On the recordJune 12, 2024
Mr. President, the Senator from Washington suggested that this bill does not protect IVF. Let me read you the clear statutory language that unambiguously protects IVF: A State shall not prohibit in vitro fertilization as defined in section 4(B) of the IVF Protection Act services and shall ensure that no unit of local government in the State prohibits such services. That is clear. That is unambiguous. That is explicit. And that is ironclad. Had the Democrats not cynically said ``I object,'' that language would have just passed the U.S. Senate 100 to nothing, a strong Federal protection of IVF. Now, Democrats know that out of 50 States, not a single State is seeking to ban IVF. They know that the threat that they plan to spend millions of dollars trying to convince the voters is real, no State is currently pursuing. They know that Alabama--whose Supreme Court started this issue--the legislature promptly came into session and acted to make clear that IVF is protected. And the Senator from Washington asked a question. I do find it interesting. She asked a question and wanted me to answer it, but she is no longer on the Senate floor to hear my answer to the question, but I will answer it anyway. The Senator from Washington suggests that those States that pursue personhood amendments, that that is somehow inconsistent with IVF.…





