Tim Scott: “I oppose the rule because it allows no amendments. There are several amendments that ought to be offered, that we ought…”

“I oppose the rule because it allows no amendments. There are several amendments that ought to be offered, that we ought to be able to consider. The bill prohibits anyone from transporting a minor across the State line for the purpose of obtaining an abortion if in fact the notification and parental consent laws were not complied with. This obviously includes a taxicab driver who knows where the person is going by virtue of their address and during the conversation on the way before they cross State lines could clearly ascertain that the minor is being transported for the purpose of an abortion. He is not required to know whether or not the parental consent laws are complied with. He would have to ascertain by the fine print in the bill whether or not they have been complied with. Otherwise, he will be exposed to criminal and civil liability. Even if a prosecutor refused to prosecute a taxicab driver for this fare, there are civil damages. Even the incest situation that the gentlewoman from New York indicated, the parents could sue the taxicab driver for civil damages. Another is the fact that there is no exception for the health of the minor. The Supreme Court, on a number of occasions for the last 30 years, has said that any antiabortion legislation must have an exception for the health of the mother. This does not include a health exception.”