[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 145 (Wednesday, September 18, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6130-S6132]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 204

  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I come to the floor today to be able 
to talk about an issue that, apparently, there is a large belief among 
some that doesn't exist. So I wanted to be able to pull the veil back 
and to say this is actually an issue. And I can't believe I even have 
to have this conversation. And, in many ways, it is an incredibly 
difficult conversation to be able to have.
  During the Presidential debate that happened just a few weeks ago 
now, there was a debate, ostensibly, between Vice President Harris and 
former President Donald Trump. It ended up being a debate between Vice 
President Harris, David Muir, Linsey Davis, all against Donald Trump.
  There were multiple moments where the ABC moderators decided they 
were going to debate or correct Donald Trump when he spoke, and it 
became this very odd interchange that all America watched and thought: 
Well, that doesn't seem like a debate in that sense.
  One of those moments was a really odd moment. There was a question 
about abortion to President Trump. That is a fair conversation for the 
moderators to bring up a question and to be able to talk about it. He 
has openly talked a lot about abortion. And, obviously, the vote that 
happened in the Supreme Court with the Dobbs decision has highlighted a 
lot of that conversation nationally since his Presidency.
  President Trump, during that debate, talked about children who are 
aborted away the eighth or ninth month and then some even after. He 
mentioned that, to which the ABC News moderator, Linsey Davis, 
responded: ``There is no State in the country where it's legal to kill 
a baby after it's born'' and then immediately turned to Vice President 
Harris, where, literally, she jumped in to be able to debate the 
President and to try to ``correct'' him.
  The problem is, there was no one to be able to moderate her in that 
debate and to make the simple statement, there are not only States in 
America where that can happen, there are States in America where that 
does happen.

[[Page S6131]]

  In this simple map of the United States, this lists out the States 
where there are strong protections for a child after birth. Now, this 
is not an abortion; this is a botched abortion that has occurred. This 
is a woman who went in with the intent of having an abortion, late 
term. The child was fully delivered, and in medical practice in many of 
these States that are listed here, the child is fully delivered during 
the abortion. And if the child cries, breathes, the practice is to back 
away and to allow the child to slowly die on the table because the 
intent was an abortion. So everyone just steps back in the facility and 
watches the child die on the table, however long that takes.
  Now, before people say that doesn't occur, eight States have a 
requirement--eight States have a requirement--that, in an abortion, if 
it is botched and the child is actually fully delivered, and they are 
still alive, they have to report it. And in eight States--only those 
States that actually do that--there were 277 cases of that.
  Let me give you an example. This was several years ago. She is now a 
beautiful young woman, a young woman named Melissa Ohden. She actually 
didn't know until she was an adult that she was actually the product of 
a botched abortion. Her mom, who was a teenager, had been compelled to 
have an abortion by some family members around her. She didn't want to 
do it, but she did. It was a late-term abortion.
  She went in to have the abortion, had the abortion, and after the 
abortion was over, one of the nurses looking through the ``medical 
waste'' that was there on the table, saw the young girl crying. She 
scooped up the infant, took the infant on her own to an emergency room. 
The emergency room personnel said: There is no way she will have a 
full, meaningful life. But they took care of her because she was in the 
emergency room.
  I know Melissa Ohden. She is a remarkable lady--no disabilities, no 
other challenges other than the knowledge that she was supposed to 
``have been aborted.'' But there she is alive.
  There are a lot of women who are scattered around the country who are 
all finding each other online telling the story that they are a product 
of a botched abortion; that they were born alive, and they were given 
medical care when ``they weren't supposed to be there at all.'' They 
are now, through one rare benefit of social media, finding each other 
and connecting in conversation. Not only is this happening, it is 
happening all over the country.
  I am fully aware that the ABC News moderator thinks this doesn't 
happen anywhere, but not only is it happening, it has happened before; 
it is happening probably today.
  The question that this body has not resolved is, What are we going to 
do about it?
  This is not about reducing abortion. Quite frankly, the bill that I 
am bringing and I want to bring for unanimous consent today won't 
reduce abortions at all in America.
  I would tell you, it would be my preference to be able to stand for 
the value of every single child in America and to say there is not a 
child in America that is disposable; that children in America are all 
valuable--not some disposable, some valuable--all valuable.
  This is not a question of are we going to legalize or not legalize 
abortion. This is about a fully delivered child crying on a table, if 
they will get medical care or if we will back up and watch them die. 
That is the question before us--and what we are going to do about that.
  There has been a lot of conversation about this of late, in the last 
several years. Let me give you an example of several of these States. 
New York State recently passed a law that not only allows abortion all 
the way until the ninth month, but they protect--if a child is fully 
delivered and is breathing on the table, and it was a botched abortion, 
that they would be protected, quote-unquote, to be able to die there.
  When this bill was passed, just a couple of years ago, in New York, 
the New York Legislature cheered--cheered--at protecting the rights of 
a child to lie on the table and die after a delivery. They lit up the 
Freedom Tower in New York City to celebrate the passage of that bill. 
That is in New York.
  In Minnesota, 9 years ago, in a wide bipartisan vote, they determined 
that they should actually track how many of these botched abortions 
happen; that they should actually keep track of how many occur like 
this, that a child is actually born alive. It is rare, but they wanted 
just to be able to keep track of it with basic records.
  So in a bipartisan vote in the Minnesota Legislature, signed by the 
Governor, they passed a law, 9 years ago, to track how often this 
occurs. In the State of Minnesota, they determined, over the next 
several years, that there were 24 children that were born alive during 
a botched abortion. Now, again, that is not many, but I bet it matters 
to those 24. But for those 24 children that Minnesota discovered, this 
is not really a myth. This is really occurring. They tracked it.
  The Governor of Minnesota, the current Vice Presidential candidate on 
the Democratic side, worked to get a repeal of that law, and the simple 
repeal was: We don't want reporting anymore.
  Literally, it was: We are finding out this is happening; so in 
Minnesota, we have declared we don't want to know that this is 
happening anymore.
  That is unbelievable. That is old-school, put your hands over your 
ears and scream ``la, la, la, la'' kind of stuff. That is not what we 
should do as a nation. We should actually know about it and then 
determine, through debate in this body, what we are going to do about 
it.
  Madam President, I am getting close to a conclusion here. May I ask 
unanimous consent to be permitted to speak just 3 more minutes, until 
we can wrap this up, and then prior to the scheduled rollcall vote, for 
Senator Britt to have 1 minute just to be able to conclude.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there objections?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, so here is the issue. We have brought 
this bill to the floor several times before. In fact, we have had some 
bipartisan support for this bill several times before. The bill is 
very, very simple. The bill says: When the doctor performs an abortion 
but the child is born alive, instead of actually born dead, that care 
would be provided to that child the same as any other child that is 
born.
  Now, we are fully aware that many abortion clinics do not have a full 
hospital that is also attached to them. But we are also very aware that 
if there is a problem with the mom in an abortion clinic, they take her 
to a hospital. This is a simple statement to say: If a child is born 
alive, which we know 100 percent this has happened--even in States like 
Minnesota, that this is happening--what is America going to do with a 
fully delivered, crying baby on the table? Will they get healthcare or 
will they not get healthcare? That is all this bill does.
  It doesn't reduce abortions, unfortunately. It doesn't do that. It 
doesn't change abortion processes across the country. It doesn't do 
that. It just says: When the abortion is unsuccessful and the child is 
actually delivered instead, we are going to get medical care to that 
child. That is what I bring in this, and it is absolutely, to me, the 
simplest of all possible statements to make.
  So, Madam President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding 
rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary 
be discharged from further consideration of S. 204 and the Senate 
proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask consent 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?
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this is a serious topic. To rush through 
it in a matter of minutes is unfair. More time should be devoted to it, 
but I am going to do my best in a short period of time to be very 
direct.
  My first direction is, to anyone following this debate at home, pull 
out your cellphone, go to your search engine, whatever it happens to 
be, and look up the following name. I am going to spell it carefully 
because I want you to be able to type it in. Kermit, K-E-R-M-I-T, 
Gosnell, G-O-S-N-E-L-L. Kermit Gosnell.

[[Page S6132]]

  While I speak, I hope you will take a look at what you see on your 
screen.
  This bill has been proposed by my friend from Oklahoma. It creates 
new standards of care for doctors providing reproductive healthcare, 
and these standards are not based on medicine, fact, or science. The 
goal of this bill is to target and intimidate reproductive healthcare 
providers and make it harder for women to access comprehensive, 
compassionate healthcare.

  Let me be clear. Despite former President Trump's wild claims, it is 
not legal in this country, in any State, to kill a child after it is 
born. Doctors already have an obligation under the law to provide 
appropriate medical care to any child that is born alive.
  How do I know this? I voted for it. It is explicitly codified in a 
law which President Bush signed entitled ``Born-Alive Infants 
Protection Act of 2002''--2002. It has been on the books over 20 years.
  And when doctors harm babies in violation of State and Federal laws, 
they are held accountable. For example, in the year 2013, Dr. Kermit 
Gosnell, a Pennsylvania doctor, was convicted on three counts of first-
degree murder for murdering babies after botched abortions. I want you 
to read, if you brought this up on your phone, the story of this man. 
What he did was an outrage. It was disgusting. He was held accountable 
for it and is serving life in prison as a result, without any 
possibility of parole.
  So to argue that we are talking about an area of law that is not 
addressed by current law is just plain wrong. Our Nation already has 
laws in place to protect newborns. To suggest otherwise is simply 
false. Alleging that doctors are wantonly killing infants after birth 
is as ludicrous as accusing immigrants in Ohio of eating cats and dogs.
  Here we are. This is today's Republican Presidential campaign. Rather 
than create meaningful protections for women and infants, what this 
bill would actually do is put politicians into private healthcare 
decisions.
  Abortions occurring late in pregnancy are incredibly rare--incredibly 
rare. Why don't we hear the same level of concern for women being 
denied reproductive care and bleeding out in the parking lot of a 
hospital because of decisions by State legislatures? Let's be honest. 
That is a real problem and a real challenge.
  In these heartbreaking situations, it is not for Congress to dictate 
the course of medical treatment. Those wrenching decisions must be left 
to medical professionals and the individuals in their care. It is the 
only compassionate outcome.
  Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mrs. BRITT. Madam President, I appreciate my distinguished colleague 
from Illinois and would like to say, with regard to the remarks from my 
colleague from Oklahoma, actively killing and saving are actually two 
different things. So for the people watching this, they should take a 
look at that. And I think what we are seeing is how far left this has 
gone. This is truly beyond comprehension.
  I also just want to say that we spent time yesterday on an IVF bill 
that nobody actually tried to use to get to 60 votes. IVF is legal and 
accessible in all 50 States. And, in fact, the great State of Alabama, 
when forced into a decision, talking about this, immediately acted. Our 
State legislature and our Governor made sure that women had access to 
IVF in every corner of our State.
  So I would wish that we would spend time on real things, like the 
appropriations bills that we have marked up, amongst others.
  But if you are looking at where we are today, I think what we have 
seen is that Kamala Harris has said that she is for a border wall; she 
has said she is for fracking; she has said she is for cracking down on 
illegal border crossings--all during her short campaign tenure. But the 
truth is that all of those things were just blocked.
  It is clear that her flip-flops aren't real, and there is much more 
to dig into and discuss as this campaign moves forward.
  I yield the floor.