Senate Proceeding on Apr 28th, 2009 :: 0:24:40 to 0:33:50
Total video length: 2 hours 35 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Download OptionsEmbed Video

Views:13 Duration: 0:09:10 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

0:23:40 to 0:24:55( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Max Baucus

0:24:28 to 0:24:49( Edit History Discussion )

Max Baucus: following staff of given floor privileges, william kelly whiter in and billy london. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: for the last weeks there's been a senator in here who has struggled with the birth

0:24:50 to 0:24:56( Edit History Discussion )

Max Baucus: of twin granddaughters, born at 30 weeks to a first-time mom,

0:24:57 to 0:25:18( Edit History Discussion )

his son's wife, and went through a struggle that was near death at multiple times but yet today, i'm those two baby girls are at home with their thriving. new life held in the

0:25:19 to 0:25:40( Edit History Discussion )

brought out of that balance by modern medicine, and now will be success with potential that will be manifested in millions of millions of ways that we can all

0:25:41 to 0:26:01( Edit History Discussion )

look forward to and accept as a natural response to our procreative responsibilities. why do i bring that up? there wasn't anybody in this room and probably anybody listening that didn't smile when we talked about that potential two new young children, two new

0:26:02 to 0:26:22( Edit History Discussion )

young girls that are going to make an impact, maybe just locally, maybe just in their family, maybe nationally. but the fact is that we have joy when we see that kind of outcome. and the reason i tell that story is because it fits with who we

0:26:23 to 0:26:45( Edit History Discussion )

are as human beings. it fits with our idea pursuit of life, of liberty, and of happiness. and that that right is guaranteed to us under the constitution.

0:26:46 to 0:27:06( Edit History Discussion )

kathleen sebelius is undoubtedly a public servant to be honored for her years of commitment in the roles but i believe she has a drastic and fatal character flaw, and it's this:

0:27:07 to 0:27:28( Edit History Discussion )

she still believes that if a woman came with those twins at 30 weeks to a doctor in kansas and he wanted to aboard them, even though they're viable, that would be fine. now, we're about to put somebody in charge of

0:27:29 to 0:27:49( Edit History Discussion )

human services of this nation who has this vital flaw of not recognizing the value of these two young children's lives. what does it say about where we're going to go? what does it say about the

0:27:50 to 0:28:11( Edit History Discussion )

judgment process under which we applaud her service but don't recognize this one critical flaw that says "individuals can decide what individuals have life"? we do that collectively under the law, but

0:28:12 to 0:28:34( Edit History Discussion )

collectively and discriminately on the basis of making a decision that someone ought not to have life at the very beginning. i believe that's a disqualifier, and i believe as we embrace more and more people into leadership roles in our government that

0:28:35 to 0:28:57( Edit History Discussion )

walk away from this very basic characteristic of human existence, this very basic necessity that recognizes the value -- we're not talking about a first-trimester we're talking about snuffing

0:28:58 to 0:29:19( Edit History Discussion )

life from viable children. i'm also unsettled as to her beliefs under the conscience protection for health care providers. that if in fact you think is okay to take a 36-week-old child in the womb that is an inconvenience for someone and that we as a society can't

0:29:20 to 0:29:41( Edit History Discussion )

handle that, our choices to snuff it out, how far does it go before we require the provider community to snuff it out? in h testimonies that that won't happen

0:29:42 to 0:30:02( Edit History Discussion )

and we've already seen the obama administrati work to look at reversing the guidelines from the last administration clarifying very particularly what the provider's roles

0:30:03 to 0:30:26( Edit History Discussion )

it says a lot about where we are as a society. it says a lot about our misplaced values. the other problem i have and it's one i've never voiced from this floor idea that we as politicians

0:30:27 to 0:30:48( Edit History Discussion )

embrace somebody for a position because they're a politician; because they've spent years being a career politician that that qualifieshem for governor of a very small state population-wise, to handle and lead on all these are of

0:30:49 to 0:31:10( Edit History Discussion )

health care. it doesn't recognize the complexities of the organization at h.h.s., the difficulties they have carrying out chair charges but it recognizes past performance to a political arena as capability in a management

0:31:11 to 0:31:32( Edit History Discussion )

arena. and if we continue to political success and confuse it with the ability to have management success we'll continue repeating the same mistakes we've made in both republican and democratic administrations.

0:31:33 to 0:31:55( Edit History Discussion )

my largest worry is not in the short-term. my largest worry is term because what our country lacks today, today, what it deserves today is

0:31:56 to 0:32:17( Edit History Discussion )

courageous moral leadership, not political leadership; moral leadership. it's okay to have adebate about the controversial thing -- to have a debate about the controversy a things our society faces but not because we will be hit by a press because of a

0:32:18 to 0:32:39( Edit History Discussion )

different political position but based on the sort tiewd that all life -- certitude that all life has value. yet we run from the debate. the true lincoln-douglas type debates that call the soul of america so we can

0:32:40 to 0:33:01( Edit History Discussion )

decide not on the basis of opinion but on the basis of historical fact. and the basis of historical fact is this: when society's quit valuing life, societies fail to flourish so we have a nominee for whatever reason vetoes a bill that says if you're a

0:33:02 to 0:33:23( Edit History Discussion )

doctor you ought to have to explain yourself if you are going to take the life of a 36-week infant. you ought to have to get a second opinion. you ought to demonstrate you are doing what's in the best interest of that mother and that child. let me tell you it is hard to demonstrate a best interest for a wild when you

0:33:24 to 0:33:46( Edit History Discussion )

in a womb and deliver it two-thirds of the way out and then destroy it. that's a debate we ought to have. because it doesn't just apply to thessue of abortion. and unwanted pregnancy. it is a barometer of the soul of

0:33:47 to 0:34:07( Edit History Discussion )

our nation and we offer no excuse that c at valuable for the beerment of our society when we -- betterment of society when we don't have that value. i think there's a flaw of the i think that's a critical defect in this nominee whereas if you're going to be charged for