-9999
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BRAUN. Madam President, on January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down their decision in Roe v. Wade, homogenizing an approach to abortion across the country. It is estimated that over 60 million lives have been lost to abortion since this decision.
This resolution recognizes January 22, into the future, as the Day of Tears. It encourages Americans to lower their flags to halfstaff to mourn the lives lost to abortion.
I am joined on this resolution by Senators Daines, Inhofe, Blackburn, Hagerty, Lankford, Hawley, and Rounds.
Similar resolutions have passed in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, and West Virginia. Representative Jody Hice is leading a similar measure in the House. It has 51 cosponsors from 26 States.
Two weeks ago, thousands of Americans joined the March for Life to stand up for the unborn. Later this year, the Supreme Court will issue a decision on a case which strikes at the heart of Roe v. Wade. Our current abortion guidelines, we only have five other countries that would be similar. Two of those countries are China and North Korea. What does that say about abortion in America?
Minimally, the Court needs to return this to the States so that we don't have this policy put upon all of the States, at least half of which disagree with it. Whatever that decision may be, we must remember the millions of lives lost to the tragedy of abortion.
Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 494. I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, that the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BRAUN. Madam President, the Senator from Washington makes the point that this is Republicans. This is not Republicans. Of course, they are for doing what needs to be done, and that is returning this to the States, minimally, taking a decision that was out of context back in 1973, when it was made.
And the opposite of the argument she made would be, Why should the Federal Government, based upon the judiciary ruling that was out of context, force this on the entirety of the country? When it comes to what it allows now--abortions late into a pregnancy--that is not supported by most of the country.
So, minimally, this ought to be returned to the States to reflect the views of the different States in this country--50 of them. Over half disagree with it, and over half of our citizens would say that it makes more sense than what we have now.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source