Let Doctors Provide Reproductive Health Care Act

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there is an obsession on the left with abortion. It is becoming all-encompassing, infecting conversations that we have in the Senate on everything from the military to the Department of Veterans Affairs to phantom State laws that don't even exist.

Judges have to bow their policy objectives if they want to be appointed in this administration. Or those who are already on the bench, if they don't bow their policy objectives, if they don't bow to the abortion-centric, abortion-obsessed culture on the left, then all of a sudden, they are going to face these baseless attacks to their credibility and even threats of violence.

This bill, properly understood, really should be called the ``Freedom to Traffic Act.'' You see, to my knowledge, no State--not a single State--has enacted a law restricting an adult's right to travel across State lines for purposes of an abortion or otherwise. I am not even aware of a single State considering such a thing.

And if a State were to even consider it, they wouldn't do it. And if they did do it, social law would undoubtedly be struck down as unconstitutional on one of at least several grounds, including the fact that the commerce clause, article I, section 8, clause 3 of Constitution has interpreted by the Supreme Court--among other things-- to prohibit any State from treating an article of commerce--including a good, a person, a thing--in interstate commerce differently based on its origin or designation, out of State or outside the United States.

States can't cabin their own residents or anyone inside their own State boundaries. That is well-understood. So they don't have that authority. But more importantly, we are dealing with a phantom problem, a phantom law that does not exist. There is not a single State law out there that restricts an adult's right to travel out of State for an abortion or otherwise.

What some States do have, and perhaps that is what is causing the confusion here, are some laws to stop the trafficking of children across State lines to obtain an abortion without notifying their parents.

This is well-established. We have laws on the books prohibiting the trafficking of minors across State lines with good reason. This is very different than what was implied as a reason why we need to pass this bill here today. It just isn't true. Those laws don't exist. They are not on the books. They are not even being considered to be placed on the books.

These laws are aimed to stop the sexual abuse of children by prohibiting their adult abusers and those in the abortion industry to help facilitate that abuse by transporting them across State lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion and thus hiding the fact that they got an abortion from their parents.

There are good reasons for these laws. In 2004, for example, the 14- year-old daughter of Marcia Carroll was taken by her boyfriend's family from their home in Pennsylvania, where they lived, to New Jersey--New Jersey, where parental consent for an abortion was not required at the time. There, once in New Jersey, they threatened to leave her in New Jersey unless she got an abortion, which she did, under duress, under coercion, afraid. The grief and devastation crushed this 14-year-old girl and her family, who had agreed to keep the baby.

This so-called Freedom to Traffic Act would hamper the ability of States to punish such criminal and cowardly actions. I don't think there is anyone here who can defend that--trafficking a child across State lines for purposes of obtaining an abortion.

Sadly, this is not an isolated incident--far from it. We know from undercover videos, testimony from other courageous victims and reports from former employees that Planned Parenthood actively works to hide these child sexual abuse instances--covering up for adult abusers by providing their child victims with abortions and failing to report abuse.

This, again, is another thing that happens. Not only do we distort the facts, not only do we distort the status quo of the law in this country, but we also distort key facts when people become obsessed with abortion, and they see abortion as if it were, somehow, an unmitigated good.

This bill was just barely introduced in the Senate--I believe as recently as yesterday. This bill has not been through any committee. It has not been marked up in the committee of jurisdiction--the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I serve. But Democrats think we should just pass it

anyway. I guess maybe they are channeling the now infamous words of former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi when she said ``We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.''

This isn't how we legislate, and we certainly shouldn't be legislating when we haven't reviewed the bill, it hasn't been through committee, we don't know what it says, and the bill's proponents are badly mischaracterizing what it does and why we need it.

On that basis, I object.

Mr. President, it is important to point out that this legislation makes no distinction between those covered by it, whether they are children or adults, and that is my whole point, is that one of the problems with this is that it would block the effectiveness of State statutes that are there to protect children against interstate trafficking for the purpose of getting them abortions in another State without the knowledge or consent of their parents. That is an issue.

Yes--and I do maintain--I am not aware of a single State law that prohibits a woman from traveling out of State, an adult woman from traveling out of State. If such a law exists, I am not aware of it, and if it exists despite my nonawareness of it, it is unenforceable. It would be deemed invalid instantaneously. You can't do that.

But what this would do, since it makes no distinction between children and adults, is it would halt the operation of these States' State laws designed to protect children from interstate trafficking for the purpose of obtaining an abortion, which is very often necessary in order to conceal child sex perpetrators and child traffickers and what they are doing.

Now, my colleague and friend from Nevada, the distinguished Senator from Nevada, referred to this--kept characterizing the ``far right.'' Now, to my knowledge, nearly every Republican in this Chamber is pro- life. There are a few variations along the way, but nearly all of us are pro-life. To call all of us far right is excessive, and it is unfair. It is unfair especially because there is a mischaracterization also of why we believe what we believe. At least I can tell you what I believe about this.

She refers to States' rights. I never call it that. Why? Well, because States don't have rights; States have authority. Authority is sort of the inverse polar opposite of a right. A right is something that you have that protects you from actions by the State, by the government, protects you from the authority of the collective, coercive force that is government. So they aren't States' rights; this is State authority. And that is really how we arrived here. That is really where we have been for the last half-century.

While people are, on the left, bemoaning the depravation of a right, I challenge each of them to tell me where in the Constitution it talks about abortion. Of course, the word ``abortion'' doesn't appear in the Constitution, but what part of the Constitution actually confers that right? That is the problem we are getting at

here, and that is what I would like to address here for a moment.

You see, because in Washington, it sometimes starts to feel like we are up against an immovable object and where progress is measured in inches and then victories are sparse and hard-fought, and occasionally the tides turn and something significant happens and there is a seismic shift.

One year ago, we experienced such a seismic shift when the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. But to fully appreciate the significance of that historic moment and that decision, we must first understand the journey that got us to this point in the first place. So let's rewind the clock 50 years, all the way back to 1973, when the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Roe v. Wade, a decision that--to say that it legalized abortion doesn't really capture the image. It centralized power in Washington, DC, over abortion policy decisions, and then it kept that power not in the legislative branch of the Federal Government based in Washington, DC, but across the street at the Supreme Court in nine lawyers wearing black robes who have been sworn in as Justices, by removing the American people's ability to make decisions through their duly-elected lawmakers regarding abortion. It was a moment that completely reshaped the American people's ability to impact abortion policy.

So for nearly five decades after that decision, this power to determine abortion policy rested ultimately with the Supreme Court. Sure, the Supreme Court would leave enough wiggle room to leave the impression that lawmakers--primarily at the State level, of course-- could make law, but the Supreme Court was constantly inventing and reinventing what the standard was, what was and what was not a permissible restriction on abortion.

You see, this is what happens when you make up a nonexistent constitutional right, when you just decide that something is really important, that you feel so strongly about it that it must be in there, that it has to be in the Constitution because it is so important. When you take away the constitutional text from the words of the document, all of a sudden, you are left in this sort of no-man's land where you have to make things up as you go along.

The result was chaos--49\1/2\ years of chaotic manipulation at will of the law. A State would do one thing; the Supreme Court would strike it down. Another State would do something slightly different; the Supreme Court would uphold it, sometimes changing the standards along the way.

But in Dobbs, the Supreme Court recognized the constitutional importance of keeping the power with the people, affirming that they have a legitimate interest in protecting the lives of the unborn and that they possess the authority to enact laws that reflect their values.

You see, remember a moment ago when we talked about the difference between authority and rights. They are the opposite of each other. Rights protect you from authority.

So when the Supreme Court decided as a matter of policy that it was so passionate about abortion in 1973 that it had to be in the Constitution, they effectively wrote it into the Constitution even though it is not there. They made it utterly impossible for people's elected representatives--either in their State legislative bodies, entities of local government, or, where appropriate, in Congress--to make most of the laws, and ultimately those were all subject to the will and the whim and the caprice of the Supreme Court. They did that because they deemed it part of the Constitution. But when you just deem something a part of the Constitution, that doesn't make it a part of the Constitution.

I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who once asked rhetorically the question: If you call the tail of a dog a leg, how many legs does the dog have?

He asked the question.

Someone answered: Five.

He said: No. Wrong. It is still four. Just because you call the tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. The dog still has four legs.

This is still the Constitution. There still is nothing in here that says, by the way, that people can't make laws to protect the lives of the unborn unless the Supreme Court decides that they are permissible based on its own meandering standards ultimately untethered from the text of the Constitution or from 400 years of Anglo-American legal and jurisprudential tradition.

So in Dobbs, they restored this power back to the people. In Dobbs, it reaffirmed the fundamental belief that every human life is sacred, and every human life is deserving of protection. In Dobbs, the Court recognized the decisions of deeply personal and morally significant matters should be made closest to the people they affect.

Unfortunately, in the wake of Roe, we have witnessed a really dark chapter in our Nation's history. This decision wrongly declared that abortion was a right, despite no mention of it anywhere in the Constitution. A decision ushered in a new era, one that forced us to tolerate some of the most barbaric of practices: late-term abortions, gruesome procedures that practically no American supports became a stain on our society.

Even as those cases were litigated, the gruesome procedures were described, some of the most hardened lawyers could barely tolerate mentioning or even listening to the words describing the procedures.

Sure. I anticipate I will be finished within 5 minutes.

We refuse to accept this as the new status quo. We knew something had gone terribly, terribly wrong.

The Dobbs decision brought us a glimmer of hope. It reaffirmed the fundamental belief that every human life really is sacred and is deserving of protection and is capable of being protected within our constitutional system.

Finally, we are empowered to exercise our constitutional prerogative and resume our efforts to protect the lives of the unborn and end these unspeakable horrors.

And so this issue of States' rights--again, these are not States' rights. That is oxymoronic. And we call it federalism, State authority. So this victory of Dobbs, it is not just a victory for States' sovereign authority; it is also a victory for humanity because when we are told by the judicial branch of government, contrary to fact that the Constitution tells us that we cannot, may not, must not protect unborn human life, that really does grave damage to humanity.

The victory in Dobbs is a reminder that we can't afford to turn a blind eye to the moral and ethical implications of our laws. We must proceed in a way that protects the innocent and defend against the atrocities allowed under this lofty-sounding but ultimately barbaric platitude of choice.

Even with this victory, we still have a long way to go. Contrary to the assertions of many on the Democratic side of the aisle, the Dobbs decision did not make abortion illegal. It did nothing of the sort.

While many States have passed laws that protect preborn children--and I applaud them for doing so--others have expanded their abortion laws. Late-term and partial-birth abortions are still a reality in many States. This isn't something that I celebrate. I disagree with those laws. But I don't live in those States. And the important thing is that the people in those States are making those laws. And most of the time, it is in the States, and not here in Congress, where things not rendered Federal by the Constitution should be decided.

As we approach the 1-year anniversary of Dobbs, I believe we are dutybound to remember the millions upon millions of innocent lives lost, the pain and suffering endured, and the resilience of the men and women who fought for those who could not fight for themselves, who have no voice and therefore had to have others speak on their behalf.

We should be inspired to build a society where every life is cherished, where compassion triumphs over convenience and cowardice, and where the horrors of abortion become a distant memory, especially the horrors of abortion forced upon us by a judicial oligarchy utterly untethered from the text of the Constitution.

The Dobbs decision represented a turning point the moment when we said: Enough is enough. Now we are positioned to acknowledge that every life, from conception to natural birth, deserves our protection and our compassion and our care. And, yes, in some States they are going to do that differently than in others, but the fact that they are going to do it differently in one State or another doesn't mean that they don't deserve protection.

So as we celebrate this milestone, I hope we can remain committed to this cause. Let us never forget the horrors hoisted upon us by Roe and the significance of the Dobbs decision in restoring sanity and compassion to the laws that guide our Nation. Together we can forge our future, where the rights of the unborn are safeguarded, where the dignity of every human being is cherished, and where the dark days of the past remain only as reminders of our resolve to create a better world.

In the face of adversity, remember that change is possible. Remember that we possess the ability to achieve great things. Our Nation's health and strength lie in the people's hands, and together we can shape a future where every life is valued.

Mr. President, this Saturday marks 1 year since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade at the urging of extremist politicians upending 50 years of precedent protecting women's right to healthcare.

In the year since that decision, half the States in our country have banned or effectively banned access to abortion. Women in those States have extremely limited options for getting the healthcare they need. Those who can afford to travel have no choice but to go to other States to receive critical reproductive care.

That is what happened to Lauren Hall. She and her husband were excited that she was pregnant for the first time. But then she learned that her fetus was developing without a skull--a condition that meant it wouldn't survive. This condition also increased Lauren's risk of hemorrhaging. Her doctors at home in Texas refused to help her terminate the pregnancy, so she had to travel to Seattle, where she was finally able to get the abortion care that she needed. She is currently

suing the State of Texas for refusing to give her potentially lifesaving medical care.

We knew that after the Dobbs decision, stories like Lauren's would only happen more often and millions of women would lose the healthcare they need. Even before Roe fell, healthcare organizations in Nevada were prepared for an influx of women from out of State who needed abortion services.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh recognized this too. In his concurring opinion, he indicated that women who have to leave their home State to get the care they need would be protected by the constitutional right to interstate travel.

But we could see from miles away in Nevada that the far right would never stop plotting to roll back women's rights even further. In the last year alone, we have seen extremist Republicans try to stop women in our military from getting the healthcare they need. They have come after safe and effective birth control, and they have even supported a Federal abortion ban to outlaw reproductive care in all 50 States. And now we are seeing far-right extremists actively work to bar women from seeking care in States outside their own.

Let's be clear: This is about controlling women. The far right doesn't trust women to make their own healthcare decisions, so they think those decisions should be made by politicians instead. Well, I don't know about some of my colleagues across the aisle, but I don't think elected officials should be telling women what to do with their bodies, and neither do the vast majority of Nevadans.

We are a proud pro-choice State. Back in 1990, Nevadans overwhelmingly voted to codify a woman's right to choose. And, today, over two-thirds of Nevadans believe that a woman's healthcare decisions are between her and her doctor, and that is across all parties-- Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.

But even though Nevada is a safe place for women who need healthcare, far-right Republicans living outside my State are telling women: Oh, no, sorry. We are making it illegal for you to go there.

This April, Idaho became the first State to make it a criminal offense for someone to help an individual traveling out of State to seek an abortion. And elected officials in States like Tennessee, Texas, and Missouri are trying to punish women for leaving their State for reproductive care, as well as anyone who helps them, including their doctors or even their employers.

This is why my colleagues and I are reintroducing the Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act. One year after Roe v. Wade was overturned, we need this bill more than ever. Our legislation reaffirms that women have a fundamental right to interstate travel and makes crystal clear that States cannot prosecute women--or anyone who helps them--for going to another State to get the critical reproductive care that they need.

We are talking about upholding a constitutional right to allow women to travel outside their home State. Now, why do some of my anti-choice colleagues want to restrict women from moving freely between States? The answer is simple: They don't trust women to have control over their own bodies.

Well, I do. And I am going to keep doing everything in my power to protect women, not just in Nevada but in every State across the country. We must pass the Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act.

So, Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 2053 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, as was already pointed out, the Constitution does protect the right to travel in this country, and there is no doubt that the Supreme Court has made that precedent clear. But constitutional rights don't enforce themselves. And my colleagues on the far right only cloak themselves in the Constitution when it suits them, and right now, it really doesn't suit them. That is why far-right Republicans in State legislatures across the country are working on and passing laws specifically focused on restricting a woman's right to travel for reproductive healthcare--something I noticed my colleague from Utah seemed to ignore--Tennessee, Texas, Missouri, or some of those States.

At the end of the day, let me just touch on this idea that somehow this legislation is focusing on trafficking of individuals for sexual exploitation. Now, again, this is a perfect example of some of the far- right Republicans--when they really can't argue the facts and the law of something, then they just make things up or they throw inflammatory arguments out there to try to scare individuals.

But let me just make this clear. As a former attorney general who worked and continues to work on human trafficking issues that address the sexual exploitation of adults and minors, this is not trafficking. And I would say to my colleague in Utah, who knows better, that sexual exploitation of individuals that this country needs to address, along with many other countries--and we have passed laws to protect individuals--this is not it.

What I do know is, instead of addressing the true issue before us, which is, why can't women be free to travel from a State that has restricted their right to abortion to my State, where we have chosen to allow them to get the healthcare they need, the essential healthcare-- it is always fascinating to me that I hear, on the far right, my colleagues say it is always about States' rights; it is about States' rights; this is a States' rights issue.

Dobbs basically said in its decision this is a States' rights issue, but then, when it doesn't suit what they care about, the far right says: Well, forget those States' rights. Only listen to what we as elected officials determine you should have. Ignore what Nevada has done. Ignore the Democrats, the Republicans, the Independents, the men and the women in Nevada who chose to codify the right of a woman to choose and seek essential healthcare. Ignore that completely.

That is what this legislation is about. It is about trusting women and giving them the ability to come to a State like Nevada to seek essential healthcare for their reproductive rights.

Again, I constantly hear this emotional argument about--and my colleague from Utah, whom I respect, but he said this--the left somehow has an obsession with abortion. It is outrageous, outrageous, inflammatory talk. What we do have an obsession with is freedom and that every American in this country, whether you are a man or a woman, should have that freedom, and it shouldn't be taken away from you by elected officials who think they know better about your healthcare than you do, who think that they can restrict in their State your access to healthcare, that they can jeopardize your healthcare and your decisions about your family and your future because they think they know better.

Mr. President, I just think it is outrageous that one simple thing that we cannot agree to in this Congress in a bipartisan way is that women should have that fundamental freedom to travel for their healthcare needs without being restricted, without being called names, without being fearful, and we should be protecting those doctors and the healthcare decisions to do that.

I will say one final thing. We have worked hard in this country to evolve so that all our medical care is some of the best. We are fighting right now to make sure that we have access to technology, that we have access to medical care. We do the research. We do the development. We have the medical care of the 21st century.

What my far-right Republicans are telling women across this country is, you can't access that medical care for the 21st century. Do you know why? Because we think that we should hold you back to the 19th century. We want to politicize this, and we want to take away your rights, and so we are going to take you back to the 19th century.

It is outrageous--outrageous that we have to be here in this day and age. Over 50 years of Roe v. Wade and not one issue that we can see impeded anybody's rights here, for women across this country and this fundamental freedom about reproductive rights.

So I am disappointed, but I will tell you what, Mr. President, this is an issue you are going to see all of us, one after another, continue to fight. This is an essential fight for women in this country and their rights and their freedom to choose--the freedom to choose and not have somebody else dictate what they should or shouldn't do with their bodies; not to have somebody else dictate, based on whatever their religion is or their rights, that they know better than somebody living in an issue that is so personal to them, that they can be dictated to in this day and age.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, let me first salute my colleague from the State of Washington. She has really shown extraordinary leadership on this

and so many other issues. She asked us to gather today, on the first anniversary of the Dobbs decision, to really reflect on what has happened to America in 12 months.

I am saying that 2 months ago the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair, held a hearing on the devastating consequences of the Dobbs decision on the women and doctors who are affected by it. We did it 2 months ago because the news was pouring in of incidents which had to be told and shared with the American people. Growing reports of chaos and harm caused by that decision are so alarming that we decided to move up our fact-finding to 2 months ago.

There was one witness I will never forget. One of the people we heard from that day was Amanda Zurawski. She shared some of the most heartbreaking testimony I have ever heard, and I have heard a lot.

Last August, in the second trimester of her pregnancy, Amanda suffered a catastrophic medical condition which ensured that she would lose her much loved and much longed-for baby. What is more, without medical care to help manage her miscarriage, Amanda was in grave risk of dying herself. But she was denied that medical care for one reason-- she lived in the wrong place--because Amanda Zurawski lived in Texas, which was one of the first States to impose a near-total ban of abortions after Roe v. Wade was overruled. So Amanda waited at home, in agony, for days. Then sepsis set in. Her husband rushed her to the hospital. Hours later, her daughter arrived stillborn. Amanda spent the next 3 days in the ICU, fighting for her own life.

Amanda told our committee:

People have asked why we didn't get on a plane or in our

car to go to a state where the laws aren't so restrictive.

But we live in the middle of Texas, and the nearest

``sanctuary'' state is at least an eight-hour drive.

Developing sepsis--which can kill [very] quickly--in a car in

the middle of the West Texas desert, or 30,000 feet above the

ground, is a death sentence. . . . So all we could do was

wait.

This was Amanda's first baby. Tragically, because of the trauma her body endured, she may never have another.

And she is not alone. This is happening to women across America. Every day brings us another heartbreaking story of a woman who is denied healthcare, another story of a woman whose life was needlessly put at risk by the Dobbs decision.

According to a new survey, nearly two-thirds of OB/GYNs say the Dobbs ruling has worsened maternal mortality rates in the United States, which were already the worst of any developed nation, and 70 percent of these doctors say the ruling has deepened racial disparities in maternal and infant healthcare. These findings are from a survey released this week by KFF, known as Kaiser Family Foundation.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the AMA both warned that the Dobbs case would unleash an immediate healthcare crisis in our country. With the first anniversary of this ruling, those warnings, sadly, have come true.

Just 100 days after the Dobbs decision, 22 million Americans of reproductive age--almost one out of every three women in America--found themselves living in States where abortion is now illegal or highly restricted. Abortion is now completely banned in 14 States, leaving large swaths of the country without care. Some statewide bans include jail time for healthcare providers who perform abortions. And make no mistake: Unless we act, more and more severe restrictions are coming.

The last year has exposed the true aim of the anti-choice extremists. They want a national ban. Medication abortions account for more than half of all abortions in America. More than 20 years ago, the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug mifepristone as safe and effective for use in medication abortions. Yet anti-abortion groups are now seeking in Federal court to ban its use in every State in America.

The impact of abortion restrictions in any State are felt well beyond that State's borders. In my State, largely as a consequence of near- total bans in many surrounding States, the number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood in Illinois increased by 54 percent last year. That increase was driven largely by women from out of State seeking access to abortion that is now outlawed in their home States. As a result, wait times to obtain abortions have increased dramatically in our State.

In addition, some anti-choice extremists are seeking to deny women's right to abortions through increased threats and violence against abortion clinics.

We saw this recently in Illinois, when a man rammed his car into a building that was being renovated to serve as an abortion clinic in the Danville area. He also tried to set fire to the clinic; but, thankfully, he was stopped.

According to the National Abortion Federation, last year saw a huge increase in violence at abortion clinics, and a disproportionate increase occurred in States like Illinois that protected women's rights to reproductive care.

Personal decisions about healthcare should be made by individuals and their doctors, not by politicians with an ideological agenda. That is why I strongly support the four measures that my Democratic colleagues have offered to today to protect women's rights to travel to receive healthcare, protect patients' data privacy, protect healthcare providers' ability to provide abortions in States where it is legal, and protect the right to contraception. It is hard to imagine that in 2023, we are actually facing the prospect of losing a woman's right to contraception, as well as access to reproductive healthcare.

The Dobbs ruling has sown chaos, fear, and division. It has usurped doctors' rights to make the best healthcare decisions for their patients. Doctors live in fear of these new laws, whether they include criminal liability for what was good medical practice and still is. They have stripped women of their right to make healthcare decisions and given the power to politicians. It is now up to Congress to protect women and healthcare providers from the results of this disastrous ruling.

(Mr. OSSOFF assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, you were at the Judiciary Committee today. We had a hearing on LGBTQ rights, and there was some extraordinary testimony. A 16-year-old came to us who has gone through a change to her status. This young woman, 16 years of age, explained how she realized at the age of 10 or 11 that she was really inclined toward being a woman and not a man. She sought counseling, through her understanding parents, sat down with doctors, and they began working through the psychology of that decision, the importance of it.

Fortunately for her--and she testified--her parents were supportive of her all the way. We were lucky to have Dr. Ximena Lopez at the hearing as well. She practices medicine in Texas. She is an endocrinologist who treats patients just like this young 16-year-old girl.

She disabused us of many of the myths which are outstanding when it comes to healthcare for those who are in a trans situation. No, there are no surgeries early in life on these children who are making this decision. Yes, medications are held back until puberty to make sure that they are doing the right thing at the right time. Yes, parents are consulted every step of the way.

These are important and critical decisions which parents and families make every day across America. Every day. They are decisions based on the advice of a doctor, as well as what is right for your child. They are decisions that parents will never forget. I know; I have been involved in them. And they are decisions which really would determine the future lives and the well-being of so many individuals.

To think that so many legislatures across the United States are now regulating and putting criminal penalties on the conduct of that doctor who was before us today is heartbreaking. It defies medicine. It defies science. It is politics, pure and simple. The same thing is true on this issue of women's reproductive healthcare.

We have got to leave these basic decisions, fundamental decisions, to the families who are affected by them directly, to the women who are affected by them directly. We have got to say to the doctors across America: Follow the science. Practice good medicine. Don't let a local legislature divert you from the best treatment of your patient to make sure that they come out of this process in a very positive way.

It is a sad moment in America that we are debating these things and debating whether or not to rely on sound medical judgment. In the end, that is the only thing we can count on.

I am glad that we had the hearing today, and I am glad that we gathered on the floor to make a record out of what is happening in our great Nation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, before she leaves the floor, let me say to my seatmate on the Senate Finance Committee how much I appreciate her passion and leadership on this critical issue.

I note that the Presiding Officer is also one of the outspoken members on the committee on this issue.

This has been a terrific debate coming from our side, and I thank my colleague for her comments.

It has been a year since the atrocious decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. I remember reading the leaked decision in the press early last May and realizing with dread that the Court was going to strike down Roe v. Wade. My first reaction was that the Court has set in motion a catastrophe for the health, safety, and privacy of American women. To the horror of the 36 million women living in States that have already banned abortion or are likely to ban access to abortion, unfortunately, my prediction was right.

The Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs tossed out half a century of legal precedent, curtailed the fundamental rights of women, and jeopardized the health and safety of millions across the country. The Court defied the American people, who are living with the grim reality that some of the Nation's most powerful people are eager to violate their privacy and their basic right to make their own decisions with respect to healthcare.

So the last year has been a nightmare for millions of women in America. It has been especially felt by those living in the more than 20 States that have passed laws banning or severely restricting access to abortion.

The personal stories that you hear if you spend time listening are gut-wrenching. Women in Texas who desperately wanted to be parents and suffered pregnancy complications nearly died trying to access lifesaving care. Yet they were told they weren't sick enough to get it. Far-right politicians

are suing healthcare providers for providing care to a 10-year-old who had been raped--raped--and was pregnant. The cruelty apparently is the point.

I am proud to be from Oregon, where abortion remains legal. We have some of the most pro-choice laws in the country for those seeking reproductive health care. That is because, in Oregon, we understand that people can make the best decisions for themselves and their families. But even in Oregon, you can't take freedom for granted. Extreme Republicans won't stop until they pass a national ban on abortion, and they are trying.

A national 6-week ban was introduced in Congress right after the Dobbs decision came out. Anti-abortion advocates sought out a lone judge in Amarillo, TX, to ban mifepristone, which is widely and safely used in medication abortions nationwide. The FDA approved the safe and effective medication for dispensation more than 20 years ago. I organized the first congressional hearings about this drug as a Member of the other body in 1990. This effort was never based on some extreme or some political agenda; it was based on one proposition--that science ought to be making the judgments and not politics.

I came to the Senate floor in February and called on the administration to do everything it could to keep the lifesaving medication on the market. Thankfully the far-right extremists haven't won yet, but, as a number of my colleagues have said today correctly, we are not home-free as that case moves through the courts.

Contrary to what Justice Kavanaugh told us in concurrence of Dobbs, anti-abortion zealots are not leaving these matters up to the States. Several States are trying to restrict freedom of movement, criminalizing women who travel to other States for an abortion or even the person who gives them a ride. Think about that. You can't sugarcoat that. They are talking about enacting laws that reach beyond State borders, and that hearkens back to some very dark days in our history.

This has always been about control, and one speaker after another on our side has said that through the course of the day. This is about politicians inserting themselves in exam rooms and in the private decisions about whether and when to start a family.

I care about this issue for several reasons. Right at the heart of my concern is Americans' right to privacy. That right to privacy is what makes America, America.

As women grapple with the strictest State laws that threaten their health and take away their privacy, they also face a crisis of digital privacy and what we have come to call uterus surveillance. Governments are weaponizing the most personal and private data about women's bodies and healthcare and using it against them. I and a number of colleagues on our side have been sounding this alarm for years that location data leached from phone apps is ripe for abuse. States where extremists have restricted or banned abortion--that goes straight to a five-alarm crisis.

We also know that shady data brokers have tracked women to and from Planned Parenthood centers. They have and will sell this information to anybody with a credit card. And in States where abortion is illegal, anything women say or read online can be used against them. Researching birth control online, updating a period tracking app, even just carrying a phone into the doctor's office--you name it--it is potential evidence for the prosecution. The possibilities are endless and frightening.

As to our laws governing women's sensitive private health data, as we think about what is ahead, we have to recognize that those laws have been outdated and weak for decades. I commend the administration for drawing attention to this issue and being interested in shoring up loopholes in our laws.

More has to be done. We have seen over this past year that Republican State attorneys general and Governors are ready and willing to discard women's privacy in their quest to prohibit access to reproductive health care.

This has been a horrific year, but as my colleagues have said on the floor this afternoon, we are going to be resolute. All the bills that the group led by Senator Murray, my colleague, the President of the Senate--they are common sense. They are common sense, the package that my colleagues have offered today for unanimous consent. They go a long way toward protecting women and healthcare providers.

I just want my constituents to know and I want my colleagues here in the Senate to know I am on the program. I don't think this is the time when we can even take for granted any of these concerns--not a one. The whole question of access to healthcare, the right to privacy, making sure that States' rights really mean States' rights and not tracking people down across the country--these are all priorities that my colleagues have laid out very, very well.

As long as I have the honor to represent Oregon in the U.S. Senate, I am going to be working with all of them.

The fact is, as we close--and it seems like we are getting ready to wrap up--I think it is clear that the American people are on the side of my colleagues over here who have spoken today.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, as we know, this Saturday marks the 1-year anniversary of the day the U.S. Supreme Court decided to overturn half a century of precedent on a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions.

I appreciate the remarks of my colleague from Rhode Island and all of my colleagues who are here today.

When they made this decision, it went against the 70 to 80 percent of Americans who believe that this decision should be made by a woman and her family and her doctor and not by politicians. As a result, as we predicted that day, women across the country are at the mercy of a patchwork of State laws governing their ability to access reproductive care.

In States like Texas, women have been forced to carry pregnancies for days after learning that their baby would not survive because their doctors can't legally provide care unless their life is at risk.

And then there was the heartbreaking story about the 10-year-old girl in Ohio who had to go to Indiana to get an abortion after she was raped--10 years old. People said it was some kind of a hoax. It wasn't. It was real. And everyone in this Chamber knows it.

The Supreme Court's decision threatened women's health and freedom. And to this day, it demands a legislative response, not a response where the women of Texas are told that they have different rights. In fact, no rights compared to women in Minnesota or even in our next-door State of Wisconsin. Part of that is codifying Roe v. Wade into law. That is true.

We must also address the full scope that women are facing, the full scope of threats right now. Recent reports have illustrated how social media companies are collecting and data brokers are selling location data that could be used to identify women seeking reproductive healthcare services.

We know that the collection of this data, we know that people on both sides of the aisle understand that this has ramifications beyond women seeking abortion care. They could have anyone, man or woman, seeking a mental health provider, an addiction clinic, counseling therapy--all of it--the rules are murky, and the data is being collected and sold.

That is why I am leading the UPHOLD Privacy Act with a number of our colleagues, including Senator Warren and Senator Hirono. And that is why I am seeking unanimous consent to pass this legislation.

Our bill sets commonsense limits on how companies can use people's personal data. First, it bans data brokers from selling location data. Women making their most personal healthcare decisions should be able to go to their doctors' appointments and consult specialists without worrying that the data about their location where they are going to be or are will be purchased or sold.

Second, it says you can't use health data for commercial advertising purposes, period. That means companies can't use data from fitness trackers or browser histories to sell ads, all healthcare data.

Third, it gives consumers more say over how their personal healthcare information is used by allowing them to request that their data be deleted.

It also places limits on what health data companies can collect about Americans. Consumers deserve to be in the driver's seat when it comes to determining how their personal health data is used. This legislation does just that.

It is past time that we update our privacy laws, in general, and I hope we get that done by the end of this year. But we must also update our health privacy laws to reflect the reality of how social media platforms and data brokers are profiting off our data.

In a world without Roe, this couldn't be more urgent. I supported, with a Republican, limits on this health data to begin with, and now, as we are in this post-Roe world, as I know, it becomes even more important.

I invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in declaring that these Big Tech companies cannot sell

off, through data brokers, our private personal healthcare and that our decisions should never be a tool for profit. This is not a radical proposal. It is completely common sense.

As we get closer to marking a year without Roe v. Wade, I continue to stand with my colleagues in the fight for reproductive freedom. We stand firmly on the side of the American people who have come together, time and time again, in Kentucky, in Michigan, in Montana, and in the middle of the prairie in Kansas to defend reproductive rights. We will not settle for a reality in which our daughters have fewer rights than their mothers and their grandmothers.

As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 631 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Just a few specific responses. First of all, this bill is very specific. It addresses health and location data, and, as I noted before, I continue to believe that we need Federal privacy legislation, in general, to address other privacy needs. But this bill is targeted at sensitive health data when it comes to location.

And I know it was the conservative members of the Supreme Court who actually issued the broad decision to overturn half a century of precedent on a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions. And this bill is a targeted response on one issue, and that is to set commonsense limits on how companies can use people's personal data.

I just also wanted to respond to the issue of mifepristone, which was temporarily thrown out by one judge in the State of Texas, and that is now pending before several different courts. A different decision was made in another court, in Washington State. But I will note that the statute referred to, which would somehow limit this drug that was approved by the FDA decades ago and has been found safe in dozens and dozens of countries across the globe--that law that was referred to was actually enacted, the Comstock Act in 1873--1873--when they treated pneumonia with bloodletting, when the Pony Express existed, and, which I know, is 10 years before they even did the ``Yellowstone'' prequel.

So if my colleagues want to move backward to that time period, those are the laws they are citing. I believe the people of this country want to move forward.

I yield the floor.