductive technologies. You would have to assume that that
includes cloning and gene editing. Are we ready to go out there and
force hospitals and doctors
[[Page S4036]]
to participate in cloning and gene editing? I just don't think America
is ready for that.
And here is the third issue, the third poison pill that is being
ignored: This legislation by Senator Duckworth requires infertility
clinics to go right to IVF; that they skip--they can skip all the other
easier steps, if you will. I won't bore the rest of the Senate with
some of those easier things we could do, but there are many things that
you could do for infertility before jumping to IVF. I just don't think
that that is good legislation to overregulate that patient-physician
relationship.
It is a great honor to come here today. Today, 200 babies were born
from in vitro fertilization--200. Let's celebrate those babies. We are
the party of pro-family and pro-life. We support protecting in vitro
fertilization. I ask this Chamber to come together and celebrate the
blessings of in vitro fertilization as opposed to mounting political
disinformation campaigns that are disingenuous to the beliefs of so
many in our conference.
As I said before, the Republican Party stands as the pro-family
party, and nothing embodies this more than welcoming a new baby into
loving arms. Standing with these families means offering them
encouragement and support in their journeys toward safe and secure in
vitro fertilization treatment. Our commitment to protecting life
ensures that every family has the chance to experience that joy of
parenthood through in vitro fertilization.
Our priority is always to make it easier for families to have babies,
not harder. We must understand that there are over 8 million families
now for whom IVF has answered their prayers. That is why I am, again,
so honored to stand here beside Senators Cruz and Britt to champion
this pro-family legislation and guarantee access to in vitro
fertilization to all Americans.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.