UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 205

On 2026-06-23, Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) delivered a floor speech titled "UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 205" in the Senate.

UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 205

Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 105 (Tuesday, June 23, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 23, 2026)] [Senate] [Pages S3046-S3047] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 205 Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Lankford for organizing this time today because tomorrow, June 24, marks a pivotal anniversary in our Nation's history. In fact, it was 4 years ago that the Supreme Court ruled that there is no Federal constitutional right to abortion and overturned Roe v. Wade in a landmark 6-3 decision that altered the landscape of the pro-life movement forever. Reflect for a moment on how things would be different today if the Court had decided otherwise. If the Court decided there was a national right to abortion, society's culture of death would be more prevalent; States would be prevented from enacting pro-life laws, and as a result, millions of unborn children would have been killed and countless more women would have experienced the trauma of losing their child. I remember back in 2018 when I founded the U.S. Senate Pro-Life Caucus. I had no idea how important our work would become. I had no idea that we would get the opportunity to confirm pro-life Justices to the Supreme Court, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who became part of the majority on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe. The pro-life movement was given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to help promote a culture of life. And thanks to an incredible nationwide movement of grassroots activists, countless hearts and countless minds have been changed. We cannot understate the importance of that day 4 years ago. I remember I was struck by a profound truth that is found in the Book of Jeremiah 1:5. It says: Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born, I set you apart. That is why there is dignity and value in every single life, including the unborn, the disabled, and the aging. Unfortunately, these beliefs are under attack by pro-abortion advocates who use a disability diagnosis to justify abortion. Between 60 to 80 percent of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted in America. In fact, it is even higher in other countries. Nearly 100 percent in Denmark and Iceland. Let that sink in for a moment. Why would we ever think that is OK? To use a prenatal diagnosis as a case for abortion is discrimination at best and eugenics at worst. It also spurs the belief that having Down syndrome makes your life less valuable or not worth living. Individuals with Down syndrome make meaningful contributions to society and are loved by their families and friends. It is ironic that we celebrate Special Olympics here in the Washington. And yet we promote a prenatal diagnosis as a case to abort those athletes when they are in the womb. That is why I introduced the Protecting Individuals with Down Syndrome Act, which will ban doctors from performing abortions because the child received a prenatal Down syndrome diagnosis. Our Constitution says that all individuals are endowed by our Creator--that is with capital C--with the unalienable right to life. There is no clause that I can find that says ``except for individuals with Down syndrome.'' There is no clause that says ``except for anyone with a disability.'' It is very clear: Every person has a right to life. It is our duty to protect that life and be a voice for the voiceless. So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill and for all the other pro-life legislation that my colleagues are speaking on today and tomorrow. I am confident that one day, by the grace and the hand of God, abortion will be unthinkable, and every preborn child will be protected by the law. So this week as we celebrate this anniversary of the historic Dobbs decision, let's reflect with grateful hearts on the progress we have made, and let's look forward with hope to a future where every life, born and unborn, is valued. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 205 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Democratic whip. Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the provision that is being offered by the Senator from Montana, we should be very clear as to what it does: It makes it illegal for a medical professional to perform an abortion with the knowledge that a pregnant woman is seeking an abortion, in whole or in part--in whole or in part--on the basis of a test result indicating the fetus has Down syndrome, a prenatal diagnosis that the fetus has Down syndrome, or any other reason to believe the fetus may have Down syndrome. Understand what the Senator from Montana is saying. We are holding the medical professional--the doctor, in most cases--responsible for understanding the reason why a person is seeking an abortion, in whole or in part, which suggests to me that it may not even be a major part but just a consideration, if at all. So what is the penalty that the Senator from Montana would assess on the doctor who proceeds with the procedure which may be legal in the State it is being performed? If there is any question, even in whole or in part, that it involves Down syndrome, 5 years in prison--5 years in prison for that doctor. It goes on to say that it would be illegal for a medical professional to help a woman cross State lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion due to a Down syndrome concern. That also has a penalty of 5 years in prison. It is serious. So I guess the question I have to ask is, Is it our role as a politician, elected official, to call into question the reasons why someone may pursue a particular medical procedure? [[Page S3047]] The Senator from Montana says, yes, and if that involves even partially a consideration of Down syndrome, 5 years in prison. I understand the compelling argument being made here, but there are compelling arguments to be made on both sides when it comes to this issue. If Republicans actually really wanted to help the Down syndrome community, they ought to focus on the issues that the community cares about. How would I know those issues? I went to the National Down Syndrome Society and saw the list of their top legislative priorities. No. 1, the top legislative priority for Down syndrome: Protecting Medicaid, No. 1, because it provides free health coverage for people with Down syndrome. And yet, we know what happened. This measure, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, was considered on the floor of the U.S. Senate, the future of Medicaid. Every Republican Senator, including the Senator offering this provision, voted to cut Medicaid by $1 trillion over the next several years. I have checked in my State, downstate hospitals and clinics and doctors alike, and they said this is going to have a devastating impact on low-income individuals and individuals with disabilities. The National Down Syndrome Society knows that. That is why their highest priority--they would ask this Senate, this Congress, to function in this capacity, to protect Medicaid. But that is not the subject of the Senator's amendment before us today. Their second priority at the National Down Syndrome Society is ending discrimination with organ transplantation. And the third priority is important as well: Increasing funding for medical research at the National Institutes of Health. That is the same appropriation which, for 2 successive years, Republican President Donald Trump has attempted to cut dramatically. Some restoration has taken place in Congress. So the three highest priorities of the National Down Syndrome Society do not include the amendment coming before us today. Whether or when or how to start a family is an important decision best left entirely to a woman, her family, her healthcare provider. The U.S. Senate should not be involved in that decision making. There is no Member of the Senate who I think is competent to judge someone else's circumstances and what is going through their mind when they make a critical medical decision like this one. Today, we had a hearing, a spotlight hearing, on this issue, noting, as the Senator from Montana did, that we soon--tomorrow--will reach the fourth anniversary of the Dobbs decision. There were two women there who testified about their pregnancies and the problems that they ran into. Coincidentally, they were both mothers of children who were having subsequent babies, anxious to welcome those babies into the world, and then a sonogram disclosed terrible circumstances affecting that fetus. One lady's situation in Texas was she had to carry a fetus to term that could not survive. It was anencephalic. She was required under Texas law because they don't want to even get close to the notion of ending a pregnancy prematurely--she waited, risking her own health until a deadline was reached set by the legislature in Texas. Another lady, similar circumstance, a mother with a subsequent child, she thought everything was just fine, and the sonogram disclosed that the baby could not survive. That is a fact. That is a reality. To generalize and suggest that people are making selfish or personal decisions is really unfair. Each circumstance really begs the question as to whether we, as legislators, have a better insight into what is proper for a person in those circumstances or not. I think that this provision is not necessary. I believe that the Down Syndrome Society has listed their priorities, and this measure from the Senator of Montana is not one of them. Therefore, I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The bil

Referenced legislation: S205, S205