Abortion

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I could never match the eloquence of the Senator from Oklahoma, who just spoke about the same topic about which I rise at this moment.

I remember when Democrats running for office would tell the American people that they were pro-choice, but they felt that abortion should be safe, it should be legal, but it should be rare--safe, legal, and rare. I remember when Bill Clinton said that to the American people. And I think about how far the left has gone from that to the attitude that my friend from Oklahoma has described.

I first encountered the March for Life when I was a staff member up here in Washington, DC, working for then-Congressman Trent Lott, 1981. It was wonderful to see those people, and it will be wonderful to join them online in a virtual march this Friday.

I can tell you also that those people who say ``We follow the science'' are those of us now who are pro-life because, as the Senator from Oklahoma pointed out, as more and more information comes out about DNA, about the pictures--about the pictures that my wife and I have had on our refrigerator of our unborn grandchildren--more and more Americans, more and more people around the world understand that the science is on the side of those of us who are pro-life; that the beating hearts, the faces that we see in these young unborn children are, indeed, humans made in God's image and that they are entitled to the protections that our Founders outlined, protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Twenty-five years ago, 56 percent of Americans considered themselves pro-choice. Only 33 percent said they were pro-life. I was glad to be part of that 33 percent, but I am certainly glad to see our numbers have risen. Today's pro-life movement has closed that gap completely. The country is now evenly split.

But I will say this for some of my fellow Americans who call themselves pro-choice: There are differences within that group.

Gallup reports 81 percent of Americans think abortion should be illegal in the third trimester. Why can't we get Democrats and Republicans and Independents of the right and center and left to agree to that--where 81 percent of Americans said we should make abortion illegal in the third trimester. Sixty-five percent say it should be illegal in the second trimester.

In addition, a Marist poll last year found that 60 percent of Americans are against using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. Even if some of them believe abortion should be legal, 60 percent of Americans--a supermajority--are against using tax dollars to fund abortion. That is up from 54 percent just 1 year before.

Because the science is moving in our favor, the evidence is moving in our favor, public opinion is moving in our favor. That same poll found 35 percent of Democrats oppose using taxpayer funds for abortion. Many of these Americans might check the box saying they are pro-choice, but they are willing to draw an important distinction between abortion being legal in some circumstances and taking taxpayer dollars from pro- life Americans to actually fund abortion.

In essence, these people are saying: We can disagree about abortion being illegal, but let's not force pro-life Americans to pay for a practice they find abhorrent and morally reprehensible.

That is a view that I do not agree with because I am solidly pro- life, but it is an eminently reasonable view.

Why can't we enact that into a permanent statute in the United States? It is a position that Congress has adopted every year when we pass the Hyde amendment to keep Federal dollars from going toward abortion.

I regret that our present President does not seem to share this view, although he once held this view. Days ago, in one of his first acts in office, our new President reversed the Mexico City policy, allowing American tax dollars to begin funding abortions in foreign countries once again. This decision showed disregard, to me, for the consciences of millions of American taxpayers who are pro-life. I was appalled by this decision. I know many of my constituents were. I think Congress should pass legislation enshrining the Mexico City policy in statute.

But at this moment, I rise proposing a more familiar and direct and, I think, politically popular step and that would be to put no taxpayer funding of abortion legislation into the permanent statute rather than passing it each year as the Hyde amendment. Of all the abortion-related bills that reach the Senate floor, this one should be the least controversial. The Hyde amendment is standard policy. It has passed annually for more than 40 consecutive years, during terms of Republican Presidents, terms of Democratic Presidents, during Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate and when it was, indeed, the other way around. It has stood the test of time and enjoys broad consensus in this body and in the United States of America. Passing this legislation to make the Hyde Amendment permanent would keep taxpayers from having to worry each year if their money is going to be used for an abortion in this country.

I stand this Friday with millions and millions of Americans who will join in supporting life, and I urge my colleagues to send an important signal to all of the American people that Congress is serious about seeking unity and healing.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation as we work to build bipartisan consensus for life in the days ahead.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source