[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 117 (Friday, July 15, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H6631-H6647]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WOMEN'S HEALTH PROTECTION ACT OF 2022
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1224, I call
up the bill (H.R. 8296) to protect a person's ability to determine
whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care
provider's ability to provide abortion services, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 8296
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Women's Health Protection
Act of 2022''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) On June 24, 2022, in its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson
Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court overruled Roe
v. Wade, reversing decades of precedent recognizing the
constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before fetal
viability, and to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability
where it is necessary, in the good-faith medical judgment of
the treating health care professional, for the preservation
of the life or health of the person who is pregnant.
(2) In their joint dissent, Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and
Kagan write, ``[The majority] says that from the very moment
of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. A State
can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the
steepest personal and familial costs.''.
(3) The dissenting Justices continue, ``The Mississippi law
at issue here bars abortions after the 15th week of
pregnancy. Under the majority's ruling, though, another
State's law could do so after ten weeks, or five or three or
one--or, again, from the moment of fertilization. States have
already passed such laws, in anticipation of today's ruling.
More will follow.''.
(4) The dissenting Justices also stated, ``one result of
[the] decision is certain; the curtailment of women's rights,
and of their status as free and equal citizens.''.
(5) Indeed, some States acted to ban abortion outright in
the immediate aftermath of the Dobbs decision, with half the
States in the country expected to ban abortion entirely in
the days and weeks to come.
(6) Even before Roe was overturned, access to abortion
services had been obstructed across the United States in
various ways, including blockades of health care facilities
[[Page H6632]]
and associated violence, prohibitions of, and restrictions
on, insurance coverage; parental involvement laws
(notification and consent); restrictions that shame and
stigmatize people seeking abortion services; and medically
unnecessary regulations that neither confer any health
benefit nor further the safety of abortion services, but
which harm people by delaying, complicating access to, and
reducing the availability of, abortion services.
(7) Abortion services are essential to health care, and
access to those services is central to people's ability to
participate equally in the economic and social life of the
United States. Abortion access allows people who are pregnant
to make their own decisions about their pregnancies, their
families, and their lives.
(8) Reproductive justice requires every individual to have
the right to make their own decisions about having children
regardless of their circumstances and without interference
and discrimination. Reproductive Justice is a human right
that can and will be achieved when all people, regardless of
actual or perceived race, color, national origin, immigration
status, sex (including gender identity, sex stereotyping, or
sexual orientation), age, or disability status have the
economic, social, and political power and resources to define
and make decisions about their bodies, health, sexuality,
families, and communities in all areas of their lives, with
dignity and self-determination.
(9) Reproductive justice seeks to address restrictions on
reproductive health, including abortion, that perpetuate
systems of oppression, lack of bodily autonomy, white
supremacy, and anti-Black racism. This violent legacy has
manifested in policies including enslavement, rape, and
experimentation on Black women; forced sterilizations;
medical experimentation on low-income women's reproductive
systems; and the forcible removal of Indigenous children.
Access to equitable reproductive health care, including
abortion services, has always been deficient in the United
States for Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color
(BIPOC) and their families.
(10) The legacy of restrictions on reproductive health,
rights, and justice is not a dated vestige of a dark history.
Presently, the harms of abortion-specific restrictions fall
especially heavily on people with low incomes, BIPOC,
immigrants, young people, people with disabilities, and those
living in rural and other medically underserved areas.
Abortion-specific restrictions are even more compounded by
the ongoing criminalization of people who are pregnant,
including those who are incarcerated, living with HIV, or
with substance-use disorders. These communities already
experience health disparities due to social, political, and
environmental inequities, and restrictions on abortion
services exacerbate these harms. Removing medically
unjustified restrictions on abortion services would
constitute one important step on the path toward realizing
Reproductive Justice by ensuring that the full range of
reproductive health care is accessible to all who need it.
(11) Abortion-specific restrictions are a tool of gender
oppression, as they target health care services that are used
primarily by women. These paternalistic restrictions rely on
and reinforce harmful stereotypes about gender roles, women's
decision-making, and women's need for protection instead of
support, undermining their ability to control their own lives
and well-being. These restrictions harm the basic autonomy,
dignity, and equality of women, and their ability to
participate in the social and economic life of the Nation.
(12) The terms ``woman'' and ``women'' are used in this
bill to reflect the identity of the majority of people
targeted and affected by restrictions on abortion services,
and to address squarely the targeted restrictions on
abortion, which are rooted in misogyny. However, access to
abortion services is critical to the health of every person
capable of becoming pregnant. This Act is intended to protect
all people with the capacity for pregnancy--cisgender women,
transgender men, non-binary individuals, those who identify
with a different gender, and others--who are unjustly harmed
by restrictions on abortion services.
(13) Since 2011, States and local governments have passed
nearly 500 restrictions singling out health care providers
who offer abortion services, interfering with their ability
to provide those services and the patients' ability to obtain
those services.
(14) Many State and local governments have imposed
restrictions on the provision of abortion services that are
neither evidence-based nor generally applicable to the
medical profession or to other medically comparable
outpatient gynecological procedures, such as endometrial
ablations, dilation and curettage for reasons other than
abortion, hysteroscopies, loop electrosurgical excision
procedures, or other analogous non-gynecological procedures
performed in similar outpatient settings including vasectomy,
sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy.
(15) Abortion is essential health care and one of the
safest medical procedures in the United States. An
independent, comprehensive review of the state of science on
the safety and quality of abortion services, published by the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in
2018, found that abortion in the United States is safe and
effective and that the biggest threats to the quality of
abortion services in the United States are State regulations
that create barriers to care. These abortion-specific
restrictions conflict with medical standards and are not
supported by the recommendations and guidelines issued by
leading reproductive health care professional organizations
including the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, the Society of Family Planning, the National
Abortion Federation, the World Health Organization, and
others.
(16) Many abortion-specific restrictions do not confer any
health or safety benefits on the patient. Instead, these
restrictions have the purpose and effect of unduly burdening
people's personal and private medical decisions to end their
pregnancies by making access to abortion services more
difficult, invasive, and costly, often forcing people to
travel significant distances and make multiple unnecessary
visits to the provider, and in some cases, foreclosing the
option altogether. For example, a 2018 report from the
University of California San Francisco's Advancing New
Standards in Reproductive Health research group found that in
27 cities across the United States, people have to travel
more than 100 miles in any direction to reach an abortion
provider.
(17) An overwhelming majority of abortions in the United
States are provided in clinics, not hospitals, but the large
majority of counties throughout the United States have no
clinics that provide abortion.
(18) These restrictions additionally harm people's health
by reducing access not only to abortion services but also to
other essential health care services offered by many of the
providers targeted by the restrictions, including--
(A) screenings and preventive services, including
contraceptive services;
(B) testing and treatment for sexually transmitted
infections;
(C) LGBTQ health services; and
(D) referrals for primary care, intimate partner violence
prevention, prenatal care and adoption services.
(19) The cumulative effect of these numerous restrictions
has been to severely limit, and now eliminate entirely, the
availability of abortion services in some areas, creating a
patchwork system where the provision of abortion services is
legal in some States and illegal in others. A 2019 report
from the Government Accountability Office examining State
Medicaid compliance with abortion coverage requirements
analyzed seven key challenges (identified both by health care
providers and research literature) and their effect on
abortion access, and found that access to abortion services
varied across the States and even within a State.
(20) International human rights law recognizes that access
to abortion is intrinsically linked to the rights to life,
health, equality and non-discrimination, privacy, and freedom
from ill-treatment. United Nations (UN) human rights treaty
monitoring bodies have found that legal abortion services,
like other reproductive health care services, must be
available, accessible, affordable, acceptable, and of good
quality. UN human rights treaty bodies have likewise
condemned medically unnecessary barriers to abortion
services, including mandatory waiting periods, biased
counseling requirements, and third-party authorization
requirements.
(21) Core human rights treaties ratified by the United
States protect access to abortion. For example, in 2018, the
UN Human Rights Committee, which oversees implementation of
the ICCPR, made clear that the right to life, enshrined in
Article 6 of the ICCPR, at a minimum requires governments to
provide safe, legal, and effective access to abortion where a
person's life and health is at risk, or when carrying a
pregnancy to term would cause substantial pain or suffering.
The Committee stated that governments must not impose
restrictions on abortion which subject women and girls to
physical or mental pain or suffering, discriminate against
them, arbitrarily interfere with their privacy, or place them
at risk of undertaking unsafe abortions. Furthermore, the
Committee stated that governments should remove existing
barriers that deny effective access to safe and legal
abortion, refrain from introducing new barriers to abortion,
and prevent the stigmatization of those seeking abortion.
(22) UN independent human rights experts have expressed
particular concern about barriers to abortion services in the
United States. For example, at the conclusion of his 2017
visit to the United States, the UN Special Rapporteur on
extreme poverty and human rights noted concern that low-
income women face legal and practical obstacles to exercising
their constitutional right to access abortion services,
trapping many women in cycles of poverty. Similarly, in May
2020, the UN Working Group on discrimination against women
and girls, along with other human rights experts, expressed
concern that some states had manipulated the COVID-19 crisis
to restrict access to abortion, which the experts recognized
as ``the latest example illustrating a pattern of
restrictions and retrogressions in access to legal abortion
care across the country'' and reminded U.S. authorities that
abortion care constitutes essential health care that must
remain available during and after the pandemic. They noted
that barriers to abortion access exacerbate systemic
inequalities and cause particular harm to marginalized
communities, including low-income people, people of color,
immigrants, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ people.
[[Page H6633]]
(23) Abortion-specific restrictions affect the cost and
availability of abortion services, and the settings in which
abortion services are delivered. People travel across State
lines and otherwise engage in interstate commerce to access
this essential medical care, and more would be forced to do
so absent this Act. Likewise, health care providers travel
across State lines and otherwise engage in interstate
commerce in order to provide abortion services to patients,
and more would be forced to do so absent this Act.
(24) Health care providers engage in a form of economic and
commercial activity when they provide abortion services, and
there is an interstate market for abortion services.
(25) Abortion restrictions substantially affect interstate
commerce in numerous ways. For example, to provide abortion
services, health care providers engage in interstate commerce
to purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary
goods and services. To provide and assist others in providing
abortion services, health care providers engage in interstate
commerce to obtain and provide training. To provide abortion
services, health care providers employ and obtain commercial
services from doctors, nurses, and other personnel who engage
in interstate commerce and travel across State lines.
(26) It is difficult and time and resource-consuming for
clinics to challenge State laws that burden or impede
abortion services. Litigation that blocks one abortion
restriction may not prevent a State from adopting other
similarly burdensome abortion restrictions or using different
methods to burden or impede abortion services. There is a
history and pattern of States passing successive and
different laws that unduly burden abortion services.
(27) When a health care provider ceases providing abortion
services as a result of burdensome and medically unnecessary
regulations, it is often difficult or impossible for that
health care provider to recommence providing those abortion
services, and difficult or impossible for other health care
providers to provide abortion services that restore or
replace the ceased abortion services.
(28) Health care providers are subject to license laws in
various jurisdictions, which are not affected by this Act
except as provided in this Act.
(29) Congress has the authority to enact this Act to
protect abortion services pursuant to--
(A) its powers under the commerce clause of section 8 of
article I of the Constitution of the United States;
(B) its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States to enforce the
provisions of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment; and
(C) its powers under the necessary and proper clause of
section 8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United
States.
(30) Congress has used its authority in the past to protect
access to abortion services and health care providers'
ability to provide abortion services. In the early 1990s,
protests and blockades at health care facilities where
abortion services were provided, and associated violence,
increased dramatically and reached crisis level, requiring
Congressional action. Congress passed the Freedom of Access
to Clinic Entrances Act (Public Law 103-259; 108 Stat. 694)
to address that situation and protect physical access to
abortion services.
(31) Congressional action is necessary to put an end to
harmful restrictions, to federally protect access to abortion
services for everyone regardless of where they live, and to
protect the ability of health care providers to provide these
services in a safe and accessible manner.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act--
(1) to permit health care providers to provide abortion
services without limitations or requirements that single out
the provision of abortion services for restrictions that are
more burdensome than those restrictions imposed on medically
comparable procedures, do not significantly advance
reproductive health or the safety of abortion services, and
make abortion services more difficult to access;
(2) to promote access to abortion services and women's
ability to participate equally in the economic and social
life of the United States; and
(3) to invoke Congressional authority, including the powers
of Congress under the commerce clause of section 8 of article
I of the Constitution of the United States, its powers under
section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States to enforce the provisions of section 1 of
the Fourteenth Amendment, and its powers under the necessary
and proper clause of section 8 of article I of the
Constitution of the United States.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Abortion services.--The term ``abortion services''
means an abortion and any medical or non-medical services
related to and provided in conjunction with an abortion
(whether or not provided at the same time or on the same day
as the abortion).
(2) Government.--The term ``government'' includes each
branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official of
the United States or a State.
(3) Health care provider.--The term ``health care
provider'' means any entity or individual (including any
physician, certified nurse-midwife, nurse practitioner, and
physician assistant) that--
(A) is engaged or seeks to engage in the delivery of health
care services, including abortion services; and
(B) if required by law or regulation to be licensed or
certified to engage in the delivery of such services--
(i) is so licensed or certified; or
(ii) would be so licensed or certified but for their past,
present, or potential provision of abortion services
permitted by section 4.
(4) Medically comparable procedure.--The term ``medically
comparable procedures'' means medical procedures that are
similar in terms of health and safety risks to the patient,
complexity, or the clinical setting that is indicated.
(5) Pregnancy.--The term ``pregnancy'' refers to the period
of the human reproductive process beginning with the
implantation of a fertilized egg.
(6) State.--The term ``State'' includes the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory
and possession of the United States, and any subdivision of
any of the foregoing, including any unit of local government,
such as a county, city, town, village, or other general
purpose political subdivision of a State.
(7) Viability.--The term ``viability'' means the point in a
pregnancy at which, in the good-faith medical judgment of the
treating health care provider, based on the particular facts
of the case before the health care provider, there is a
reasonable likelihood of sustained fetal survival outside the
uterus with or without artificial support.
SEC. 4. PERMITTED SERVICES.
(a) General Rule.--A health care provider has a statutory
right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may
provide abortion services, and that provider's patient has a
corresponding right to receive such services, without any of
the following limitations or requirements:
(1) A requirement that a health care provider perform
specific tests or medical procedures in connection with the
provision of abortion services, unless generally required for
the provision of medically comparable procedures.
(2) A requirement that the same health care provider who
provides abortion services also perform specified tests,
services, or procedures prior to or subsequent to the
abortion.
(3) A requirement that a health care provider offer or
provide the patient seeking abortion services medically
inaccurate information in advance of or during abortion
services.
(4) A limitation on a health care provider's ability to
prescribe or dispense drugs based on current evidence-based
regimens or the provider's good-faith medical judgment, other
than a limitation generally applicable to the medical
profession.
(5) A limitation on a health care provider's ability to
provide abortion services via telemedicine, other than a
limitation generally applicable to the provision of medical
services via telemedicine.
(6) A requirement or limitation concerning the physical
plant, equipment, staffing, or hospital transfer arrangements
of facilities where abortion services are provided, or the
credentials or hospital privileges or status of personnel at
such facilities, that is not imposed on facilities or the
personnel of facilities where medically comparable procedures
are performed.
(7) A requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a
patient make one or more medically unnecessary in-person
visits to the provider of abortion services or to any
individual or entity that does not provide abortion services.
(8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in
time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or
restriction on a particular abortion procedure.
(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when,
in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health
care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a
risk to the pregnant patient's life or health.
(10) A limitation on a health care provider's ability to
provide immediate abortion services when that health care
provider believes, based on the good-faith medical judgment
of the provider, that delay would pose a risk to the
patient's health.
(11) A requirement that a patient seeking abortion services
at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability
disclose the patient's reason or reasons for seeking abortion
services, or a limitation on the provision or obtaining of
abortion services at any point or points in time prior to
fetal viability based on any actual, perceived, or potential
reason or reasons of the patient for obtaining abortion
services, regardless of whether the limitation is based on a
health care provider's degree of actual or constructive
knowledge of such reason or reasons.
(b) Other Limitations or Requirements.--The statutory right
specified in subsection (a) shall not be limited or otherwise
infringed through, in addition to the limitations and
requirements specified in paragraphs (1) through (11) of
subsection (a), any limitation or requirement that--
(1) is the same as or similar to one or more of the
limitations or requirements described in subsection (a); or
(2) both--
(A) expressly, effectively, implicitly, or as implemented
singles out the provision of abortion services, health care
providers who
[[Page H6634]]
provide abortion services, or facilities in which abortion
services are provided; and
(B) impedes access to abortion services.
(c) Factors for Consideration.--Factors a court may
consider in determining whether a limitation or requirement
impedes access to abortion services for purposes of
subsection (b)(2)(B) include the following:
(1) Whether the limitation or requirement, in a provider's
good-faith medical judgment, interferes with a health care
provider's ability to provide care and render services, or
poses a risk to the patient's health or safety.
(2) Whether the limitation or requirement is reasonably
likely to delay or deter some patients in accessing abortion
services.
(3) Whether the limitation or requirement is reasonably
likely to directly or indirectly increase the cost of
providing abortion services or the cost for obtaining
abortion services (including costs associated with travel,
childcare, or time off work).
(4) Whether the limitation or requirement is reasonably
likely to have the effect of necessitating a trip to the
offices of a health care provider that would not otherwise be
required.
(5) Whether the limitation or requirement is reasonably
likely to result in a decrease in the availability of
abortion services in a given State or geographic region.
(6) Whether the limitation or requirement imposes penalties
that are not imposed on other health care providers for
comparable conduct or failure to act, or that are more severe
than penalties imposed on other health care providers for
comparable conduct or failure to act.
(7) The cumulative impact of the limitation or requirement
combined with other new or existing limitations or
requirements.
(d) Exception.--To defend against a claim that a limitation
or requirement violates a health care provider's or patient's
statutory rights under subsection (b), a party must
establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that--
(1) the limitation or requirement significantly advances
the safety of abortion services or the health of patients;
and
(2) the safety of abortion services or the health of
patients cannot be advanced by a less restrictive alternative
measure or action.
SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY AND PREEMPTION.
(a) In General.--
(1) Except as stated under subsection (b), this Act
supersedes and applies to the law of the Federal Government
and each State government, and the implementation of such
law, whether statutory, common law, or otherwise, and whether
adopted before or after the date of enactment of this Act,
and neither the Federal Government nor any State government
shall administer, implement, or enforce any law, rule,
regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and
effect of law that conflicts with any provision of this Act,
notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, including
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C.
2000bb et seq.).
(2) Federal statutory law adopted after the date of the
enactment of this Act is subject to this Act unless such law
explicitly excludes such application by reference to this
Act.
(b) Limitations.--The provisions of this Act shall not
supersede or apply to--
(1) laws regulating physical access to clinic entrances;
(2) insurance or medical assistance coverage of abortion
services;
(3) the procedure described in section 1531(b)(1) of title
18, United States Code; or
(4) generally applicable State contract law.
(c) Defense.--In any cause of action against an individual
or entity who is subject to a limitation or requirement that
violates this Act, in addition to the remedies specified in
section 8, this Act shall also apply to, and may be raised as
a defense by, such an individual or entity.
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect immediately upon the date of
enactment of this Act. This Act shall apply to all
restrictions on the provision of, or access to, abortion
services whether the restrictions are enacted or imposed
prior to or after the date of enactment of this Act, except
as otherwise provided in this Act.
SEC. 7. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.
(a) In General.--In interpreting the provisions of this
Act, a court shall liberally construe such provisions to
effectuate the purposes of the Act.
(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to authorize any government to interfere with,
diminish, or negatively affect a person's ability to obtain
or provide abortion services.
(c) Other Individuals Considered as Government Officials.--
Any person who, by operation of a provision of Federal or
State law, is permitted to implement or enforce a limitation
or requirement that violates section 4 of this Act shall be
considered a government official for purposes of this Act.
SEC. 8. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Attorney General.--The Attorney General may commence a
civil action on behalf of the United States against any State
that violates, or against any government official (including
a person described in section 7(c)) that implements or
enforces a limitation or requirement that violates, section
4. The court shall hold unlawful and set aside the limitation
or requirement if it is in violation of this Act.
(b) Private Right of Action.--
(1) In general.--Any individual or entity, including any
health care provider or patient, adversely affected by an
alleged violation of this Act, may commence a civil action
against any State that violates, or against any government
official (including a person described in section 7(c)) that
implements or enforces a limitation or requirement that
violates, section 4. The court shall hold unlawful and set
aside the limitation or requirement if it is in violation of
this Act.
(2) Health care provider.--A health care provider may
commence an action for relief on its own behalf, on behalf of
the provider's staff, and on behalf of the provider's
patients who are or may be adversely affected by an alleged
violation of this Act.
(c) Equitable Relief.--In any action under this section,
the court may award appropriate equitable relief, including
temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief.
(d) Costs.--In any action under this section, the court
shall award costs of litigation, as well as reasonable
attorney's fees, to any prevailing plaintiff. A plaintiff
shall not be liable to a defendant for costs or attorney's
fees in any non-frivolous action under this section.
(e) Jurisdiction.--The district courts of the United States
shall have jurisdiction over proceedings under this Act and
shall exercise the same without regard to whether the party
aggrieved shall have exhausted any administrative or other
remedies that may be provided for by law.
(f) Abrogation of State Immunity.--Neither a State that
enforces or maintains, nor a government official (including a
person described in section 7(c)) who is permitted to
implement or enforce any limitation or requirement that
violates section 4 shall be immune under the Tenth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States, the Eleventh
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or any
other source of law, from an action in a Federal or State
court of competent jurisdiction challenging that limitation
or requirement.
SEC. 9. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, or the application of such
provision to any person, entity, government, or circumstance,
is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or
the application of such provision to all other persons,
entities, governments, or circumstances, shall not be
affected thereby.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour
equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentlewoman from
Washington (Mrs. Rodgers) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
General Leave
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and add extraneous material on H.R. 8296, the Women's Health Protection
Act of 2022.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 8296, the
Women's Health Protection Act.
This bill is necessary now more than ever following the Republican-
controlled Supreme Court's extreme decision ripping away a woman's
right to abortion. The Court's ideological decision ignored nearly 50
years of precedent and is the culmination of decades of unrelenting
efforts by Republican politicians to control women and their bodies.
The consequences of last month's decision have been swift and severe.
Already, abortion bans are in effect in nine States, and more than a
dozen more are expected to either ban or severely limit abortion soon.
As a result, women are being forced to travel long distances to
States where abortion remains lawful or, for those who lack logistical
or financial support to travel, continue pregnancies against their
wishes. There have been devastating stories of patients being denied
care and doctors hesitating to provide lifesaving healthcare services
out of fear of criminalization.
States have enacted dangerous laws banning abortion without any
exceptions, inciting citizens to track and report women in need of an
abortion and criminalizing providers or those assisting someone in
obtaining care.
These laws turn back the clock on the health, well-being, and
equality of women across the Nation. Republicans have made it clear:
This is just the beginning. Congressional Republicans are
[[Page H6635]]
already pushing a nationwide abortion ban that would criminalize
abortion in all 50 States.
That is why this House is acting today on the Women's Health
Protection Act to restore the right to abortion nationwide. This
legislation ensures that no matter where you live, you have a right to
comprehensive healthcare that is free from unnecessary restrictions
that are intended only to impede access.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to
protect the right to abortion and ensure that all Americans are
entitled to make their own healthcare decisions.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, to protect the helpless, most powerless, most innocent
among us, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8296, the abortion on
demand until birth act.
This is not about codifying Roe v. Wade. Why? Because it nationalizes
abortion for all 9 months of pregnancy--all 9 months. This would make
America as radical as China and North Korea.
The abortion on demand until birth act would legalize discriminatory
abortion based upon sex, race, and disability, including Down syndrome.
It overrides State laws that protect women from coercion. It would
weaken conscience protections to force pro-life doctors to perform
abortions and end a life.
This is especially frightening for pregnancy centers, faith-based
providers, and medical professionals who are using amazing medical
achievements in treating both mothers and their babies in the wombs as
patients. We are doing prenatal heart surgery today in the United
States of America.
The abortion on demand until birth act has nothing to do with
protecting the health of women. It has everything to do with forcing an
extreme agenda on the American people.
Rather than prey on women's vulnerabilities and fears and nationalize
abortion for all 9 months, we should be coming together to support
women and their families at every stage of pregnancy and beyond.
Every mother matters. Seventy-six percent of women seeking abortions
say they would choose life if their circumstances were different. The
focus should be on how to change their circumstances, help them access
the care and support that they need, and improve their lives.
Presenting abortion up until birth as a woman's only option is a
false choice. There are nearly 3,000 pregnancy centers in all 50
States. They outnumber Planned Parenthood by more than 2,000
facilities. These pregnancy centers, which are right now under violent
attack by pro-abortion groups, provide medical care, resources,
education, and mentoring to women. They must be protected, not
undermined and threatened by an extreme abortion agenda.
The Supreme Court has affirmed the American people's rights to speak
through their elected officials and enact laws that protect unborn
children. The question upon us today is: How are we going to respond?
How is this body going to respond to the greatest human rights issue of
our generation? That is the question. This is the human rights issue of
our generation.
Do not close your ears. Do not close your eyes. Do not close your
heart.
Is it by dehumanizing life and promoting a culture that destroys the
weakest among us? Is that how we are going to do it? Or is it by making
abortion unthinkable by leading a new era where every person's God-
given, unalienable human right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness for all be the way we will define ourselves?
Let's come together. Let's protect the human rights of the unborn. We
cannot deny life to the most disadvantaged and marginalized among us.
They have no voice to defend themselves.
Madam Speaker, abortion for all 9 months is not the will of the
American people.
Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to H.R. 8296, the abortion on demand
until birth act because all lives are worth living, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
{time} 0945
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Chu), the sponsor of this legislation.
Ms. CHU. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bill,
the Women's Health Protection Act, or WHPA.
WHPA is the bill that will protect the right to access abortion after
the tragic fall of Roe v. Wade. It ensures in Federal law the right to
abortion care for every woman in every State and ensures States may not
erode that right.
You will hear Republicans say our bill goes too far, but that is
simply not true. Our bill preserves the protections of Roe that we have
lived with for 50 years, affirmed through decades of subsequent court
decisions. WHPA prohibits the bans and restrictions that violate the
spirit of Roe, from outright bans to laws forcing women to undergo
invasive ultrasounds, unnecessary waiting periods, or forcing doctors
to give patients medically inaccurate information.
You will hear Republicans repeat over and over again that Democrats
are voting for abortion up until the moment of birth. Actually, for 50
years the Court had the provision of an exception for late-term
abortion in Roe to preserve the life or the health of the mother. It is
because they valued the life of the mother.
Do Republicans actually believe the mother's life is expendable?
Apparently so.
What you will not hear is Republicans say that the vast majority of
Americans do not want Roe to be overturned.
You will not hear an apology to the 10-year-old who was raped and had
to travel to Indiana for an abortion because it was prohibited in her
home State.
You will not hear an acknowledgment that women are capable of
deciding for themselves whether to terminate a pregnancy.
This bill respects our right to make our own decisions about our
bodies. It is time to put control of our bodies back in our hands. Now
is the time to pass the Women's Health Protection Act.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Escobar).
Ms. ESCOBAR. Madam Speaker, it has been 22 days since the Supreme
Court overturned Roe v. Wade, taking away women's ability to make
choices about their own future, setting us back nearly 50 years. But
even that is not enough for Republicans.
In the last 24 hours alone, we have gotten a glimpse into the dark
future Republicans have in store for women, doctors, and vulnerable
children:
The Indiana attorney general says he is investigating the doctor who
treated a 10-year-old rape victim.
Texas sues the Biden administration for requiring abortions in
medical emergencies so that women's lives could be saved.
And the National Right to Life official who said the 10-year-old
should have had her baby.
Yes, according to Republicans, even a little girl impregnated by a
brutal rape should be denied an abortion and have to endure a
government-mandated birth.
Remember, this is the same party that has voted against:
Paid family and medical leave for parents of that baby.
Childcare for babies.
Universal pre-K for babies.
The Child Tax Credit, which helps babies.
School lunch programs that help babies.
Commonsense gun violence prevention measures that keep those babies
safe in school, and much more.
The Republicans' war on women has never been more dangerous. Today,
we will vote on the Women's Health Protection Act to ensure that women
across this country have access to abortion and the freedom to make
their own decisions about their bodies and their futures.
America, Democrats have your back.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack), a dynamic example of life in
her own testimony.
[[Page H6636]]
Mrs. CAMMACK. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record some articles
that I feel are relevant to this debate.
[From the New York Times, July 3, 2022]
Abortion Laws Around the World
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on abortion quickly led to
bans in at least eight states, a shift toward criminalization
that runs counter to recent easings in countries that had
longstanding bans.
The Supreme Court's elimination of the constitutional right
to abortion, after nearly a half-century, has made the United
States one of the few countries actively strengthening
abortion restrictions.
Abortion is now banned in at least eight states, a shift
toward criminalization that runs counter to the longstanding
policies of some close allies, like Canada, and to recent
easings in several nations that had long imposed bans, like
Ireland, Mexico and South Korea.
But no nations share the same history regarding abortion,
nor does any part of the world have uniform laws: Women
seeking abortions everywhere must navigate distinct rules, in
a variety of health care systems, if access is available at
all. The following examples, while not comprehensive,
illustrate the diversity of those laws--and how they're
changing.
Canada
No laws restrict abortion in Canada, where it is covered by
provincial and territorial public health care systems as an
essential medical procedure within 20 weeks of conception
and, under some circumstances, after that point, such as when
a pregnancy threatens the mother's life. Access and
exceptions vary by province, and sometimes by hospital.
Until 1988, criminal laws allowed abortions only if
approved by committees of physicians. That year, the Supreme
Court struck down the laws in a landmark case. Most legal
scholars agree that if the issue were to reach the court
again, it would make the right to abortion explicit.--Ian
Austen
Mexico
Before a court ruling last year, abortion was largely
restricted, with Mexico City and only three of 31 states
permitting the procedure up to 12 weeks of fetal gestation.
But the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the fall that
penalizing women who undergo abortions was unconstitutional,
and in the months since, five more states have moved to
legalize abortions.
The justices did not specify how far into a pregnancy
abortion was permitted, leaving the details to the states.
For the states that still ban abortion, legislatures will
need to change laws to permit the procedure.--Maria Abi-Habib
nicaragua
Abortion is completely illegal and punishable by jail for
the woman and the doctors.
The Legislature eliminated all exceptions in 2006, ending a
century of law that allowed abortions in cases of life-
threatening complications or pregnancies caused by rape.
President Daniel Ortega, a strong supporter of criminalizing
abortion, has received support from Evangelical leaders in
Nicaragua and the United States.--Yubelka Mendoza and Maria
Abi-Habib
Britain
Abortions have been legal in England, Scotland and Wales
for more than 50 years, protected by the Abortion Act of
1967. Abortions can be legally performed up to the 24th week
of pregnancy and must be medically approved by two doctors.
The 1967 law allows some exceptions for later-term
abortions, including when the pregnancy endangers the woman's
health or if a prenatal scan reveals a fetus abnormality. A
provision of the law allowing abortion if the fetus carries
significant risk of serious disability was at the center of a
court case last year.
In rare circumstances, such as when a woman, without
doctors' consent, takes medicine intended to terminate a
pregnancy, an abortion could be prosecuted as a criminal act.
The 1967 law did not cover Northern Ireland, which for
decades prohibited almost all abortions.
British lawmakers overturned that ban in 2019, legalizing
``unconditional termination'' of pregnancy within the first
12 weeks. But with resistance coming from anti-abortion and
church groups, abortion services remain limited.--Saskia
Solomon
Ireland
A 1983 constitutional amendment banned nearly all abortion,
reflecting the Roman Catholic Church's deep influence in the
country. That influence had waned by 2018, when a referendum
to end the ban was approved by 66 percent of voters.
Lawmakers then legalized abortion in the Health Act of
2018, allowing abortion for any reason up to the end of the
first trimester. The law provides exceptions beyond 12 weeks
in cases of fetal abnormalities considered fatal after birth
or a potential risk to the woman's health.--Saskia Solomon
Poland
Soviet-era Poland offered some of Europe's broadest
abortion access, and it became a destination for women
seeking abortions. But after the Soviet Union's collapse, and
under the influence of the Catholic Church, the Polish
Parliament in 1993 passed one of Europe's strictest bans,
asserting that ``every human being shall have an inherent
right to life from the moment of conception.''
It allowed three categories of exception: danger to the
mother's health or life; rape or incest; severe fetal
abnormalities.
Despite mass protests, the ban was tightened last year by
the nationalist Law and Justice Party, eliminating the most-
used exception--fetal abnormalities--which accounted for
almost all of the roughly 1,000 legal abortions a year. An
estimated 100,000 to 150,000 illegal abortions take place
very year in the country, activists say.
The remaining exceptions are problematic for abortion
seekers. Rape victims face a deadline of the 12th week of
pregnancy, and they require a certificate from a prosecutor,
which takes a long time to acquire. And the definition of
what constitutes a ``serious'' risk to a woman's health is
too vague for doctors to always act decisively. In a small
number of cases, women have died of sepsis after doctors
refused to intervene while the fetus's heart was still
beating.
Women cannot be punished for taking an abortion pill or
undergoing an abortion abroad.
Anyone deemed to have aided or abetted an illegal abortion
faces up to eight years in prison.--Katrin Bennhold
India
A total ban was eased in 1971 with the Medical Termination
of Pregnancy Act, which made some abortions legal.
But activists continued to seek further easing, to include
abortion in cases of fetal anomaly or pregnancy caused by
rape. In 2021, the federal government amended the law,
expanding the criteria for legal abortions and adding a
privacy clause to protect women who went to clinics.
The law allows women to terminate pregnancies until 20
weeks. Between 20 and 24 weeks, a woman needs two doctors to
approve an abortion, and after 24 weeks, abortions are
allowed only when the woman's health is at risk. Women can
now terminate unwanted pregnancies caused by contraceptive
failure regardless of marital status; before the amendment,
only a married couple could do that.
Still, abortions done in violation of the law are
punishable by up to seven years in prison for the woman and
medical personnel.--Sameer Yasir
China
Abortion has been legal in some form since 1953. By the
1970s, as the ruling Chinese Communist Party grew
increasingly worried about overpopulation, abortion became
more widely accessible, and the one-child policy led to some
forced abortions.
Sex-selective abortions are illegal, meant to counter the
widespread preference for boys over girls. In response to
recent concerns over declining birthrates and an aging
population, families may now have three children without
penalty. Given the government's invasive family planning
policies, some women fear it will restrict abortion access.
The authorities last year said they intended to reduce
``medically unnecessary abortions,'' without explaining how.
Access to abortion services varies by region, with some
requiring women to produce certificates of medical necessity.
In Jiangxi Province, women who are more than 14 weeks
pregnant need three signatures from medical personnel.
Scholars, activists and some foreign governments have
accused the authorities of using family planning policies to
suppress ethnic minorities, which the government denies.--
Vivian Wang
Kenya
Under the 2010 Constitution, abortion is permitted if a
trained health professional determines a need for emergency
treatment, or if the pregnancy endangers the life or health
of the mother. In other circumstances, abortion providers can
face up to 14 years in prison under Kenya's penal code.
In practice, many women who could obtain a legal abortion
cannot because of poverty, lack of access to health services
or a lack of information about their rights.--Matthew Mpoke
Bigg
Benin
Last fall, Benin joined South Africa and Mozambique as one
of the few African countries to broadly legalize abortion
within 12 weeks.
Under the new law, abortion will be allowed ``when the
pregnancy is likely to aggravate or cause a situation of
material, educational, professional or moral distress
incompatible with the interest of the woman and/or the unborn
child.'' In doing so, Benin became the third country in
Africa, along with Ethiopia and Zambia, to allow abortion
based on the social or economic needs of the woman.
The previous law authorized abortion only if the pregnancy
endangered the woman's life or was the result of rape or
incest, or if the fetus was malformed. The new law will take
effect after the authorities detail how it will be applied,
which could take months.--Elian Peltier
Egypt
A strict anti-abortion law has been on the books for 85
years, derived from the French Penal Code of the colonial era
that bans the procedure under nearly any circumstances. The
woman and doctor face imprisonment if convicted.
It does have one loophole, which is based on the medical
code of ethics: Doctors are allowed--but not legally
obligated--to terminate a pregnancy if it puts the woman's
life
[[Page H6637]]
at risk and she signs a document saying the procedure was
lifesaving.
Though convictions are uncommon, the law and social stigma
have pushed abortion practices out of public sight, where the
woman's safety cannot be protected and the procedure can be
prohibitively expensive.--Nada Rashwan
Turkey
Since 1983, abortion has been legal up to 10 weeks after
conception. Married women need spousal consent. The law
allows exceptions after 10 weeks when the pregnancy threatens
the life of the woman, if the doctor concludes the fetus has
a grave disability, and in cases of rape.
Violators face prosecution and prison--for both the woman
and the doctor.
Abortion remains a divisive issue. In 2012, Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, now the president and then prime minister, called
abortion murder and urged more restrictions. After popular
outrage, the law was never amended, but in practice, abortion
services are unavailable in many state hospitals--Safak Timur
____
[From CATHOLICVOTE, June 9, 2022]
Summer of Rage: Tracking Attacks on Pregnancy Centers and Pro-Life
Groups
attacks since supreme court leak
CV News Feed--More than 50 pregnancy resource centers and
offices of pro-life groups have been attacked and vandalized
since a draft Supreme Court opinon overturning Roe v. Wade
was leaked in early May. Pro-abortion domestic terrorists
have claimed responsibility--and are promising more attacks
in a ``summer of rage''.
Pregnancy centers are bracing for more attacks and acts of
vandalism after the Supreme Court issued its final ruling
overturning Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022. The Department of
Homeland Security issued a memo the same day warning that
``domestic violent extremists'' would exploit the decision to
commit acts of violence against various targets, specifically
naming Jane's Revenge. Various terror groups have issued
threats against them on social media since the decision was
made, with one group urging its followers to ``mask up, stay
dangerous''.
Some attacks are going unreported because pregnancy
resource centers want to protect their clients. This post
covers attacks which have been reported in the news media,
sent as tips directly to CatholicVote, or uncovered from
terrorist groups online. If you know of an attack which is
not covered here, please email [email protected]. All
tips are anonymous and your identity will not be revealed.
The map and this post will be updated as the new develops.
This list covers attacks on pregnancy centers and offices
of pro-life organizations. Attacks on Catholic churches are
covered here.
List of attacks:
Austin, Texas--Trotter House (May 3, 2022).
Frederick, Maryland--CareNet Frederick (May 4, 2022).
Portland, Oregon--Southeast Portland Pregnancy Resource
Center (May 5, 2022).
Concord, California--Options Health (June 25, 2022).
Iowa City, Iowa--Informed Choices Clinic (June 25, 2022).
Portland, Oregon--First Image (June 26, 2022).
Winter Haven Florida--LifeChoice Pregnancy Center (June 26,
2022).
Burlington. Vermont--BirthRight (June 26, 2022).
Everett, Washington--Two Hearts Pregnancy Aid (June 27,
2022).
Dayton, Ohio--Women's Centers of Ohio (June 27, 2022).
Littleton. New Hampshire--Pathways Pregnancy Center (June
28, 2022).
Nashville, Tennessee--Hope Clinic for Women (June 29,
2022).
Yuba City, California--A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Resource
Clinic (June 29, 2022).
Hialeah, Florida--Pregnancy Help Medical Clinic (July 3,
2022).
St. Paul, Minnesota--BirthRight of St. Paul (July 5, 2022).
Kenmore, Washington--Care Net Pregnancy & Family Services
of Puget Sound (July 5. 2022).
Moab, Utah--Arches New Hope Pregnancy Center (July 5,
2022).
Oreland, Pennsylvania--Pro-Life Union of Greater
Philadelphia (July 6, 2022).
Worcester, Massachusetts--Problem Pregnancy Resource Center
(July 6, 2022).
Worcester, Massachusetts--Clearway Clinic (July 6, 2022).
Akron, Ohio--Northeast Ohio Right to Life (July 8, 2022).
Mrs. CAMMACK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to fight for life and in
strong opposition to H.R. 8296, the abortion on demand until birth act.
You know, I never thought that I would have to stand here on the House
floor and debate the fact that killing someone for their gender, their
sex, their race--but here we are.
We are debating a bill that is being pushed by my colleagues on the
other side that would legalize abortions based on a baby's sex, race,
or potential disability. I am going to say that again because I think
that is perhaps the most outrageous, horrific, regressive, sexist, and
racist part of this legislation.
This bill allows for abortions up until the day of natural delivery
because the child maybe isn't the right sex or the right race,
according to the mother, who is a woman, by the way. We need to stop
this lie that suddenly abortion is healthcare--it is not.
I have heard repeatedly talk about this 10-year-old girl who was
brutally raped--this is a heartbreaking situation--yet, not a single
peep about the man who did this. He was an illegal who crossed our
border, who never should have been in our country in the first place,
who committed this crime. Not one peep.
In our country, we are based really, quite frankly, on a simple
notion that we are of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Abortion,
that is equal outcome. We know the outcome.
All I am asking today is that my colleagues think a little bit
critically about what they are doing and what they are saying, the
message that they are sending--that they believe in equal outcome, not
opportunity because they are, quite frankly, denying the right for
every single one of these children the opportunity to live.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).
Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Madam Speaker, my, my, my, here we go
again--or should I say to my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle--lie, lie, lie.
The United States Supreme Court has dismantled access to legal
abortion giving the very, very personal decision concerning a person's
reproductive health, their life and future to strange politicians.
Now, Republicans across the country and in Congress are moving full
steam ahead toward their dark and extreme goal of a nationwide abortion
ban that will throw doctors into jail, force children to bear children,
lead to tragic deaths, and life-changing hardships for people in our
country.
That is why I rise in support of the Women's Health Protection Act
that will facilitate access to legal abortion care regardless of a
person's ZIP Code.
Let me warn everyone that the Republican agenda includes even more
drastic intrusions into our personal lives--banning legal abortion is
just the start. We will fight back.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the chairwoman of Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, the horror of a 10-year-old girl, the
victim of rape, re-victimized when her parents were forced to take her
out of State because of Ohio's abortion law.
A woman who was having a miscarriage, whose doctor refused to give
her the medical procedure she needed because of fear of being
prosecuted.
A woman trying to get long-acting birth control, whose pharmacist
refused to prescribe the necessary medication for the procedure.
The chaos in the wake of the terrible Dobbs decision is only going to
get worse from here.
The Supreme Court and the Republican Party have declared a war on
Americans' healthcare rights. Every single American has the right and
the freedom to make the healthcare decisions that they need, including
abortion.
We passed this bill last September. We passed it in September after
the first decision in the Supreme Court. We are going to pass this bill
today in the U.S. House of Representatives. We are going to pass this
bill, which codifies Roe v. Wade, every time we need to, to protect
Americans' rights to healthcare and to protect everybody's equality.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I don't know of any State
laws that prevent birth control. Miscarriages are obviously a tragedy.
The question before us today is on the legislation that would allow
for abortion up until birth, 9 months. It is not the will of the
American people; it is the extreme agenda of those that are promoting
abortion.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Guthrie), the leader on the Health Subcommittee.
[[Page H6638]]
Mr. GUTHRIE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the abortion on
demand until birth act.
This Supreme Court ruled each individual State can decide the rights
for the unborn. This bill would override State laws to nationalize
abortion for any reason at any stage of pregnancy up until birth.
This does not merely ban pre-viability restrictions on abortion, as
supporters say that it does. This bill allows the person doing the
abortion to decide what qualifies as pre-viability. This is
unacceptable.
The majority of Americans do not support abortions with no limits. In
fact, 80 percent of the Americans say abortions should be illegal in
the third trimester. This is a radical bill, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Tonko), who chairs our Environment and Climate
Change Subcommittee.
Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I rise in resounding support of the Women's
Health Protection Act.
This bill will restore a fundamental constitutional right that has
been simply stripped away by a rogue rightwing Supreme Court.
While my Republican colleagues celebrate this injustice and cook up
plans for a nationwide abortion ban, Americans across the country are
already feeling the devastating effects of the decision to overturn Roe
v. Wade.
Stories of a 10-year-old child having to travel to neighboring States
to receive care, or women bleeding from ectopic pregnancies have
shocked the world--as red States, many with some of the highest
maternal mortality rates in the country, have rolled back abortion
access.
None of the courts, nor States, nor politicians should have a say in
women's ability to make their own decisions about their health, their
well-being, and their future. That rests with their loved ones, their
doctor, and their God.
If we claim to love freedom--to be a free and just society--we must
ensure that this basic human right is finally enshrined into law.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), a health provider saving lives
every day and a champion for life.
{time} 1000
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record two articles of attacks on
churches and pro-life pregnancy centers.
[From the National Catholic Register]
Attacks on Churches, Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers Continue
A pro-life sign at St. Teresa of Avila Catholic Church in
Hutchinson, Kansas, about 50 miles northwest of Wichita, was
vandalized over the weekend.
Since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
decision on Friday, attacks on Catholic churches and pro-life
pregnancy centers have been reported in West Virginia,
Washington, Virginia, Louisiana, Colorado, California, Texas,
Florida, New York, and Indiana.
Below are the latest recorded attacks since the decision.
Matt Vainer, a spokesperson for the Diocese of Wichita,
said that the perpetrator was followed by a witness who
called the police. The perpetrator was arrested, he said.
The pastor of St. Teresa of Avila, Father Aaron Spexarth,
placed the sign underneath a crucifix in the church, as he
believed it was most appropriate to place it at Christ's
feet, Vainer confirmed to CNA.
All Saints Catholic Church in Portland, Oregon had its sign
defaced with pro-abortion graffiti June 25.
A photo of the vandalism shows the words ``If abortions
aren't safe, neither are you!--XOXO Jane.'' The FBI is
investigating, Barbara Custer, a parish secretary at the
church, told CNA.
A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic in Yuba City,
California was vandalized June 27.
The clinic had one of its windows smashed by what seems to
be one perpetrator according to video footage, the clinic's
executive director Kristen Bird told CNA.
Video shows the perpetrator throwing three rocks at the
window until it broke. Repairs will cost anywhere between
$700 and $900. The FBI is investigating, Bird said.
____
[From the Daily Caller, July 12, 2022]
Elizabeth Warren Calls To `Shut Down' Crisis Pregnancy Centers Amid
Pro-Abortion Attacks
(By Nicole Silverio)
Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren called on
crisis pregnancy centers to be ``shut down'' across the
country Tuesday as pro-abortion groups vandalize and commit
arson on centers throughout the nation.
The senator claimed the centers ``fool'' and ``torture''
women into carrying their pregnancies to term as they seek
abortion access. She lamented that the centers outnumber
abortion clinics in Massachusetts by 3 to 1.
``In Massachusetts right now, those crisis pregnancy
centers that are there to fool people who are looking for
pregnancy termination help outnumber true abortion clinics by
3 to 1, she said. ``We need to shut them down here in
Massachusetts and we need to shut them down all around the
country,'' she told NBC 10 Boston. ``You should not be able
to torture a pregnant person like that,''
Warren's criticisms of crisis pregnancy centers follow
multiple attacks on the centers facilitated by pro-abortion
activists since the Supreme Court draft majority opinion
leaked in May.
Surveillance footage showed a suspect spray painted the
words ``If Abortions Aren't Safe, You Aren't Either'' and
broke the windows of the Next Step Pregnancy Center in
Lynwood, Washington, in late May. An unknown pro-abortion
group splattered the Capitol Hill Crisis Pregnancy Center
with red paint and marked the words ``Jane Says Revenge'' in
graffiti.
Police arrested 10 pro-abortion protesters for allegedly
throwing smoke bombs at an Oregon pregnancy center on June
27. The activist group Jane's Revenge allegedly firebombed
crisis pregnancy center in Amherst, New York, overnight on
June 7, while arsonists attacked Wisconsin Family Action in
Madison. The Oregon Right to Life offices in Keizer, Oregon,
were also firebombed with Molotov cocktails.
The centers offer free or low-cost pregnancy testing,
education on adoption services, ultrasounds, STD testing and
treatment, prenatal and parenting lessons, after abortion
recovery counseling and sexual risk avoidance education,
according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute.
The Massachusetts senator has repeatedly called for the
construction of abortion clinics on federal lands and
national parks since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v.
Wade, handing states the right to regulate abortion. She
suggested that tents and trained medical personnel be set up
on federally funded property to allow women to access
abortion.
In a New York Times op-ed, she and Democratic Minnesota
Sen. Tina Smith advocated the use of ``federal property and
resources to protect people seeking abortion services
locally.''
Warren and several prominent Democratic lawmakers signed a
letter urging President Joe Biden increase access to
medication abortion and establish a medical ombudsman at the
Department of Human Health and Services and Department of
Justice to analyze data on the types of reproductive services
needed and provide that on federal lands.
``The Department of Justice and all relevant agencies could
analyze the types of reproductive health services that could
be provided on federal property, especially in states where
such services are limited by state law or regulation,'' the
letter stated.
The senator's push for clinics on federal lands is
currently prevented by the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits
federal funding toward abortions except in cases endangering
the mother's life. Many activists estimate that the Hyde
Amendment prevents at least 60,000 abortion per year.
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the
unconscionable abortion on demand until birth act.
This bill creates a national standard to allow for abortions of
unborn children for any reason and at any stage of pregnancy up until
birth. As a father and grandfather of six precious grandchildren, I am
sickened by the attempt to allow abortion on demand until birth.
Now, Madam Speaker, I will speak for just a second about something
that was brought up by one of my colleagues across the aisle about
pharmacists dispensing prescriptions for abortion.
Also, Madam Speaker, if you could, do me a favor and get a message to
the President who is trying to sign an executive order to force
pharmacists to fill prescriptions against their will for abortion. Let
me assure you, you can pass all the legislation you want, and you can
sign every executive order that you want to sign, but if you think you
are going to force a pharmacist to go against their moral obligation to
take care of patients and to take care of babies and dispense a
prescription that is going to be used for abortion, good luck with
that.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Clarke), who is a member of our committee.
Ms. CLARKE of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise today to stand against
the vile war for reproductive rights of the women in America.
[[Page H6639]]
Just under 50 years ago, Roe v. Wade established that every woman
holds autonomy over her own body and her reproductive choices. To
reject this critical ruling one-half century later at a time when
America's maternal healthcare standards are so disgracefully abysmal,
particularly for Black and Brown women, is as hateful as it is cruel.
We will not stand for this blatant and brazen attempt to control
women. We will not stand for yet another assault that diminishes women
by taking away their autonomy of their bodies. We will not stand by and
watch extremists erase us from our Constitutional protections.
No. We will not stand for it today. I and my Democratic colleagues
will pass the Women's Health Protection Act of 2022 and the Ensuring
Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act of 2022.
Madam Speaker, I urge our Senators to find the compassion, courage,
and their humanity for the women of America by doing the same.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I would ask what about the
marginalized Black and Hispanic babies who are more likely to be
aborted?
Abortion has had a disproportionate impact on minorities and
individuals with disabilities.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cardenas), who is also a member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mr. CARDENAS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Women's
Health Protection Act and lend my voice to the chorus of calls across
the country for urgent action on abortion rights.
When I first heard the news of the Dobbs decision, I felt as if I
were thrown into another country--a country without our Constitution.
How is it that such a fundamental right to our autonomy over one's
body, over one's life, and over one's future can be stripped away so
callously?
We are talking about far-right Justices telling women that they
cannot get the care that they need and telling doctors that they cannot
treat their patients to the best of their ability. Yes, these five
Justices with no medical expertise stole the fundamental freedom of
controlling the health of one's own body and opened the floodgates to
criminalize doctors for doing their job.
Make no mistake, Madam Speaker: this is a stain on our healthcare
system and a flat-out assault on health equity, and it is a self-
inflicted wound.
This resolution will leave women--especially women of color and low-
income women, including White women--in the lurch. So in the absence of
any respect or compassion for reproductive health in this country, we,
as a body, must show our leadership. It is incumbent upon us elected
officials to ensure that the basic right is restored and finally
written into law.
The Women's Health Protection Act will do that. It would restore 50
years of precedent and right a deeply invasive wrong. History has its
eyes on us.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks), who is another healthcare
provider. Dr. Mariannette Miller-Meeks has worked hard to improve the
lives of many throughout her career.
Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Honorable
Representative Rodgers, for yielding me time.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 8296. The Supreme
Court recently took the important and correct step to return the power
to regulate abortion back to State legislators and voters within the
individual States while recognizing the sanctity of life.
This concept is so novel and repugnant to the Democrats that they
would put forward a radical and extreme abortion bill that would permit
abortion even up until birth for any reason. Only seven countries,
including China and North Korea, are this extreme.
As a doctor, I am knowledgeable that mid- to late-term abortion is a
barbaric procedure which can include dismemberment of the baby and
crushing of the skull. This is far more cruel than many of the laws of
States that define prisoner abuse of convicted felons and what
constitutes animal cruelty. It is a procedure done when the mother is
given anesthesia, but the baby can feel pain. Madam Speaker, even
though you cannot hear it scream, it can respond to music and respond
to touch and the voice of its mother.
We wouldn't allow animals to be treated this cruelly.
Do Democrats think that this elevates women and is compassionate?
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article from the Charlotte
Lozier Institute.
[From the Charlotte Lozier Institute, Feb. 2014]
Gestational Limits on Abortion in the United States Compared to
International Norms
(By Angelina Baglini, J.D.)
Abstract: The United States is one of only seven countries
in the world that permit elective abortion past 20 weeks.
Upholding laws restricting abortion on demand after 20 weeks
would situate the United States closer to the international
mainstream, instead of leaving it as an outlying country with
ultra-permissive abortion policies.
This report compares gestational limits in United States
abortion law with gestational limits in the abortion law of
the international community. The goal is to determine where
the United States stands in comparison to international
norms, with its federal policy enshrined in Roe v. Wade,
which allows abortion past 20 weeks and without restriction
until fetal viability.
The sample group for this project included a total of 198
countries, independent states, and semi-autonomous regions
with populations exceeding 1 million. Of these 198 countries,
independent states, and regions worldwide, 59 allow abortion
without restriction as to reason, otherwise known as elective
abortion or abortion on demand. The remaining 139 countries
require some reason to obtain an abortion ranging from most
restrictive (to save the life of the mother or completely
prohibited) to least restrictive (socioeconomic grounds) with
various reasons in between (e.g., physical health, mental
health).
Currently, the United States permits abortion on demand
through viability, which is usually marked around 24 weeks.
For this report, it is appropriate to compare the United
States with the other 58 countries that allow abortion on
demand up to some point in pregnancy. The remaining 139
countries require some reason to obtain an abortion (that is
to say, they do not permit abortion on demand) and are, by
definition, more restrictive than the United States on the
issue of gestational limits. To require some reason before
obtaining an abortion is inherently more restrictive than not
requiring any reason at all.
This report finds that the United States is one of only
seven countries in the world that permit elective abortion
past 20 weeks. This finding suggests that current proposals
in the United States to restrict elective abortions past 20
weeks would move the United States from the fringe, ultra-
permissive end of the spectrum to a position closer to
international norms.
Terminology and Method of Comparison
Not all countries or statutes use the same terminology when
drafting restrictions on late-term elective abortion. When
drafting a restriction on elective abortion past 20 weeks of
pregnancy, the most common measurement of ``weeks of
pregnancy'' is gestational age, or in short form
``gestation.'' Gestational age marks the duration of
pregnancy, which is most commonly and medically measured from
the date of the woman's last menstrual period. The woman's
last menstrual period is the most identifiable date by which
to measure the duration of pregnancy, and occurs
approximately two weeks before conception or fertilization.
The vast majority of countries in this international survey
of abortion laws use gestational age to measure duration of
pregnancy. Over 80 percent of countries maintaining some
restriction on elective abortion use gestational age as the
method of calculating duration of pregnancy. However, a
minority of countries measures duration of pregnancy from
``conception'' or ``fertilization.'' One country measures
from the time of ``implantation,'' which occurs approximately
one week after conception or fertilization. Some statutes do
not even specify a method of measurement, simply using the
vague term ``weeks of pregnancy'' without indicating a
precise method measuring the duration of pregnancy.
Conception or fertilization is the moment when an ovum and
sperm unite, which creates a unique human organism. The date
of conception or fertilization is often difficult to
determine, as few women know the exact date they conceived.
Because the last menstrual period is a more ascertainable
date, in many cases doctors add two weeks to the woman's last
menstrual period to approximate the date of conception or
fertilization.
This report uses gestation to compare restrictions based on
duration of pregnancy. More than 80 percent of countries
already use gestation in establishing duration of pregnancy
restrictions on elective abortion
[[Page H6640]]
and measuring the age of the unborn child using gestation is
in line with common medical practice.
For those countries that use a different measurement of
age, such as conception or fertilization or pregnancy, this
study converts the measurement of age into gestation by
adding two weeks to date back to the woman's last menstrual
period. Using gestation as a common method of measuring
duration of pregnancy restrictions on elective abortion
produces a more meaningful comparison.
International Gestational Limitations on Elective Abortion
The sample group of countries for this project included a
total of 198 countries, independent states, and semi-
autonomous regions with populations exceeding 1 million.
Of these 198 countries, independent states, and regions
worldwide, 59 allow abortion without restriction as to
reason, otherwise known as elective abortion or abortion on
demand.
The remaining 139 countries require some reason to obtain
an abortion ranging from most restrictive (to save the life
of the mother or completely prohibited) to least restrictive
(socioeconomic grounds) with various reasons in between
(e.g., physical health, mental health).
Of the 59 countries permitting elective abortion:
9 countries limit elective abortion before the 12th week of
gestation,
36 countries limit elective abortion at 12 weeks gestation,
6 countries limit elective abortion between 12 and 20 weeks
gestation,
7 countries permit elective abortion past 20 weeks or have
no gestational limit.
1 country maintains a federal system where abortion policy
is determined at the state/territory level, and at least two
of those states permit elective abortion past 20 weeks
Australia is the one country where a federal system is in
place, but abortion policy is determined on the state or
territory level. Three states or territories within Australia
permit elective abortion, and two allow elective abortion
past 20 weeks. However, other states and territories of
Australia maintain more restrictive abortion policies and
some do not permit elective abortion at all. Due to the
diverse range of abortion policy in Australia, from
restrictive to ultra-permissive, this study does not include
Australia, as a whole, as a country that permits elective
abortion past 20 weeks.
More than 75 percent of the countries permitting abortion
without restriction as to reason do not permit elective
abortions past l2 weeks gestation.
Only 12 percent (7 out of 59) of the countries permitting
abortion without restriction as to reason permit elective
abortion past 20 weeks gestation.
The U.S. is among these 7 countries that permit elective
abortion past 20 weeks. This is true whether 20 weeks is
measured from the last menstrual period (gestational age),
conception, or implantation. No matter how duration of
pregnancy is measured, whether by gestational age or
conception or fertilization, or implantation, all countries
in this category pass the 20-week threshold. These countries/
territories are:
Canada (no restriction in law)
China (no restriction in law)
Netherlands (24 weeks)
North Korea (no restriction in law)
Singapore (24 weeks)
United States (viability)
Vietnam (no restriction in law)
The United States is within the top 4 of most permissive
abortion policies in the world (7 out of 198) when analyzing
restrictions on elective abortion based on duration of
pregnancy.
Implications for Current Policy in the United States
Under U.S. law, abortion on demand is permitted without
restriction through viability. Viability can vary, and is
decreasing in terms of weeks of gestation as perinatal
medicine advances, but normally occurs no earlier than 24
weeks.
Recently, in the United States there has been great
interest in restricting abortion on demand after 20 weeks.
Two states have had 20-week laws on the books since before
Roe v. Wade. Eleven more states have enacted 20-week laws in
recent years. A proposed 20-week law in Albuquerque, New
Mexico failed to gain majority support in 2013 but was
notable for the engaged citizen activism that resulted in the
proposal being put on a municipal ballot for a direct vote.
There is also interest at the federal level in restricting
elective abortion after 20 weeks. In 2013, the U.S. House of
Representatives passed a 20-week law. A similar law has been
introduced in the U.S. Senate.
Permitting abortion on demand past 20 weeks places the
United States among the top 4 percent of most-permissive
countries in the world based on duration of pregnancy
restrictions on abortion. If the United States adopts a
federal policy restricting elective abortion past 20 weeks,
or if more states adopt such policies, the U.S. will more
closely align itself with the international norm that limits
elective abortion past 12 weeks. Policies imposing
gestational limits on elective abortion have been
overwhelmingly adopted by countries permitting abortion on
demand, indicating policies that encourage woman's safety in
limiting abortion to early pregnancy and policies that
protect unborn children from pain and prolonged exposure to
the risk of-abortion.
Conclusions
In terms of gestational limits, the United States ranks
among 7 countries with the most permissive abortion policies.
The clear norm among countries that permit elective abortion
is to limit abortion to before 20 weeks gestation, and
elective abortion is more commonly limited to 12 weeks (the
first trimester).
Twenty-week abortion laws in the United States are neither
extreme nor unreasonable. Rather, they move the United States
closer to international norms of legislating what is safe and
healthy for the mother and what grants unborn children more
protection in the womb.
Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues on every
seat in every aisle of this Chamber to vote against this extreme,
radical, and cruel abortion bill, H.R. 8296.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Minnesota (Ms. Craig), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Ms. CRAIG. Madam Speaker, exactly 3 weeks ago, five Justices on an
activist, extremist Supreme Court handed down a decision that upended
nearly 50 years of precedent and rolled back fundamental rights for
millions of Americans.
In the weeks since, I have watched in horror as State after State has
triggered laws that now prevent a woman or a girl from accessing an
abortion even in the case of rape and incest. These events have been
shocking to Americans, not only for millions of women across the
country but for the country as a whole.
You call yourselves conservative. We are talking about 50 years of
precedent in our Nation.
Because no Government has a place interfering in the decisions
between a woman and her doctor, criminalizing abortion, or restricting
women's healthcare options.
This is not a controversial position to the American people. A strong
majority of my constituents believe that the right to an abortion
should be protected by law. This is a freedom and a privacy issue, and
the government--not politicians in this room and not politicians in any
State in our Nation--should not have any part in this conversation at
all. This is a very personal decision between a woman, her family, her
doctor, and her faith.
Madam Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in voting
``yes'' to protect Roe today.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from the State of Washington (Ms. Schrier). Dr. Schrier is also a
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Ms. SCHRIER. Madam Speaker, I will tell you, my constituents are up
in arms. They are emailing me, and they are calling my office outraged
that the freedoms that they have had for 50 years are being stripped
away from women in one-half of the States in this country. They are
furious when they hear about victims of rape not being able to end a
pregnancy and when they see a 10-year-old girl who has to flee to a
neighboring State so she won't be forced to carry a pregnancy to term--
a 10-year old.
This is barbaric. My constituents are worried about what might come
next in our home State of Washington.
I am the only pro-choice woman doctor in all of Congress. In fact, I
am a pediatrician. And I have been in the exam room with teens facing
unplanned pregnancies and with mothers who find out that the pregnancy
they are so excited about is not a viable one. These are deeply
personal circumstances. Frankly, when, whether, and under what
circumstances to become a mother is the single most important decision
a woman will ever make, and that must be hers to make. The government
has no place in the exam room.
Today I am voting to make sure that every woman--no matter where she
lives--can access abortion, to plan their pregnancies, protect their
health, and chart the course of their lives. I want my constituents to
know I will fight every day to protect their rights.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) who spent his life defending the
voiceless.
[[Page H6641]]
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, Cathy
McMorris Rodgers, the ranking member, for her eloquent defense of the
unborn child and their mothers because there are two co-victims in
every abortion: mother and baby. I thank her for her leadership. It is
extraordinary.
Madam Speaker, according to the January 2022 Marist Poll, only 17
percent of Americans believe that ``abortion should be available to a
woman any time she wants one during her entire pregnancy.''
When Americans were asked in late June--June 28 to 29--in a Harvard/
Harris Poll, a nationwide poll supervised by Mark Penn--and many of us
know him; he is a very effective pollster--and the question was put:
``Do you think your State should allow abortions up to 9 months'' only
10 percent said ``yes.''
H.R. 8296 would legally authorize and enable the violent death of
unborn baby girls and boys by dismemberment, beheading, forced
expulsion from the womb, deadly poisons, or other methods at any time
and for any reason until birth.
Don't believe it?
Read section 4 of the bill. It couldn't be clearer.
This bill is far outside the American mainstream and goes far beyond
Roe v. Wade.
As a matter of fact, when the Harvard/Harris Poll asked whether or
not we should be doing what we are doing today in Congress, they
found--and I was a little bit astonished by this--that less than one-
third of voters--31 percent--say that abortion laws should be federally
set by a congressional vote.
Let me point out to my colleagues because mention was made of this
earlier in the debate. Let me be clear, abortion is not healthcare
unless one construes the precious life of an unborn child to be
analogous to a tumor to be excised or a disease to be vanquished.
This legislation constitutes an existential threat to unborn
children. Since Roe v. Wade, approximately 63\1/2\ million babies have
been killed by dismemberment, chemical poisoning, and beheading--a
number that equates with the entire population of everyone living in
the country of Italy.
If enacted, this bill would nullify almost every pro-life restriction
ever enacted by the States, including parental involvement laws in 37
States and pain-capable unborn child protection laws in 19 States.
I remember when a woman from Virginia formed a group called Mothers
Against Minors' Abortion. That mom found out about her daughter's
abortion when she was hemorrhaging in her bed. She came and testified
before Congress and said: Please, we need to know. We love our
daughters. Parental notification laws do work.
Sadly, these will be nullified by this bill.
For decades abortion advocates have gone through extraordinary
lengths to ignore, trivialize, or cover up the battered baby victim.
But today, thanks to ultrasound, unborn babies are more visible than
ever before. Today science informs us that birth is an event--albeit,
an important one--but only an event in the life of a child. Life is a
continuum.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill. The youngest
patients and their mothers need protection.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster), who is a member of our committee.
Ms. KUSTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Women's
Health Protection Act and to speak for the generation of women who have
lost their freedom to make healthcare decisions for themselves. The
government has no place inserting itself into people's personal
healthcare decisions.
I never expected to be on the floor of the House talking about
miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, or fertility treatments, but here we
are.
For many, pregnancy is not an easy path. One in eight pregnancies end
in miscarriage, and 1 in 50 women experience ectopic pregnancies--an
outcome that always leads to pregnancy loss and poses serious risk of
life to the mother.
{time} 1015
For countless others, getting pregnant requires costly, exhausting,
and complex procedures such as IVF.
Regardless of the circumstances, reproductive health is private.
Pregnancy can be unpredictable. The government has no place in
deciding what care patients can receive and doctors can administer.
Like all healthcare, decisions surrounding reproductive health should
be between a patient and their doctor.
As an adoption attorney, I worked with hundreds of birth mothers
making the most personal, consequential decisions of their lives, and
not one of those women looked to the government to make that decision
for them.
I support the Women's Health Protection Act, and I urge my colleagues
to vote ``yes.''
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on
both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 13 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from Washington has 16 minutes remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Eshoo), the chairwoman of our Health Subcommittee.
Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise in the strongest support possible of
the Women's Health Protection Act.
In February 2020, I held the first legislative hearing in two decades
to protect access to reproductive health. Since then, we have seen the
steady rollback of abortion rights in Republican-controlled States.
This means that low-income women and minorities have been living in a
post-Roe reality for years now.
Now, the Supreme Court has fully revoked the constitutional right to
abortion, leaving States to outlaw and criminalize abortion if they
choose to. This devastating decision has created a patchwork of States
with differing laws and restrictions, causing societal chaos and
confusion across our country.
It is a huntdown of women. It is a huntdown of women.
The Women's Health Protection Act makes sure that every American has
equal access to reproductive healthcare, no matter where they live. I
am eager to vote for this legislation, once again, and I call on my
Senate counterparts to codify these vital protections into law.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), a member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee and another medical provider.
Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
I rise today in opposition to this legislation that would legalize
abortion on demand up until the moment of birth.
As a physician, I first swore an oath to do no harm. As legislators,
we cannot, in good conscience, vote to pass legislation that would
claim the lives of unborn children in late-term abortions.
This poorly written legislation would put our Nation alongside
countries like China and North Korea by allowing discriminatory
abortions based on sex, based on race, even based on disability. This
is unacceptable, and it is gut-wrenching that Congress would even
consider passing such legislation.
This abortion on demand act would override pro-life laws passed in
our States and prohibit State-level elected officials from passing
legislation to protect unborn children in our communities.
It is time for all Members of Congress to vote against this poorly
written bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30
seconds to the gentleman.
Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. It is time for all Members of Congress to
vote against this poorly written bill. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record two articles, ``Democrats
Launch Ads in Lifestyle Mags in All Out Push for Abortion'' from the
Daily Caller and ``Ohio Right to Life Says Offices Targeted Twice by
Pro-Abortion Vandals with Rocks, Spray Paint'' from FOX News.
[[Page H6642]]
[From the Daily Caller, July 13, 2022]
Democrats Launch Ads In Lifestyle Mags In All Out Push For Abortion
(By Mary Rooke)
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) launched a digital
ad campaign Tuesday in several lifestyle magazines telling
readers that Republicans want to outlaw abortion nationwide.
The DNC purchased at least $10,000 in digital ads in over
20 lifestyle publications to focus on abortion rights issues
as the midterms approach, the Associated Press reported.
Magazines like Teen Vouge, Elle, Refinery29, Essence, GQ,
Esquire, Men's Health, Cosmopolitan and Glamour, hosted the
DNC's ads, reported the AP.
The ad showed Republican Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell next
to blue, pink, and white lettering that read: ``Republicans
are pushing to ban abortion nationally. Join us in fighting
back,'' according to the report.
The DNC is looking to launch a separate abortion-centered
ad campaign with plans to spend six figures, reported the AP.
The DNC's ads promoting a ``week of action'' to defend
abortion are in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision
to overturn Roe v. Wade, sending abortion law-making back to
the state legislatures.
``With this Defend Choice Week of Action, we're giving
people across the country a chance to turn their anger into
action by holding anti-choice Republicans accountable and
helping to elect Democrats,'' DNC chair Jaime Harrison said,
according to the AP.
The DNC held a virtual launch for its ``all-hands-on-deck
effort to defend choice'' on Tuesday night, according to the
DNC website.
``This fight isn't over and we need all hands on deck. This
event will serve as the kickoff for our Week of Action, which
we'll highlight how to get involved with on the call,'' The
DNC event description stated.
The latest Associated Press-NORC poll released Friday
showed that only 16% of Americans feel abortion is the
biggest issue facing the U.S. In comparison, 40% of U.S.
adults said they were more worried about inflation and 33%
said gas prices, according to the poll.
The survey polled, 1,053 adults nationwide from June 23-27
with a margin of error of
+/-4.0%.
____
[From Fox News, July 13, 2022]
Ohio Right to Life Says Offices Targeted Twice by Pro-Abortion Vandals
With Rocks, Spray Paint
(By Emma Colton)
Dozens of pro-life centers have been targeted across the
country since a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion signaled
Roe V. Wade would be overturned In May, followed by the
nation's highest court ultimately ruling as such in June.
For one pro-life organization in Ohio, it has been targeted
twice since last month.
``As pro-lifers, we know that our work might cost us
something and that very well could be our physical safety,''
the executive director of the Right to Life of Northeast Ohio
Allie Frazier told Fox News Digital. ``I think that it's
important in moments like this for the pro-life movement to
be really clear that we're not going to be intimidated. We
will save babies. We will protect women. And we're not going
to let threats of violence stop us from doing that.''
Offices for the Right to Life of Northeast Ohio were most
recently targeted on July 8, Frazier said, when al least one
suspect was caught on camera lobbing rocks at the building,
breaking windows and spray-painting menacing messages.
``If abortion isn't safe, neither are you,'' the suspect,
who was seen wearing a face mask, scrawled on the sidewalk of
the offices. The phrase has been spray-painted at similar
offices across the country, often by members of pro-abortion
extremist group Jane's Revenge.
Frazier said it's likely that Jane's Revenge is behind this
attack, noting that among other spray-painted messages, the
name ``Jane'' was written on the ground.
``I think It would be easy for a situation like this to be
a copycat scenario. But as far as I'm concerned, if any pro-
abortion individual decides to take that next step, to take
that bad step, and use violence against pro-lifers, that is
something that I am going to work hard to protect my staff
against,'' she said.
The incident was reported to the Akron Police Department,
Frazier said. The Akron Police Department has not responded
to multiple Fox News inquiry requests on the matter.
Frazier said that the damage caused by the vandalism was
``significant,'' but ``undoable,'' noting that repairs were
being made to the broken windows as she spoke to Fox News
Digital.
``I know that the intention of this attack was to stop us.
It was to stop our peaceful activism. It was to stop the ways
that we are impacting women and babies in this community for
a positive. And they didn't even stop that. I was already
back to work in my office within a few hours,'' she said.
It was the second time the offices were targeted, Frazier
said. Activists posted pro-abortion posters at the office on
June 24, the day Roe was officially overturned, hung a coat
hanger on an office door knob, and rang a Ring security
camera before flashing a middle finger to the camera,
according to Frazier.
She said that the attacks pro-life centers have recently
faced should ``100%'' be investigated as hate crimes.
``(Pro-abortion vandals] are not afraid of using violence
to get what they want. This is absolutely a threat against
the peaceful pro-life movement. And we do ask that law
enforcement and local, state, and federal leaders continue to
lead the way and say, `Hey, violence is never okay,' '' she
said.
Pro-life activists have repeatedly called on Presiden1
Biden to forcefully condemn the attacks on pregnancy centers
and churches, including Frazier who called on the president
to not ``be complicit in this violence.''
``Regardless of how people feel on the issue of abortion,
everybody should be able to condemn acts of violence against
peaceful nonprofits. Whether that's an advocacy organization
like Right to Life of Northeast Ohio, or a pro-life pregnancy
center that are literally meeting the needs of women and
babies in crisis,'' she told Fox News Digital.
The White House has previously condemned the violence at
pro-life centers but has come under scrutiny for not doing
more.
``Instead of supporting and defending more pro-life
pregnancy centers that provide health care and support to
women at every stage of life, President Joe Biden and the
Left are working to dismantle the work of these amazing
centers. They won't strongly condemn the violence and threats
pregnancy centers are facing,'' the Republican House Energy
and Commerce Committee posted on Tuesday, demanding Biden
``MUST condemn the violence and threats.''
Dozens of pro-life centers have faced attack since May,
including a pro-life Christian pregnancy center in Buffalo,
New York, that was allegedly ``firebombed,'' and a pregnancy
center in Dearborn, Michigan, that saw every ``window and
door along the front face of our building'' smashed.
Jane's Revenge has taken responsibility for a handful of
the attacks and declared ``open season'' on pro-life
pregnancy crisis centers in a letter published last month.
``We offered an honourable way out,'' the letter read.
``You could have walked away. Now the leash is off. And we
will make it as hard as possible for your campaign of
oppression to continue.''
But to Frazier, the pro-life movement will remain unchanged
and committed to protecting women and babies.
``We must be willing to do what it takes to protect women
and babies and be ready to take any backlash from that . . .
Don't be afraid. We got this,'' she said of her message to
pro-life Americans, adding that pro-lifers can also reach out
to their local pregnancy centers to check in on staff and see
if they need any additional resources.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee), who is co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus.
Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for
yielding, for his work, and for bringing this bill to the floor.
Let me also take a moment to thank our good friend, a great leader,
Congresswoman Judy Chu, for her vision and her persistent leadership,
and Chairman Pallone for bringing this to the floor, once again.
Last month's Supreme Court decision is having devastating impacts
across the country. Now, I remember the days before Roe, and now that
the Court has ended Roe, we are truly in a state of a national health
emergency.
Abortion bans affect everyone, but their impact falls hardest on
folks who face serious barriers to care and already have these barriers
presented because of the lack of equity in our healthcare system--women
of color, people working to make ends meet, rural people, young people.
It is terrifying now that people could be criminalized for exercising
their own personal healthcare decisions. That is wrong. It is morally
wrong.
Already, across this country, people are unable to get care and are
denied the freedom to make their own decisions about their health and
about their futures. Our personal liberties and our freedoms are being
taken away. This is just another step in the erosion of our democracy.
It has never been more critical than now that we pass legislation to
protect the right to access abortion and ensure that abortion and
comprehensive reproductive healthcare are accessible and available for
all.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).
Ms. DEAN. Madam Speaker, Roe became law when I was 13. For my entire
adult life, the right to abortion care--to privacy and the freedom to
make my own family planning and healthcare decisions--was guaranteed in
all 50 States. It sickens me that it is not the case today. My
daughters-in-law, my
[[Page H6643]]
granddaughters, and all women and girls have been stripped of human
rights and relegated to second-class citizens.
After a decades-long effort, Republicans have fixed the Supreme Court
with a few Justices corruptly seated by an autocratic President, and
they now behave not as constitutional lawyers but as theocrats.
In overturning Roe and sending a woman's reproductive freedom to
State politicians--largely White, male--these Justices have decided
their faith should determine everyone else's rights, not the
Constitution.
This is a call to the Chamber, to this Chamber, to the Senate, to the
administration. We must restore, expand, and protect rights. We must
pass laws that combat this regressive, shrinking Court. No excuses.
That is why we are here, yet again, with legislation to codify the
right to abortion care.
Last September, the House passed the Women's Health Protection Act,
and the Senate sat on its hands. Today, we must pass it again.
I will return to the floor every session, with Representative Chu and
many others, until we protect and expand rights. I ask my colleagues to
do the same.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a doctor who understands what
amazing technology is doing to save lives.
Mr. BUCSHON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 8296.
First, I would like to say, as a physician, my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle need to focus on what their bill really does.
Stop talking about ectopic pregnancies, which are a surgical emergency;
fetal demise, where, for unknown reasons, the fetus has passed away;
and miscarriages, which, clearly, in many cases, are surgical
emergencies and are tragic. That is not what this bill is about.
I have heard claims the bill only codifies provisions of the now-
overturned Roe v. Wade decision. That is simply not true. H.R. 8296
would create a national standard to allow abortions at any time up
until birth.
As a practicing heart surgeon for 15 years prior to coming to
Congress, I operated on children in the neonatal intensive care unit as
young as 23 weeks gestation. Even at 650 grams, or 1.4 pounds, and
about 6 inches long, I saw life in my tiny patients' little bodies.
This abortion on demand until birth act bill doesn't only allow
abortions at any point in the pregnancy. It would also preempt and
repeal State laws that require informed consent, ultrasounds, or other
testing and counseling before undertaking an elective abortion.
The American people deserve to know the facts about what is really in
this bill. I find it troubling the supporters of this bill, most of
whom have never taken care of a patient, continue to mislead the
American people about what constitutes healthcare.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I want to begin to acknowledge the
pain that people have experienced in the wake of being stripped of
their rights and being thrust into legal limbo.
We have already seen the impact this horrific decision has had on
increased wait times in clinics, and doctors forced to consult with
lawyers because of State restrictions, while patients may be dying on
operating tables.
The barbaric treatment of the 10-year-old child, a victim of rape,
made into a media circus, and the prospect of the doctor who provided
her care being subjected to legal action.
We know the Supreme Court has put us all on the wrong side of
history. These appalling stories reinforce the fact that denying
fundamental healthcare has dire and unforeseen circumstances far beyond
the slogans that have been bandied around.
I believe it is our duty to take responsibility to make progress in
even these difficult circumstances to provide a path forward. This
legislation does that.
We owe it to American families to make progress, to protect them and
improve access to this right, and spare them government intrusion into
the most sensitive and personal matters. Our rage must be productive.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), another defender of life.
Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, my heart breaks today. I say that
sincerely. My heart breaks to hear the words of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, who I respect highly for many reasons, who
disregard the fact that we are talking about life.
On this floor, we have talked about the need for formula this morning
for the same babies we are talking about. We have heard our Speaker
many times imploring us to do it for the children. Who are we talking
about today?
It breaks my heart to think that my colleagues don't trust women to
make decisions about life before life is conceived. It breaks my heart
to think that we don't hold men accountable to make decisions to love
our girls and women.
It breaks my heart that we would say this is a human right to take
life when our Declaration of Independence brought us into being with
unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
We are better than this. We have had 50 years of death. Think about
the over 100 years before that we applauded life.
Madam Speaker, it is time for us to stand for individuals taking
responsibilities that God has made us capable of, to decide for the
best interests of others, including those little children.
Why is the safest place on Earth today the maternity ward nursery in
a hospital, but not the womb?
We must change. H.R. 8296 is a bill of death, and it is a bill that
takes away responsibility for us, as adults, to do what we must do.
{time} 1030
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the chairman of our Democratic Caucus.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman,
Chairman Pallone, for his leadership in this critically important area,
as well as Representative Fletcher for leading the charge in an area
that is significantly important and consistent with the values of this
great country; a country that embraces life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness, land of the free, and home of the brave, liberty and
justice for all.
But liberty, justice, and freedom are under assault right now because
of a radical, rightwing, illegitimate Supreme Court majority and their
extreme co-conspirators here in the House of Representatives attacking
freedom.
But this legislation and House Democrats are going to do everything
in our power to defend a woman's freedom to make her own reproductive
healthcare decisions, a woman's freedom to make a deeply personal
decision that should be between a woman and her doctor, not extremists
trying to intervene, and her freedom to make the decision to travel to
seek abortion care whenever and wherever is necessary.
Those are the stakes. That is why this legislation is so important,
and we will always defend these freedoms.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern), a defender of
freedom, a defender of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for
all.
Mr. HERN. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding the time.
Last month, our Constitution was upheld at the Supreme Court, and
States like Oklahoma took immediate action to protect the lives of the
unborn.
This shouldn't be a hard vote. It is the right for children, fully
formed in the womb, to be born.
Our allies and like-minded nations around the world do not allow
abortions up to the moment of birth, as this bill would do. It is
simply barbaric. My colleagues know it is an unpopular position, which
is why they have resorted to lies and deceptions about lifesaving care
for pregnant women.
Madam Speaker, I urge every Member of this Chamber to vote ``no'' on
H.R. 8296 and protect the right of our future generations to be born.
[[Page H6644]]
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).
Ms. ADAMS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
his extraordinary support.
Madam Speaker, I rise today because I am pretty damn angry. You know
the Supreme Court's decision overturning the right to abortion care is
fundamentally wrong. The Supreme Court green-lit forced pregnancy,
taking away the right to bodily autonomy for women.
Abortion is still healthcare. People will still need to access it,
and that is why I am supporting the Women's Health Protection Act.
In the wake of the Dobbs decision, we have a State-by-State patchwork
that denies women equal protection under the law.
While abortion is still legal in my home State of North Carolina, the
State of Texas is suing the government to compel women to carry
pregnancies to term, even if it kills the mother.
The attorney general of Indiana wants to force rape victims--even 10-
year-old girls--to carry pregnancies to term.
We have a responsibility to stop this draconian overreach by State
governments, and we have got to make reproductive freedom--reproductive
freedom--the law of the land.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how
much time is remaining in this debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Washington has 10\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey has 4\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a defender of life.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding
time.
You know, as we hold this debate, I remember back to a morning as a
young resident at Parkland Hospital starting out in a residency in OB/
GYN and our major professor, our department chairman, Jack Pritchard,
addressing us and telling us that starting into a career in OB/GYN, we
were in a unique position in medicine.
Every time we took a case, either as a primary doctor or consultant,
we would have the unique opportunity to be taking care of two patients
who had a combined life expectancy of over 100 years.
He said nowhere else in medicine are you going to be able to affect
the future to the degree that you can as an OB/GYN.
In nearly 30 years of practice back in Texas, I have taken care of
women with ectopic pregnancies. We did it before. We will continue to
do it. It is a surgical emergency, and you don't shy away from it.
Unfortunately, some pregnancies do conclude in a miscarriage, and
some of those do require the attention of a physician. I would not
hesitate to do that, then or now.
But what I would not do and could not do was disrupt a viable
pregnancy where a child could issue from that care. None of that
changes, either before or after the Supreme Court decision.
Look, there have been times when I have had to step in when someone
had care at another facility and sought refuge in my emergency room
because of severe complications they were having from an abortion done
elsewhere.
I would have to step in and correct the problems from the
abortionist. I didn't hesitate to do that and will continue to do it in
the future, but what I will not do is end a life in a pregnancy.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Women's Health Protection Act which will provide--in law--the right for
people to make their own reproductive healthcare decisions.
The Supreme Court's Dobbs opinion overturning abortion rights is
infuriating, it is heartbreaking, and it is dangerous.
For almost 50 years, the intensely personal decision about whether to
bear a child or have an abortion was where it belongs--with the person
who is pregnant.
I remember the days before Roe v. Wade when abortions done without
medical care could, and often did, have tragic consequences.
Colleagues, make no mistake: Overturning Roe will not end abortions.
Make no mistake: Taking away the right to abortion care will
disproportionately hurt families and individuals who are already
struggling, and disproportionately hurt people in rural areas who will
struggle to get the care they need.
My colleagues, if you believe life begins at conception, don't get an
abortion. But that is a belief, it is not science, and others do not
share it.
I don't think anyone over here would ever force someone with your
beliefs to get an abortion, but you are forcing your beliefs on others,
and that is wrong.
We need to restore personal freedom and put the decision about
whether or when to bear a child back where it belongs.
Today, I will enthusiastically vote for the Women's Health Protection
Act.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline), another defender of
life.
Mr. CLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.
``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.'' Life.
Abortion is a termination of that life and a grave human rights
abuse, and it must end. No one has the right to end the life of an
innocent human being. The government has a duty to protect that right
to life.
Since 1973, more than 63 million unborn babies have had their lives
cut short. That is a tragedy and simply unacceptable, and I stand here
for the sake of millions of children, for the sake of the integrity of
our Nation.
Let's follow the science. Preborn humans are, in fact, humans and
deserving of life. But, unfortunately, the pro-abortion left has
decided that ``human'' doesn't automatically grant that right and that
humans should only be accorded human rights depending on their
location, level of dependency, or size.
That mindset is a travesty, and the practice of abortion will go down
in history as a great stain on this Nation.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), a defender of life.
Mr. PFLUGER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington
for yielding time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Democrats' extreme pro-
abortion agenda.
Today, I am voting against two bills that go far beyond Roe v. Wade,
which is the decision to move these types of unenumerated decisions to
the State level, as the Constitution clearly says, backed up by the
Supreme Court.
But what my Democrat colleagues are pushing would permit elective
abortions, up to and including a baby's due date, an extreme position
legalizing abortion based on the child's race, sex, or disability.
Tragic.
Another of their initiatives opens up dangerous loopholes for child
traffickers to cover up their crimes by forcing victims to receive
abortions across State lines, and it criminalizes those who might
encourage delaying an abortion, including parents or healthcare
providers. Parents.
Since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, Democrats at all levels, including
the White House, have spread misinformation and fear surrounding the
decision. Presenting the killing of a child as a woman's only avenue to
success in her career or life is inhumane and wrong.
Madam Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote against these
bills.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank all of the leaders who
recognize that reproductive freedom is a constitutional right.
I rise today, and I stand in the name of a 10-year-old rape victim
who was denied an abortion and had to run to another State.
[[Page H6645]]
I stand in the name of the young woman who induced an abortion and
became criminalized.
I stand in the name of rape victims.
I stand in the name of incest victims.
I stand for reproductive freedom.
And I stand in the name of the Constitution and the Ninth Amendment
and the right of women with their faith leaders, their families, their
extended knowledge, to be able to make their own decision about
reproductive freedom.
I stand for the Women's Health Protection Act because it prohibits a
State, local, or Tribal Government from telling abortion providers that
they should perform medically unnecessary procedures like ultrasounds
and provide patients with medically inaccurate information. This would
be prohibited by this particular legislation and, as well, to ensure
that they would comply with credentialing or other conditions that do
not apply to providers who offer medically comparable services.
I stand in order for the Women's Health Protection Act to cover this
United States and to ensure that the Constitution and Ninth Amendment
prevails.
I stand because the Supreme Court Justices who swore that they
believe in precedent for 50 years of Roe v. Wade did, under oath,
misrepresent to those who they were speaking to that they would adhere
to stare decisis and the precedent.
I stand because in Texas, the bounty hunters are seeking to
criminalize and arrest persons. I stand for H.R. 5710 that will
criminalize that activity.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in strong support of H.R. 8296, the
Women's Health Protection Act of 2022.
H.R. 8296, the ``Women's Health Protection Act of 2022'' of which I
have been a long-time supporter, would prohibit certain government
restrictions on access to abortion.
The bill would ensure physicians' ability to prescribe certain drugs,
offer abortion services via telemedicine, and provide immediate
abortion services when the mother's health is at risk.
Furthermore, the ``Women's Health Protection Act of 2022'' would put
an end to the hurdles some states have placed in the way of women
accessing abortion care.
This bill would prohibit state, local, or tribal governments from
requiring abortion providers to:
Perform medically unnecessary procedures like ultrasounds;
Provide patients with medically inaccurate information or;
Comply with credentialing or other conditions that do not apply to
providers who offer medically comparable services.
It would also safeguard all abortions before fetal viability, and
after fetal viability when a physician determines the continuation of
pregnancy puts the mother's life at risk.
Under this bill, patients would not be required to disclose the
reasoning behind their decision to receive an abortion, nor would they
be forced to attend medically unnecessary health visits before their
procedure appointment.
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to revoke the
reproductive rights that women have enjoyed for half a century,
Congress must act now to enshrine what is left of women's liberties
into law.
I stand in proud support of both H.R. 8296, the ``Women's Health
Protection Act of 2022.''
I urge my colleagues to stand up for women and girls and the
providers who meet their medical needs every day.
We cannot let those who wish to relegate women to second-class
citizens turn back the clock any further.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), a strong defender
of life, who is on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 8296 because
Republicans care about women and babies.
My colleagues across the aisle are unfortunately, once again,
attempting to push their abortion on demand agenda, which most
Americans find appalling.
This bill is beyond extreme. It permits abortions on demand for any--
any reason, up until the moment of birth.
Eighty percent of Americans say that abortion should be illegal in
the third trimester, and for good reason. The methods used in late-term
abortions to end the life of the preborn baby are truly reprehensible.
{time} 1045
The bill before us today almost completely undermines the numerous
pro-life laws that States have enacted since the U.S. Supreme Court
overturned Roe v. Wade by imposing a national standard for abortion on
demand.
As a mother and grandmother, I can tell you that preborn babies are
unquestionably human lives, and they are lives worth defending.
I find it ironic that the party that tells us to follow the science
denies basic science that says life begins at conception, that the
first signs of a heartbeat can be detected after just 22 days, and that
preborn babies can feel pain as early as 12 weeks inside the womb.
Passing this legislation would be a stain on Congress. Women deserve
better than this, and so do their preborn babies. Preborn babies are
truly the most vulnerable and defenseless amongst us. We were elected
to defend Americans' rights, and yet this Congress seeks to deny
vulnerable persons', babies, the most basic right, the right to life.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers, so I
continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), another defender of life.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, a great defender
of life, for yielding me this time, and I stand for life today.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 8296, the so-called Women's Health Protection
Act, is proof that the left wants to ensure limitless, taxpayer-funded
abortion. This is truly outrageous, and the vast majority of Americans
do not support abortion without limits.
It is stunning that Congress is wasting its time on legislation that
is so out of touch with the people it represents. What we should be
focusing on is helping women and protecting the innocent lives of
babies.
For that reason, I rise today to offer a motion to recommit to
instead consider H.R. 619, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection
Act.
Across the country, abortion providers are denying care to infants
born alive after attempted abortions. We are talking about children who
have already been born. We are talking about infanticide.
Congress must act to protect innocent, defenseless babies who cannot
protect themselves. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is
compassionate legislation that does just that. This bill simply ensures
that babies who survive attempted abortions receive the same standard
of care that any newborn should receive.
It would require healthcare providers to exercise skill, care, and
diligence to preserve the life and health of these children and then
immediately transport and admit them to the hospital.
It would impose penalties on providers who purposefully fail to give
medical care to these babies.
It would bar criminal prosecution of the mother.
But most importantly, it would save lives.
Coming to Congress, I knew there would be a lot of difficult
conversations about the life of the unborn, but I am truly shocked and
heartbroken that I have to stand here and defend lifesaving care for
babies who have already been born.
Madam Speaker, we can, and we should make every effort to protect the
lives of newborn babies.
To my colleagues, this is the simplest vote you will ever have to
take. Either you support babies being denied lifesaving healthcare
after they are born, or you do not.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of the
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I continue to
reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how
much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Washington has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
[[Page H6646]]
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time to close.
Madam Speaker, abortion is the sharpest, most soul-searching question
before us as a Nation. It pierces every heart. People have strongly
held beliefs and stories, and both sides are guilty of dismissing one
another.
For those of us who stand for the right to life, we must do a better
job of listening and loving. Fear and despair lead to more arguments,
anger, discord, and insecurity.
The abortion on demand bill, this bill before us today, though, is
extreme. It is abortion for any reason, at any stage of pregnancy until
birth. It is not the will of the American people.
I recently spoke with a doctor who shared with me what is possible
today. It is American technology and medical technology that allows us
now to do surgeries inside the womb.
I am a mom of three young kids, and anyone who has given birth knows
that to be able, because of technology, to see the baby develop day by
day is just amazing.
Doctors are performing prenatal surgeries and treatments to save
lives. This doctor was telling me they can perform a prenatal surgery
on 20 different organs. That wasn't possible in 1973 when Roe v. Wade
was decided. In fact, the first successful fetal surgery wasn't until
1982.
Many decades later, look how far we have come. Science has evolved.
It is my hope that we learn from this and that we reject abortion
because it is unthinkable. It is not following the science. It doesn't
reflect the latest research or modern medicine. Reject this
legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court's extreme and dangerous decision in
Dobbs turns back the clock and jeopardizes the health, well-being, and
autonomy of women across the Nation. Access to comprehensive healthcare
must include access to abortion, and the ability to access care should
not depend on where you live.
The bill before us, the Women's Health Protection Act, restores a
right to an abortion nationwide, ensuring that all Americans,
regardless of where they live, can make their own decisions about their
lives and their futures.
I urge my colleagues across the aisle to support this bill. While
Republicans seek to punish and control women by criminalizing abortion
nationwide, House Democrats will continue our fight to restore the
right to abortion as the law of the land.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the previous question is ordered
on the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the
desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Michelle Fischback of Minnesota moves to recommit the
bill H.R. 8296 to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The material previously referred to by Mrs. Fischbach is as follows:
Strike all that follows the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. BORN-ALIVE ABORTION SURVIVORS PROTECTION.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Born-
Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act''.
(b) Findings; Constitutional Authority.--
(1) Findings.--Congress finds as follows:
(A) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant,
the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws
of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of
such laws.
(B) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a
hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the
protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or
for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other
facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a
patient within its care.
(2) Constitutional authority.--In accordance with the above
findings, Congress enacts the following pursuant to Congress'
power under--
(A) section 5 of the 14th Amendment, including the power to
enforce the prohibition on government action denying equal
protection of the laws; and
(B) section 8 of article I to make all laws necessary and
proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the
Constitution of the United States, including the power to
regulate commerce under clause 3 of such section.
(c) Born-alive Infants Protection.--
(1) Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion
survivors.--Chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after section 1531 the following:
``Sec. 1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion
survivors
``(a) Requirements for Health Care Practitioners.--In the
case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a
child born alive (as defined in section 8 of title 1, United
States Code (commonly known as the `Born-Alive Infants
Protection Act')):
``(1) Degree of care required; immediate admission to a
hospital.--Any health care practitioner present at the time
the child is born alive shall--
``(A) exercise the same degree of professional skill, care,
and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as
a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care
practitioner would render to any other child born alive at
the same gestational age; and
``(B) following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence
required under subparagraph (A), ensure that the child born
alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.
``(2) Mandatory reporting of violations.--A health care
practitioner or any employee of a hospital, a physician's
office, or an abortion clinic who has knowledge of a failure
to comply with the requirements of paragraph (1) shall
immediately report the failure to an appropriate State or
Federal law enforcement agency, or to both.
``(b) Penalties.--
``(1) In general.--Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5
years, or both.
``(2) Intentional killing of child born alive.--Whoever
intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act
that kills a child born alive described under subsection (a),
shall be punished as under section 1111 of this title for
intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
``(c) Bar to Prosecution.--The mother of a child born alive
described under subsection (a) may not be prosecuted under
this section, for conspiracy to violate this section, or for
an offense under section 3 or 4 of this title based on such a
violation.
``(d) Civil Remedies.--
``(1) Civil action by a woman on whom an abortion is
performed.--If a child is born alive and there is a violation
of subsection (a), the woman upon whom the abortion was
performed or attempted may, in a civil action against any
person who committed the violation, obtain appropriate
relief.
``(2) Appropriate relief.--Appropriate relief in a civil
action under this subsection includes--
``(A) objectively verifiable money damage for all injuries,
psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of
subsection (a);
``(B) statutory damages equal to 3 times the cost of the
abortion or attempted abortion; and
``(C) punitive damages.
``(3) Attorney's fee for plaintiff.--The court shall award
a reasonable attorney's fee to a prevailing plaintiff in a
civil action under this subsection.
``(4) Attorney's fee for defendant.--If a defendant in a
civil action under this subsection prevails and the court
finds that the plaintiff's suit was frivolous, the court
shall award a reasonable attorney's fee in favor of the
defendant against the plaintiff.
``(e) Definitions.--In this section the following
definitions apply:
``(1) Abortion.--The term `abortion' means the use or
prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other
substance or device--
``(A) to intentionally kill the unborn child of a woman
known to be pregnant; or
``(B) to intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a woman
known to be pregnant, with an intention other than--
``(i) after viability, to produce a live birth and preserve
the life and health of the child born alive; or
``(ii) to remove a dead unborn child.
``(2) Attempt.--The term `attempt', with respect to an
abortion, means conduct that, under the circumstances as the
actor believes them to be, constitutes a substantial step in
a course of conduct planned to culminate in performing an
abortion.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item pertaining to section 1531 the following:
``1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion survivors.''.
(3) Chapter heading amendments.--
(A) Chapter heading in chapter.--The chapter heading for
chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``Partial-Birth Abortions'' and inserting
``Abortions''.
(B) Table of chapters for part i.--The item relating to
chapter 74 in the table of
[[Page H6647]]
chapters at the beginning of part I of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``Partial-Birth
Abortions'' and inserting ``Abortions''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to section 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this
question are postponed.
____________________