Author's note: The full transcript of LifeSiteNews' interview with Senator Lankford can be seen below the story, with light edits.
WASHINGTON, D.C., September 23, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – One of the U.S. Senate's leading voices on life told LifeSiteNews that “I don't like to just fight. I like to win.”
GOP Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma had big shoes to fill in January, when he won the seat previously held by Senator Tom Coburn. Coburn, who retired due to a renewed bout of cancer, was most known for his fiscal conservatism and canny use of legislative tactics to bottle up the Senate – but he also said in his first Senate run in 2004 that the death penalty should be available for abortionists.
Despite being in the Senate for only eight months, Lankford has come into his own as a defender of life. On Monday night, he spoke on the Senate floor about the then forthcoming vote on a ban on abortions after 20 weeks' gestation, sharing a story about a family friend whose child, Violet, survived being born at 20 weeks.
He has introduced a bill to temporarily defund Planned Parenthood, which is expected to get a vote in the Senate this week, and on Tuesday he was one of three Senators at a press conference in support of the 20-week ban.
However, he declined to tell LifeSiteNews whether he will support a Continuing Resolution that defunds Planned Parenthood, saying that “one of the big things to watch for is progress.”
Sign the petition to defund Planned Parenthood here!
“In 2011, the last time it was voted in the Senate to defund Planned Parenthood, the vote was 42 to defund, and 58 against. This last time, if you include [Senate Majority Leader] McConnell, who had to switch his vote for procedural reasons, if you include [Senator] Lindsey Graham, who was out on the presidential campaign, who didn't get to vote that time, we had 55 votes to defund,” said the senator.
“That's a pretty big shift, just from 2011 to now. Progress is being made in the Senate.”
When it comes to strategy, Lankford wants to find ways to get people to support life, legislatively and otherwise. Dismemberment is “a horrific technique for abortion,” he told LifeSiteNews. “We as a nation have determined we don't do partial-birth abortions anymore. That's a technique in abortion we as a nation say 'no, we're not going to do that.' Could dismemberment be the same issue, and say that that's a technique we won't use?”
On the legislative front, Lankford asked, “How anti-life are we that we would as a nation say, as a nation, that if a child is delivered, you can still kill it fully delivered, just because it was delivered in the process of an abortion?”
“If a child is alive, in front of you, that is most certainly a child, even under every other definition that the anti-life crowd puts out there. That child is fully alive and in front of you. You can do everything you can do to protect that life,” Lankford said, referencing a bill that passed the House last week and was introduced in the Senate by Ben Sasse of Nebraska.
Going back to the 20-week ban, Lankford asked, “Can't we agree that when children feel pain, or when they hit a point of viability, [they] should be protected? Even [President] Barack Obama, when he was a senator, had a bill that talked about a woman has a right to have an abortion up to the time of viability. So now I'm asking the question – what's viability?
“That's the 1973 definition from the Supreme Court from Roe v. Wade. They talked about viability, rather than conception, which is a clear demarcation. But they had this nebulous viability. Viability in 1973 is very different than what it is in 2015 or 2016. So that's an area where we can make progress.
“Finding different areas to say, 'Where can we make progress' in this national debate?,' I think, is important.”
Progress on life has been difficult for Democrats, whose party platform backs abortion on demand. Three Democrats voted for the 20-week ban on Tuesday, leaving 43 to oppose it. And President Obama has been the most pro-abortion president in American history.
Lankford said there is a way to convince some of his colleagues to join the side of life. “I think you have to work on them one on one. You have to have those conversations off of the main floor. By the time they get to the floor, they've often settled their mind.”
“But if you can talk one-on-one and say, 'Let's discuss this. Where are we now? And what's your position?,' there are times they would say, 'I'm concerned about a particular piece of the language, and I'm willing to adjust it, my vote, if we can get this section out of it or also adjusted.'
“Well, fine, let's have that conversation. Because, at the end of the day, I want to protect children. And what progress can be made on that?”
When it comes to shrinking taxpayer funding of abortion in the Senate, Lankford thinks it's time to go back to basics. “The issue for me is, the Senate has already shown over and over again they can't seem to get this done, can't get the 60 votes necessary. We'll have another vote on this today, and probably more later on this week. You can beat against a brick wall, and say at the end of it, 'Gosh, that's hard,' or you can try to find a way to make some progress,” he said.
“One of my big pushes is 'how do you get back to doing appropriations bills again?' As long as we're doing Continuing Resolutions and big omnibus, you have a very difficult time of getting to appropriations bills. So, again, I come back to my concept, 'how are we making progress on this issue,' rather than just saying, 'Nothing's happening.'
“Why don't we actually do something?” Lankford asked. “There's this sense that if you don't get it in CR, you don't get it anywhere, and I just disagree. Putting all those eggs in one basket and saying, 'This is the only vehicle that could possibly work'” is a mistake, he emphasized, pointing to how “the vast majority of Republicans” say, “That won't work, that's been tried before, and for 18 days the government was shut down, without making progress.”
“The real goal” is to “win this fight, and actually make progress for children,” Lankford believes. “Putting all your eggs in one basket may make for big television splash, and everyone in the country for a moment talking about government shutdown. The problem is, they just talk about government shutdown, rather than about life and about children.”
“Are there places you can do it? Reconciliation is one of those things that's been talked about, because it requires only 51 votes to get to the president. It could get to the president's desk,” says Lankford, who clarified that he is “all for trying” to get a Continuing Resolution through the Senate to President Obama's desk – even if he thinks “the current configuration” of the U.S. Senate will short-circuit such an effort.
“I'm glad to be able to push. But I'm not willing to be able to say, 'Gosh, if we don't get it in a CR, I'm just gonna quit.' Try reconciliation; put it on the president's desk. Try an appropriations bill; see if we can get it done. Try it in the highway bill.”
“Wherever we can find a spot to be able to make kind of progress, we should keep hammering away at it, rather than a 'one shot and we're done' kind of approach.”
For Lankford, it always comes back to the same question: “How are we making progress on this? If we're just sitting here, status quo, we've lost an opportunity.”
LifeSiteNews: Today is the vote for the 20-week ban. There's been a lot of talk about waiting until 2017 to vote through anything. Obviously, if we can get a Republican president in 2016, the odds of that bill being passed into law increase. But Republicans are going to have a tough year in the Senate. Do you think the pro-life movement in general should focus a little more on the Senate, and a little less on the presidency, given that reality? Twenty-four [GOP] seats are at risk.
Senator James Lankford: One of the big things to watch for is progress. It's one of the things that I watch for consistently. I don't like to just fight. I like to win. I want to know how are we actually getting towards a spot where we're gonna be able to protect life in the days ahead.
In 2011, the last time it was voted in the Senate to defund Planned Parenthood, if I remember correctly, the vote was 42 to defund, and 58 against. This last time, if you include [Senate Majority Leader] McConnell, who had to switch his vote for procedural reasons, if you include [Senator] Lindsey Graham, who was out on the presidential campaign, who didn't get to vote that time, we had 55 votes to defund.
So we went from 42-58 to 55-45. That's a pretty big shift, just from 2011 to now. Progress is being made in the Senate; obviously, we have to get to 60 [votes] to be able to move this, but we are making real progress on the life issues, and how the vote is turning, and how pro-life the Senate is really shifting towards.
You've gotta have 60 in the Senate to be able to do that, as well as a president who's not going to veto, so that really requires 67. I'm watching for areas we can make progress — defunding Planned Parenthood, what can be done? What area can we hold back on? The pain-capable legislation, to say 'can't we agree that when children feel pain, or when they hit a point of viability, should be protected?' Even [President] Barack Obama, when he was a Senator, had a bill that talked about a woman has a right to have an abortion up to the time of viability. So now I'm asking the question — what's viability?
That's the 1973 definition from the Supreme Court from Roe v. Wade. They talked about viability, rather than conception, which is a clear demarcation. But they had this nebulous viability.
Viability in 1973 is very different than what it is in 2015 or 2016. So that's an area where we can make progress.
Some of the techniques that are out there — dismemberment, for example. That's a horrific technique for abortion. We as a nation have determined we don't do partial-birth abortions anymore. That's a technique in abortion we as a nation say “no, we're not going to do that.” Could dismemberment be the same issue, and say that, “that's a technique we won't use?”
The born-alive infant protection act, which [Representative] Trent Franks introduced and [Senator] Ben Sasse now has on the Senate side, as well — where you look at it and say, 'How anti-life are we, that we would as a nation say, as a nation, that if a child is delivered, you can still kill it fully delivered, just because it was delivered in the process of an abortion. If a child is alive, in front of you, that is most certainly a child, even under every other definition that the anti-life crowd puts out there. That child is fully alive and in front of you, you can do everything you can do to protect that life.
So finding different areas to say, 'where can we make progress' in this national debate, I think is important.
LSN: When it comes to the pain-capable pill, I understand the push is on getting a vote, even though it is expected that it won't pass the Senate, because of the Democratic filibuster. As you said last night, as you told me a moment ago, viability is different now than it was 42 years ago.
And public opinion is in favor of this kind of legislation. Do you think there's a hcance of convincing the necessary Democrats to come over, and how should the pro-life movement, and how should pro-life Senators, work on your Democratic colleagues?
Lankford: I think you have to work on them one-on-one. You have to have those conversations off of the main floor. By the time they get to the floor, they've often settled their mind.
But if you can talk one-on-one and say, 'Let's discuss this. Where are we now? And what's your position?” There are times they would say, 'I'm concerned about a particular piece of the language, and I'm willing to adjust it, my vote, if we can get this section out of it or also adjusted.'
Well, fine, let's have that conversation. Because, at the end of the day, I want to protect children. And what progress can be made on that?
I think there's also this sense that we're not going to make any progress, and you really don't know until you put it on the floor. Let's actually take the vote. Let people put their reputation and their record out there to say, 'I believe this about children.'
For me, I don't want to write it off before it even happens. I want to continue to have those conversations with people that I think are at a reasonable position to talk about the issue of viability, the issue of pain, and say, 'is this really who we are,' and put it to the floor.
LSN: You mentioned Planned Parenthood funding earlier. When it comes to the current discussions happening related to the budget, you talked about the growth from 42-58 to 55-45. Some people are calling that progress, some people are calling the vote earlier this year a show vote. Have you taken a stand yet on whether you will be voting for a budget that includes funding for Planned Parenthood?
Lankford: I want to make progress. The issue for me is the Senate has already shown over and over again they can't seem to get this done, can't get the 60 votes necessary. We'll have another vote on this today, and probably more later on this week. You can beat against a brick wall, and say at the end of it, 'gosh, that's hard,' or you can try to find a way to make some progress.
86 percent of the funding for Planned Parenthood comes from the mandatory side, so even if you deal with the discretionary side of the budget [Note: Continuing Resolutions address only the discretionary side of spending; most of Planned Parenthood's funding comes from Medicaid, which is on the mandatory side of the budget], you're only dealing with a small portion of the federal funding that actually goes to Planned Parenthood. You have to have appropriations bills to be able to solve this.
One of my big pushes is 'how do you get back to doing appropriations bills again?' As long as we're doing Continuing Resolutions and big omnibus, you have a very difficult time of getting to appropriations bills. So, again, I come back to my concept, 'how are we making progress on this issue,' rather than jsut saying, 'nothing's happening.'
Why don't we actually do something?
One of the things I want to do is actually get back to doing appropriations bills, and passing appropriations bills, so we can actually make some progress in shutting some of this funding down.
LSN: When it comes to the funding, there are other strateigies that have been discussed. For example, the House leadership talked about doing reconciliation. That was criticized by, among others, Paul Winfree, Senator Cruz, many of the 28 Members of the House who said we only want to do on a CR.
I actually wrote a piece for HotAir.com over the weekend, where I interviewed Paul Winfree from Heritage, and he said the CR could work because, for example, as his colleague Sarah Torre pointed out, attach the Hyde Amendment in the past, you can make changes — to SNAP in the past — when it comes to this discussion, do you see other methods of, if you will, being creative?
For example, Sen. McConnell and the discussion about attaching to the transportation bill earlier this year, the debt ceiling — are there other creative methods to try to attach Planned Parenthood defunding?
Lankford: There's this sense that if you don't get it in CR, you don't get it anywhere, and I just disagree. Putting all those eggs in one basket and saying, 'this is the only vehicle that could possibly work,' when you have the vast majority of Republicans saying, 'That won't work, that's been tried before, and for 18 days the government was shut down, without making progress.'
How do you actually win this fight, and actually make progress for children? That's the real goal. So putting all your eggs in one basket may make for big television splash, and everyone in the country for a moment talking about government shutdown. The problem is, they just talk about government shutdown, rather than about life and about children.
Most people that I talk to, when I ask them 'why did the government shut down three years ago,' they don't remember why — they just remember that it did. They don't remember it was about Obamacare. They just remember there was a shutdown.
For some of the activist community, they remember exactly. But for the majority of people I talk to, they just remember 'shutdown.'
LSN: And you're representing a conservative state, that would have greater odds of remembering the details on that.
Lankford: So the challenge is, how do you win on the issue of life? That's really the focus. So are there places you can do it? Reconciliation is one of those things that's been talked about, because it requires only 51 votes to get to the president. It could get to the president's desk.
Now for individuals that have said that somehow we're going to come up with 60 in the Senate, and then the president is going to sign it. I have yet to see any evidence the president is going to sign it.
If the president sends it back, you have to have 67 in the Senate. Those numbers are not attainable, based upon the current configuration of the Senate, and the current president that we have.
Now, I'm all for trying. I have no question about that, and I'm glad to be able to push. But I'm not willing to be able to say, 'Gosh, if we don't get it in a CR, I'm just gonna quit.' Try reconciliation, put it on the president's desk. Try an appropriations bill, see if we can get it done. Try it in the highway bill.
Wherever we can find a spot to be able to make kind of progress, we should keep hammering away at it, rather than a one-shot and we're done kind of approach.
LSN: When it comes to different strategies, someone said it to me once that you should only use strategies where you're willing to lose an election over, especially if it's a risky strategy. Some people think the Continuing Resolution is the way to go; you've talked about the transportation bill.
The debt ceiling fight is going to be coming up in the next, I think, 30 to 45 days. Do you think that is a viable venue for a Planned Parenthood funding [fight]. At the very least, if it doesn't go anywhere, the budget balances.
The media obviously says this will be a default, but there won't be. Do you think that is a viable strategy to at least consider?
Lankford: I need to spend more time looking through that, at the mechanics of how you get into that. The challenge when you deal with the debt ceiling is very different than how you deal with a government shutdown. When you have a shutdown over funding of the government, the government still continues to press on. When you have it over a debt ceiling, you do have a large-scale stop in government, and a default on our loans.
Obviously, we're not going to try to default. We're gonna make payments on the loan first, then you come back to , what doesn't get paid, and how does that work? People talk about a technical default versus an actual default. We don't go into technical default, because we will pay our interest payments first. The challenge is, you do actually default on other payments that you have — private contractors all around the country who are not getting paid.
LSN: Multi-year contracts, things like that.
Lankford: Right. Whether it's highway funding, construction on military bases, whatever it may be. That is the biggest issue.
People that look at government funding think it only affects government employees. Every individual that is a private company that has a contract with the U.S. government — which is thousands of companies and hundreds of thousands of employees.
They will tell you — in the last government shutdown, federal employees got paid back, those private citizens did not.
LSN: Even though you don't have the numbers to get a Planned Parenthood defunding bill attached to the CR past the Senate, past the president, do you anticipate voting for such legislation, if it comes before you on the Senate floor?
Lankford: I want to make progress. That's my issue. If we're not making progress on the issue — it's been my same issue with the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling has been a moment when we actually come back and say, 'How are we actually getting this back to balance?'
If we're status quo, or we're going backwards, I can't support that. The debt ceiling is so large, we don't get it solved all in one year. [The deficit will be] $426 billion this year. NO one, literally no one, has a plan of how to balance that in one year.
So that's a multi-year [inaudible], and I want to make sure we're making progress towards it. I'm gonna do the same on the life issues: How are we making progress on this? If we're just sitting here status quo, we've lost an opportunity.
