Mr. President, it is amazing how much we talk about our kids. People talk about bipartisan things here all the time. There is a bipartisan conversation often about our families and about our kids and…
Mr. President, it is amazing how much we talk about our kids. People talk about bipartisan things here all the time. There is a bipartisan conversation often about our families and about our kids and how proud of them we are and about sharing our lives with each other.
My two daughters are a remarkable part of my family, of who I am. I can't even process life without thinking about the two of them.
Our kids are some of the most valuable moments of our entire lives and our greatest memories. When they were little, we looked into their eyes and saw potential, and we dreamed for them. From our earliest days of pregnancy, Cindy and I talked about the future for our girls as we prayed for them, thought about them, prepared for them, and it had sunk in what an incredible responsibility they really were. Kids are that way. That is that earliest moment that we talk about all the time.
What is remarkable about this photo is thinking about just exactly what this moment could be like because, in this moment, there are really two directions that it could go in America. This little one was born several weeks early. For that little one, life could have gone in two different directions. This group of doctors is gathered around this little one, delivering this child, and watching him take his very first breath. Only seconds before that, that same little one we see there with this same group of doctors could have been destroyed--that life in the womb--and it would have been OK.
You see, in America, this moment could go two different directions at any time. This life could be there, and we could watch the decades ahead of him or, seconds before this picture was taken, when that child was still in the womb, that life could have been destroyed, and no one would have paid attention because the determination of whether this is a child or whether this is just a little lump of tissue is determined by a few seconds in a delivery room. If it is still inside the womb, it is not a child; it is just tissue. A few seconds later, when he is delivered, everyone smiles and looks at the face of this baby and says: What a beautiful child, and what a remarkable miracle that is.
How do we do that in America? How do we decide what is life and what is just tissue?
Some people would say it is only a child if we believe it is a child. If we don't believe it is a child, it is not a child; it is only tissue.
Some people say it has incredible value, and we should prepare for his or her college, and we should think and pray about his future and his spouse and what he is going to do. Some people would say it is meaningless--just flesh that can literally be put into a bag and taken to the curb. The determination is really by the mom and the dad there. They get to choose whether that is a child or whether that is tissue.
I honestly don't understand that conversation because when I look at this child with fingers and toes and hair and unique DNA, there is nothing different about that child right there than this child. You see, that child whom we saw in the picture before is the same age as this one, but, this time, this is a 3D ultrasound taken inside the womb, but there is no difference between the two. Both of them have faces and fingers and toes and nervous systems and functioning brains and lungs. They have DNA that is different from their moms and their dads--DNA that is unique to those people. Whether you can see him or not, that heartbeat and that DNA is a child.
In America, we still have this ongoing dialogue: When is ``life'' life?
I heard someone earlier jokingly say that if this life were discovered on Mars, we would say Mars had life on it, but we are still discussing whether this life is a life on Earth. What do we do with that?
Here is what we continue to debate and continue to have a conversation about. On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court ruled on what is now the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. It was supposed to have settled the issue about life. It was supposed to have settled the issue that every single State has to allow abortion and that life, according to the Supreme Court in 1973, was about viability. When can this child live on his own outside the womb--viability?
Viability in 1973 was very different than viability now, thankfully. When we think about viability now, there are people born at 21 or 22 weeks--extremely early--who would have never survived in 1973 but who regularly survive now because of great medical care. Viability really doesn't determine life, though. Life is something that begins much earlier, and for some reason in our culture, we are still having a conversation about what to do with that tissue.
As Americans, we spend a lot of time trying to work on very difficult issues, but for some reason, this has become a partisan issue that is exceptionally divisive in this culture. This life and this child shouldn't be a partisan issue. This shouldn't be a Republican child or a Democratic child. This should just be a child, and we should be able to pause for a moment and determine what we are going to do about her and determine: Is she valuable?
As a culture, we spend billions of dollars caring for the homeless because we believe that every single life matters and that no life can just be thrown away just because one struggles with life. We spend billions of dollars caring for the oldest and the weakest in our society because they need 24-hour care and because we respect that life and the dignity that it carries. We demand equal protection for women and men of all races, all ages, all sexual orientations, all faiths. We demand that as a culture because we believe, as a culture, that every person should have respect and every person should have opportunity because of one's great potential.
We pat ourselves on the back when we adopt abused animals, when we stand up against human trafficking worldwide, when we help clean up ocean trash, or when we plant trees to beautify our communities. Yet we are having a tough time considering that child as a child.
We even require that cigarettes, alcohol, theme park rides, medicines, and many other products have warning labels on them to warn pregnant moms not to use the product because it could harm the child because, as a culture, we acknowledge that a mom's smoking hurts a child. Yet, for some reason, we can't seem to acknowledge that a child could be hurt by an abortion and that it really would end a life.
It is my guess that anyone who disagrees with this has already tuned me out because, as a culture, we don't want to think about this life because if, for a moment, we pause and consider that maybe she is really alive and has purpose and value, we would have to swallow hard and acknowledge the millions of little girls just like her who have died in abortions in America--millions. To fight against having to deal with that, we just don't want to think about it, and we just tune it out. Yet, if you are one of the folks who has actually stuck with me through the dialogue, let me walk through a couple of things just to think about.
Let's start with a few things--the science. This little girl has DNA that is different than her mom's and dad's. It has cell division. It has something that we would look at in normal embryonic development called the Carnegie stages of embryonic development.
For years and years, every medical school teaches the Carnegie stages of embryonic development. They look at cell division at the beginning point and acknowledge, as they go through the
process, that this is a child from the earliest moments and that it is a stage of life. Every single person who can hear me right now has gone through the Carnegie stages of embryonic development, just like this little one has. Every person has because we understand that it is a natural part of life, that it is a stage of life, that it is an acknowledgment of life.
It is something that we acknowledge in the animal world because this Congress has passed laws to deal with endangered species, including a $100,000 fine if you damage a golden eagle's egg, a bald eagle's egg, if you go to marine turtles' nesting spots to destroy or to even disturb the nests of marine turtles. In Oklahoma, we deal with barn swallows that will build their nests in the springtime in construction areas. All construction has to stop if a barn swallow builds a nest in a construction area, because those eggs are important, not so much because of the barn swallow but because there is a common understanding in this Congress that those eagle eggs, turtle eggs, and barn swallow eggs are future barn swallows, turtles, and eagles. We acknowledge that it is a life that is in process. So we protect it, but we can't seem to make the simple, logical step that that eagle egg becomes an eagle and she is a little girl.
The science screams at us in this area, but for many people, they just don't want to think about it because, at this stage, she is in the womb. She is invisible. She hasn't reached the stage at which you can see her. For many people, they say: She is only alive when I can see her. If I can't see her, she is not real.
The problem is that the science doesn't prove that out.
The second issue that we have to deal with is where we are as a culture and where we are as a country compared to other countries on this simple issue about looking at this little one and asking: Is that a child or is that just tissue? Where is the rest of the world on this?
It is interesting to note that the rest of the world is in a very different spot than is the United States on this. This is a simple map of the world. Most of the world--and you will see it in gray here--says that abortion should stop at 12 weeks. That is 3 months. After 3 months, you can't have an abortion anymore.
There are seven countries in the world that will allow abortion all the way up to 24 weeks. They are the countries that are here in black-- Canada, the United States, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Singapore, and the Netherlands. They allow abortions up to 24 weeks.
At 24 weeks and on, in the third trimester, there are only four countries in the world that allow late-term abortions--only four-- China, North Korea, Vietnam, and the United States. Everywhere else in the world looks at that child and says that the child is a child--fully viable--except the United States, China, North Korea, and Vietnam. Now, that is not a club I really want us to be in.
All of Europe has banned late-term abortion--all of it. All of Africa, most of Asia, and all of Central and South America have looked at this, and as separate cultures, they have said no to a late-term abortion--that he is a fully viable child.
Interestingly enough, there was a survey that just came out today--a nationwide survey--that asked Americans' opinions on this issue about life. There were 75 percent of Americans who said there should not be abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy--that is 3 months--except to protect the life of the mom. This was 75 percent of Americans. They are with this part of the world. This part of the world all says that same thing. That is most of Europe, and most of that area says OK to 12 weeks, but that after 12 weeks, you have to stop because the child has a functioning nervous system and brain and is developing in all of those areas.
Even if you don't acknowledge where I am, where I believe that life begins--at conception--why can't you at least acknowledge that at 12 weeks, which is where most of the rest of the world is, he is a child that should be protected?
At what point do we, as Americans, slow down enough to look at what we don't want to look at and at what the rest of the world has done, except for Vietnam, North Korea, and China? Why do we want to be in that group when we deal with the issue of life? Those are some of the worst human rights violators in the world. Why are we in that club?
Folks have recently said to me: You know, I understand this is a legislative issue, but it is really a faith issue. This is really about your faith, and your faith should not legislate who I am.
I would only tell you that a culture makes decisions, including our culture, not just about its faith but about its values as a culture.
Stealing is also a religious issue. It is in the Ten Commandments. So maybe, as a culture, we shouldn't ban stealing because the Ten Commandments say you shouldn't steal. No one would really say that because, as a culture, we all look at it and say that theft is a problem, that you shouldn't be able to do that.
A culture makes its decisions based on its own personal values. So it is not just a religious issue, but our faith does impact our personal lives and decisions. It does affect who we are.
In China, where most faith is banned, they allow abortion at any stage. In fact, in China the state is the most important thing. Everything is about building up the state. The individual has no value. The state has the greatest value. China determines it has too many people. So it forces women to have abortions. It compels them. Some can only have one child, and some can have two children, but every child after that has to be aborted because the state chooses that. Its greatest value is the state.
Our greatest value is the individual. That is why our documents begin with things like ``we the people,'' because the individual has value. We look at the senior adults who are in the nursing homes and provide care for them. We look at the homeless person, the child who is in need of food, and that little girl who is still in the womb, and we say they all have value because the individual has importance.
I had someone who caught me and said: You know, your faith has this whole verse in the Bible that says: ``I was knit together in my mother's womb.'' So this is a religious issue. You have a belief that each child was knit together by God in their mother's womb.
Then they paused and said: That is fine for you to have that belief, but I have the belief that they were knit together, but it is when they are not done. They are not fully knit together. They are not really a shirt. They are only a sleeve, and if they are still in development, then, they are not fully developed. They are not really a child yet.
I smile at that and say: Actually, although this child was born premature, you are right. She is not fully developed. It is not just a sleeve. It is just a smaller shirt, but she will get there because everything about your life's development--your hair color, your height, your health--is all bound up in those first cells as they start dividing in your own unique DNA.
This is not about a religious conviction. This is about a child and who we are as a culture.
Let me say this: I understand there is a lot of conversation about this. As I mentioned before, this has become a partisan, divisive issue. This is not trying to be a Republican or Democrat. I have met Republicans and Democrats who both can look at this picture and say that is a child, not tissue.
This shouldn't be a divisive or political issue, neither should this be an attacking and condemning issue of the moms and dads who have walked through abortion. Quite frankly, I have great compassion for them. For those moms who have had an abortion, that memory never goes away for them. Years later, they sit in the food court at the mall and watch a small child playing nearby and think: That is how old my child would be right now if they were still alive. I have not met a mom, ever, who wasn't affected by abortion and the memories that come back to them on that.
This is not a flippant issue for any person who goes through an abortion. I grieve for those folks and the struggle they have, but I also grieve for us as a nation in the devaluing of something so obvious as a child. We can do better as a country, but the first thing we have to do is stop and look.
As a nation, we have been through some moments that we are not proud
of, but as a nation, we are proud of who we can become. As a nation, we are not proud that at one point, we declared African-American men and women as three-fifths of a man. As a nation, we are not proud of that. As a nation, we are not proud that we once told women they could not vote. As Americans, we are not proud that at one point, we took Japanese-Americans and interned them in camps because we were afraid of them. As Americans, we are not proud of those moments.
I pray there is a day that we are not proud that we looked away from little girls and little boys and said: You are not human enough yet. Your life can be ended because I don't want to look at you.
The beginning for us, really, is to stop and look at what is obvious. That is a child. What are you going to do about that child?
One of the great books of the 20th century was written by a man named Ralph Ellison, who, by the way, was an Oklahoman. Ralph Ellison was a tremendous African-American author. In the early 20th century, he wrote a book called ``Invisible Man.'' It is a remarkable journey to look into that time period. The author, who is really writing as the narrator of the book, is telling his story.
In the prologue of the book, there is a section I want to read to you because I think it is powerful, just thinking about the philosophy that Ralph Ellison put out. He said this:
I am a man of substance, of flesh and bone, fiber and
liquids--and I might even be said to possess a mind. I am
invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see
me. Like the bodiless heads you see sometimes in circus
sideshows, it is as though I have been surrounded by mirrors
of hard, distorting glass. When they approach me they only
see my surroundings, themselves, or figments of their
imagination--indeed, everything and anything except me.
Nor is my invisibility exactly a matter of biochemical
accident to my epidermis. That invisibility to which I refer
occurs because of a peculiar disposition of the eyes of those
with whom I come in contact. A matter of the construction of
the inner eyes, those eyes with which they look through their
physical eyes upon reality.
Ralph Ellison was saying in the early 20th century that White America, when they ran into Black America, refused to look and ignored them as if they were invisible and just walked on.
As a culture, I am grateful that Americans are opening their eyes to each other as friends and as neighbors and as Americans. I wonder, one day, when the peculiar eyes that choose to pretend that this child is invisible, simply because she looks like this, when our peculiar eyes choose to look at what we have chosen to say is invisible and to turn away and to say: Let's see what we do as a culture. Let's march for life. Let's speak out for what is obvious, and let's determine what to do in the next step.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
