[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 149 (Tuesday, September 24, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6351-S6352]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 828

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to offer a simple 
resolution, one that reaffirms the basic principle that when you go to 
the ER, the emergency room, they should be allowed to treat you. When 
your life is in danger, doctors should be able to do their job. When 
you need emergency care, including an abortion, no politician should 
stop you from getting it.
  This seems incredibly simple to me. It should not be controversial, 
especially if everyone who talks about protecting the life of the 
mother seriously means it. After all, that is what emergency care is 
for: saving the life of the mother. And yet, when the Biden-Harris 
administration tried to make clear that these women should get care, 
many Republicans actually opposed them.
  I really want to emphasize, we are talking about women whose water 
breaks dangerously early or who are experiencing uncontrollable 
hemorrhaging or sepsis or pre-eclampsia. And still, Republicans 
actually filed a brief in court saying, essentially, no, we don't think 
doctors should be required to provide abortion care when a patient's 
life is at stake.

  Their brief rejected that idea--that basic medical reality--of 
abortion as a stabilizing care. That is really shocking to me, and it 
should be shocking to everyone.
  After a brief like that, I am not going to let any of my Republican 
colleagues off the hook just for saying they care about the life of the 
mother--not if they don't lift a finger to actually protect women and 
to actually make clear that emergency care can include abortion.
  We need to send a very clear message on this. The Senate needs to 
speak with one voice and tell the American people: Yes, we want to make 
sure your doctor can save your life. Your doctor can save your life.
  Before my Republican colleagues get up to object, let me be clear. 
You will not get by pretending a resolution like this isn't necessary, 
not when we are hearing now firsthand from doctors racked with guilt 
for decisions that Republican politicians made for them; not when they 
are hearing firsthand from women who have bled, suffered, and nearly 
died because their care was delayed; and, certainly, not when Texas saw 
maternal deaths now skyrocket because of its strict abortion ban. The 
data in Texas paints a clear, brutal picture of the reality. These 
abortion bans are killing women.
  Republicans are also not going to get by trying to shift the blame 
and argue emergency care is already protected because the whole point 
of this resolution is to say emergency care is protected. If you oppose 
the Senate actually saying that, don't you see how this could be part 
of the problem? Don't you see how that could be very dangerous for 
women?
  I can't emphasize this enough. If you don't see and you don't 
understand--listen. Women are speaking out. Doctors are speaking out. 
They are terrified; they are heartbroken; and they

[[Page S6352]]

are angry. And they are watching right now to see if we can just pass 
this simple resolution and do the very bare minimum of saying, with one 
voice, women have a right to get an abortion when their life is at 
stake--when their life is at stake.
  As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from 
further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 828 on the 
right to emergency healthcare, including abortion care; that the 
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. This 
resolution itself and the wording that it has in this resolution says 
it is the sense of the Senate that every person has the basic right to 
emergency healthcare, including abortion care.
  Let me be very, very specific on this. We had a hearing today in the 
Finance Committee where this same subject was addressed. We had ob-gyns 
from both perspectives on this, those who perform abortions and those 
who have a moral objection to it. We had a very good argument to be 
able to lay some facts out to be able to walk through this, with two 
sets of attorneys there to be able to walk through the law.
  Here is what became very clear during that conversation this morning 
in that open hearing. There is no State in America in which a woman 
faces persecution or prosecution for having an abortion. No State 
criminalizes miscarriage. No State criminalizes removing an ectopic 
pregnancy. No States prohibits lifesaving care for the mother. No State 
requires a woman to be actively dying in order for her doctor to care 
for her.
  We heard story after story about doctors being concerned that they 
may face this because they are hearing political rhetoric--political 
rhetoric like Vice President Harris in a speech that she said 
recently--where she said women were being arrested and facing 
prosecution for experiencing miscarriages. That is not true.

  So all of this rhetoric that is being put out there is making doctors 
afraid, but it was very clear from the conversation in law that none of 
those things are actually true. Every physician prior to the Dobbs 
decision--when there were limitations on abortion across the country 
and post-Dobbs decision, when every single State is making those 
decisions--allowed physicians in an ER to be able to make lifesaving 
decisions for the mother and the child. Every doctor has already the 
ability to be able to make that decision to be able to protect the life 
of the mother. They have the protections to be able to do that.
  So this is a false claim that somehow what happened in the Dobbs 
decision and what is happening in the States is limiting that. It is 
actually the political rhetoric that is making people afraid.
  What also came out during the hearing this morning was the very real 
risk of chemical abortions. We have recently had tragic situations 
where women used the chemical abortion pills that they are being told 
are as safe as Tylenol, and that it has life-threatening and in some 
cases, recently, life-taking consequences. Chemical abortion pills are 
not Tylenol, yet they are being sold as that.
  And what we are seeing is more and more cases of the diminishing of 
``this is no big deal to be able to end this pregnancy'' when they 
haven't seen a doctor because the Biden administration is now saying 
you don't have to see a physician. So the woman doesn't know if she has 
an ectopic pregnancy or not. If she takes the chemical abortion pill 
while she has an ectopic pregnancy, she is at risk. But the Biden 
administration is saying: You don't have to see a doctor. They can just 
mail it to you. It is just as safe as Tylenol when it is not.
  We are also not being tested for their blood type to be able to make 
sure it doesn't affect future pregnancies during this chemical 
abortion. And they are not also determining by sonogram how far along 
the mom is in this process because there are limitations to this where 
it becomes more and more dangerous.
  All those things are restrictions that used to be there, that the 
Biden administration has taken away to say: No, we want more people to 
have access to chemical abortions. But it is making it more dangerous 
for women. And we have seen this recently.
  So we want to engage in a conversation about how can we actually put 
some of those basic humane doctor-requested restrictions in there to 
make sure we are protecting the lives of all those women. That is a 
better conversation for us to be able to have. To say: What is it the 
FDA actually said was appropriate in the past, and what can we do to be 
able to protect the lives of women?
  So, yes, I object to this resolution based on the wording and what we 
are doing. But, yes, we should be able to continue to have this 
conversation because there is a real concern that more and more doctors 
are afraid to do basic healthcare in an ER because more and more people 
are laying rhetoric out there that they are going to be arrested, and 
that is not true.
  There has not been a single physician in the country that has been 
arrested based on actually performing lifesaving care for mom in any ER 
room in the country.
  With that, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I disagree with the Senator from 
Oklahoma, and let me be perfectly clear about what is happening. Here 
in America, in the 21st century, pregnant women are suffering and 
dying, not because doctors don't know how to save them, but because 
doctors don't know if Republicans will let them.
  There are skyrocketing maternal death rates in States like Texas, and 
as I spoke out on the floor last week, there are at least two women 
dead in Georgia today because of Republican abortion bans. Those kids 
are now growing up without a mother. That is the harsh reality.
  Republicans can't ignore that. Donald Trump can't shout over it. The 
American people will not ever forget it. And every day we are going to 
continue to hold those people who are opposed to this accountable for 
the cruelty of these abortion bans.
  The fact is that the resolution that I offered simply says that 
doctors can provide emergency care for the life of a mother. I don't 
understand where the disagreement is, and I hope that we can pass this 
and give doctors and women the confidence that, in the United States of 
America, when you are pregnant and having a severe emergency medical 
situation, you will be treated.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.