On the recordMay 12, 1994
I have on several occasions expressed my strong opposition to violence or any hint of approval of violence on the part of persons involved on either side of the debate over abortion. I have outlined specific concerns about certain provisions contained in the bill which we are dealing with this morning. Many of those concerns have been addressed. However, the broader and overriding concern that I and many of my colleagues have expressed is about how this bill intrudes on valued and historically and constitutionally protected speech. S. 636 is no less than an insult to those of us who cherish first amendment freedoms. It regulates and prohibits speech because of its content. It singles out a particular viewpoint for discrimination and in doing so goes against our Nation's heritage of respecting differing views and instead it legitimizes only speech that is deemed politically correct and comfortable. Mr. President, the abortion issue has become increasingly divisive, and I hope we can agree that the way to address problems associated with such strongly held views is not to disarm just one side. But that, in my opinion, is exactly what we will be doing if we pass this bill today. Therefore, I think the question that this body should ask is: Should Congress be in the business of protecting people from messages that disturb their consciences?
Source
govinfo.gov




