at about 3 p.m. eastern today senate lawmakers have scheduled a vote on protecting a woman's right to have an abortion. 60 votes will be needed. also during the day, votes on nominees to the federal trade commission and federal housing administration. and now live to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, in a divided nation and world, use our lawmakers to bring order from chaos, harmony from discord, and truth from falsehood. remind them that you alone are

the way, the truth, and the life in good or bad times. lord, give our senators wisdom to provide our nation and world with exemplary models of excellence, integrity and faithfulness. keep them from stumbling or slipping as they face the precarious challenges of today and tomorrow. lord, do for our legislators more than they can ask or imagine. and lord, continue to strengthen ukraine. in your mighty name.

amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., may 11, 2022. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable catherine cortez masto, a senator from the state of nevada, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the motion to discharge which

the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to discharge charlotte n. sweeney of colorado to be united states district judge for the district of colorado from the committee on the judiciary.

mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. schumer: madam president,

before the day is over, every member of this body will make a choice. vote to protect the fundamental rights of women across the country or stand with five conservative justices ready to destroy these rights in one failed swoop. for half a century roe v. wade has beened bedrock upon which women have secured the freedom to make their own decisions when it comes to their bodies. few questions are more personal, more private, and more complicated than those involving a pregnancy. few decisions should be more out of bounds to the whims and judgments of elected politicians. but that is precisely the doomsday scenario that now faces our country. today's vote is one of the most consequential we will take in decades because for the first

time in 50 years, a conservative majority, an extreme majority on the supreme court is on the brink of declaring that women do not have freedom over their own bodies, one of the longest steps back in the court's entire history, a decision if enacted will go down as one of the worst court decisions ever. it's the name of the decision will live in infamy. this morning, reports came out that the draft decision of last week remains the only one under discussion by the court's conservatives. if the supreme court follows through on that decision, it will be the greatest contraction of individual rights in generations. our children will grow up in a world where they have fewer liberties than those who came before them. the united states, which has always aintierd to expand --

aspired to expand freedoms, will take a shakeful step backwards, as i said, this decision will live in infamy. so when we say that today's vote is one of the most important we've taken in decades, when we say it's not an abstract or theoretical exercise, when we say that the consequences would be real and immediate and far-reaching, it is the truth. at least 80 million women live in states that would either instantly or very quickly ban abortions, should roe come to an end. if you're a woman seeking an abortion, a provider administering one, or even a friend giving a ride to a clinic, you could be prosecuted as a criminal and be thrown in jail. this is not an exaggeration. it's already being proposed by many legislatures, and in some cases is already the law on the books. if, god forbid, you're the victim of rape or incest, in

many states you discover that the laws in place could force you to carry your pregnancy to term against your will. this is a cruel, repressive, dangerous vision for our country, but it is precisely the future that maga republicans are working towards. it is precisely the outcome that extreme republicans have planned for, for years, senate republicans rubber-stamped one extreme judge after another, plucked right out of the federalist society list, with the admitted goal to, quote, pick away at roe v. wade, as leader mcconnell stated. without senate republicans skewing our courts to the hard right, roe would not be on the brink of extinction. at the state level, radical maga republicans have pushed or enacted restrictions that ban abortions as early as six weeks, banned abortions with no exception for rape or incest,

criminalized women and doctors and prevent other states from offering reproductive care. the immensely cruel law in texas could even punish doctors who prescribe certain drugs to a woman in cases of a miscarriage. and it gets worse. it gets worse. leader mcconnell says that under a republican senate, a national ban of abortion is possible without roe. let that sink in, america. a national ban on abortion is the extreme of extremes, and it is now possible in a republican senate, according to leader mcconnell. americans should listen to that. for the hard right, this has never been about states' rights. this has never been about letting texas chooms its -- choose its own path while california take another.

those arrangements have been exposed for what they are, hypocrisy. for maga republicans, this has always been about making abortion illegal everywhere, about making the bans in texas apply equally to new york and california and minnesota and everywhere in between. and for all the times we heard republicans oppose expanding health care because, quote, the american people want health care decisions left up to their family and doctors, the same hard-right radicals are now telling american women health care decisions will now be made by politicians and judges. not doctors. not families. maga republicans are telling american women your body, our choice. these laws are far outside mainstream of the country. according to a poll released this morning, by politico and morning consult, just 28% of

voters support overturning roe v. wade. nearly 75% of americans, including a majority of republicans, oppose the radical notion of imprisoning women who receive an abortion. nearly 60% of americans say they want political candidates to support access to abortion. that's why this issue will be one of the most important issues facing the voters in november. as americans make their decisions in this year's election, this question will not go away. americans strongly oppose getting rid of roe, and they will be paying close attention from now until november to republicans who are responsible for its demise. so, to my republican colleagues who have spent the last week trying to talk about anything other than roe, it's time to go on record. i ask my colleagues to think carefully about their vote, and to reckon deeply about the consequences of a world where

roe is a thing of the past. tens of millions of women are watching what will happen to the rights they've relied on for decades, and all of us will have to answer for this vote for the rest of our time in public office. before the day is over, every member of this body will make a choice -- stand with women to protect their freedoms, or stand with maga republicans and take our country into a dark and repressive future. now, finally, on a different note, yesterday the house voted on an overwhelmingly bipartisan bases to approve a $40 billion emergency aid package to support the people of ukraine in their fight against putin's aggression. this package is large, it's very much needed, and i'm going to work with my colleagues to make sure we can move forward on this package as soon as we can.

the president has calls on -- called on both chambers of congress to act quickly, so act quickly we must. the house vote was overwhelmingly bipartisan and it should be no different in this chamber. time is of the essence because president biden has made clear that aid provided by congress a few months ago is now near its end. as we acted quickly and decisively a few months ago, we must do so again, very, very soon, and i will make sure this is a priority for the senate. we have a moral obligation to stand with our friends in ukraine. the fight they are in is a struggle between democracy and authoritarianism itself, and we dare not relent or delay swift action to help our friends in need. i yield the floor.

mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the minority leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: the country just received yet another terrible inflation report. is yet again, overall inflation came in higher than expected, 8.3%. inflation continues to stick right around its worst level in

40 years. the measure that the bureau of labor statistics calls core inflation increased in april by twice as much as it increased in march. food costs are way up. housing costs are way up once again. president biden has presided over one of the most expensive years for working families in modern american history. the national average gas price is the highest it has ever been in the history of our country. americans are paying an average of $4.33 per gallon for regular. diesel has also hit a record high. it's now $5.62 per gallon.

a huge blow to americans with trucks, with tractors, to small businesses, and family farms. and of course, it forces up the price of practically everything that travels on a truck to reach the scene of a store or a supermarket. inflation on top of inflation. in my home state, kentuckians are paying 34% more for propane, 112% more for home heating oil than they were paying when democrats took control of the government. so, let me say that again -- the price of home heating oil has more than doubled since president biden took office. a crushing blow, crushing blow to rural america, especially in

states like pennsylvania, vermont, and new hampshire. so, democratic policies that fueled this runaway inflation, their mistakes are why inflation has hit america much harder than other developed countries. expert calculations say democrats' $2 trillion spending spree last march is directly responsible for as much as three percentage points of our current inflation. even the prominent democratic economist, jason furman, puts the number at 2.5%. if just one, one senate democrat had the courage to vote with republicans in march of 2021, inflation today would be closer to 5% instead of almost 8.5%. steve rattner was a top economic adviser to president obama.

he says the democrats' $ 2 trillion disaster will, quote, go down in history as an extraordinary policy mistake that put us way behind the curve on inflation. that's steve rattner, top economic adviser to president obama. everyone knows where this inflation came from, but president biden just can't seem to admit it. he just makes excuses that no one is buying. listen to a democrat political adviser, david axelrod. he said, quote, biden was saying, you know, everything is putin's price tags -- price hikes. inflation is putin's fault. people simply don't believe that, according to david axelrod. they know that we had inflation before this. they know that gas prices were high before this. you can't blame everything in

the economy on putin. end quote. david axelrod. so it is this president and his all-democratic government who have drained american families' pocketbooks, and every poll -- every poll -- shows our citizens understand that sad reality all too well. now on another matter, today on the senate floor, democrats will prove their party has been totally captured by the far-left fringe. my colleague, the democratic leader, controls the schedule. he decides what we vote on. from inflation to border crisis to violent crime, there's no shortage of problems that deserve attention. ah, but alas, today democrats have decided to line up behind

an extreme and radical abortion policy. our democrat colleagues want to vote for abortion on demand through all nine months, until the moment before the baby is born. a failed show vote that will only prove their own extremism. democrats' radical bill is extreme as extreme gets. it ignores modern science. it is tone-deaf to public opinion. nothing about their bill merely codifies the current case law on this issue. their extreme proposal goes way, way beyond codifying the status quo. it would roll back many existing laws. the democrats' bill would functionally allow elective abortion through all nine months, abortion until the moment of birth. we are currently one of only

seven countries worldwide that allow elective abortion after 20 weeks, and that puts us in a group with china and north korea. it takes us to a more extreme and darker place. only 19% of the american people. but 97% of house and senate democrats have cosponsored this bill that would have exactly that effect. 97% of washington democrats stand with the most radical 19% of the country. almost half the senate is is about to walk the plank for a position that fewer than one in five americans actually support. in addition to nine months of functional abortion on demand shall the democrats' extreme bill would roll back basic health and safety regulations.

it would roll back overwhelmingly popular safeguards such as waiting periods and informed consent laws. parental notification would likely go out the window as well. democrats would even rule out restrictions on sex selective abortions, and their legislation takes direct aim at conscious protections and religious freedoms that protect americans of faith who practice medicine. so let's sum it up. this legislation would allow abortions of viable babies in the ninth month with no waiting period or informed consent at the hands of a nonphysician. taxpayers could be forced to pay for it, and catholic hospitals would be forced to perform it.

democrats could not have written more extreme legislation. they have let fringe activists lead them far away from the american people. more than 60% of americans support 24-hour waiting periods and requiring that doctors have admitting privileges. even majorities of self-identified democrats support those things but washington democrats want to roll them back. only 19% of americans want abortions to be entirely or mostly legal into the third trimester, but 97% of washington democrats back this bill. democrats are melting down because the supreme court may -- may -- uphold a mississippi law that would limit abortion after 15 weeks. that law would still be more

liberal than the abortion laws in switzerland, germany, or france. today's democratic party is extreme on an international scale. so, madam president, it is chilling that anybody would write legislation like this in 2022. it's even more disturbing that 97% of washington democrats have put their names on this. what the american people need to see -- the american people need to see what the far left has become. so is i'm glad -- glad -- the senate will vote today. we will stand with the american people, stand with innocent life, and block the democrats' extreme bill.

ms. hassan: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire is recognized. ms. hassan: thank you, madam president. i have to disagree with the -- i have to agree with the majority leader. the vote we will have today will codify roe v. wade to ensure that women make those decisions, not the minority leader you cannot justice -- not the minority leader, not justice alito. i rise today to add my voice to the chorus of american women who are standing together arm in arm to loudly and clearly declare that we will not surrender our rights. like a majority of women in new hampshire and across this

country, i was outraged by the leaked draft supreme court decision by justice alito that said that the supreme court would overturn roe v. wade, that they would overturn almost 50 years of rights that have been guaranteed to women. so i rise today on behalf of the women of new hampshire and women across this country, including my daughters and granddaughters and the generations that will follow them -- i rise today that we must preserve a woman's fundamental right to make our own decisions about our own bodies about our futures and about our health. and like millions of women across the country, i was shocked to see that opinion written by justice alito indicating that five justices would vote in favor of overturning roe. that decision, if it stands,

would upend nearly 50 years of precedent that says a woman's health care decisions are ours and ours alone, in consultation with our families, with our physicians, with our clergy. and, madam president, this nation is built on the bedrock of liberty. our founding declaration holds that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is among the most essential of inalienable rights that are guaranteed to all americans, the fundamental right to make decisions about our own bodies touches on each of these. the decision to have a child is one of the most personal and private that women and families make. and that's exactly who should make that decision, not some extreme politician in washington or in state capitals across this nation, not some supreme court

justice, people who know nothing about the circumstances that women and their families are facing a. how dare they presume to substitute their judgment? what does it say about the moral righteousness, self-righteousness of politician or an unelected jurist over individual women on a matter that is so ultimately personal, so pivotal to every single aspect of the lives of women and families? we've already heard from the minority leader that republicans, if they gain control of the senate and the house, will seek a nationwide ban on abortion. it's a sad day when people at the highest levels of government who are entrusted to defend our constitution, to safeguard our

citizens can no longer be trusted to do either. unfortunately, we know today that nearly half of the states in this country have already pushed through what we're calling trigger laws that would automatically roll back the clocks by half a century if roe is repealed. that would immediately jeopardize the fates of millions of women across this country. 17 of those states would outlaw abortions even in cases of rape and incest. this is the extreme position, the position that says that we should leave up to government, we should leave up to elected officials the decision about whether families should have children, the decision about whether a woman should have a child. that's who should make that

decision, not a politician here, not a politician in my state capital of concord, not a supreme court justice, but a woman and her family who understands her own circumstances, who knows what she and her family needs. we need to ensure that the freedom for women to make these decisions is guaranteed. that's what this vote is about this afternoon, to codify roe v. wade. thank you you mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. thune: madam president. the presiding officer: the minority whip is recognized. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president, let get two things straight about the abortion legislation on the floor before us today. one, this legislation does not represent the views of a majority of the american people. and two, this legislation is some of the most extreme abortion legislation in the world. madam president, it's a little hard to believe we're having a vote on this bill again, mere weeks after it was defeated in the senate. but i guess when the abortion lobby calls, our democratic colleagues come running. madam president, the bill before us today, the so-called women's health protection act, would prop up the abortion industry and make abortion on demand at

any time, for essentially any reason, the law of the land. my democratic colleagues would like to convey the impression that this legislation, with this legislation they're merely attempting to codify a widely held belief, from which no reasonable person i did sense -- dissents. that, madam president, is bloab bloab -- is baloney. the american people don't even come close to supporting abortion on demand up until the moment of birth. gallup has been polling on abortion for decades. in all that time, the percentage of americans who believe abortion should be legal under any circumstance has always remained under 35%. an associated press poll from this past june found that 65% of americans believe that abortion should generally be illegal in the second trimester or from about 13 weeks of pregnancy, while a whopping 80% of americans believe that abortion should generally be illegal in

the third trimester. why? well, madam president, i suspect it's because the american people are well aware that when we're talking about abortion, we're talking about the killing of human beings, innocent human beings. and that's not telephone something most americans -- and that's not exactly something most americans are comfortable with. americans are used to defending the weak and the innocent, not killing them. so it's not exactly surprising that americans are not joining the democrat party in whole-heartedly embracing abortion up until the moment of birth. mr. president, democrats do everything they can to run away from the humanity of the unborn baby, but they're fighting a losing battle. because science and medical technology and plain old common sense all point inexorably to

the humanity of the unborn child. it's brety -- it's pretty hard to look at a fully formed baby on an ultrasound, kicking her feet, sucking her thumb, and think she's anything but a human being. once you've acknowledged the self-evident truth, that that baby is a human being, it's pretty hard to argue she shouldn't be protected. and so it's no surprise that almost 50 years after roe, americans still do not whole-heartedly embrace abortion mr. president, in addition to being totally out of step with the american mainstream, democrats' abortion on demand act is also far outside of the mainstream of abortion law globally. 39 of the 42 european countries that allow elective abortion limit such abortions to 15 weeks or earlier.

32 of those countries limit elective abortion to at or before 12 weeks gestation. mean while, democrats hearing in the united states senate want to enshrine abortion on demand up until the moment of birth. mr. president, thanks to roe v. wade, our country's already outside the global mainstream when it comes to protecting unborn human beings. in fact, we're currently one of just a tiny handful of countries in the world that allow elective abortions past 20 weeks of pregnancy. who's on that list among those other countries? china, north korea, not exactly the kind of company we want to be keeping when it comes to defending human rights. but the so-called women's health

protection act is even more extreme ln roe. not only would it allow abortion through all 40 weeks of pregnancy, it would sweep away almost every comon sense restriction -- commonsense restriction that has been upheld since roe. parental noteification, informed consent, waiting periods -- all of those would be gone under democrats' abortion on demand bill. plus it would open the door to federal funding of abortion, forcing americans who oppose abortion to subsidize it with their tax dollars. something that's been bipartisan consensus against for decades in this country. furthermore, under this legislation, conscience protections for doctors and hospitals who do not want to perform abortions would be in

jeopardy. the democrat leader has suggested that this bill would not jeopardize the right of catholic hospitals to refuse to perform abortions. i'd like to believe him. but it's pretty hard to do so when this bill removes the right to invoke the religious freedom restoration act as a defense. the religious freedom restoration act, of course, is a 1993 law passed by congress to ensure that americans' constitutional right to live in accordance with their religious beliefs is protected. that law was actually sponsored by the democrat leader back -- back, i should add, when the democrat party still believed in protecting religious freedom. while i would love to believe the democrats are still interested in protecting conscience rights, it's pretty hard to believe when their bill takes steps to prevent providers

from claiming protection under the religious freedom restoration act. why would you include such a provision in your legislation unless you intended to make sure that health care providers could not cite their religious faith to ensure that they are not forced to participate in abortions? mr. president, with the legislation before us today democrats aren't attempting to codify some widely held consensus on abortion. rather, they're attempting to codify the most extreme views of the extreme pro-abortion lobby. make no mistake about it. it's pretty sad when the democrat party has come to this. the party that has historically portrayed itself as the defender of the little guy is now the party seeking to deny even the

smallest protections to the littlest and most vulnerable guys and girls among us, unborn human beings. but hey, i guess democrats can at least claim that they're standing up for the abortion industry. mr. president, i believe that we're better than this. we have to be better than this. and i hope that not only republicans, but some of my democrat colleagues, will stand up today and say that we can do better than a law that rips away even the smallest protections it for unborn americans. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. stabenow: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: i would ask to vitiate the quorum call and ask for one minute before the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you so much. i find it just very frustrating to hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about how we are extreme because we are supporting a woman's

freedom to make her own reproductive health decisions. that is the vote today. the vote today is about who decides, who decides under roe v. wade when the third trimester, which by the way abortions can only be done to save the life of the mother, who decides that? the people on this floor, the republicans who think it's their right to decide it? who decides it? the united states supreme court? who decides in the most personal decisions and sometimes the most agonizing decisions a woman will ever have to make? the question is who decides. 50 years of freedom is what we're talking about republicans eliminating with this vote. 50 years of freedom for women to decide what we need to do as it relates to our own health care

and reproductive freedom. so i strongly support the women of this country. i believe in them. i believe in us. i trust them. i trust us. and this is about their choice, not a bunch of politicians deciding what's best for them. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the motion to discharge. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 49, and the motion is agreed to. the nomination is discharged and will be placed on the calendar.e motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on

the nomination of executive calendar number 848, alvaro m. bedoya of maryland, to be a federal trade commissioner, signed by 18 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of alvaro m. bedoya of maryland to be a federal trade commissioner shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the vice president: on this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays

are 50. the senate being evenly divided, the vice president votes there the affirmative. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: federal trade commission, alvaro bedoya, of maryland, to be a federal trade commissioner. ms. klobuchar: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. cloab. ms. klobuchar: mr. president. , i come to the floor today at a pivotal time for women's rights in this country. i want to thank senators blumenthal, murray, many others, including baldwin, for the leadership on this and the women's health protection act. we learned last week, mr. president, it is very likely that the supreme court will overrule roe v. wade. the leaked opinion made it cleae

court is on track to completely overrule roe, stripping women of their constitutional right to seek an abortion. it will also be, i note, against the wishes of the somewhere between 370% and -- 70% and 80% of americans who believe that this is a decision that should be made between a woman and her doctor. not with senator cruz, not a bunch of politicians in washington, but a decision that should be made between a woman and her doctor. 50 years stripped away of women's rights. and the fall, mr. president, will be swift. over 20 states already have laws in place that could be used to restrict access, including 13 which will automatically go into effect if the supreme court issues the decision. we have also seen states

preparing to take even more extreme steps if roe is overturned. last week republican lawmakers in louisiana advanced a bill to immediately classify abortion as homicide and allow the state to prosecute women. prosecute women for receiving care. earlier this year, a bill was introduced by republican legislators in missouri to allow private citizens to sue people who help women leave the state to get care. this comes on top of the 19 states that already have laws in place to ban or restrict access to medication abortion. what this all comes down to is a fundamental question -- who is making these personal decisions, politicians or a woman? and are women equal citizens under the law? if roe is overturned, women in

this country will receive different treatment under the law than men, and our access to critical care will be at the mercy of a patchwork of laws. we have all seen what happens on the ground when these kinds of restrictions are in access. texas' law last year denies access to at least 85% of patients seeking abortion-related services. some women in texas have had to drive nearly 250 miles one way to get care. no one should have to take a bus across the country to make a personal health care decision. a woman in louisiana or in missouri or in texas should not be treated differently than a woman in minnesota. while we are all deeply disturbed by the impact this decision will have on women and the men who stand with them, unfortunately many of us have seen this coming.

republicans have been methodically preparing for this moment, stacking the courts with judges who want to overturn roe, and introducing over 500 bills in states across the country limiting access to care. well, this is still a draft decision. i am seriously concerned that the court's apparent willingness to disregard nearly 50 years of rights will not only put women's health at risk, but will undermine the rule of law. this draft leaked opinion brings us back to the 1950's. issue is we thought it would be the 1950's, when it is truly the 1850's. and the people of this country do not want to go backwards when it comes to their freedoms, because that is what this is about, their freedoms to make their own decisions. so what can the senate do in the face of this threat to freedom?

all three branches of the government have a spopt to protect people's rights, and if one branch doesn't do its job, that's how this system was set up constitutionally, then it's up to another to step in. congress must act to codify the principles of roe v. wade into law, and we will have the opportunity to do just that on the floor today when we cast our votes on the women's health protection act. these protections are desperately needed, and it is our responsibility to take action so that this fundamental right remains real for the women and the men who stand with them across this country. freedom, equality under the law. for the first time in generations, and i want young people out there to think about this, we may live in a world where women have fewer rights than their moms or their grandmas. that's not the world that we want. i urge my colleagues to stand up

with the majority of americans who support a woman's right to make her own health care decision, the freedom to make her decisions, by enshrining the protections of roe v. wade into law. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i've never seen so much furor over a case that has not been decided, based on a leaked draft dated february of this year, which does not reflect a final decision by the united states supreme court. unfortunately, this egregious leak of this draft opinion has created serious security threats for members of the supreme court and their families. over the last few days, angry protestors have shown up at

three of the justices' private family homes. sadly, the majority leader of the senate said he's okay with peaceful protests outside the justices' homes. i disagree. and so does his second in command. this morning senator durbin called this practice reprehensible. the threats to justices remain high because emotions are high, and the chief justice has asked copping to take action -- congress to take action to protect the justices and their families by simply providing the same sort of authorities that the capitol police has to provide protection to members of congress and our families. last week i introduced legislation that would do that. i asked my friend and frequent collaborator, senator coons, if he would be interested in cosponsoring the bill to make it

bipartisan. initially he raised some concerns -- initially he raised some concerns with one of the provisions, but we worked in good faith and introduced a new version of the bill that could gain broad bipartisan support. and clearly we were successful because our bill passed the senate unanimously on monday. and now it's time for our colleagues in the house to follow suit. yesterday congressman issa and congressman corea introduced this bill in the house and speaker pelosi should act quickly to bring this bill up for a vote as soon as possible. unfortunately, some in the house disagree. they've chosen to ignore the bipartisan bill that received unanimous support in the senate and have introduced a partisan version, which is guaranteed to slow down the protections needed by the supreme court justices and their families.

this partisan bill in the house ignores the good faith work that was being done here in the senate to build consensus and expands this legislation include divisive provisions like potentially extending police protection to the very person who leaked the draft opinion. well, this stands no chance of becoming law. at the end of the day, here's where we are. the supreme court justices and their families are facing serious security threats, and the senate unanimously passed a bill to provide them with the protection that they need and that he deserve. -- and they deserve. i can't think of any good reason why house democrats would delay a vote on this bipartisan bill or, worse it allow the safety of the justices' families to become a political football. now, mr. president, on another

matter, later today the senate will vote on appear radical abortion-on-demand bill, which our democratic colleagues are trying to sell as a codification of roe v. wade. but the truth of the matter is, this bill sweeps aside all of the protections, for example, for conscience or religious liberty or opposing taxpayer funding of abortions and partial-birth abortions. it sweeps all that aside and essentially makes abortion available on demand from the time of conception till the time of delivery. now, this isn't the first time our friends across the aisle have tried to opportunistically capitalize on events to check

items off their liberal wish list. in fact, we've witnessed this strategy numerous times. when the pandemic first hit, the house democratic whip referred to the crisis as a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit their vision. and, to their credit, our democratic colleagues certainly didn't squander that opportunity. last year they crafted a nearly $2 trillion spending bill that included most of the far left's outbox, their biggest priorities, and they tried to brand it as necessary pandemic relief, which it was not. backdoor funding for planned parenthood, a blank check for mismanaged union pension funds, money for climate justice. it was easy to see through this covid relief facade because in the end less than 10% of the money was directly related to the pandemic, and less than one

percent supported vaccination efforts. we saw the same play when it came to election law. states across the country established temporary measures during the pandemic to ensure that voters could cast a ballot during some of the most worrisome days of the pandemic. when those temporary procedures were rolled back to what they were before the pandemic, our colleagues tried to frame that as voter suppression. they resurrected a bill that would force a one-size-fits-all election formula out of washington, d.c., on every state and community in the country. and, in the process, hand democrats a permanent governing majority. and democrats tried to cast anyone who opposed their partisan bills attacking the sacred right to vote, which it was not.

but here we're seeing the same play once again. our colleagues are now trying to seize on the political firestorm from a stolen supreme court draft opinion to push their radical abortion agenda. and, make no doubt about it, it is truly extreme. just as they did with their pandemic spending spree and election takeover bill, democrats have taken things to the very nth degree and they're pushing for things that are far out of line with most americans over this divisive sand emotional topic. only 19% of americans say that abortion should be available in all cases with no exceptions. 1%. -- 19%. that means 81% disagree. even though the vast majority of americans oppose unrestricted

abortion access, that's exactly what this bill would provide. this bill would allow for abortions at any stage of a pregnancy. all it takes is one health care provider who says having the baby would present a potential harm to the mother's health, including her mental health, and i mentioned yesterday the case of emmitt gosnell who ultimately is serving life in prison for running an abortion factory involving late-term abortions and other illegal abortions performed in pennsylvania. so where's the line here? where's the line? democrats see no line. they don't credit an unborn child with its very humanity, or else they would see some sort of balancing against the mother's right to physical autonomy and the child's right to life

guaranteed in our declaration of independence. is anxiety about motherhood a strong enough diagnosis to allow a woman who's 39 weeks pregnant to abort her baby? anxiety can be a serious struggle that many prospective mothers face. there's no question about that. that's why i've been advocating for better access to health care services for all americans, including expecting and new moms. but this legislation is written so broadly that in practice it legalizes abortion for virtually any reason up until the time the baby is actually delivered. now, the american people aren't only ones who oppose unlimited abortion on demand. this bill doesn't just codify

roe v. wade. it goes far beyond the abortion policies among other countries, like those in europe, for example. in most european countries, abortion access is restricted after a certain point in the pregnancy. in sweden, it's 18 weeks of pregnancy. in france, it's 14 weeks. in germany it's 12 weeks. in portugal, 10 weeks. each of these limits are more restrictive than the current law in a number of american states a. including blue states like massachusetts and nevada. abortions are restricted after 24 weeks. in california, washington and illinois abortions are restricted after viability, an arbitrary line roughly 20 weeks of gestation, 20 to 23 weeks of

gestation. but under this extreme bill, one health care provider could stop an otherwise constitutional state law protecting the life of this unborn child in its tracks. even though most americans oppose late-term abortions, our democratic colleagues are running full speed ahead in order to permit it under this extreme bill. they're so desperate to make abortion on demand the law of the land, that this legislation has the support of all but a handful of democrats in congress. as a republican senate -- as the republican senate leader pointed out earlier this week, 97% of washington democrats are pushing for policies that only 19% of americans support. this is proof once again that today's democratic party is

simply not listening to the american people. it's taking their marching orders from the most radical, most radical and extreme members of their political party. our colleagues are trying to frame this legislation as codifying roe v. wade, a 1973 opinion 50 years ago, but in reality this radical bill goes much, much farther. this doesn't just maintain the status quo, it moves abortion policies in the direction of those of the people's republic of china and north korea and ass way from those of our friends and allies in europe. i would think that's not company we would feel comfortable keeping, with the people's republic of china run by the chinese communist party, and north korea, home of kim

jong-un. in addition allowing abortions up to the time of delivery, this bill allows abortions to be used as a method of sex selection, a shameful practice that became common in china under its one-child policy. a number of states have laws on the book that prevent someone from having an abortion based on the baby's sex. in other words, a parent who's hoping for a son cannot just have an abortion because the baby is a girl. but this bill would change that. it would invalidate state laws that prevent same-sex selective abortions. this bill would make further changes that endanger the very women who are receiving abortions. for example, it rolls back a commonsense provision including requirements that only a licensed physician can perform

or prescribe an abortion. it removes guidelines for how abortion facilities are regulated and maintained. and it removes commonsense safeguards like informed consent laws and waiting periods. along with all of these radical and extreme changes, this legislation comes with no guarantees that taxpayers won't be asked to foot the bill. -- for these elective procedures. and it provides no protection for babies who survive a botched abortion. it puts health care providers with religious or moral opposition to abortion in an impossible position. they have to disregard their sincerely held religious or moral beliefs or they get sued. this isn't the woman's health protection act. it's the abortion-on-demand act, without restrictions, without

limitations. it promotes abortion at a scale far beyond roe v. wade and far beyond what the vast majority of the american people are comfortable with. so this is not a serious effort to codify roe, and it certainly isn't an attempt to reinstate policies that are in line with most americans' view on this very emotional and divisive issue. but this is -- what this is is pandering to the most radical elements in their party. the good news is that democrats still don't have the votes to pass this bill. given the opposition of the vast majority of americans, i doubt they ever will. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont.

mr. leahy: mr. president, this is a debate about the women's health protection act. protecting women's health. protecting half of america's health care, protecting their ability, half of america, protecting their ability to make decisions about their own bodies. how is this even a question of -- question up for debate? today the senate considers the women's health protection act. a woman's right to make choices about her own body is a constitutional right. it was affirmed by the supreme court nearly 50 years ago. polling is that that should be the benchmark by which we

legislate shows that two out of three americans say roe v. the benchmark of roe v. wade should be upheld. here we are today, a body of 100, 76% of which are male, making decisions about the private lives about the nearly 168 million women in this country. that's ludicrous. the right of any one woman to receive the health care they choose and seek should be important to each and every one of us. women, our mothers, our daughters, our sisters, friends. they know what's best for them in their own lives. how patronizing to suggest otherwise. how patriarchial, how

insulting, how dangerous. i'm the dean of the senate. i'm the longest-serving member of this body today. i worked for decades to support legislation that affirms contraceptive health care from a trusted provider without interference. the right to family planning resources, whatever those resources may be is not only a fundamental right to privacy for these women, but it's an important public policy. a public health policy as well. in 2019, the vermont house and senate by wide margins approved the freedom of choice act. that guarantees the right to access safe abortion care in vermont. a republican signed that bill into law in june 2019.

if the court does overturn roe, the freedom of choice act would protect the health care right in vermont, just as the supreme court case was ahead of roe v. wade, beecher v. leahy does the same. once again vermont is a leader on an issue of national significance. but the unfortunate reality is that 26 other states stand ready to ban abortion rights in the absence of roe. what are the women of these states to do? prominent republican voices in the senate even now say they would not rule out the possibility that a future senate in congress would overrule such state laws in vermont and elsewhere and impose a national ban on women's choice.

what laws are these states prepared to pass? what resources are they prepared to provide to support these women and the children they'll bear? the answer, we know, and i fear, is none. we'll determine what you do, but we won't do anything to help you afterwards. the implications of the supreme court's opinion should the final decision mirror the leaked draft goes far beyond reproductive rights. for decades the supreme court has stood as an independent arbiter in this country. striking down a constitutional right that has supported millions of americans -- not just women -- will cause many to lose confidence in the

integrity of our judicial system. or still it could threaten the rights protected under the precedent set by roe and affirmed in other cases. i acknowledge the fear that many are feeling right now about that possibility. certainly i hear it in my office. and that's why we need to pass the women's health protection act. what the suffragists say of us today? what would the icons of the civil rights movement say about us today? a vote against the women's protection act is a vote against equality. it's a vote against women, plain and simple. it's a vote against the progress we made to right the wrongs of inequality. it's at odds with what the overwhelming majority of the american public believes. it says in many states in this

country, women will be treated differently than men. you know, mr. president, my sons and grandsons can travel anywhere in the united states knowing the law is the same for them. my daughter and granddaughters, under this, would know they could not be treated the same as they traveled around the country what does that say about america? that our sons and our grandsons will be treated differently than our daughters and our granddaughters. our daughters and our granddaughters will be told by these states, you have less rights than your brothers or

your fathers or your uncles. so shame on the senate today. i stand with women. my wife, my daughter, my granddaughters, when i say i trust them to make the health decisions that are best for them. and i'll fight against any effort to erode these fundamental constitutional rights. that's what the senate should do. that's what we'll do if we truly are going to be the conscience of the nation. that's what this vermonter intends to do. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. ms. cortez masto: thank you. mr. president, last week we learned that the --. the presiding officer: senator, i think we're in a quorum call. ms. rosen: we're in a quorum. can we vitiate the quorum, please. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. rosen: thank you. mr. president, last week we learned that the united states supreme court is preparing to issue a ruling that would fundamentally, fundamentally roll back the constitutional rights of millions of american women. it's been reported that a group of anti-choice justices on the supreme court are planning to overturn roe v. wade, the

landmark case which decided nearly 50 years ago, which recognized the reproductive rights of women. this decision centered on one of the most fundamental rights we have as americans -- the right to control our own bodies. for nearly half a century, roe has protected a woman's right to make extremely personal decisions about her own body, her own health care, her own family. but now, now we're seeing a clear coordinated attempt by anti-choice politicians to roll back the clock on the rights of american women, control what happens to their bodies, and strike down reproductive freedom. if the supreme court moves forward with this action, it will have immediate, immediate and devastating consequences for women's health. so let's get something straight.

overturning roe isn't going to stop abortions. it's only going to stop women from getting safe abortions. and women will die as a result. this will also have a severe impact on how miscarriages and other life-threatening medical issues related to pregnancy, how they're handled. for example, if roe is overturned, ectopic pregnancies can become a death sentence for women in states that ban abortions, and this is just one example of the harm this will cause. and this will disproportionately impact women who lack the resources to go to other states to seek care, and this will also make it harder for women of color to access the care they need. unfortunately many states across our country already have rigid, extreme, rigid and extreme

restrictions on the books, and if roe falls many of those laws will go immediately into effect. and in the states that don't have those restrictions, extreme legislatures are pushing new, dangerous, and restrictive anti-choice laws as we speak. in my home state of nevada, abortion rights have been enshrined into state law since nevadans overwhelmingly voted, they voted for it as a ballot initiative in 1990. this means women across nevada will continue to have access to reproductive care if roe is overturned. but this year anti-choice politicians are working to eliminate this protection from our state code and take away nevada's women's rights, nevada's rights, women's rights in nevada to make decisions for their own bodies. this is exactly why the senate

needs to pass the women's health protection act today, to ensure that women in all 50 states continue to have the right to make their own reproductive health care choices. i helped introduce the women's health protection act last year because it's the best option we have to codify roe v. wade into law. this bill will codify the right to receive and provide reproductive health care, and it will prohibit states from enacting rigid, medically unnecessary restrictions that make it harder, make it harder for women to access care. we're not living in a hypothetical anymore. we are staring a postroe world in the face, and the time to act is now. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have also made it clear. if they regain control of this chamber, they will pass a national ban on abortion

rights, and they may go even further. i urge every senator who cares about women, who cares about women's health, who cares about women's autonomy, and their rights, i urge them all to join me in voting to pass the women's health protection act. nevadans are watching. the american people are watching. and women everywhere are depending on us. we cannot let them down. i yield. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor today to talk about inflation and the impact it's having on american

citizens across the board, and particularly energy prices and how the energy policy of the biden administration is a big part of the problem in terms of creating the inflation that we face. so i once again urge the biden administration to reverse course on their harmful emergency agenda and take the handcuffs off domestic energy producers. measures are struggling to afford to fill their tanks and keep lights on. higher energy prices are fueling record inflation. i saw the latest statistic, 8.37%, driving up costs for goods across the economy. gas prices hit an all-time high of $3.79 nationwide and it is up

to $4.06 a gallon in my home state of north dakota and today gas prices were even higher. that's about an 80% increase since president biden was inaugurated, and that increase, the vast majority of that increase has come before russia invaded ukraine. two years ago our country was producing almost 13 million barrels per day of oil. today our country is producing about 11.3 million barrels a day. again, a direct result of the biden administration energy policies making it more difficult to produce energy in america. president biden's green new deal policy and hostile approach to american oil and gas have curtailed production and americans are paying for it of every day. it began with the moratorium on

new energy leases, closing off our own energy reserves and the administration continues to hold it up by blocking pipelines like the keystone xl pipeline. in 2015, the senate and house passed my bill, s. 1 to approve the keystone xl pipeline. if the obama-biden administration hadn't vetoed that bill there would be more than 800 million barrels of oil a day from canada. we stranded natural gas resources in north dakota and other parts of the country like west virginia and pennsylvania because we can't get the permits to build the gathering systems and pipelines to get it to market, let alone it our allies. we need l.n.g. facilities to help our allies in western europe and help ukraine as they

continue their valiant fight against russian aggression. if we really want to cut off the russian war machine, we need to cut off their ability to sell energy and that means once again embracing our nation's most critical economic and national security assets, our country's vast oil and gas reserves. a good start would be passing my american energy independence from russia act, bicameral legislation that i introduced with niefn my colleagues in -- nine of my colleagues in the senate. it would encourage u.s. energy production, including increasing access to taxpayer-owned energy reserves on federal lands, authorizing the operation and construction of the keystone xl pipeline and to remove hurdles from natural gas exports. north dakota and other energy-producing states should be able to unleash the potential

of our abundant oil and gas and coal reserves. all of these resources, no one does it with better environmental stewardship than we do here in america. and we need to produce that energy here in america. it's long past time for the biden administration to get out of the way and take the handcuffs off american energy production. producing more energy here at home is the solution to help lower energy costs and provide hardworking families with relief from rising inflation. i saw that either the president or one of his spokesmen talked about the -- the large amount of energy costs and inflation. well, we have a solution for that. why isn't the administration taking steps 0 so that we -- steps so we can produce more energy here at home? that's what needs to happen and

that will benefit every single consumer across this great nation. with that, mr. president, i thank you and i yield the floor.

a senator: the senator from neb neb. -- nebraska. mr. sasse: thank you, mr. president. abortion is a heavy issue. we're used to in this body debating marginal tax rates and spending bills, but this issue

is different. this debate cuts to the heart of who we are, what we owe each other and what kind of society we want to preserve and what kind of society we want to build. the moral weight of this debate is heavy. social media, of course, makes it worse, makes it ugly, makes it stupid. there's too little grace. there's not enough compassion. honesty and genuine good-faith disagreements are hard to come by. to talk about abortion well, we need to listen to each other and try to understand the best arguments of the other side and take those arguments seriously. for democrats, debating well has to start with recognizing that most americans believe that unborn lives deserve to be protected at some point during a pregnancy. it is deeply human and deeply compassionate to recognize the humanity of an unborn life. scientific advances like ultrasounds give us a glimpse

into the lives of the unborn first in black and white and now in 3d and it will be clearer and clearer over time what that little baby is. and any conversation about abortion must grapple with the fact that every abortion begins with two lives and destroys the. it's deeply wrong to ask americans to participate in an act that they know takes an innocent life. for republicans to debate well, we need to be willing to be honest about the fact that for some women pregnancy can be frightening and painful. many situations are not ideal situations. pregnancy changes a woman's life that is absolutely unique in human experience. there this is no equivalent to pregnancy or any example we can give it. that's were the pro-life cause can't be about policy.

the pro-life cause must start with active compassion for moms and babies and especially women who first thought upon learning they are pregnant was, i can't do this. to the pro-life movement, i want to recognize your patience and your perseverance over decades. we should commend the ethic of love, persuasion and rudence that -- and prudence that brought us here. pro-life -- pro-lifers and pro-life women support women through pregnancy care centers, it they work in local communities to build support networks. they are persuading their neighbors and growing a movement that supports life. we don't have the massive war chest or the fancy p.r. shops

that planned parenthood has, but we have truth and love. thousands of care centers provide women and babies with lots of free help. the volunteers who show up to help these women don't do it for money, it they do it for love. thousands of pro-life families adopt kids every year and their hearts overflow with love as they welcome a new child into their family. that is the core meaning of the pro-life movement. it is not about legislation first, second, or third. advocates or abortion on demand are doing a lot of fearmongering. we've heard some bizarre speeches on the floor that are so disconnected from the reality to the text to the legislation before us. so much of it is wildly out of touch with the public and modern science. we already know that america's abortion laws are far more

permissive than europe and on the subject our laws have more in common with the human rights abusers, china and north korea than anything in french law. the legislation before us would make our laws even more extreme. depending on how you can't, we have the fourth to seventh most extreme pro-abortion laws of any of the 200 countries on earth and the legislation before us today would make it even more extreme. there was a time when the democratic party talked about abortion as safe, legal, and rare. safe, legal, and rare. not anymore. this legislation is not from your mom's democratic party. in recent years we've taken votes on my legislation, the born-alive abortion survivors protection act. it is a simple straightforward bill that protects babies who

surfive botched abortions. it is just a simple requirement that if a baby is born alive in an abortion clinic, she must receive the same lel of care -- level much of care as if she were born in the hospital. the democrats have filibustered this over and over. it's so weird. here we are, the lobbies have been bullied into an extreme position that doesn't reflect even the majority opinion in the democratic party today let alone of the majority position of americans. this bill today is ugly. winner takes all politics. it is full of aggressive pro-abortion provisions. let's consider just a few. one, it would formally create a national right to abortion up until the moment of birth in all

50 states and it would undo even state-based partial birth abortion bans. it would prohibit states from requiring parental consent to perform abortions on a child. three, three it would prohibit states from passing any laws to ban sex-selective abortions. it would ban any laws to prevent states -- ban any laws that states would have to try to prevent sex-selection abortions. it would create a right for nondoctors to perform abortions putting women at severe risk of complications and botched procedures. and it would remove conscience protections that keep americans from being forced to perform or fund abortions if they have moral objections. think about that. it would force catholic hospitals to perform abortions. that's new.

that's gross. where is the tolerance? where's the compassion? where's the humanity? where's the attempt to understand that the majority of americans want there to be prohibitions on abortions at some point in the pregnancy. americans don't want the kind of radicalism we see in this bill before us today. in recent polling 65% of americans say they support banning abortion in the second trimester and 80% of americans support banning abortion in the third trimester. why? well, one of the reasons is because they've seen a lot of images of what a baby looks like in utero in the second and third trimester. just to reiterate, contrary to the last -- i guess a couple of speeches ago, the last speech on this topic on the floor, 80% of americans want to see abortion banned in the third trimester.

it's hard to get 80% of americans to agree on anything and yet 80% agree that third trimester abortions, the kind of thing that this bill wants to make sure is explicitly championed, states could not prevent and prohibit, third trimester abortions, that's what this bill is about. this bill is incredibly extreme. there is no moderation in this bill, just brutal indifference hiding behind euphemisms. fortunately it won't pass. unfortunately our debate about it isn't very honest here. fortunately the proabortion lobby isn't winning. majority leader schumer will earn kudos from planned parenthood for this show vote today, but he's not going to convince anyone. as we look beyond today's gross vote as we look to the future, our focus should be on continuing to grow the pro-life coalition in this country. we can and we must build support across the country for an ethnic

that protects life. i want to lock arms with pro-life democrats and work to build a culture of life. if we can pair certain pro-life laws with increased spending on prenatal care and safety nets for struggling moms, count me in. i'm for that kind of big, new coalition. let's do it. this movement is about hearts and minds. we've got to have difficult conversations and love. and we've got to reject the kind of extremism that senator schumer is putting on the floor today pursuing this bill. we've got to focus our work on our local communities, on changing our neighbors' minds, on understanding each other, and on setting an example by putting moms and babies first. the answer after this bill fails today is to remember that love is stronger than power, and that's why life is going to win. being pro-life means being

pro-science, pro-mom, and pro-baby. it means starting with love, not with legislation and happily it definitely doesn't mean starting with the grotesque legislation that will be voted down this afternoon. thank you, mr. president.

>> i just filed cloture on the women's health protection act. this week the senate will be confronted with asimple but urgent question : do women in this country have a basic right to make their own choices when it comes to seeking an abortion ? yes, sir no? it would be one of the most important questions this chamber confronts in decades because for the first time in 50 years women in the face the real possibility of living in a world with where the protections of of roe versus wade or other thing of the past. it will set up a situation where our children, female children have less rights than their grandparents. something that is so un-american, taking away rights, stepping backward on rights in such a dramatic way . tonight i'll set up a vote for wednesday on legislation that will codify the fundamental rights to an abortion into federal law. every american is going to see where every senator

stands on protecting one of the most important rights a woman has regarding her own body. i want to be clear. this week's vote is not an abstract exercise. this is as real and as high-stakes as it gets and senate republicans will no longer be able to hide from the horror they'veunleashed upon women in america . after spending years acting our courts with right-wing judges andjustices , after changing the rules of the senate to push three rigidly conservative justices, after stealing the noun nomination of merrick garland, the time has come for this maga republican party to answer for their actions. if they allow the supreme court decision to stand it will be open season on women's rights in america.

a few days ago leader mcconnell himself acknowledged that a federal ban on abortions is now possible should the supreme court overturned row and republicans take control of the senate. let me say that again because itis so dreadful . in light of the supreme court's decision, upcoming decision leader mcconnell -like knowledge that a national ban on abortion is now possible without row. if republicansreclaim the majority . here that america? total land. total national ban on abortions stated by not any republican but by the republican leader. every single american needs to hear what leader mcconnell said . four years, for decades republicans have tried to disguise their hostility to abortion by claiming that all they really want is to let the states decide for themselves how they will

treat the issue. it's an old claim from the right. this is about states rights. this argument has always been hypocritical and leader mcconnell comments make it perfectly clear why. the game here is not about states rights. the goal has always been on national ban on abortion altogether states rights as a smokescreen . nothing more than a distraction, a ruse to hide from the true claims of the hard right, of the republicans. a national ban on abortion. federal restrictions on abortion would be among the most extreme ideas ever pushed by senate republicans. but in light of roserepeal it seems that's the road the republicans want to take our country down . and as scary as that is i feel it's just the start. ideas that have long been

relegated to the fringes will return to the forefront with a vengeance. forced pregnancies, bands that make zero exceptions for rape and incest . even in prison meant for abortion providers and women who seek them. imprisonment for women who seek them. this is already happening in some state laws. republicans are trying in vain to obscure this reality. last week the chair of the senate republican campaign arm went as far as releasing an absurd collection of talking points trying to convince americans that no, republicans don't want to throw doctors and women in jail for carrying out abortions . you know your position. the republicans should know their position is truly extreme when that has to be one of their talking points. no, we don't want to throw women in jail but regardless of what republicans or the head of the republican campaign committee might try

to claim, the laws being passed at the state level tell adifferent much darker story that's totally contradicts what he said . in arizona for example there's a law on the books that states anyone who performs an abortion could be sentenced 2 to 5 years in prison. the new law in arizona provides zero exception for rape and incest. in oklahoma a new law came into effect banning abortion as early as six weeks like the law in texas empowers citizens to police each other's conduct and sue women simply trying to access an abortion. >> some of them to go to jail and some of them to be sue by their fellow citizens. is that a disgrace? is that