[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.