Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 5:30 p.m. today, including quorum calls, be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

Madam President, I just listened to the senior Senator from New York--my friend from the gym and the minority leader--deliver some summaries of what he said was in the bill before us, and he implored this body and implored the people watching on C-SPAN to read the bill, stating they would find that all of these terrible things are in the bill.

I see the minority leader has to leave the floor now, but, humbly, I would urge him to come back and show us where any of what he just said is in this bill. What he said wasn't true.

I rise today for a simple purpose. I want to ask each and every one of our colleagues whether we are OK with infanticide. This language is blunt. I recognize that, and it is too blunt for many people in this body, but, frankly, that is what we are talking about here today.

Infanticide is what the abortion survivors--Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is actually about.

Are we a country that protects babies who are alive, born outside the womb after having survived a botched abortion? That is what this is about.

Are we a country that says it is OK to actively allow that baby to die, which is the current position of Federal law? That is the question before us, plain and simple.

Here are the facts. We know that some babies, especially late in gestation, survive attempted abortions. We know, too, that some of these babies are left to die--left to die. No further protections exist today to shield them from this ugly fate, and only some States have protections on their books. We have seen in our national discourse over the last month and a half a few States moving in different ways to undo protections that some of these babies have had at the State level.

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is trying to right this obvious wrong. The bill's terms are simple: A child born alive during a botched abortion would be given the same level of care that would be provided to any other baby born at that same gestational age. That is it.

This bill isn't about abortion. I am pro-life--unapologetically pro- life--but this bill is not about anything that limits abortion. This bill doesn't have anything to do with Roe v. Wade. This bill is about something else. What this bill does is try to secure basic rights, equal rights for babies who are born and are outside the womb. That is what we are talking about.

Over the course of the next hour, as this is debated on the floor, people are going to say a whole bunch of other things. I would ask them to please bring the text of the bill to the floor when they do it and show us whether there is anything about limiting abortion in this bill.

This bill is exclusively about protecting babies who have already been born and are outside of the womb. Every baby deserves a fighting chance, whether that 24-week old baby, fighting for air and fighting for life, having just taken her first breaths, is at an abortion clinic where she survived a botched abortion or she is in a delivery room at the local hospital. Both of those babies are equally deserving of care, protection, and humane treatment, and our laws should treat both of these human beings as babies because they are babies. They have been born, and they are outside of the womb.

This really should not be controversial. In fact, my colleagues actually talk this way all of the time. This place feels like about one-third of the people here are currently running for President, so I would like to quote a few of them over the course of the last couple months.

We ought to ``build a country where no one is forgotten, and no one is left behind.'' Amen to that. Amen to that.

``The people in our society who are most often targeted by predators are also often the voiceless and the vulnerable.''

That is true.

Another offered a promise to ``fight for other people's kids as hard as I fight for my own kids.''

Last week, our colleague from Vermont announced his campaign by saying: ``The mark of a great Nation is . . . how it treats its most vulnerable people.'' Bernie Sanders was right.

Now is the chance, in this body, to make good on that promise. Now is the chance to protect one of the most vulnerable populations on the land imaginable--tiny, defenseless, little babies, just having taken their first breath--or was that claptrap for the campaign trail or sound-bites? Or do people mean the stuff they say around here?

Let's put it another way. Today's vote asks whether or not you want to take the side of people like Virginia's disgraced Governor Ralph Northam?

Last month, before the news of his hideous yearbook broke, Governor Northam made clear that a baby born alive during an abortion could and maybe ought to be killed if that is what the parents and doctors decided they wanted to do after a debate. That was his position: You should make the baby ``comfortable,'' and then there could be a discussion about whether or not you throw that little baby into the trash can. That is what he actually talked about on the radio for a day and a half last month.

Governor Northam is disgraceful for a whole host of reasons, but unlike some other people, he actually told the truth about what he wants. He wants a society where some people count more than others, and other people are worth less than others. He wants a society where some people can be pushed aside if they are inconvenient. In reality, that is what we are voting on today.

Some of my colleagues want to write into our law a kind of permanent exception: ``Every human being should be protected from cruel and inhuman treatment--unless that human being came into the world through a botched abortion.'' Then, you can decide later if you want to kill them.

Tonight, what we are going to vote on in the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is a chance to see whether we are serious when people around here say they want to protect the innocent, speak up for the voiceless, and defend the defenseless. Tonight, we are going to have the opportunity to do exactly that. We can come to the aid of innocent, voiceless, defenseless little babies who have just taken their first breaths by protecting him and her from mistreatment and neglect.

This should be, frankly, the easiest vote we ever cast in this body, but the prospect of what we are voting on here is threatening to one of the most powerful interest groups in America. The abortion industry has taken to attacking this bill wildly over the course of the last 2 weeks, even though, as we made clear repeatedly and as the text of this bill makes indisputably clear, this bill has nothing to do with abortion itself. Nothing in this bill changes the slightest letter of Roe v. Wade. Nothing touches abortion access in this bill.

This bill is about living and breathing babies who are alive outside the womb. That is all that the text of this bill does, but Planned Parenthood and NARAL and their allies feel threatened by a bill to protect alive, out-of-the-womb babies. In other words, unlike this legislation, Planned Parenthood and others refuse to draw any line between abortion and infanticide. That is what their lobbying the last week has shown. That should tell us something about what these groups are really about. What they are about is a society built on power--the power of some people to decide whether other people get to live or die.

This bill is a stumbling block to anyone who thinks that some lives are less valuable than others. This bill is a stumbling block to anyone who thinks that certain human beings should be disposable. This bill is a stumbling block to anyone who thinks that we should be able to quietly rid ourselves of little people who were ``inconvenient'' or supposedly ``unwanted.''

They are not unwanted. There are lots of people in every single State in this Union lined up waiting to adopt, including kids who have lots of hard life circumstances. In every State there are waiting lists of people who will take so-called unwanted babies.

America is a country built on a different principle. Ours is a country dedicated to the proposition that all men and women--all boys and girls--are created equal, even the littlest--even if they happen to come into the world under the most horrible circumstances, even if they are crippled or inconvenient, or, apparently, for a moment, unwanted. Ours is a country that recognizes the fundamental indistinguishable dignity of every human being, regardless of race, or sex, or creed, or ability. As a country, we have struggled for 2 centuries--sometimes at enormous cost--to extend those basic human rights to more and more of our fellow citizens. Today's vote is simply an opportunity to continue that work.

Let me say by way of closing that despite oppositions and setbacks and despite some strange rhetoric about this bill over the course of the last week, I am hopeful in the long term. Deep down, each of us knows that every member of our human family ought to be protected and deserves to be cherished and loved. The love we see every day in the eyes of moms and dads for their newborn babies is an inescapable reminder of that fundamental truth. Love is stronger than power.

Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for less than 1 minute.

Mr. President, over the course of this afternoon, we have heard a whole bunch of things about what is supposedly in this bill. I know that a lot of people who are opposed to this bill, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, sincerely believe the talking points that they read from their staffs, but, humbly, we have heard speech after speech after speech about things that have absolutely nothing to do with what is actually in this bill.

So as you get ready to cast this vote, I urge my colleagues to picture a baby who has already been born, who is outside the womb, and who is gasping for air. That is the only thing that today's vote is actually about. We are talking about babies who have already been born. Nothing in this bill touches abortion access.

Thank you.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I would like to first thank Senator Murray for her steadfast leadership in the fight to protect women's healthcare and for arranging this time for us to speak this afternoon.

The legislation we are debating today is just the latest salvo in the far-right wing assault on a woman's constitutionally protected right to an abortion.

With all due respect to my colleague from Nebraska who introduced this legislation, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. Contrary to what the proponents of this bill argue, it is and has always been a crime to harm or kill newborn babies. People guilty of this crime can already be charged and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Let's be clear. The Senate isn't debating this legislation today because there is an epidemic of infanticide in this country. There is not one. There isn't one. I can hardly say it because it is really not happening; therefore, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. Instead, we are indulging the majority's use of a false premise to inflame the public, shame women, and intimidate healthcare providers.

When you strip away the ultraconservative rhetoric, you are left with a very simple argument from supporters of this legislation--that the moral judgment of rightwing politicians in Washington, DC, should supersede a medical professional's judgment and a woman's decision. Conservative politicians should not be telling doctors how they should care for their patients. Instead, women, in consultation with their families and doctors, are in the best position to determine their best course of care.

In talking to healthcare providers in Hawaii, I have heard how this legislation and other bills like it in States across the country could force them to provide care that is unnecessary or even harmful to patients. The Hawaii Section of the College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists made this point persuasively in testimony recently submitted to our State legislature's house committee on health earlier this month. In opposing similar so-called born-alive abortion legislation heard in Hawaii's State Legislature--which didn't make it out of committee, by the way--the group of doctors wrote:

We are physicians who provide compassionate, evidence-based

care. By criminalizing healthcare providers, this law may

actually reduce the number of healthcare providers (not just

the surgeons, but anesthesiologists, nurses, midwives, office

staff) willing to provide this care. But again, that is the

actual intent of this bill. Reducing access to safe abortion

care would threaten the health of women in Hawaii.

We are the physicians who care for patients when they find

out their very wanted, very loved baby has severe fetal

anomalies. Families sometimes choose to end the pregnancy and

provide their baby with palliative care rather than subject

their baby to any suffering or futile efforts at

resuscitation. These families face very difficult decisions

about what their values are and what is best for their

family; decisions that none of us has a right to make for

them or judge them for. What they need in these moments is

compassion and medically accurate information from healthcare

providers free of judgment or politics.

I couldn't agree more, and that is why I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

In just a few minutes, I expect the Senate will defeat this bill because it will fail to win the required 60 votes. Nevertheless, the threat to women's reproductive rights is intensifying in States and courtrooms all across the country. Over the past few years, States have enacted hundreds--hundreds--of laws that harm women's health and violate their constitutional right to an abortion.

Mississippi enacted a prohibition on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Ohio have passed laws banning dilation and evacuation--D&E--an abortion procedure used usually during the second trimester.

Indiana enacted a bevy of new abortion restrictions, including a law requiring every woman seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound--talk about invasive--and mandated she wait 18 hours after the ultrasound to have an abortion.

Louisiana passed legislation requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. This law would result in only one abortion provider in a State of 4.7 million people.

Advocates have recognized the harm these laws would have on women and

have filed suits to block their implementation. Several lower courts have ruled these restrictions unconstitutional, and the cases are moving steadily through the courts of appeals en route to the Supreme Court.

The Fifth Circuit, for example, will hear an appeal of a lower court's decision to block Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban, as well as an appeal from Texas to allow its ban on D&E procedures to go into effect.

The Seventh Circuit upheld a lower court ruling striking down parts of Indiana's mandatory ultrasound and waiting period law. The Indiana attorney general has requested the Supreme Court to review this case.

The Supreme Court temporarily stopped Louisiana's so-called admitting privileges law from taking effect on a 5-to-4 vote. This is the law I talked about before. This law would result in one abortion provider in a State of 4.7 million people.

The Fifth Circuit will now hear an appeal on the merits of the law, which is virtually identical to a Texas law the Supreme Court struck down in 2016--that was only a few short years ago--in the landmark Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt decision.

The stakes in these court battles and the more than 20 other abortion-related cases making their way through the Federal court are incredibly high. Any one of them would provide the opening for the U.S. Supreme Court to finally fulfill the rightwing goal of overturning Roe v. Wade.

It is with this central goal in mind that Donald Trump, Majority Leader McConnell, and complicit Republicans of Congress have been working to pack our Federal courts with ideologically driven judges groomed and handpicked by ultraconservative organizations like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation.

Donald Trump has already confirmed 85 judges, including 30 to circuit courts and 2 to the U.S. Supreme Court. These judges comprise one-tenth of the Federal judiciary, with many more to come.

In fact, a few weeks ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 42-- 42--judicial nominees out of committee in one markup. Those 42 comprise an additional 5 percent of the Federal judiciary.

Less than 2 weeks ago, Justice Kavanaugh issued a strong dissent in the earlier mentioned Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision to block Louisiana's anti-choice law from taking effect. Using tortured reasoning, Justice Kavanaugh essentially argued that the Supreme Court should disregard its own precedent from only 2 years ago--that is the Whole Women's case I referred to--to allow the Louisiana law to take effect. His dissent signaled his strong antipathy to a woman's right to choose, just as his dissent in Garza v. Hargan did when he was on the DC Circuit. His dissent as a Justice this time demonstrated the emptiness of his promises to uphold Supreme Court precedent during his confirmation hearing.

Justice Kavanaugh's promises then to follow precedent is like that of other Federalist Society-picked Trump nominees now packing our courts, offering little reassurance that nominees in fact will set aside their strongly held ideological views to be objective and fair as judges.

Another case likely to make its way through Federal courts in the months and years ahead is a challenge to the Trump administration's new gag rule. This rule prohibits doctors and other clinicians participating in title X family planning programs from referring patients for, or even speaking about, abortions, even if their patients request such information.

Nearly 20,000 Hawaii residents receive reproductive healthcare through title X. That is roughly the population of the city of Kapolei on Oahu. This attack on title X-funded agencies like Planned Parenthood is an end-run around Congress after Republicans have tried and failed dozens of times to end funding for Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood provides healthcare for millions--millions--of low-income women, men, and young people under title X. Why then do Republicans persist in trying to cut funding for Planned Parenthood?

The constitutional rights of millions of women across the country are under serious and sustained attack, but even in these not normal times, I do see some hope. As State after State passes laws to limit access for a woman's right to choose, communities like Hawaii's are coming together to protect such access.

Last week, I joined activists and staff from Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands as they opened their new medical center and administrative hub in downtown Honolulu. I was particularly energized to see how many young people, women and men, were there and engaged in the fight to protect our right to choice.

I have learned over the years that battles we fought so hard to win never stay won. It is up to all of us to stay engaged and keep fighting for our constitutionally protected rights.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I rise today, in commemoration of Black History Month, to recognize, honor, and pay tribute to five Pennsylvanians who have committed themselves to creating innovative solutions to our Nation's most pressing problems.

For 13 years, I have stood on this floor on this Monday, every year, to pay tribute to Pennsylvanians. Sometimes it has been one individual, and sometimes it has been more than one, but today we have five honorees.

While these innovators hail from different backgrounds and have each mastered a different craft, they share one thing in common, and that is a commitment to their communities and to improving the lives of others in groundbreaking ways.

Today, we will honor the individual work of the following people. I will list them for you first and then talk about each of them in succession: first, the Reverend Dr. Lorina Marshall-Blake; second, Joan Myers Brown; third, Sulaiman Rahman; fourth, Rakia Reynolds; and fifth, Omar Woodward. You will hear more about each of them in a moment. There is no one way, of course, to make a difference in our society. I hope the stories of today's honorees will help to inspire the next generation of leaders. These honorees are with us here in Washington today, and we are grateful to have the chance to spend a couple of minutes talking about each of them.

Let me start with the Reverend Dr. Lorina Marshall-Blake, someone I have known for a long time. This is the story of a woman who has spent her life working to build healthier communities by advancing the conversation on issues like the opioid crisis and health disparities in our Nation, just to mention two things.

Lorina Marshall-Blake's life began in West Philadelphia, alongside her sister and three brothers. She excelled in her education, earning degrees from Antioch College and the University of Pennsylvania.

Today, Lorina is vice president of community affairs for Independence Blue Cross and also president of the Independence Blue Cross Foundation. Lorina has spent the better part of 30 years working to improve access and healthcare outcomes for those across

the region of Southeastern Pennsylvania, which is Philadelphia and the counties and communities around the city of Philadelphia. Her faith- driven work continues outside of the office, where she serves as an associate minister at the Vine Memorial Baptist Church.

Lorina is affiliated with over 30 professional and civic organizations. I will just mention a few: The United Negro College Fund, the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, and the Urban Affairs Coalition. While the health and well-being of our Nation is not perfect, it is in great part thanks to women like Lorina Marshall-Blake that the future of healthcare and the future of access to healthcare is only brighter.

The second individual we are honoring is Joan Myers Brown. We all know that art itself has the power to enrich lives and inspire change. At the age of 17, Joan Myers Brown decided she was going to be a professional ballerina. She refused to let pervasive racism and segregation stop her from touring as a member of dance revues for Cab Calloway, Pearl Bailey, and Sammy Davis, Jr.

After excelling in her own right, she decided she wanted to give opportunity to others. To that end, in 1960, Joan Myers Brown started her own dance school in West Philadelphia called the Philadelphia School of Dance Arts. Building on that work, she founded the Philadelphia Dance Company in 1970. This dance company was created to provide opportunities for Black dancers who were systemically denied entrance to local schools. The company continues to be recognized across the world for its dancers and for its performances.

Personally, Joan is an industry icon in both the national and international art communities. For example, in 2005, the Kennedy Center honored her as a master of African-American choreography, and in 2009, she received the prestigious Philadelphia Award. In 2012, she received the National Medal of the Arts, the Nation's highest civic honor for excellence in the arts. The arts have benefited greatly from Joan Myers Brown.

Third is Sulaiman Rahman. No individual's success is achieved alone. We know that, and many in Philadelphia and beyond owe some of their success to Mr. Rahman. He has dedicated his life to empowering young professionals to personal and professional success.

After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania, Sulaiman started his career as an entrepreneur. He founded a platform for urban professionals to find local social, civic, and business events, and he successfully built an international marketing and distributing business.

With the goal of ending the opportunity gap for people of color, Sulaiman created the Urban Philly Professional Network and, later, DiverseForce, and the DiverseForce on Boards program. Every day he works to empower and connect the diverse leaders from multiple sectors and communities. He creates high-tech solutions to impact a more diverse business culture.

When he is not running DiverseForce, he is serving on a number of boards, including the Community College of Philadelphia Foundation, TeenSHARP, and the Year Up Greater Philadelphia Chapter.

Rakia Reynolds. We know that some of our Nation's greatest successes have been born out of interdisciplinary collaboration. Few in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania know how to bring people together for new opportunities like Rakia Reynolds. From her earliest days as a child reading the book ``A Wrinkle in Time,'' she has always been committed to making things happen.

She is a New Jersey native. She moved to Philadelphia to pursue a degree at Temple University. After working as a television and magazine producer, she started her own company, Skai Blue Media.

Among other ventures, she helped to craft Philadelphia's Amazon bid and continues to advise and grow small businesses of all types. She gives back to her community as the copresident of the Philadelphia chapter of Women in Film & Television and serves as a board advisor for Fashion Group International and the National Association for Multi- Ethnicity in Communications.

In addition to her full-time work in multimedia communications, Rakia is a wife to her best friend, her husband Bram, and mother to her three amazing children.

Finally, our fifth honoree is Omar Woodward. Like many of today's successful leaders, Omar Woodward understands the importance of social enterprises and knows how to look beyond what meets the eye.

Omar is a Southeastern Pennsylvania native. He is the executive director of the Philadelphia branch of the GreenLight Fund, a nonprofit venture capital firm that invests in evidence-based social innovations focused on ending poverty.

At the GreenLight Fund, Omar is investing millions of dollars to address the needs of many Philadelphians, including bringing formerly incarcerated individuals back into the job market, helping low-income children receive quality care, and ensuring that those who were eligible have access to public assistance programs.

Widely recognized for his expertise in nonprofit board governance, Omar is also a board member of the Philanthropy Network Greater Philadelphia, the Global Philadelphia Association, the Maternity Care Coalition, and the Girard College Foundation, and he holds multiple degrees from George Washington University.

In closing, these five individuals have overcome significant barriers to become pioneers in their fields and leaders in their communities. Throughout their careers, these innovators have recognized gaps within communities, developed creative ideas, and brought these ideas to life by using their determination, their passion, and their talent. We celebrate Black History Month to commemorate the great leaders of the past but also to celebrate the leaders of today and the leaders of tomorrow--the future.

It is my honor to recognize and to pay tribute to the Rev. Dr. Lorina Marshall-Blake, Joan Myers Brown, Sulaiman Rahman, Rakia Reynolds, and Omar Woodard for their work in creating a stronger, more innovative Philadelphia. I look forward to the work these leaders will continue to do and the impact their work will have on the city of Philadelphia, our Commonwealth, and our Nation.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to join many of my colleagues in raising our voices on behalf of some of the most vulnerable members of our society.

Recently, a very disturbing and revealing discussion has been taking place in our country that raises serious questions about how much value and worth we ascribe to babies in the womb, especially those who are born despite an attempted abortion procedure.

Before I go any further, let me say this clearly and unequivocally: If we as a nation are to hold any claim to a moral character that deserves to be admired and emulated, then we must be willing to say that the lives of newborn children have inherent value and are worthy of protection. There is simply no way to credibly claim otherwise.

Whether it be legislation introduced or enacted by State legislatures or comments made by public officials, such as the Governor of Virginia, our country has begun to entertain the idea that the rights and privileges newborn babies possess is an open-ended question.

This is alarming, and the U.S. Senate should go on the record in defense of their right to live instead of being callously discarded or worse--intentionally killed in the name of reproductive freedom. There is no middle ground here.

It is concerning to me that in some corners of this country, and even within this Congress, there is an utter failure to recognize and affirm the right to life, especially after an infant has already been born.

Throughout my time in elected office, I have found that giving those who disagree with me on any given issue the benefit of the doubt as it relates to their motivations has allowed me to consistently find commonality and reach compromise, even with incredibly unlikely allies and partners. But in this instance, there can be no mistake or ambiguity. The common ground that we all must occupy should be a shared commitment to uphold the basic, fundamental right to protect the life of every child, no matter the circumstances of his or her birth, which brings me to the legislation before the Senate today.

I am a cosponsor of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and I am grateful to each of my colleagues who supported the bill tonight. This legislation would create criminal penalties for doctors who allow infants to die rather than provide medical care after an attempted abortion.

It would also require that born-alive abortion survivors be transported to a hospital for care and treatment rather than being left to languish on the counter of an abortion clinic or--as one former nurse and pro-life activist has shockingly recounted--be discarded along with the biohazard materials.

Even in situations where comfort care is rendered to these little ones, that sometimes amounts to nothing more than keeping a baby warm until it passes away alone. No child should suffer this way.

Under this bill, abortionists who defy these mandates to render care to born-alive survivors would face the justice that they are due instead of being ignored or permitted to continue committing infanticide.

It is time for our country to demand that the victims of this abhorrent, inhumane treatment be afforded their rights and the perpetrators be held accountable.

Speaking with one clear voice, we must say that every human being is made in the image of God and is therefore in possession of dignity and worth that cannot be displaced or dispossessed. Anything short of this unambiguous declaration would be a tremendous disservice to our children and fatally undermine the values of our society that we claim to uphold.

While the debate surrounding abortion has engulfed this country for decades, the goalposts are now being shifted. Reproductive autonomy, we are now told, must include the ability and choice to end the life of a baby who survives an attempted abortion.

As a former medical provider, I believe that to end a newborn's life either by refusing to provide lifesaving care or actively taking that child's life--as in the case of the infamous abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell and others--violates the oath every medical provider takes to do no harm.

As a dad and a grandfather, I know from my own experience just how precious each life is. My daughters and grandchildren are treasured gifts that bring my family and me immeasurable joy. To think that they or any other child might be treated with anything other than the dignity and respect they are entitled to is tragic, heartbreaking, and outrageous.

Providing necessary medical attention to save the lives of infants who survive an abortion is an imperative that we as a society must embrace if we are to be faithful to the promise our Founders made to the generations of Americans who would succeed them. In declaring the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, surely they intended to extend the same rights and liberties that their countrymen fought and died for to newborn babies who survive abortions.

I am proud to have stood with my colleagues today in support of this legislation that seeks to protect these precious, vulnerable lives. We can and should do this as a reflection of the country we want to be.

Our abortion laws in the United States already situate us among some of the world's worst human rights abusers, including North Korea and China.

Now a national conversation about whether to provide children who survive abortions medical attention and care has ensued. It is my hope and prayer that the final word in this discussion will end with a resounding commitment to protect and preserve life.

I would like to thank the junior Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Sasse, for leading on this critical issue and pushing to bring this measure to the floor today.

I would also like to thank the President for his vocal commitment to defending life and protecting the most vulnerable among us.

I feel blessed to stand alongside so many others to raise our voices on behalf of the voiceless.

While I am disappointed with the result of today's vote, I remain committed to fighting for those who are unable to fight for themselves and will continue working to protect and uphold the sanctity of life.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the floor for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. President, it has been interesting to hear the debate today about how heartless it would be to protect the life of a child. The debate from the other side has come out fast and furious, saying that S. 311 is about a child who is not viable and that somehow we are going to put a mom through more torment with a child that is not viable.

The plain text of this bill could not be clearer. This is not about abortion. This is about a child who has been born alive and who is a viable child.

Here is the interesting conversation. Many people in this country argue about abortion--rightfully so. We are talking about the life of a child. This, in particular, though, has a clear argument. What if an abortion is botched, and instead of the child being killed in the womb, they are actually delivered? Now a child is on the table who is crying, with pink skin, 10 fingers and toes wiggling, and is reaching out. What happens now? That is the question with this bill.

Interestingly enough, it is not the first time it has come before the Senate. In 2002, this same issue came before the Senate. The Senate, the House, and the President all agreed that if an abortion was botched and the child was delivered, that child is a child. By definition, that is a child. In 2002, what that bill did not do is define what happens next if the life of that child is then taken after they are born.

This wouldn't be an issue because it is clearly defined in law except for the fact that a few weeks ago, the Governor of Virginia made a public statement saying that we need to have a law to say that we could deliver a child, make it comfortable, and then decide what to do with that baby. Suddenly, this becomes a national conversation.

We thought this was a resolved issue in 2002, but it is not. There is still debate from the other side saying: Deliver the child and then decide what to do with the life of that child.

This is not just an issue that has no consequence as well. After that bill was passed in 2002, the CDC started analyzing birth certificates to determine if this happens and how often it happens.

It doesn't happen often, but in a few number of States where the CDC gathered information from, it determined there were 143 babies who were born alive after an attempted abortion and who then died with no record of how it happened.

Just in 5 months in 2017, the State of Arizona reported that 10 babies were born alive after an attempted abortion. This doesn't happen often, but it does happen, and the question is, Who are we as a nation and what are we going to do with a child who is in front of us who is alive?

Medical professionals are called to do no harm--the Hippocratic Oath. It is interesting to see medical professionals provide care to every person everywhere they go. If there is a car accident, it doesn't matter if it is their patient. They pull over and help. Interestingly enough, at the State of the Union Address, just a couple of weeks ago, we had a staff member in the back who passed out, and Members of Congress who are also physicians, who were in their seats, jumped out of their seats to go provide care because that is what physicians do. But in the case of a botched abortion, the child is delivered and then everyone who is a medical professional just steps back and watches the child die and doesn't provide care. It is the reverse of the Hippocratic Oath. We need to resolve this in our law.

If I can even make a comparison. We as people, and even soldiers in the field, honor life. Soldiers who were trained to take life still are also trained to honor life.

Article 12 of the Geneva Convention, which we support, says this: ``Members of the armed forces and other persons . . . who were wounded, sick . . . shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.'' Literally, if you are in the fight of your life on the field, as our Armed Forces are, and you run across a wounded individual in that fight from the other side, we give care to that person, even though they are our enemy on the battlefield. But in an abortion clinic, that child is not given the same care that we are demanded to give on the battlefield.

This is a fascinating dialogue that I have had with a lot of my colleagues. For a lot of my colleagues who are pro-abortion and who don't see that as a life, I will often ask this simple question: When is a life a life? What is your redline? I think that is a fair conversation.

For myself, it is conception. When that child is conceived and they are developing, they have unique DNA. That is a different person. For others, they will say it is when the child is viable. For others, they will say when the child is born.

I just ask a simple question. When the child is born, is that a child? Is your redline birth? This bill affirms that when a child is born, we should at least acknowledge that that is a person.

I am a dad who has cut the umbilical cord of my own daughter before. I would be terrified to say that the child was not a child until I, as the dad, cut the cord--that I could take that life at any moment before that. That is not who we are as Americans.

Let's pass this. Let's protect living children.

With that, I yield the floor.