[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 113 (Tuesday, July 9, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4261-S4263]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2053

  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, we are now 2 years into a world 
without Roe v. Wade, a world in which daughters have fewer rights than 
their mothers and their grandmothers did at their age.
  In the 2 years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe, nearly half 
the States in our country have banned--or effectively banned--access to 
abortion. Women in those States have extremely limited options for 
accessing essential healthcare.
  For many of these women, their only option for getting the 
reproductive care they need is going to another State. Last year alone, 
171,000 Americans traveled across State lines to access an abortion.
  Pro-choice States like Nevada are welcoming these women with open 
arms and providing them with the essential healthcare their own States 
have outlawed. In the last 2 years, the number of women coming to 
Southern Nevada from out of State to get abortion care has doubled.
  But even though Nevada is a safe place for women who need healthcare, 
anti-choice politicians living outside my State are telling women: No, 
sorry, if you try to travel outside this State, we are going to 
prosecute anyone who helps you.
  Elected officials in States like Tennessee and Texas and Alabama 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. Why? Because for these anti-choice politicians, this is 
about controlling women.
  That is why today I am calling for passage of my Freedom to Travel 
for Health Care Act. Our legislation reaffirms that women have a 
fundamental right to interstate travel and makes it 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.
  The Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act would also empower the 
Attorney General and anyone impacted to sue the anti-choice politicians 
who have violated their rights and put theses barbaric restrictions in 
place. And it would protect healthcare providers in pro-choice States 
like mine--in Nevada--who help these women traveling from out of State.
  Now, I wrote this bill 2 years ago, after the fall of Roe v. Wade, 
because, like many women across the country, I could see that the anti-
choice movement would never stop trying to dismantle women's rights. 
And we are seeing that play out before our very eyes. We are hearing it 
today on the floor. We see it in our States.
  Last month, Lauren Miller came here to Washington to testify in a 
Senate subcommittee hearing and tell her story. Lauren was a mother of 
one and was thrilled to find out that she was pregnant once again, this 
time with twins. She and her husband couldn't wait to grow their 
family. But at her 12-week ultrasound, Lauren learned the most 
devastating news: Half of one of her twins' brains was filled with 
fluid, and it was not going to survive. Lauren needed to abort this 
fetus to save the other viable twin and to protect her own life.

  The problem was that Lauren lived in Texas, where abortions are 
almost entirely banned. Lauren's doctors wouldn't even talk to her 
about having a lifesaving abortion because they were so afraid of 
Texas's intentionally confusing laws, and they did not want to be 
prosecuted for practicing medicine to help her.
  In her testimony, Lauren said:

       My pregnancy was not my own. It belonged to the State.

  Even after she ended up in the hospital at risk of organ damage to 
her kidneys and her brain, she still could not get the care that she 
needed. Lauren was forced to set aside several days and thousands of 
dollars while she was terribly ill so that she could fly to Colorado, 
just to access reproductive healthcare--just to access 21st century 
medicine.
  And if that wasn't enough of a burden, Lauren and her husband were 
terrified to travel out of State because of Texas's bounty laws. In 
Texas, private

[[Page S4262]]

citizens can be paid by their government if they catch anyone who has 
helped someone access abortion care.
  Oklahoma has adopted a similar law.
  This is what happens when we give it to the States. This is what 
happened with the overturn of Roe v. Wade. When we are talking about 
States' rights, this is it. These laws mean people seeking abortions 
have to plan for their out-of-State travel as if they are doing 
something illegal.
  Lauren and her husband had conversations about whether they should 
leave their cell phones at home and only use cash so they couldn't be 
tracked--in this day and age, like they were criminals of some sort, 
all because Lauren was dying from an entirely preventable health issue 
that she couldn't get care for in her own State.
  When my colleagues and I first introduced the Freedom to Travel for 
Health Care Act, anti-choice Republicans told us we were getting worked 
up over nothing. When we introduced and reintroduced it last year, 
anti-choice Republicans still told us we were overreaching. Anti-choice 
Republicans' main argument continues to be that it is just not 
necessary, that we are being hysterical, that we need to calm down.
  Lauren Miller and her husband weren't being hysterical. She and her 
healthy son are living proof that we need to protect a woman's right to 
travel across State lines for abortion care.
  My anti-choice colleagues can pretend this isn't happening right 
under their noses, but women across this country know the truth: Anti-
choice politicians want to control women. They don't want women leaving 
the confines of their States with abortion bans, and they don't want us 
to have bodily autonomy.
  Well, I stand with the vast majority of Americans who believe that 
politicians have no say in a woman's healthcare decisions. Women like 
Lauren Miller deserve access to lifesaving care regardless of the State 
they live in. That is why we must pass the Freedom to Travel for Health 
Care Act now. This is commonsense legislation to uphold a woman's 
constitutional right and freedom to interstate travel for healthcare.
  Mr. President, as if in legislative session and not withstanding rule 
XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be 
discharged from further consideration of S. 2053, the Freedom to Travel 
for Health Care Act of 2023, 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 Mississippi.
  Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, my 
pro-life colleagues and I most certainly do not oppose any individual's 
freedom to travel across this great country, but we do take issue with 
this effort to give bad actors cover from prosecution.
  While this bill poses as protecting pregnant women from prosecution, 
it would actually put vulnerable women and girls in harm's way if it 
became law. This would allow traffickers and abusive partners, parents, 
or relatives to take vulnerable women and girls across State lines to 
obtain abortions in an attempt to cover up their abuse.
  These same abusers would also be given the freedom to travel across 
State lines to stockpile dangerous chemical abortion drugs to bring 
back to a life-affirming State. The chemical abortion regimen can pose 
dramatic complications that a woman or girl should never have to deal 
with, especially without medical care at her home.
  According to the FDA's own label, these abortion drugs send roughly 1 
in 25 women to the emergency room.
  With this legislative effort before us, we see pro-abortion advocates 
promoting the scariest possible scenario by allowing a teenage girl to 
start the chemical abortion process across State lines with 
mifepristone, only to be sent back to her home State to deal with the 
physically and emotionally painful process alone.

  We can and must do far better to protect women and girls from this 
heartbreaking and dangerous situation, and we certainly should not be 
shielding bad actors from prosecution.
  It is for these reasons that I must object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, No. 1, let's be very clear: This 
legislation has nothing to do with shielding bad actors. And, No. 2, 
mifepristone is a safe and effective drug and has been for over 50 
years.
  So for my colleagues who have been on this path to limit access to 
healthcare for women and to reproductive freedom rights, to claim and 
make this misinformation and these scare tactics, when they are not 
true, does not do right by women.
  Let me just say this. A majority of this country--including men, 
including Democrats, Republicans, nonpartisans--support the right of a 
woman to choose. That is what this is about: continuing to fight for 
those rights.
  A woman should have the freedom to access 21st century healthcare. 
Giving it to the States to make this decision is still giving it to 
elected officials to be in a room with women when they are making this 
decision. That is not the answer.
  But until we can overturn Dobbs, we need legislation that is going to 
protect women so they can access this 21st century medication when they 
need it and come to States like mine without the fear of being 
prosecuted, and the doctors need to be protected. That is what this is 
about, and it will always be about giving the freedom to women for 
their access to healthcare in this country.
  And I will tell you this. My colleagues and I will never stop 
fighting for this. It is too important for our children, our young 
girls, and their future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, to recap, we just tried to pass some very 
straightforward legislation: a bill to protect a woman's right to 
travel across State lines to get the healthcare she needs, a bill to 
protect a doctor's right to provide legal abortion care to their 
patients without being threatened by an out-of-State extremist, and a 
bill to ensure more health professionals can receive critical training 
in comprehensive reproductive healthcare to help meet the dire need for 
providers.
  Not a single one of these bills should be controversial. To oppose 
these bills, as Republicans have just done, is truly extreme. Are we 
going to let politicians hold women who want an abortion captive in 
their States? Seriously. If a woman wants to travel somewhere so she 
can make her own personal decision about her healthcare, are 
Republicans going to tie her hands? And if a doctor in a State like 
mine, where abortion is fully legal and even protected by our State 
constitution--if our doctors treat a patient from somewhere like 
Idaho--something that happens every day, by the way--do we want to let 
out-of-State extremist politicians threaten and try to punish them?
  Again, we are talking about healthcare providers performing an 
abortion in a State where abortion is legal and protected. Republicans 
are all for States' rights until it comes to letting a woman make her 
own healthcare decisions.
  When it comes to training, let's be clear: Abortion is healthcare, 
and in some cases, a patient's life may depend on whether they can get 
that care or not. That is why we need to make sure that every provider 
can get the comprehensive reproductive health training that they need 
by supporting medical training programs that are doing this important 
work.
  It is incredibly frustrating to me that, so far, Republicans have 
blocked these proposals from moving forward. It seems, when it comes to 
an abortion, there is no bill too simple for Republicans to oppose. 
There is no right too basic for Republicans to attack and no problem 
too important for Republicans to ignore.
  Republicans haven't just voted down our efforts to restore abortion 
rights in every State, they have voted against the right to birth 
control; they have voted against the right to IVF; and now they have 
opposed letting patients

[[Page S4263]]

leave their States for care, letting doctors provide legal care to 
anyone who comes to them, and helping healthcare providers get the 
training they need to save a life.
  But let's be clear: No matter this outcome, no matter how far 
Republicans follow the most extreme anti-abortion voices in their 
party, Democrats are going to keep standing against them, pushing for 
reproductive rights, and fighting for patients.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.