[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 23, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3046-S3047]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 205

  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Lankford for 
organizing this time today because tomorrow, June 24, marks a pivotal 
anniversary in our Nation's history. In fact, it was 4 years ago that 
the Supreme Court ruled that there is no Federal constitutional right 
to abortion and overturned Roe v. Wade in a landmark 6-3 decision that 
altered the landscape of the pro-life movement forever.
  Reflect for a moment on how things would be different today if the 
Court had decided otherwise. If the Court decided there was a national 
right to abortion, society's culture of death would be more prevalent; 
States would be prevented from enacting pro-life laws, and as a result, 
millions of unborn children would have been killed and countless more 
women would have experienced the trauma of losing their child.
  I remember back in 2018 when I founded the U.S. Senate Pro-Life 
Caucus. I had no idea how important our work would become. I had no 
idea that we would get the opportunity to confirm pro-life Justices to 
the Supreme Court, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who became part 
of the majority on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe.
  The pro-life movement was given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to 
help promote a culture of life. And thanks to an incredible nationwide 
movement of grassroots activists, countless hearts and countless minds 
have been changed.
  We cannot understate the importance of that day 4 years ago.
  I remember I was struck by a profound truth that is found in the Book 
of Jeremiah 1:5. It says:

       Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you 
     were born, I set you apart.

  That is why there is dignity and value in every single life, 
including the unborn, the disabled, and the aging. Unfortunately, these 
beliefs are under attack by pro-abortion advocates who use a disability 
diagnosis to justify abortion.
  Between 60 to 80 percent of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are 
aborted in America. In fact, it is even higher in other countries. 
Nearly 100 percent in Denmark and Iceland.
  Let that sink in for a moment.
  Why would we ever think that is OK? To use a prenatal diagnosis as a 
case for abortion is discrimination at best and eugenics at worst. It 
also spurs the belief that having Down syndrome makes your life less 
valuable or not worth living.
  Individuals with Down syndrome make meaningful contributions to 
society and are loved by their families and friends. It is ironic that 
we celebrate Special Olympics here in the Washington. And yet we 
promote a prenatal diagnosis as a case to abort those athletes when 
they are in the womb.
  That is why I introduced the Protecting Individuals with Down 
Syndrome Act, which will ban doctors from performing abortions because 
the child received a prenatal Down syndrome diagnosis.
  Our Constitution says that all individuals are endowed by our 
Creator--that is with capital C--with the unalienable right to life.
  There is no clause that I can find that says ``except for individuals 
with Down syndrome.'' There is no clause that says ``except for anyone 
with a disability.'' It is very clear: Every person has a right to 
life. It is our duty to protect that life and be a voice for the 
voiceless.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill and for all the 
other pro-life legislation that my colleagues are speaking on today and 
tomorrow. I am confident that one day, by the grace and the hand of 
God, abortion will be unthinkable, and every preborn child will be 
protected by the law.
  So this week as we celebrate this anniversary of the historic Dobbs 
decision, let's reflect with grateful hearts on the progress we have 
made, and let's look forward with hope to a future where every life, 
born and unborn, is valued.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the 
Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 205 and the 
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, 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 Democratic whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the 
provision that is being offered by the Senator from Montana, we should 
be very clear as to what it does: It makes it illegal for a medical 
professional to perform an abortion with the knowledge that a pregnant 
woman is seeking an abortion, in whole or in part--in whole or in 
part--on the basis of a test result indicating the fetus has Down 
syndrome, a prenatal diagnosis that the fetus has Down syndrome, or any 
other reason to believe the fetus may have Down syndrome.
  Understand what the Senator from Montana is saying. We are holding 
the medical professional--the doctor, in most cases--responsible for 
understanding the reason why a person is seeking an abortion, in whole 
or in part, which suggests to me that it may not even be a major part 
but just a consideration, if at all.
  So what is the penalty that the Senator from Montana would assess on 
the doctor who proceeds with the procedure which may be legal in the 
State it is being performed?
  If there is any question, even in whole or in part, that it involves 
Down syndrome, 5 years in prison--5 years in prison for that doctor.
  It goes on to say that it would be illegal for a medical professional 
to help a woman cross State lines for the purpose of obtaining an 
abortion due to a Down syndrome concern. That also has a penalty of 5 
years in prison.
  It is serious.
  So I guess the question I have to ask is, Is it our role as a 
politician, elected official, to call into question the reasons why 
someone may pursue a particular medical procedure?

[[Page S3047]]

  The Senator from Montana says, yes, and if that involves even 
partially a consideration of Down syndrome, 5 years in prison.
  I understand the compelling argument being made here, but there are 
compelling arguments to be made on both sides when it comes to this 
issue. If Republicans actually really wanted to help the Down syndrome 
community, they ought to focus on the issues that the community cares 
about.
  How would I know those issues? I went to the National Down Syndrome 
Society and saw the list of their top legislative priorities.
  No. 1, the top legislative priority for Down syndrome: Protecting 
Medicaid, No. 1, because it provides free health coverage for people 
with Down syndrome. And yet, we know what happened. This measure, the 
One Big Beautiful Bill Act, was considered on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate, the future of Medicaid.
  Every Republican Senator, including the Senator offering this 
provision, voted to cut Medicaid by $1 trillion over the next several 
years.
  I have checked in my State, downstate hospitals and clinics and 
doctors alike, and they said this is going to have a devastating impact 
on low-income individuals and individuals with disabilities. The 
National Down Syndrome Society knows that. That is why their highest 
priority--they would ask this Senate, this Congress, to function in 
this capacity, to protect Medicaid. But that is not the subject of the 
Senator's amendment before us today.
  Their second priority at the National Down Syndrome Society is ending 
discrimination with organ transplantation.
  And the third priority is important as well: Increasing funding for 
medical research at the National Institutes of Health.
  That is the same appropriation which, for 2 successive years, 
Republican President Donald Trump has attempted to cut dramatically. 
Some restoration has taken place in Congress.
  So the three highest priorities of the National Down Syndrome Society 
do not include the amendment coming before us today.
  Whether or when or how to start a family is an important decision 
best left entirely to a woman, her family, her healthcare provider. The 
U.S. Senate should not be involved in that decision making. There is no 
Member of the Senate who I think is competent to judge someone else's 
circumstances and what is going through their mind when they make a 
critical medical decision like this one.
  Today, we had a hearing, a spotlight hearing, on this issue, noting, 
as the Senator from Montana did, that we soon--tomorrow--will reach the 
fourth anniversary of the Dobbs decision.
  There were two women there who testified about their pregnancies and 
the problems that they ran into. Coincidentally, they were both mothers 
of children who were having subsequent babies, anxious to welcome those 
babies into the world, and then a sonogram disclosed terrible 
circumstances affecting that fetus.
  One lady's situation in Texas was she had to carry a fetus to term 
that could not survive. It was anencephalic. She was required under 
Texas law because they don't want to even get close to the notion of 
ending a pregnancy prematurely--she waited, risking her own health 
until a deadline was reached set by the legislature in Texas.
  Another lady, similar circumstance, a mother with a subsequent child, 
she thought everything was just fine, and the sonogram disclosed that 
the baby could not survive. That is a fact. That is a reality.
  To generalize and suggest that people are making selfish or personal 
decisions is really unfair. Each circumstance really begs the question 
as to whether we, as legislators, have a better insight into what is 
proper for a person in those circumstances or not.
  I think that this provision is not necessary. I believe that the Down 
Syndrome Society has listed their priorities, and this measure from the 
Senator of Montana is not one of them.
  Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.

                          ____________________