-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my colleagues for being willing to stand up and defend innocent human life.

I remember, recently, watching a young woman walk across one of the downtown bridges in Austin, TX, carrying a sign that read: ``Abortion-- any time, any reason.''

That is what she was advocating for. I was shocked when I saw it because I thought even the most ardent advocates of abortion would not take that position of denying the humanity of this unborn child, but, apparently, that is what it has become here--48 years after the Supreme Court first created a right to abortion out of whole cloth as a constitutional right.

You look, in vain, in the Constitution of the United States, as well as in the amendments to the Constitution, for any reference at all to abortion. What you will find, if you read the Declaration of Independence, is a familiar statement to all of us. On July 4, 1776, the 13 States then that made up America wrote: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.''

By the way, there is no asterisk--there is no footnote--that says, if you are an unborn human life, that you are denied this unalienable right to life.

Such noteworthy figures as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was probably one of the most aggressive advocates for abortion rights on the U.S. Supreme Court, later in life decried the fact that, by the Supreme Court's holding a right to abortion as a constitutional right, it denied the very sort of give-and-take debate by which our differences are resolved in the States and at the national level.

I would just like to point out some of the misinformation that you hear and read about Roe v. Wade.

If Roe v. Wade is no longer the precedent by which abortion rights are decided, it will not mean that abortion will not be available in many, if not all, of the States. What it will mean is that it will be decided, under our Federal system, on a State-by-State basis, according to the decisions made by elected State leadership, including the legislature.

In 1973, Richard Nixon was inaugurated for the second time as President of the United States. Suffice it to say that a lot has happened since then--a lot. I think it is entirely appropriate that the U.S. Supreme Court revisits its precedents, including Roe v. Wade-- decided in 1973--and decide if that precedent has stood the test of time.

By the way, in serving on the Judiciary Committee, we frequently have nominees for the Supreme Court of the United States come before the committee, and many of my pro-choice colleagues will say: Do you agree, Judge or Future Judge, that Roe v. Wade is the precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court?

Of course, that is along with Casey and the other decisions that have been decided since then, but they act as if the U.S. Supreme Court cannot revisit bad decisions and correct those bad decisions.

To act as though Supreme Court precedent is somehow sacrosanct would still leave us with the likes of Dred Scott, which treated African Americans as less than fully human. Obviously, we fought a Civil War, and 600,000 Americans died--that would be the equivalent of 3 million people today--in a bloody Civil War that tore our country apart.

So being able to revisit those precedents, especially in light of the passage of time and over long experience, is entirely within the purview and entirely appropriate for the Supreme Court to do.

Well, we have heard from my other colleagues that, since Roe was decided in 1973, more than 60 million abortions have been performed in the United States. As originally was decided, Justice Blackmun wrote an opinion and established an event he called viability. Basically, the argument by the proponents of Roe is that somehow, in this decision by Justice Blackmun's saying that abortion should be widely available pre- viability, we should not be able to reconsider or take a look at that. The truth is, Justice Blackmun admitted this was an arbitrary standard.

What does ``viability'' mean?

We have heard that seven countries around the world have more permissive or equally permissive abortion laws as the United States. I, frankly, don't want to be in the same company as North Korea or the People's Republic of China, governed by the Communist Party. I would hope that America would aspire to something different and better and more humane, more in line with our fundamental statement about the unalienable right to life.

But, as to the fact that America is only one of seven countries that allows elective abortions after 20 weeks, which, as I said, puts us in the same category as communist China and North Korea, you would think that would raise a huge red flag as to say something is terribly wrong here.

How is it that we are in the same category as communist North Korea and as communist China when it comes to the value we place on unborn life?

Well, unfortunately, we have seen the right to life become a partisan issue in the U.S. Congress when you take a look at the pro-life legislation which has been introduced over the last years.

We saw last year, for example, our Democratic colleagues filibuster legislation to outlaw elective abortions after 20 weeks, which is when science tells us that an infant can feel pain. Then they blocked a bill requiring physicians to provide lifesaving care to infants who survive abortions. This is care that any other newborn baby would receive, and yet our colleagues--so concerned about the backlash among their pro- abortion constituents--blocked it, denying a child born alive after a botched abortion the same sort of care that any other newborn would be entitled to. They blocked it.

And the latest attack on an unborn baby's right to life is the Women's Health Protection Act. This bill would undermine State laws limiting abortion, even after viability, and undercut the Supreme Court's ruling that defines our current definition of ``viability.''

What does ``viability'' mean?

Even at 20 weeks, can an unborn child live without medical attention and support from their mother or medical personnel?

Of course not.

This was an arbitrary line drawn by the Supreme Court in 1973. As we have heard from many of my colleagues, medicine has, thankfully, advanced considerably since that time.

Well, even though the U.S. Congress seems to be stuck when it comes to the issue of abortion and respecting the right to life of unborn babies, thankfully, the States have taken the issue up, which is why States, like Mississippi, have passed their own legislation to protect unborn babies.

Pro-abortion advocates say, well, 15 weeks--which is what the Mississippi law says. They say that a right to abortion only for the first 15 weeks of a pregnancy violates constitutional rights. But it is interesting. It is no less arbitrary than this notion of viability, which suggests that a child can live--which they cannot--outside the mother's womb even if they are 20 weeks or 24 weeks of gestational age. Interestingly, in a number of States, like Massachusetts and Nevada, abortions are restricted after 24 weeks. California, Washington, Illinois are among States that explicitly restrict abortions after viability.

The American people clearly stand behind the protection of unborn life. This summer, a poll found that 65 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal in the second trimester. That is the second 3-month period of a 9-month pregnancy.

Opposition to third-trimester abortion is even stronger, as 80 percent of Americans are opposed to a third-trimester abortion. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a Nebraska law banning late-term abortion, which is essentially producing a delivery while the child is still alive, killing the fetus, and then completing that abortion. The Supreme Court of the United States upheld a ban on that third-trimester, late-term abortion--that brutal and barbaric practice that even the Supreme Court could not abide.

Last June, a baby born at 21 weeks and 2 days, this last summer, celebrated his first birthday. That is what is at stake here when you are dealing with more than just one person--or you are dealing with more than just one person.

The question is: How do you balance and deal with the rights not only of the woman seeking the abortion, but also of the unborn child?

Right now, under its current jurisprudence, that unborn child is not even considered a human.

America cannot be its best if we devalue the lives of the most vulnerable among us. I believe that babies with heartbeats, fingerprints, and taste buds deserve some protection under the law.

I am proud of the efforts led by our colleague Senator Lankford and others to make sure that we actually have a discussion about this issue and don't just sweep it under the rug and we don't just let the pro- abortion lobby mischaracterize what we are talking about, as if eliminating Roe would eliminate abortions in America. It would just allow the States to do it on a State-by-State basis.

But, actually, Roe was made up right. It created a constitutional right that is not even stated in the Constitution itself, and it created an arbitrary time limit in which abortions could be performed or not as a matter of constitutional right.

So I join the rest of the body and this country awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling. I believe that it is more than appropriate for the Supreme Court to revisit its precedence that essentially disparaged and denigrated the right to life of an unborn child.

I would yield the floor to my friend from Oklahoma.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source