Unanimous Consent Request--S. 205

Floor Speech

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?

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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source