February 13, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 30 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session
All in Senate sectionPrev53 of 61Next
PROTECTING PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILDREN; Congressional Record Vol. 166, No. 30
(Senate - February 13, 2020)
Text available as:
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.
[Pages S1081-S1082] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] PROTECTING PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILDREN Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, earlier this week the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to discuss the level of care babies who are born alive should receive. You heard me correctly. We had a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss the level of medical care a baby that is born alive should receive. As heartbreaking as it is to even ask that question--as if there were more than one option--this is a real debate and something that needs to be paid attention to. There are actually some folks who think it is appropriate for doctors to provide something less than the highest standard of care to babies who survive abortions, and there are those who believe babies who survive abortions should receive the same level of medical assistance as any other baby. That is certainly where I stand. I believe that all life is precious and that every baby deserves a fighting chance. I can't imagine that there is a divergence of view on this topic. Of course, public opinion polling, for what that is worth, shows that the vast majority of Americans agree. Last year, a poll found that more than three-quarters of Americans support providing medical support for babies who survive abortions. It is hard for me to believe that there would be 25 percent on the other side of that, but, suffice it to say, the vast majority of people agree with the proposition that the same medical standard of care should apply. Unfortunately, there are people who make up that 25 percent in government who are in high-ranking positions and who wield a great deal of influence on this question. Take, for example, Virginia's Governor Ralph Northam. About this time last year, he made [[Page S1082]] comments which were deeply disturbing about how to care--or rather, not care--for certain newborn babies. He was caught during an interview. I would like to think he misspoke, but he certainly didn't claim that. This was actually his view. He said that after the baby was delivered, it would be kept comfortable. The baby ``would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.'' What would be the subject of that discussion, whether the baby would live or die? Presumably so. Instead of providing prompt care to save the baby, Governor Northam--who is, by the way, a pediatrician, of all things--believes that you should sit down and decide whether to let the child live or die. That is not healthcare. That is infanticide. In response to Governor Northam's comments--which, apparently, he spoke not just for himself but for a significant segment, maybe the 25 percent in that poll I mentioned earlier--our colleague from Nebraska, Senator Sasse, introduced a bill called the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. This legislation is very straightforward. It would require doctors who treat babies who survive an abortion with the same lifesaving care that other infants receive. It sounds like common sense, right? Well, common sense apparently is not all that common in some quarters. You might think that surely there are already protections that exist for that newborn baby. That has to be the law already, right? Sadly not. There are no Federal laws requiring healthcare providers to care for these babies just as they would any other infant in their care. Sadly, many of our Democratic colleagues in the Senate are just fine with that. When the Senate voted on this legislation last year, 44 Democrats voted against it--against it. But for those of us who are aligned more with the 75 percent of Americans who believe all babies deserve that care, we are not fine with that. This legislation would build on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, which actually passed the Senate unanimously at the time. That bill clarified that any infant born alive at any stage of development is a person--again, a statement of the obvious--regardless of the manner in which they were born. Now it is time to clarify that each person will receive appropriate medical care, no matter what their circumstances and how they happened to be delivered and born. One of our witnesses in today's and Tuesday's hearings was Dr. Robin Pierucci, a neonatologist at Bronson Methodist Hospital. Dr. Pierucci discussed the medical standard of care for babies born alive and concluded that ``we are always obligated to care, whether or not we have the ability to heal.'' I agree with her. There should only be one side to this question--the side that advocates for equal medical care for newborns, the side that believes that all infants deserve a fighting chance, the side that believes that life is precious and must be protected. When I attended this hearing, it reminded me of an article that was written back in 2004 by one of my favorite writers, Peggy Noonan. She was talking about a Presidential candidate, General Wesley Clark, running that year for the Democratic nomination for President. She quotes an interview that General Clark had with the publisher of the Manchester Union-Leader, Joseph McQuaid. Here is how the conversation went. General Clark says: I don't think you should get the law involved in abortion. McQuaid said: At all? Clark said: Nope. McQuaid said: Late-term abortion? No limits? Clark said: Nope. McQuaid said: Anything up to delivery? Clark said: Nope, nope. McQuaid: Anything up to the head coming out of the womb? Clark said: I say it is up to the woman and her doctor, her conscience. You don't put the law in there. Back when the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it made clear that at some point, once the fetus is viable, you are dealing with more than just the interest of the mother. I know the whole debate over abortion is divisive in this country, but at some point you have to realize you are not just talking about one person but two people, and each of those individuals has rights, and the State certainly has an interest in protecting a vulnerable child. In my State of Texas--and I dare say in Florida and in every other State in the country--we have child protection laws in place which say if you witness child abuse or neglect, you have a legal duty to report it. Again, the law says, if you see a child that is being abused or neglected, you have a duty to report it, and if you don't do it, you are guilty of a crime. How in the world we could reconcile these ideas that it is somehow OK to deliver a child, even though it is a botched abortion, and not have a legal, much less a moral, duty to care for that child is irreconcilable. I think it is really important for the Senate to stand on the side of life. This is not an abortion issue. This is a matter of equal protection under the law and whether we are going to fulfill our duty to protect the most vulnerable among us--the children, who might otherwise be abused or, certainly, neglected. I am proud to cosponsor this legislation and to stand up firmly on the side of our most vulnerable citizens. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________
All in Senate sectionPrev53 of 61Next