Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Page S7196]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the President's nominees
for the Federal bench. I strongly believe that women should be in
charge of their own healthcare decisions. Family planning choices are
deeply personal, and women should be free to make the choice that is
right for them, their family, faith, personal beliefs, or medical
needs. As States like Alabama, Georgia, and others attempt to roll back
women's access to reproductive healthcare, it is more important than
ever that we work together to protect this right.
Unfortunately, too many of President Trump's nominees to the Federal
courts hold beliefs that fail to respect long-settled precedent on
women's healthcare. For example, the Senate recently voted to confirm
Sarah Pitlyk to a Federal district court. As an attorney, she defended
Iowa's unconstitutional ban on abortions at 6 weeks. Pitlyk has also
worked to defend the Trump administration's Title X gag rule, which
prohibits healthcare providers who receive this critical funding from
discussing the full range of family planning options with their
patients. And finally, she lacked any meaningful trial experience. It
is no wonder the American Bar Association found that she was
unqualified to serve on the district court.
Despite Roe v. Wade being the law of the land, too many of President
Trump's nominees have actively sought to undermine the rights of women
to control their own reproductive health choices. Their amicus briefs,
legal writings, and arguments demonstrate a hostility towards women's
rights that are incompatible with the role of a Federal judge.
I will continue to evaluate President Trump's judicial nominees based
on their stances on women's reproductive health and remain committed to
voting for nominees who have a strong record on upholding
constitutionally protected reproductive healthcare rights. Accordingly,
had I been present in the Senate, I would have voted against the
nominations of Michael Park to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, Dan Collins to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, Peter Phipps to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, Wendy Williams Berger to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Brian Buescher to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nebraska, Michael Liburdi to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona, Sean Jordan to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Brantley Starr to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Jeffrey Vincent
Brown to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
and William Shaw Stickman IV to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, Stephen Menashi to serve on the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals and Lawrence VanDyke to serve on the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.
Moving forward, it is my hope that the President will nominate
individuals who respect women's healthcare decisions.
____________________
