Reproductive Freedom for All Act

Madam President, I rise today to join in the reintroduction

of the Reproductive Freedom for All Act, a bipartisan bill that would restore the previous legal framework that governed abortion access in this country for nearly 50 years since Roe v. Wade. This bill would ensure the right of women to make certain reproductive choices without undue government interference, including the right to obtain and use contraception.

I support a woman's right to have an abortion, and I believe that the threshold question of whether abortion is legal needs to be consistent at the national level. States can account for regional differences with regulations like parental notification requirements, but the basic right as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court prior to its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization needs to be the same regardless of the State in which a woman happens to reside.

In Dobbs, the Supreme Court abandoned a nearly 50-year precedent that had been reaffirmed and on which women had relied for decades. The Dobbs ruling was, as the Chief Justice described it, a ``jolt'' to our legal system. This action has further divided the country at a moment when, more than ever in modem times, we need the Court to demonstrate consistency, predictability, and restraint.

Prior to the Court's decision in Dobbs, I introduced, with Senator Murkowski, the Reproductive Choice Act to enact into Federal law the abortion rights established by Roe and affirmed by Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

In the wake of the Dobbs decision, I worked with my colleagues Senator Kaine, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Sinema to draft a more comprehensive, bipartisan bill that would codify the abortion rights articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe, Casey, and Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, as well as the contraception rights first articulated in Griswold v. Connecticut and later clarified in Eisenstadt v. Baird and Carey v. Population Services International.

Our legislation would enshrine important abortion and contraception rights into Federal law without undercutting basic conscience protections that have been in place for decades and that are relied upon by healhtcare practitioners who have religious objections.

Our goal with this legislation is to do what the Court should have done--provide consistency in our laws that Americans have relied upon for nearly half a century regarding the ability to make certain reproductive choices.

This bill would ensure that the legal framework in place before Dobbs is reinstated as the law of the land. Our bill accomplishes this goal by tracking the Supreme Court's language in the seminal cases I mentioned.

Specifically, and consistent with decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Reproductive Freedom for All Act provides that a State may not impose an undue burden on the ability of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability. During this time, States may enact reasonable regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy, unless such regulations impose an undue burden.

After fetal viability, a State may regulate or even proscribe the ability of a woman to terminate her pregnancy but not when such a termination is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman.

Moreover, by codifying Griswold, Eisenstadt, and Carey, the bill makes clear that a State cannot prohibit an individual from obtaining or using contraceptives.

Finally, the legislation specifically preserves conscience protections that have been relied upon by healthcare providers who have religious objections.

The best path forward for our country is to reinstate the legal framework that was in place before the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Dobbs. Our bill would enshrine into law the important protections articulated in the Supreme Court cases that I mentioned without undercutting statutes that also have been in place for decades.

I urge all of my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Madam President, I rise today to join in the reintroduction

of the Reproductive Freedom for All Act, a bipartisan bill that would restore the previous legal framework that governed abortion access in this country for nearly 50 years since Roe v. Wade. This bill would ensure the right of women to make certain reproductive choices without undue government interference, including the right to obtain and use contraception.

I support a woman's right to have an abortion, and I believe that the threshold question of whether abortion is legal needs to be consistent at the national level. States can account for regional differences with regulations like parental notification requirements, but the basic right as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court prior to its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization needs to be the same regardless of the State in which a woman happens to reside.

In Dobbs, the Supreme Court abandoned a nearly 50-year precedent that had been reaffirmed and on which women had relied for decades. The Dobbs ruling was, as the Chief Justice described it, a ``jolt'' to our legal system. This action has further divided the country at a moment when, more than ever in modem times, we need the Court to demonstrate consistency, predictability, and restraint.

Prior to the Court's decision in Dobbs, I introduced, with Senator Murkowski, the Reproductive Choice Act to enact into Federal law the abortion rights established by Roe and affirmed by Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

In the wake of the Dobbs decision, I worked with my colleagues Senator Kaine, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Sinema to draft a more comprehensive, bipartisan bill that would codify the abortion rights articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe, Casey, and Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, as well as the contraception rights first articulated in Griswold v. Connecticut and later clarified in Eisenstadt v. Baird and Carey v. Population Services International.

Our legislation would enshrine important abortion and contraception rights into Federal law without undercutting basic conscience protections that have been in place for decades and that are relied upon by healhtcare practitioners who have religious objections.

Our goal with this legislation is to do what the Court should have done--provide consistency in our laws that Americans have relied upon for nearly half a century regarding the ability to make certain reproductive choices.

This bill would ensure that the legal framework in place before Dobbs is reinstated as the law of the land. Our bill accomplishes this goal by tracking the Supreme Court's language in the seminal cases I mentioned.

Specifically, and consistent with decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Reproductive Freedom for All Act provides that a State may not impose an undue burden on the ability of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability. During this time, States may enact reasonable regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy, unless such regulations impose an undue burden.

After fetal viability, a State may regulate or even proscribe the ability of a woman to terminate her pregnancy but not when such a termination is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman.

Moreover, by codifying Griswold, Eisenstadt, and Carey, the bill makes clear that a State cannot prohibit an individual from obtaining or using contraceptives.

Finally, the legislation specifically preserves conscience protections that have been relied upon by healthcare providers who have religious objections.

The best path forward for our country is to reinstate the legal framework that was in place before the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Dobbs. Our bill would enshrine into law the important protections articulated in the Supreme Court cases that I mentioned without undercutting statutes that also have been in place for decades.

I urge all of my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Madam President, I rise to introduce the Access to Counsel Act.

This legislation would ensure that all individuals with a legal right to be in the United States who are held by Customs and Border Protection at ports of entry or airports have access to legal counsel.

This legislation would ensure that individuals who have a legal right to be in the United States and are held by Customs and Border Protection in secondary inspection at airports or other points of entry for more than an hour are granted an opportunity to access legal counsel and an interested party. An interested party is defined as a family member, sponsor, or organization with a connection to the individual.

The bill creates no obligation for the Federal Government to pay for counsel and allows counsel the ability to advocate on behalf of the individual by providing information or documentation in support of the individual.

It also invalidates any effort by CBP to persuade someone to relinquish their legal status if that person has been denied access to counsel or voluntarily waives in writing their right to counsel.

There have been repeated reports of CBP detaining individuals based on their nationality. In 2017, the first Muslim ban was implemented, and thousands of U.S. citizens, green card holders, and others with valid visas were detained at airports for hours.

They were held by CBP officers without any ability to call a lawyer, relative, or advocate. Many Members of Congress rushed to the airports in an attempt to help these individuals and were barred from speaking to them or connecting them with attorneys.

In addition, 200 Iranian-Americans were held at the northern border in Blaine, WA, for 12 hours without access to counsel in early 2020.

Everyone who has valid travel documents and is seeking entry to the United States should be afforded due process. If CBP refers someone to secondary inspection, they should be apprised of their right to call counsel or an interested party. It is imperative that Americans and those with a legal right to be here have access to representation if they are held at a port of entry.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.