[Pages H5139-H5159]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

WOMEN'S HEALTH PROTECTION ACT OF 2021

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 667, I call
up the bill (H.R. 3755) 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 in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 677, the
amendment printed in part A of House Report 117-125 shall be considered
as adopted.
The bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 3755

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 2021''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) 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.
(2) Since 1973, the Supreme Court repeatedly has recognized
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.
(3) Nonetheless, access to abortion services has been
obstructed across the United States in various ways,
including blockades of health care facilities 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.
(4) 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.
(5) 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.
(6) 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.
(7) 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.
(8) 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.
(9) Since 2011, States and local governments have passed
nearly 500 restrictions singling out

[[Page H5140]]

health care providers who offer abortion services,
interfering with their ability to provide those services and
the patients' ability to obtain those services.
(10) 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.
(11) 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.
(12) 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.
(13) 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.
(14) 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.
(15) The cumulative effect of these numerous restrictions
has been to severely limit the availability of abortion
services in some areas, creating a patchwork system where
access to abortion services is more available in some States
than 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.
(16) 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.
(17) 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.
(18) 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.
(19) 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.
(20) 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.
(21) 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.
(22) 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.
(23) 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.
(24) Health care providers are subject to license laws in
various jurisdictions, which are not affected by this Act
except as provided in this Act.
(25) 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.
(26) 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.
(27) 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.

[[Page H5141]]

(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 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 a
person's ability to terminate a pregnancy, to diminish or in
any way negatively affect a person's constitutional right to
terminate a pregnancy, or to displace any other remedy for
violations of the constitutional right to terminate a
pregnancy.
(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

[[Page H5142]]

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, as amended, shall be debatable for
one hour equally divided 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 include extraneous material on H.R. 3755.
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 1 minute.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3755, the
Women's Health Protection Act of 2021. The need to pass this
legislation grows more urgent every day as anti-abortion extremists
continue to pass harmful State laws that are intended to restrict
access to reproductive healthcare and turn back the clock on the
constitutionally protected right to abortion.
While the courts seem willing to chip away at decades of clear
precedent guaranteeing the right for women to make their own healthcare
decisions, it is vital we act to protect this right and enshrine it in
Federal law.
This legislation simply ensures that no matter where they live,
patients can access abortion services, and healthcare providers can
provide this care without medically unnecessary and burdensome
restrictions. And now is the time to pass this legislation and ensure
women's healthcare rights are enshrined in Federal law.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation today, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the ranking member on the Health
Subcommittee.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Democrats'
abortion on demand until birth bill.
The other night we were having a hearing in Energy and Commerce. It
was on a similar--a different bill, but a similar topic. And a lot of
the rhetoric coming from the other side and, specifically, I remember
is that the baby is nothing more than a uterus or an ovary. It was just
kind of all of the same thing.
And it reminded me back when I was--when we had our first child, our
now 28-year old, mother of our grandchild, when she was 12 weeks we had
to have a sonogram because we thought there might be some issues. And
she was about the size of the end of my thumb. And when we got the 28-
year-old technology, she was sucking her thumb. The lady said, oh,
look, he or she is sucking her thumb. Now we know it was a her; we
didn't know at the time.
It is a distinct individual. Now, I will accede that it 100 percent
depends on its mother for life, but it is distinct and separate from
its mom. Her heart was beating.
Moving forward, let me just talk about how extreme this bill is. It
allows abortion at any time if the unborn child was diagnosed with
anything such as Down syndrome. It allows abortion at any time solely
based on the baby's biological sex. It allows abortion to occur at any
time point, including when a baby can feel pain, as well as when a
heartbeat can be detected.
So this is an extreme bill before us today. And before we vote on
this, I would like to let my colleagues know that a majority of
Americans do not support abortions with no limits. In fact, 80 percent
of Americans say abortion should be illegal in the third trimester.
This does not prevent States from making abortions legal in the third
trimester.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. It is a separate
and distinct life.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo), the chairwoman of our Health Subcommittee.
Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Women's Health Protection Act.
Nearly 50 years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed the right of every
woman to make decisions about her own life, her own body, her own
future.
Now that right is under horrible threat by a shameful and
unconstitutional law in Texas that bans abortion after 6 weeks of
pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant. That is a law
in defiance of the Federal law. It turns private citizens into snitches
to turn women in. That is reminiscent of the Third Reich. And if that
sounds staggering, it is because it is.
Every day, women in our country face deeply personal decisions of
whether to continue their pregnancies. They should be able to make
their own decisions, free from politicians' interference.
The Women's Health Protection Act is exactly that. It protects women.
It ensures that every woman has equal access to comprehensive
reproductive healthcare. I urge all of my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).
Mrs. WALORSKI. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
In America, the condition of a child's birth doesn't determine the
outcome of their life, for every single person, born or unborn, should
have the opportunity to live the American Dream.
But this abortion on demand bill would destroy our country's future.
Today, we are embarking on the biggest step backward in our Nation's
history. This vote could be the most consequential vote that any of us
take.
Today, the science is even more clear than it was in 1973, that a
child in the womb is a living person. And yet, my colleagues on the
other side remain obsessed with killing unborn babies in the name of
female empowerment.

Many supporters of this bill, like me, call us pro-life Americans
extreme. I have heard it already this morning.
But I have seen extreme. I have witnessed the cruelty of abortion and
it is ugly.
In South Bend, Indiana, Dr. Ulrich Klopfer provided abortions for
decades. When he died in 2019, his family found the medically preserved
remains of 2,411 children hidden in his garage. That is 2,411 human
babies preserved in formaldehyde in jars in his garage. It was national
news for a week. This abortionist left a legacy of death and
destruction. That is what extreme looks like.
Abortions sold as healthcare is a sickening violation of human
dignity that Americans should not and cannot tolerate.
So I will ask this question: Will we allow this to happen again?
As a nation, we have an obligation to future generations to reject
abortion on demand and to fight for life. I implore my colleagues here
today, join me in opposing this bill and standing for life.

[[Page H5143]]

The truth is on our side, and, in the end, the truth is going to
prevail.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the chairwoman of the Appropriations
Committee.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, let me be clear. Everyone everywhere
should have the freedom to make their own personal healthcare decisions
without interference from politicians.
When the Supreme Court allowed the most restrictive abortion law in
the nation to go into effect in Texas, they made it clear that they
cannot be trusted to protect the constitutional right to an abortion.
That is why the Congress must act as other States are moving to follow
suit.
That is why Democrats are fighting to protect a woman's right to
choose. That is why we have removed the restrictive Hyde language from
all of our appropriations bills.
It is time to trust women, to respect their decisions. Healthcare is
not political, not negotiable.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), ranking member of a
subcommittee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to
the abortion on demand until birth act.
I have worked in Congress to promote a culture of life and remain
supportive of measures that respect the sanctity of human life by
encouraging alternatives to abortion, including counseling and
pregnancy centers for women.
By contrast, the abortion on demand until birth act attempts to
override past and future pro-life laws at the Federal and State levels.
This will allow abortions based on Down syndrome diagnosis, sex of the
baby, and even dismemberment abortions. Simply put, this bill's goal is
to promote abortion anywhere, anytime, from conception to birth.
Madam Speaker, our Nation should be investing in women's healthcare
and the healthcare of unborn babies. This bill does the opposite. I
urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Jeffries), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chair for
yielding and for his leadership in advancing this incredibly important
issue.
America is the land of the free and the home of the brave, but we
cannot truly be a free country unless women have the freedom to make
their own healthcare decisions. The radical right's effort to take away
that freedom, all across country, is unacceptable, unthinkable,
untenable, unconscionable, and un-American. We are going to make it
unlawful.
We are going to pass the Women's Healthcare Protection Act, and we
are going to protect and respect a woman's freedom to make her own
healthcare decisions.

{time} 0930

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), who has fought for life so
long.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, as a woman, as a mom, as a former
teacher who worked with hundreds of teenagers and who loves each and
every one of them, I rise in opposition to this bill, which isn't about
freedom for women; it is about death for babies.
We are faced with multiple questions today.
Is it okay to coerce a woman to have an abortion?
Is it okay to send a 13-year-old girl home to perform a do-it-
yourself abortion on herself without medical supervision? Is it okay
for her to have this abortion without her parents even knowing?
Is it okay to take the life of a baby just because it has Down
syndrome?
Is it okay to take the life of a baby just because it is a girl?
Is it okay? It is not okay. The answer to all of these things should
be no.
Yet, this bill eliminates protections for women and girls facing
coercion, neglect, and discrimination. It endangers their health, and
it ends the life of a living human being with a plan and a purpose from
God and who deserves to live.
We are here to defend the basic right to life, and I plead with my
colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and
thank him for his leadership on this very important issue and to all of
our colleagues in this pro-choice House Democratic Caucus. This is the
first time, Madam Speaker, that we have had a pro-choice Democratic
Caucus with a Democratic President, and the timing could not be better
because of the assault that has been made on the constitutional rights
of women in our country.
Madam Speaker, coming to the floor today, I recall an experience from
when I was in high school. Now, that was a long time ago. We were in a
debate, a contemporaneous debate situation, and you were to pick
something out of a hat and then speak to it.
Well, a person, a friend of mine, drew the question, and it said--
now, again, ancient history, a long time ago. It said: ``Do women
think?'' That was the question that she had to speak to: ``Do women
think?'' It seemed horrible at the time. It seems out of the question,
beyond horrible now.
Today, years later, it seems that there are some who want to debate
that question because the disrespect for women and their ability to
determine the size and timing of their family, and so many other
things, is disrespected in the action taken by the State of Texas.
But even worse than that--because what do you expect? Worse than that
was the decision of this Court, the Supreme Court of the United States,
to embrace the horror of it all, in terms of the legislation and what
it did to remove the sanctity of private decisionmaking from women, but
also that it gave an imprimatur to vigilantism, something so
outrageous, so unpatriotic, so un-American, madly embraced by this
shameful Court, with total disregard for stare decisis, the precedent
that the Court had already established, that Roe v. Wade was
constitutional.
Today, I want to thank Judy Chu for her leadership, Congress in,
Congress out, but now we have the majority and a President and a
Democratic Senate. I thank her for her leadership in introducing this
again and again.
In advocating the Women's Health Protection Act, we are standing on
the side of women to defend their freedoms and to uphold this truth:
Every woman everywhere has the constitutional right to basic
reproductive healthcare, no matter what State you live in.
Constitutional rights are not meted out geographically. They are for
the country.
Again, I salute Congresswoman Chu, chair of the Contraception and
Family Planning Task Force of the Pro-Choice Caucus, who has been
introducing this bill over and over again.
Again, we have produced legislation that can become law. For years,
radical restrictions on women's reproductive health freedoms have been
pushed across the Nation, with 2021 on track to be the worst
legislative year for women's health rights.
I come to this as a Catholic and a mother of five, in 6 years and 1
week, and with the joy that all of that meant to us but with the
recognition that it was my husband and I--it was our decision. And we
should not, in this body or in that Court, be making decisions for the
women in America.
As of July, 90 reproductive health restrictions have been enacted,
more than in any year since Roe v. Wade was enacted in 1973.
But here is the thing. It is important for the women of America to
know that, as this impedes their right to make decisions, the same
forces at work don't want in vitro fertilization--actually, even the
State of Mississippi rejected that, their prohibition on that--and
stand in the way of reproductive health and guidance, in terms of
family planning, birth control, and the rest. It is important for
American women to know what we are up against when it comes to
intrusion into the privacy of a family's life.
You would think that since they are so averse to governance in any
way, they wouldn't be so bullish about going

[[Page H5144]]

into people's private lives in the way that they do.
What the Supreme Court did was cowardly, a cowardly, dark-of-night
decision to allow that bill to go into effect. How could it be? Because
it was a decision. The Court made a decision.
But the Republicans in Congress and the then-President made a
decision, in a way that was almost shameful, to make sure that so many
Justices on the Court--I say shameful because the last one, which they
railroaded through, while opposing the review of a Democratic
President's suggestion a few years earlier, saying they didn't have
enough time, a year. They had enough time, a month.

I just want to say this about Roe. In Roe, the Supreme Court held
that personal liberty is protected by the Constitution, which the Court
had recognized as extending to decisions relating to marriage,
procreation, contraception, family relations, and childrearing, and it
is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to
terminate her pregnancy.
S.B. 8 is an extreme ban on abortion for most women before they even
know. Sometimes I wonder if they don't need a lesson in the birds and
the bees, but, again, I just want to go to this point. S.B. 8 unleashes
one of the most disturbing, unprecedented, far-reaching assaults on
healthcare providers and on anyone who helps a woman in any way access
an abortion by creating a vigilante bounty system that will have a
chilling effect on the provisions of any healthcare services.
What is next? What is next with these vigilantes and their bounty
system?
I associate myself with my colleagues' remarks on all of this because
they bring so much knowledge of the Constitution, knowledge of the
history since 1973 and even studying it before. Diana DeGette, one of
the co-chairs of the caucus, fought this issue in the courts and won,
fought it in the court of public opinion, and fought it in the Congress
of the United States. She, Barbara Lee, and, of course, Judy Chu, so
many of our women have taken the lead on this.
But, again, although we are about a third of our Caucus--more than a
third of our Caucus are women--our male colleagues have been very
strong on this as well. Therefore, we will have today a vote for women,
a vote for respect for women, a vote for decency, a vote for pride in
our Constitution and in our women.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today praying that this House will be defenders
of truth, humility, and justice.
I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3755. The abortion on
demand until birth act is extreme. Abortion for any reason, at any
stage of pregnancy, until birth, is not the will of the American
people.
I spoke with a pediatric cardiologist just this week who shared with
me what is possible today. It is just amazing, because of technology,
what is possible.
We all know that we can look into the womb and see the development of
the baby day by day, week by week. This cardiologist told me that,
today, doctors perform prenatal surgeries and treatments to save lives.
He said doctors can perform surgeries 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
will learn from this and come to reject abortion because it is
inhumane; it is not following the science; and it doesn't reflect the
latest research or modern medicine.
Abortion is the sharpest soul-searching question before us as a
Nation. This question 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 life, we must do a better job of
listening and loving. Fear and despair are only leading to more
arguments, anger, discord, and insecurity.
For me, personally, I have never had an abortion, but I gave thoughts
in my younger years as to what I would do if I found myself pregnant
and alone. It would have been a desperate situation. I can imagine
abortion seeming like an easy solution. It breaks my heart, though, to
think that anyone would consider abortion as their only option or the
best option.
Growing up, I was not much of a baby person. I was 35 and single when
I was elected to Congress, and I didn't even know if being a mom was
part of my future. Today, I can testify that bringing a new life into
the world is the most amazing thing ever. It is the best part of life.
We have two daughters and a son, Cole, Grace, and Brynn. Cole, now
14, was born with the most common chromosomal abnormality. It is called
Down syndrome. When he was born, the doctors gave us a long list of
challenges and chances for heartache.
I understand the uncertainty. I understand the fear. But I couldn't
imagine my life without Cole. His life is worth living.
Yet, in this debate, Down syndrome has been at the forefront. Just
yesterday, a woman named Heidi with Down syndrome lost her court
challenge against the British Government over its law allowing abortion
up until birth for babies with Down syndrome.
This cannot become America's future, where we cherish life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness for all.
Like in the U.K., the bill before us is discriminatory. It allows for
abortions based on a baby's sex, race, or disability.
It would override counseling requirements that protect women from
coercion from people who have abused them. It would prohibit laws
designed to protect against sex trafficking and the exploitation of
young girls and women. It would weaken protections for medical
professionals who have religious objections to abortion.
Despite what the majority says, this bill does not codify Roe v.
Wade. This is radical.

{time} 0945

Under this bill, viability is whatever the abortionist deems it to
be.
I urge all of my colleagues today to stop the abortion on demand
until birth act.
Open your minds to science, technology. Look and see the mysteries of
the mother's womb. Open your ears to the cries of the unborn.
May hearts break and may we celebrate life. Let's uphold the value,
the dignity, and the potential of every life.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from The
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and 60 other civil
rights organizations in support of the Women's Health Protection Act.

The Leadership Conference

on Civil and Human Rights,

Washington, DC, September 23, 2021.

Support the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021

Dear Representative: The Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights, and the 60 undersigned organizations dedicated
to protecting and advancing the civil rights, health, and
economic security of all persons in the United States write
in support of the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 (H.R.
3755). We urge all members to vote yes on the bill when it
reaches the floor.
By protecting abortion access from medically unnecessary
restrictions that obstruct the right of all persons to obtain
safe, legal abortion services, the Women's Health Protection
Act (WHPA) seeks to remedy and prevent the onslaught of
state-level abortion bans and restrictions that cause
significant and sometimes insurmountable challenges to
receiving abortion care. These challenges disproportionately
impact the ability of low-income women and women of color to
access health care, robs individuals of bodily autonomy, and
threatens the economic security of families and individuals,
many of whom are already struggling to get by.
This issue is one of grave urgency. Just this month, five
Supreme Court justices denied an emergency request to block
Texas S.B. 8, a radical six-week abortion ban. Immediate
Congressional action is imperative for the future of abortion
rights in the United States. We are deeply concerned about
the threat of copycat bills appearing in states across the
country.
Indeed, abortion rights and access have been steadily under
attack. Despite large public support for access to abortion,
state lawmakers enacted more than 90 restrictions on abortion
this year, including 11 bans--two of which are near-total
abortion bans. States have also continued to enact or
introduce legislation that restricts access to medication
abortion, imposes medically unnecessary restrictions on
abortion clinics, or singles out abortion providers for
burdensome

[[Page H5145]]

restrictions not applied to other healthcare providers.
Today, nearly 90 percent of American counties have no
abortion provider, forcing people to incur onerous costs to
travel long distances for care, or pushing care entirely out
of reach.
These laws are not only a threat to the constitutional
right to abortion recognized in Roe v. Wade, but they are a
threat to the economic security, health, and dignity of low-
income people, women of color, immigrants, LGBTQ people, and
others who--because of a history of structural inequality and
discrimination--already have difficulty accessing
reproductive healthcare services. Restrictions that force
patients to undergo unnecessary tests or procedures, force
providers to communicate confusing and medically inaccurate
information, or force individuals to make multiple clinic
visits drive up individual costs, which can delay abortion
access and aggravate economic and health disparities felt by
women of color, low-income people, immigrants, LGBTQ people,
and other marginalized or multi-marginalized groups.
Restrictive abortion laws that contribute to clinic
closures and abortion deserts also increase the cost of
obtaining abortion, and Black women are impacted by clinic
closures to a greater degree than other groups. Systemic
inequality brought on by past and present policies that
target and oppress Black people--including the legacy of
slavery, mass incarceration, segregation, voter suppression,
and exploitative financial practices, such as redlining--have
led to concentrated and intergenerational poverty within the
Black community. As a result, Black women have diminished
access to networks and resources to overcome financial
obstacles to accessing care. In the context of clinic
closures or abortion deserts, this can mean a de facto ban on
abortion. Black women are half as likely to be able to travel
25 to 50 miles for abortion care than White women, who tend
to have more financial resources, information, and social
networks that allow them to travel.
Restricting access to abortion also threatens to undermine
the ability of poorer people and people of color to achieve
economic security. People of color and women are
disproportionately represented in low-wage jobs, and women of
color continue to endure discriminatory wage gaps. Black
women, for example, are typically paid just 63 cents for
every dollar paid to a White man. American Indian and Native
Alaskan women are paid only 60 cents, Latina women are paid
only 55 cents, and some Asian American and Pacific Islander
women are paid as low as 50 cents for every dollar paid to a
White man. Restrictions on accessing abortion, in addition to
public funding bans, mean that low-income people and many
women of color have to choose between paying their rent,
purchasing food, or paying for other basic necessities, and
receiving abortion care.
Studies also show that women who are denied abortion care
face more economic hardship and risks to their health and
safety than women who sought and received abortions. Women
denied abortion care are more likely to experience poor
health outcomes, including maternal death, as compared to
women who received abortions, a trend that is particularly
concerning for Black women who are up to four times more
likely to experience pregnancy-related death than White
women. Women who are denied an abortion and forced to bear a
child are also four times more likely to fall into poverty.
Conversely, abortion access has been shown to increase
women's participation in the workforce, particularly for
Black women, and has led to gains in educational attainment.
Every person deserves to have the ability to make the
healthcare decisions that are right for them, and every
person must be able to make their own decisions about having
children, free from government interference and
discrimination. Laws that restrict access to abortion cause
the most harm to those who, because of structural racism and
existing inequities, already have limited access to
resources, are already struggling to achieve economic
security, and who already face sometimes life-threatening
health disparities. At the most basic level, restrictive
abortion laws are aimed at controlling who can exercise their
constitutional rights and who can claim agency over their
bodies. As such, these laws are an affront to human dignity
that perpetuate systems of oppression that prevent the full
enjoyment of civil and human rights. The Women's Health
Protection Act is an important step in ending these harmful
laws and promoting the health, economic security, and well-
being of those whom we have forced through law and policy to
live at the margins.
Thank you for your consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; ADL
(Anti-Defamation League); American Association of University
Women (AAUW); American Atheists; American Federation of
Teachers; American Humanist Association; Americans for
Democratic Action (ADA); Americans United for Separation of
Church and State; Asian American Legal Defense and Education
Fund (AALDEF); Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Black Women's
Health Imperative; Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP);
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church; Clearinghouse on
Women's Issues; Demand Justice; Equal Rights Advocates;
Equality California; Feminist Majority Foundation; Fix Our
Senate; Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Girls Inc.; Global Project Against Hate and Extremism;
Hispanic Federation; Human Rights Campaign; Impact Fund;
Indivisible; Jacobs Institute of Women's Health; Jewish
Council for Public Affairs; Justice for Migrant Women; Lake
Research Partners; Lambda Legal; LatinoJustice PRLDEF;
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Matthew
Shepard Foundation; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund,
Inc. (LDF); NARAL Pro-Choice America; National Action
Network; National Association of Social Workers; NASW
Virginia/Metro DC Chapters; National Center for Transgender
Equality.
National Council of Jewish Women; National Health Law
Program; National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund; National
Organization for Women; National Partnership for Women &
Families; National Urban League; National Women's Law Center;
People For the American Way; Planned Parenthood Federation of
America; Population Connection Action Fund; Public Citizen;
Restaurant Opportunities Centers United; Rise Up America;
SEIU; The Workers Circle; Union for Reform Judaism; Voices
for Progress; Voto Latino; Women Lawyers On Guard Action
Network, Inc., YWCA Berkeley/Oakland; YWCA USA.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, in 1970 I watched the New York State
Assembly pass one of the first State laws legalizing abortion. If you
had told me then that 51 years later, I would be standing on the House
floor still fighting for women to have the right to make their own
decisions about their own lives, their own health, and their own
families, I would have called you crazy.
We must pass this bill today to end this decades-long war on abortion
and women's underlying freedom to control their own lives. I urge all
my colleagues to stand up for freedom, stand up for abortion, stand up
for bodily integrity and vote ``yes'' on this bill.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mr. BUCSHON. Madam Speaker, the archbishop of San Francisco said,
``This proposed legislation is nothing short of child sacrifice.''
The inappropriately named Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 would
codify the ability to obtain abortions for any reason at any point in
pregnancy. This bill would also preempt and repeal State laws that
require informed consent, ultrasounds, or other testing and counseling
before undertaking an elective abortion.
As a practicing heart surgeon for 15 years prior to coming to
Congress, I operated on children as young as 23 weeks gestation, late
second trimester. In fact, the smallest baby I operated on weighed only
650 grams, which is about 1.4 pounds.
I spent my career in medicine caring for patients regardless of their
situation, so I take access to healthcare very seriously. I can assure
you that my tiny patients were people.
I find it troubling that those on the other side, most of whom have
never spent a day taking care of patients, continue to mislead the
American people about what constitutes healthcare.
The archbishop also said, ``A child is not an object to be thrown
away.'' Vote against this bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the Assistant Speaker.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, it is the Constitution
that says women have the right to make their own decisions regarding
their bodies. It is the Constitution that gives people the right to
make a decision about abortion with their families, their doctor, and
in accordance with their faith.
But for over 50 years this right has been under attack. And today we
say there is no room in that decision for politicians, there is no room
for bounty hunters. This decision resides with people, with women.
Today, we will pass the Women's Health Protection Act, and we will
say clearly: This right is now enshrined in law, and we are not going
back.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a classmate and a champion
for life.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3755,
the so-called Women's Health Protection Act. This should be called the
destruction of unborn babies at any stage of development act.
The principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are
America's

[[Page H5146]]

foundation. Without question, life is the fundamental component to both
liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The American people understand the importance of protecting life. An
AP Poll shows that 54 percent of Americans believe abortions should be
illegal in the third trimester. Another 26 percent believe it should be
illegal in most cases in the third trimester. What is more, 65 percent
of Americans believe abortion without restriction should be illegal
during the second trimester as well.
But this latest Democrat scheme would go against the wishes of the
American people and make abortion on demand for any reason legal until
the time of birth.
It is clear to see that the so-called Women's Health Protection Act
is not about protecting the lives of unborn female babies. It is about
handing the anti-unborn baby industry a victory it has sought for many
years.
I oppose H.R. 3755, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. We are a
country that up until now has valued life, and the majority of
Americans still value life, especially the lives of unborn children.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Chu), the prime sponsor of this legislation.
Ms. CHU. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bill,
the Women's Health Protection Act.
For decades, Roe v. Wade has guaranteed everyone the freedom to
access safe abortion care regardless of background. And for decades
anti-abortion extremists have been devising new ways to put that right
out of reach. That has left many, mainly low-income people of color, to
fear that every new anti-choice law could be the one that finally puts
abortion access out of reach for them or their daughters.
Well, it is time to put a stop to these attacks once and for all.
With today's historic vote, we are ensuring that access to abortion
care is a right, from Texas to California.
This bill respects our right and the freedom to make our own choices
about our bodies, and it leaves those decisions up to us and our
doctors. It is time to take control of our bodies out of the hands of
extreme rightwing politicians. It is time to pass the Women's Health
Protection Act.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a colleague from the Energy
and Commerce Committee.
Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill,
and with great compassion for the women being lied to by the
deceptively named Women's Health Protection Act.
Madam Speaker, let's be clear, this bill is not about healthcare. It
is an extreme bill that would impose abortion on demand nationwide up
until birth and override commonsense pro-life laws at the State level,
laws like those intended to prevent abortion discrimination based upon
a child's sex or based on whether the child has Down syndrome, laws
that provide parental notification for minor girls, informed consent
for patients, and health and safety protections specific to abortion
facilities. All would be banned under this bill.

The bill before us would ban virtually all conscience protections for
medical personnel and enable the use of taxpayer money to fund abortion
procedures, violating sincerely held beliefs of millions of Americans
on the sanctity of human life.
The abortion on demand act ignores the humanity of the baby and the
health of the mother. It ignores the reality that life is sacred. It is
a precious, God-given gift that must be cherished and protected.
While it is comforting to know that God is loving, He is also just.
We destroy innocent life at our own peril. What God condemns, we must
not condone. May God heal our land.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the chairwoman of our Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, what we are seeing in Texas, Mississippi,
and elsewhere is an unprecedented attack on Americans' right to
abortion care. It is a systemic effort by politicians who want to roll
back the clock on women's healthcare freedom in this country.
To those who continue to rehash the same outdated arguments that
would put their own personal beliefs on millions of women, and they say
it is somehow good for America, I say, save your breath. It is not.
And for these overheated claims that are being made today on this
floor and the rhetoric, I say that is simply not the case.
Madam Speaker, let me suggest a different paradigm that protects the
full range of women's healthcare freedom in this country. I will decide
what happens to my body, and you decide what happens to yours. I will
decide what is best for my health and my life, and you decide what is
best for yours.
What is at stake in this fight is not some frivolous benefit. It is
the fundamental right of women across the country to decide. Vote
``yes'' on this important bill.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger), a champion for life.
Mrs. HARSHBARGER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the
unconscionable abortion on demand until birth act.
As a mother and a grandmother of two precious grandsons, I am
sickened by the attempt to allow abortions on demand until birth.
As a pharmacist, I have seen countless women who struggle with
infertility issues. All they ever wanted was to be able to give birth
and to have and to hold those precious children of their own.
Contrast this with what is happening today.
My colleagues across the aisle, many of them are women. They are
trying to make it easier to abort for reasons like bad timing or
inconvenience. Under this law, every State will be a late-term abortion
State, where abortions can be performed until birth for any reason with
no accountability or protections for women.
This is heartbreaking to me, and it is heartbreaking to all of the
women I have helped overcome fertility issues over the years.
I have talked to many women who have had abortions. Most of them
think about that baby they aborted every day. What would their baby
look like? What would their baby have grown up to be? Whom would they
have married? How many children would they have had? How could that
unborn baby have affected our country or our world?
There is such a sorrow that follows these women post-abortion. I want
those women who have had abortions to know this: Nothing is wasted, and
there is forgiveness from a loving God.
They can make a difference today, even now, by praying. I will
continue to advocate on behalf of the right to life. I believe it is a
moral and a God-given responsibility that we protect these treasured
trusts from Heaven.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this unmerciful
and unthinkable bill. The sanctity of human life depends on it.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who chairs our Consumer Protection and
Commerce Subcommittee.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
Women's Health Protection Act that will end the horrifying State-level
attacks on abortion access. The Texas law would encourage vigilantism
and criminalizes anyone who would even help someone to get an abortion.
But Texas is not alone.
Abortion is healthcare. This is a pro-choice country, a pro-choice
nation. Women can make the decision to have a child or not have a
child. It is about bodily autonomy.
I want to be very clear; Roe v. Wade was not the beginning of women
having abortions. It was the end of women dying from abortions.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
legislation and to say ``no'' to harming women.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a champion for life.
Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, one word. Heartbreaking. This legislation
my Democrat colleagues are trying to enact is just plain old
heartbreaking.

[[Page H5147]]

History will not look kindly on this abortion on demand legislation.
Let me be clear. This is not about healthcare. This goes far beyond
the guise of healthcare. This, in fact, is infanticide. A society is
judged by how they treat the most vulnerable among us by God, and God
will judge us.

{time} 1000

That is why we must always stand for life, both the born and, of
course, today we are talking about the unborn.
As a father of four, a grandfather of eight with one on the way,
protecting life will always be my priority, and I urge a ``no'' vote on
H.R. 3755.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our Democratic majority leader.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
This is a serious issue. Some would say it is an issue about freedom,
about individual integrity, as to who makes choices. I hear a lot about
freedom, about government not interfering.
Madam Speaker, millions of women across our country and the men who
stand with them are in shock and outrage at the new law in Texas and
the Supreme Court's refusal to block it from taking effect. Texas
senate bill 8 bans any abortion after 6 weeks. That is, of course,
before most women know that they are pregnant.
It includes no exceptions for rape or incest. What do you think the
psychological impact on the health of a woman is if you don't think
this is about the health of women?
As many as 90 percent of women seeking reproductive care in Texas do
so after 6 weeks, meaning that this law effectively bans women in the
State from accessing the full range of reproductive care that they are
guaranteed under Roe v. Wade. Now, my presumption is, of course, most
speaking against this are not for and didn't support and would like to
see Roe v. Wade repealed.
Also deeply disturbing is the way senate bill 8 is enforced. The law
gives any private individual the authority to police any of their
fellow citizens whom they suspect may be providing for or receiving
reproductive care. How draconian, how communistic, how authoritarian
such a scheme is.
This vigilante system is at odds with the values of American
democracy, reminiscent of the kind of tactics previously used behind
the Iron Curtain and still employed by totalitarian regimes.
The bill before us today would enshrine in statute the rights women
are guaranteed under Roe v. Wade that the majority of Americans support
at a time when they are increasingly under attack.
Statistics released in June by the Guttmacher Institute showed that
over 500 bills restricting women's healthcare access had already been
introduced since the start of this year in State legislatures; and as
of last month, nearly 100 of those had been enacted.
The policies enacted by senate bill 8 and similar measures in other
States under Republican control not only have the effect of eliminating
access to reproductive choice, but also to a range of lifesaving
healthcare services for women, particularly for low-income women.
This will probably not affect many wealthy women who can get in their
car or get on the airplane and go wherever they might go. So opposition
to this bill is directly discriminatory to women of less means to their
healthcare. These range from cancer screenings to prenatal visits; from
treating injuries to referring patients to counseling after trauma like
sexual assault.
According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, nearly 90 percent of
American counties do not have a single reproductive care provider.
For many women, the health clinics that provide these services are
their primary source of healthcare. Measures like senate bill 8 are
forcing many of these clinics to shut down.
Our country ought to be working to expand these resources for women,
not make the healthcare harder to access.
We know that S.B. 8 and similar laws being enacted across the country
will not stop women from seeking the full range of reproductive care.
You know that. Back to the hanger, perhaps, and the death of scores,
thousands, perhaps, of women who see no alternative.
The Women's Health Protection Act is a necessary response to
Republicans' efforts to make it harder for women to access healthcare
across the country. I thank Judy Chu for leading this effort. I am
grateful to Congresswoman Chu for authoring this legislation and
championing this cause.
I am the father of three daughters, the grandfather of two
granddaughters, and the great-grandfather of three great-
granddaughters. I, frankly, do not want any of us making decisions for
their healthcare.
Democrats are committed to taking action to secure Roe v. Wade and to
protect women's access to reproductive healthcare no matter where they
live.
The Women's Health Protection Act is a critical step in securing that
ability for millions of American women, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, such a sad day. It is
beautiful outside, the Sun is shining.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach),
a champion for life.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Washington
for yielding me the time.
We hear a lot of talk coming from the other side about this Texas
law, but I want to talk about the legislation that we have in front of
us today and what effects that will have.
Madam Speaker, it should be called the abortion on demand bill
because it does nothing to protect women's health; rather, it
supersedes States' rights and makes any protection for women and unborn
children illegal.
This bill will override countless protective State laws like parental
notice, clinic regulations, and informed consent before an abortion.
The abortion on demand act would not only strip States of their
rights to protect women and babies, but it would also strip away a
parent's right to be involved and informed on their child's health and
well-being.
What about protecting minors? Would States be allowed to ensure
parental involvement or even notification? The answer is, of course, no
under this legislation. In fact, it is just the contrary. The bill
strips all of these protections provided by State laws.

One of my highest priorities as a Member of Congress is protecting
the right to life for all innocent life from conception until natural
death. This bill is a shameful attempt to override States' rights and
codify widespread abortion on demand in this country.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Miss Rice).
Miss RICE of New York. Madam Speaker, the extreme abortion ban in
Texas makes it clear: We need a Federal law that protects the right to
abortion.
The Texas ban is not the first to attempt to eliminate abortion
access across this country, and it will not be the last.
Every year the attacks on reproductive health get worse, and we know
these attacks are not about the sanctity of life. If they were,
Republicans would be wearing masks, they would be promoting the
vaccine, and they would be championing our childcare policies that have
lifted millions of children out of poverty. We know what the true
agenda is: It is about controlling women and taking away their God-
given right to make decisions about their own body.
As the Supreme Court prepares to consider a case that will directly
challenge Roe v. Wade, Congress needs to take action.
Now is the time to pass the Women's Health Protection Act and protect
abortion access for every single person across this country.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, continuing to celebrate
life, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the biggest
champion of all.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. For the first time ever by Congressional
statute, this legislation would legally enable the violent death of
unborn baby girls and boys by dismemberment, decapitation, forced
expulsion from the womb, and deadly poisons for any reason until birth.
This bill will nullify every modest pro-life restriction ever enacted
by the States, including women's right-to-know laws in 35 States,
parental involvement statutes in 37 States, pain

[[Page H5148]]

capable unborn child protection laws in 19 States, waiting period laws
in 26 States, and more.
This bill constitutes an existential threat to unborn babies.

Madam Speaker, this bill is far outside the American mainstream and
goes far beyond Roe v. Wade.
This bill constitutes an existential threat to unborn children and to
the value of life itself.
For the first time ever by congressional statute, H.R. 3755 would
legally enable the violent death of unborn baby girls and boys by
dismemberment, decapitation, forced expulsion from the womb, deadly
poisons, or other methods at any time until birth.
A significant majority of Americans are deeply concerned about
protecting the lives of unborn children.
A 2021 Marist Poll found that 65 percent of Americans want Roe v.
Wade reinterpreted to either send the issue to the states or stop
legalized abortion.
Of that 65 percent majority of Americans--40 percent of Democrats
would ``allow certain restrictions on abortions as determined by each
state.''
If enacted, this bill will nullify every modest prolife restriction
ever enacted by the states including: women's right to know laws in 35
states; parental involvement statues in 37 states; pain capable unborn
child protection laws in 19 states; and waiting period laws in 26
states, and more.
Seventy percent of Americans, according to the 2021 Marist poll,
oppose abortion if the child will be born with Down syndrome--with over
half of those who identify as pro-choice (56 percent), opposed, or
strongly opposed to abortion due to the expectation a child will be
born with Down syndrome. Americans seek to ``embrace'' and not
``erase'' those babies identified as having an extra chromosome.
H.R. 3755 overturns state laws that protect children with Down
syndrome as well.
The U.S. Supreme Court majority in Roe v. Wade wrote: ``We need not
resolve the difficult question of when human life begins.''
Sidestepping that threshold question and giving no benefit of the doubt
to the child, they went on to legalize and enable abortion on demand.
For decades, abortion advocates have gone to extraordinary lengths to
ignore, trivialize, and cover-up the battered baby-victim.
But today, thanks to ultrasound, unborn babies are more visible than
ever before.
Modern medicine today treats unborn children with disability or
disease as a patient in need of diagnosis and treatment.
Birth is an event--albeit an important one--but not the beginning of
life.
Regarding international law, the bill falsely states that ``Core
human rights treaties ratified by the United States protect access to
abortion.''
In fact, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
which the U.S. has ratified, is concerned about unborn children being
killed. It states in Article 6 that ``Every human being has the
inherent right to life'' and that ``No one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his life.''
It goes on to declare that the ``sentence of death . . . shall not be
carried out on pregnant women.'' The ICCPR creates an exemption from
execution for pregnant women, recognizing that their unborn children
have an independent claim to legal protection, as do all unborn
children.
The legislation under consideration by the House today is deceptively
titled the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021. Abortion is not
health care 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.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Schrier).
Ms. SCHRIER. Madam Speaker, Texas' law to pay vigilantes to sue
anyone who enables an abortion after 6 weeks is just the latest gross
overreach to make it virtually impossible for women to get abortion
care.
These laws take away a woman's right to determine if and when to have
a child. And I can tell you as a doctor that these laws also undermine
a doctor's oath to help her patients and the trust between doctor and
patient, not to mention the women's own health.
It is long past time to stop States from putting up absurd roadblocks
with no medical justification, like hallway size, arbitrary waiting
periods, unnecessary vaginal ultrasounds, government scripted
propaganda, and hospital admitting privileges for procedures that don't
require a hospital.
This bill blocks States from putting up these barriers to care.
As the only pro-choice woman doctor in Congress, I urge my colleagues
to join me in protecting a woman's right to a legal, safe abortion no
matter where she lives by supporting the Women's Health Protection Act.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, as we continue to
celebrate life, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Mrs. McClain).
Mrs. McCLAIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and
for her diligent effort to save the lives of unborn children. And that
is really what this bill is about, saving the lives of unborn children.
For all of us that have children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren,
this is about them and their rights. I hear us talking about our
rights, but what about their rights? Don't they have a right? Because
they have no choice. So thank you for being their voice.
But I rise today to speak the truth. I want to talk about the truth,
which doesn't happen much. This act is titled the Women's Health
Protection Act, more properly titled the abortion on demand act.
Stop hiding behind Texas. Stop hiding behind women's rights.
The majority has chosen once again to lie to the American people
about what this legislation is about. This bill has nothing to do with
women's health. This bill is about infanticide. To my Democratic
colleagues, if you are in support of infanticide, just say it. You
don't need to sugar coat it. Just say it. To my democratic colleagues,
if you are in support of killing a child for any reason, you wanted a
boy but it is a girl, oh, we will just get rid of it and try again,
just have the courage and the guts to say it.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).
Mrs. TRAHAN. Madam Speaker, my generation and every generation of
women after us has grown up with the freedom and the security under Roe
v. Wade.
Today those protections are under attack from lawmakers and
activists, many of whom have never had to make the tough personal
decisions about family planning or about the health of a pregnancy.
Those attacks have been successful, and it is chilling as a mom of
two young daughters.
Roe is on the verge of elimination, and millions of women are rightly
terrified of what that means for their bodily autonomy and the future
of reproductive care even beyond abortion.
Today, we are going to pass the Women's Health Protection Act because
we know that no one can be more trusted to make the best health
decisions for themselves than women.
The government should not have a role in that choice, and I reject
the hypocrisy on the other side of the aisle that suggests otherwise.
Please, join us in passing this critical legislation and protecting
reproductive rights, protecting the freedom of women to decide. If not
for the people you represent, then for the women in your lives.

{time} 1015

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), a champion for life.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam Speaker, this is one of those moments I am
actually behind the microphone to say thank you. I was born in an unwed
mother's home--so was my brother; so was my sister--and you have all
met my little girl, as she is here, that came to us as a gift out of
nowhere.
But when I was 38 years old, through a series of accidents, I got the
phone number from my birth mother, and I called her. The first words
were just through the tears and this high-pitched almost--she was
struggling; you could hear her almost hyperventilating. ``I pray for
you every morning. Are you okay? Are you healthy? Are you happy?'' I am
crying on my side, saying: ``I have a great life. Thank you for letting
me live.''
Today in the Schweikert family and the Hoyle family, and all of our
families together--my little girl is third-generation adopted now.
Maybe we are doing something wrong in the family. We would get together
with our birth moms and our moms. The amazing thing is my mom became
best of friends with my birth mom.
This is the American family of today. Let's love it and respect it.

[[Page H5149]]

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 17 minutes
remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Mrs. Fletcher).
Mrs. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Women's Health
Protection Act. As an original cosponsor of the bill, I thank
Representative Chu for her leadership on this important bill.
As a woman from Texas, I thank this body for responding with urgency
to my beloved home State's cruel law, depriving Texans of their
constitutional rights, by bringing this bill to the floor today.
In this moment, it is a Texas law, a law quickly being copied across
the country, that has brought us here. But let us remember that it was
also Texas that brought us the framework for this bill that we will
pass today to protect the health, privacy, dignity, and freedom of
women and families across this country in the case of Roe v. Wade. It
was a 26-year-old Texas woman named Sarah Weddington who took that case
all the way to the Supreme Court.
Texas women have fought and will continue to fight for the rights
that we protect here today. I am proud to be one of them and to vote in
favor of this bill.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from NARAL Pro-Choice
America.

Statement of NARAL Pro-Choice America

The Women's Health Protection Act (H.R. 3755)--september 24, 2021

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement to the
U.S. House of Representatives on this critical legislation.
NARAL Pro-Choice America (NARAL) is a national advocacy
organization, dedicated to protecting and advancing
reproductive freedom, including access to abortion,
contraception, paid leave, and protection from pregnancy
discrimination, as a fundamental right and value. Through
education, organizing, and influencing public policy, NARAL
and our 2.5 million members from every state and
congressional district in the country work to guarantee every
individual the freedom to make personal decisions about their
lives, bodies, and futures, free from political interference.
For this reason, we are submitting this statement to thank
leadership for holding this vote and to call on Congress to
pass the Women's Health Protection Act in order to safeguard
the federal right to abortion against bans and medically
unnecessary restrictions.
The legal right to abortion faces its greatest threat in
decades. Despite overwhelming public support, 8 in 10
Americans, for the legal right to abortion, we're in the
midst of an all-out assault on reproductive freedom with Roe
v. Wade hanging in the balance. The need to enshrine the
legal right to abortion in federal statute is more urgent
than ever. The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court will soon
hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a direct
challenge to Roe v. Wade, and that it declined to block
Texas's extreme abortion ban, allowing Roe to be rendered
meaningless in the state, represent ominous signs for the
future of abortion rights in this country.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court failed to intervene
and subsequently rejected an emergency request to block Texas
Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), a blatantly unconstitutional ban on
abortion. This law bans abortion at approximately six weeks
before many people even know they are pregnant. It also
grants private citizens the power to sue abortion providers
and anyone else who helps someone access abortion care; this
includes clergy members or counselors, abortion funds that
assist someone in paying for abortion care, and even someone
who drives a patient to their appointment, like family
members, friends, and rideshare drivers. An individual who
successfully sues someone for assisting a pregnant person
seeking abortion care would receive a financial reward of
$10,000. The Supreme Court's decision to allow SB 8 to go
into effect essentially gave Texas the green light to render
Roe v. Wade meaningless in the state and empowered anti-
choice lawmakers to use this law as a blueprint to roll back
reproductive freedom in their own states.
The pending Supreme Court case is set against a backdrop of
increasingly cruel and draconian restrictions and bans as
anti-choice politicians escalate their quest to end legal
abortion.
Even as Roe stands, though it has long not been a reality
for many, the further evisceration of abortion access is
ramping up. In addition to Texas's ban, state lawmakers
seeking to advance their agenda of power and control have
passed hundreds of state-level attacks on abortion access
over the last decade that have made care extremely difficult,
if not impossible, to access for many people across the
country. Systematic attacks on reproductive freedom and
abortion access, including bans on abortion coverage,
intentionally push access out of reach and have rendered
meaningless the protections and rights afforded by Roe v.
Wade for many people across the country.
The unprecedented threat to the right to abortion
underscores the urgent need for Congress to pass the Women's
Health Protection Act. Every day without congressional action
to protect abortion rights and expand abortion access means
that more and more people are denied the right to abortion
and ability to access the care that they need--and we know
that this disproportionately affects women, Black, Indigenous
and People of Color (BIPOC), people working to make ends
meet, immigrants, young people, people with disabilities,
LGBTQ+ individuals, and those living in rural and other
medically underserved areas. Attacks on abortion rights and
access are rooted in racism, white supremacy, and other forms
of discrimination. Ending these barriers and ensuring equal
access to abortion care is central to the pursuit of
reproductive freedom and racial and economic justice.
The looming threat to the future of legal abortion across
the country is the result of a decades-long far-right
strategy to advance a radical and out-of-touch ideological
agenda. In the late 1970s, radical conservatives weaponized
the formerly non-political, back-burner issue of abortion
rights as political cover for their efforts to maintain white
patriarchal control amidst diminishing support for racist
policies like school segregation, which had previously been
the backbone of their movement. In the years immediately
preceding and following Roe v. Wade, Evangelical Christians,
who now form the backbone of the GOP, were overwhelmingly
indifferent on the issue of abortion. But through the
carefully crafted messages of Paul Weyrich, Jerry Falwell,
and other architects of the Radical Right, abortion became
the political tool of choice for a movement determined to
maintain control in a changing world, and the trojan horse
for a far-reaching array of ideologies meant to thwart social
progress.
In the intervening years, opposition to abortion has become
a litmus test in far-right circles for a host of political
and judicial positions. In order to advance their agenda--one
that has always stood in direct opposition to the values of
the majority of Americans--they developed and implemented a
strategy for capturing and maintaining minority rule. This
strategy included pushing regressive boilerplate legislation
chipping away at access to abortion through state
legislatures and Congress, as well as stacking the federal
judiciary with anti-choice ideologues.
Anti-choice activists have spent decades building their
influence over the federal judiciary through well-funded,
secretive networks like the Federalist Society. Conservative
activists have never been shy about the fact that their
takeover of the federal judiciary is part of a broad strategy
to quell the majority and cement minority rule, but the
election of Donald Trump took this tactic to new heights. In
May 2016, Trump pledged to only nominate anti-choice judges,
a promise he doubled down on in 2020. And with the help of
Mitch McConnell, Trump installed anti-choice federal judges
with lifetime appointments at a breakneck pace. More than a
quarter of currently active federal judges are now Trump
appointees, including Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch,
Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett--tipping the balance
of the Court to a supermajority unmistakably hostile to
reproductive freedom. We have already seen this majority use
the so-called ``shadow docket'' to undermine the right to
abortion and abortion access. There is no denying that the
threat to Roe v. Wade is real.
Anti-choice lawmakers, emboldened by the anti-choice
supermajority on the Court, have accelerated their push to
pass blatantly unconstitutional bans and restrictions on
abortion--introducing, advancing, or passing over 330 bills
attacking abortion access this year alone, some going as far
as criminalizing pregnant people and doctors who provide
abortion care. Now, more than ever, the anti-choice movement
is advancing its extremist agenda in plain sight. Already
this year, at least eight states have enacted laws that
criminalize doctors for providing abortion care. When
abortion care is criminalized, lives are on the line. Ending
legal abortion would roll back the clock for our rights, but
it would not eliminate abortion. It would only isolate and
endanger people trying to make the best decisions for their
lives and their futures.
The interrogation and punishment of people who are pregnant
is not far-fetched--it is already happening. People across
the country are already being charged or prosecuted for
pregnancy outcomes including pregnancy loss, self-managing
abortion care, or even the suspicion of it. Criminalizing
people for having an abortion, experiencing a miscarriage or
stillbirth, or any other pregnancy outcome only exacerbates
racial inequities and is just one of the many ways that
Black, Indigenous, and other people of color have been
criminalized.
NARAL Pro-Choice America strongly supports the Women's
Health Protection Act, which was re-introduced this year by
Representatives Judy Chu (D-CA), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Ayanna
Pressley (D-MA), and Veronica Escobar (D-TX), and Senators
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI). Roe v.
Wade and access to abortion care are on the line like never
before and this moment requires urgent action from Congress.
All people--no matter who they are or where they live--should
have the

[[Page H5150]]

freedom to make their own decisions about whether to start or
grow a family, free from political interference. Enacting the
Women's Health Protect Act is a critical step toward creating
a world where every body is free to make the best decisions
for themselves, their families, and their lives.

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), chair of the House Committee
on Oversight and Reform.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, our
constitutional rights are under attack. We must pass the Women's Health
Protection Act to firmly establish a statutory right to abortion care
in every community across our country.
Our rights are no longer being chipped away. They are being bulldozed
into the ground. We must act now before it is too late.
Madam Speaker, I thank our chairman for his extraordinary leadership
on this issue, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, ``Let Freedom Ring'' has been replaced by
Texas Republicans with ``Let vigilantes hunt.''
Neighbors spying on neighbor. Offering $10,000 bounties on a driver,
a physician, anyone who offered counsel. So invasive that an Arkansas
convict has now sued a San Antonio physician. Mandatory motherhood,
even in cases of rape and incest, with Republicans targeting only those
survivors who are seeking healthcare.
Protect the fundamental right of choice. Reject this narrow-minded,
unconstitutional, Republican power-hungry, vigilante injustice. Join us
next Saturday at the Women's March for Freedom at the State Capitol in
Austin.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 3755. As co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus, I am a proud original
cosponsor. I thank my good friend and Congresswoman, Judy Chu, for her
persistent leadership, also Chairman Pallone and the Speaker for
bringing it to the floor.
Madam Speaker, make no mistake, people deserve the freedom to control
their own bodies, lives, and futures. We must protect the right to
access abortion and to ensure that it is available and affordable.
Now, I remember the days of back alley, unsafe abortions. We cannot,
and we will not, go back to those days.
Passing this bill would provide a critical safeguard against attacks
on reproductive freedom and ensure that abortions are accessible and
available for all, which means also low-income women and people of
color. This is our body. It is our choice.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, it is past time we took the
power to make deeply personal healthcare decisions out of Governors'
mansions and State legislatures and put them back where they belong, in
the hands of patients and their doctors.
Just this week, my home State of Florida filed a horrific anti-
abortion bill that is a revolting assault on women's rights. With
Federal courts becoming more hostile to reproductive access, we must
not waver in the passage of the Women's Health Protection Act.
Thankfully, this bill before us today protects the right to access
abortion throughout the United States and safeguards against medically
unnecessary bans and restrictions like those in Texas' S.B. 8.
Equal access to abortion care everywhere is essential to economic
participation, reproductive autonomy, and the right to determine our
own lives.
Congress has a responsibility to pass legislation that makes these
human rights a reality.
Madam Speaker, I urge passage of this vital piece of legislation.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Speier).
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I thank Judy Chu
for their leadership.
Madam Speaker, 10 years ago on this floor, I spoke about a second-
term abortion that I had. It was painful. It was hard. But I did
because so many on the other side of the aisle that day knew nothing
about what women endure. We are not vessels for a man to inject their
sperm into and then walk away with no consequences.
This is my body, not yours. Many on the other side of the aisle whine
about the freedom that they have lost by having to wear masks, yet you
want to take my freedom to control my body away from me.
You have not carried a fetus in your body. You have not had a fetus
die in your body. You have not had to mourn the loss. You stand there
preaching birth but not life.
This is my body. This is my life. This is my freedom.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, standing for life,
standing as someone who has carried a baby and lost a baby, standing
and continuing to celebrate life, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Women's Health Protection Act.
If we truly value women, we must protect their right to control their
own bodies and their freedom to make their own healthcare decisions.
This includes the right to safe abortion, guaranteed by the Supreme
Court in Roe v. Wade almost 50 years ago--not more, nothing less.
But this right is under fierce attack. We have seen wildly
restrictive abortion bans, a $10,000 bounty on people who help women
who are seeking abortion care. This is unconstitutional and dangerous.
This bill will guarantee women all across this country the freedom to
make their own healthcare decisions, a basic and well-established
constitutional right.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from Washington (Ms. DelBene).
Ms. DelBENE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Women's
Health Protection Act, a historic vote which will cement the right to
abortion in the United States.
The impending cases before the Supreme Court are proof that the
assault on women and Roe are real, and Congress must step up. Women
have a right to full reproductive healthcare, including abortion.
Lawmakers have a responsibility to uphold this right.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Women's
Health Protection Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Speier). The gentlewoman from Colorado
(Ms. DeGette) controls the balance of the time.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).
Ms. ADAMS. Madam Speaker, a woman who does not own or control her own
body cannot call herself free.
I want you to close your eyes and imagine being forced to give birth
during a global pandemic: fewer in-person visits, more telehealth
visits; new parents having children alone without their families,
worrying if the baby will catch the virus; something goes wrong, there
may not be space in the ICU.
Now open your eyes to the truth. A woman should not have to yield
control over her own choices and her own body.
So let's pass this bill, the Women's Health Protection Act. That is
what we need to do.

[[Page H5151]]

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on
both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 12 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from Washington has 7 minutes remaining.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Crist).
Mr. CRIST. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman and the gentlewoman
from California for her leadership.
Access to safe and legal abortion is about trust--trust in those
seeking reproductive care, trust that they will know what is best for
their bodies and their families, and trust in them to make a choice
that only they can make about their own future.
What we are seeing in Texas and in the Supreme Court is what happens
when government wants to make the choice for you, and I am hearing from
Floridians who are terrified that the Governor of Florida wants to
bring Texas-style tyranny to the Sunshine State.
Not on our watch. Vote ``yes'' on the Women's Health Protection Act.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from Washington State (Ms. Jayapal).
Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, one in four women across America has had
an abortion. I am one of them.
It is a deeply personal choice about control of our own bodies and
the consequences of a choice that only we will have to live with. Do
not criminalize me and millions of women like me around the country. Do
not criminalize those that help us.
Let me be clear. The cruel Texas abortion law and decades of efforts
to repeal Roe v. Wade are nothing but attempts to control our bodies
and our choices.
Madam Speaker, terminating my pregnancy was not an easy choice for
me, but it was my choice. It is time to preserve that for all people.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, continuing to stand,
celebrating life, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1030

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Garcia).
Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Madam Speaker, Congress must protect women's
constitutional freedom to decide over their bodies. After the cruel
Texas--my home State--abortion ban, I visited the local Planned
Parenthood and heard horrific stories of women already resorting to
self-help, including finding an abortion tea on the internet.
We cannot go back to the dark ages of using dangerous wire hangers
for self-help and other things that will actually hurt and potentially
kill women. We cannot continue to go back. We must move forward and
protect our rights.
Madam Speaker, I urge passage of the Women's Health Protection Act.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).
Mrs. McBATH. Madam Speaker, generations of women fought for the right
to vote, they fought for a seat in the university classroom, a seat in
the boardroom, and a seat in our government. And they fought for the
freedom for us to make our own decisions about our bodies.
Generations of women secured these gains so that we could build on
their efforts toward a just and equitable society. We cannot allow
their work to be undone. That is why I am proud to vote in favor of the
Women's Health Protection Act.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, the Constitution recognizes that
there are limits that can be placed on the long arm of the law. The
long arm of the law has limitations when it comes to speech. The long
arm of the law has limitations when it comes to religion. And the long
arm of the law has limitations in terms of how far it can extend into a
women's womb.
This bill checks the long arm of the law so that it does not extend
too far into a women's womb.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New Hampshire (Mr. Pappas).
Mr. PAPPAS. Madam Speaker, for 48 years the right to choose has been
the law of the land, and it is time that Congress protects that right
and access to the full range of reproductive care.
States are passing dangerous bans on abortion that harm patients and
criminalize doctors, and anti-choice legislators are erecting barriers
that are ever more onerous for women. This has even happened in my home
State of New Hampshire where the legislature passed an abortion ban and
forced ultrasounds for women seeking an abortion.
If the Supreme Court won't protect Roe v. Wade, then Congress must
pass the Women's Health Protection Act.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley), an original cosponsor of this
legislation.
Ms. PRESSLEY. Madam Speaker, abortion care is a fundamental human
right. Texas' unconscionable abortion ban is further evidence that
lawmakers who aim to do harm will stop at nothing to attack our
reproductive rights and bodily autonomy. But not on our watch.
It is clear the Supreme Court is no longer on the side of justice and
the pro-choice majority of the House of Representatives has a
responsibility to stand in the gap and to act.
Today, we must, and we will, pass the Women's Health Protection Act.
I am proud to co-lead this bill with Congresswoman Chu to codify the
right to abortion care.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with us to reaffirm
reproductive justice and protect this fundamental right.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker,

Open up, O heavens, and pour out your righteousness. Let the
Earth open wide so salvation and righteousness can
sprout up together.
I, the Lord, created them.
What sorrow awaits those who argue with their creator.
Does a clay pot argue with its maker?
Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it, saying,
Stop, you're doing it wrong?
Does the pot exclaim, How clumsy can you be?
How terrible it would be if the newborn baby said to its
father, Why was I born?
Or if it said to its mother, Why did you make me this way?

It is the word of the Lord.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from New Jersey (Ms. Sherrill).
Ms. SHERRILL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Women's Health
Protection Act.
For almost my entire life, Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land.
And after continuous attacks on Roe for the past five decades, I, for
the first time fear that it is truly imperiled.
The attacks on women's health in Texas and the court's refusal thus
far to protect our Constitution and women lays out a roadmap really for
States across the Nation. That is why this legislation is critical, so
Congress can stand in the breach and protect women and our
constitutional rights across the Nation.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Jones).
Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago, the far right, a 6-3
majority on the Supreme Court, quietly overturned Roe v. Wade.
Today, we pass the Women's Health Protection Act to restore
reproductive freedom nationwide and protect fundamental rights that the
Supreme Court will not.

These justices will do whatever they can to erase reproductive
rights. So we

[[Page H5152]]

must also restore balance to the Supreme Court by adding seats. The
American people agree. Not just 90 percent of Democrats, but 61 percent
of Independents.
Until we end the domination of the far-right majority, reproductive
freedom will never be secure.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, New Mexico is a border state with
Texas. Because of the extreme abortion ban, our Texas hermanas are
driving hours to receive abortion care in New Mexico.
We are receiving women's rights refugees with open arms, hearts, and
open clinics. To deputize complete strangers to interfere with a
woman's health choice is constitutionally, medically, and morally
wrong.
Many minority, LGBTQ, and low-income women can't afford to travel and
access quality healthcare. Let's pass the Women's Health Protection Act
so that we can protect women's freedom in every State.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).
Mrs. CAMMACK. Madam Speaker, I stand before you today, the daughter
of a single mother. I was the first in my family to go to college, an
individual who just 10 years ago was homeless, and now today a Member
of Congress.
A Member of Congress. People like me are not supposed to be here. We
just don't make it to quite this level, typically. And, quite frankly,
I am not supposed to be here breathing. You see, my mom when she was 27
years old suffered a stroke when she was pregnant with my sister. The
doctors told her then that she would never be able to have children
again.
So you can imagine, years later when she found herself pregnant with
me, she was scared and alone, and being told by her doctors that she
would not only die, that the child would die, too, and that she must
abort. But my mom did something incredibly brave that day, she made a
choice against the advice of her doctors, against the pressure of her
own family, and she chose life.
You know, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Madam
Speaker, have been talking about how our constitutional rights are
under attack, and I agree, they are. Because they begin with life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It starts with life.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand and fight for our unalienable
rights and the rights of those little girls yet to be born.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from North Carolina (Ms. Manning).
Ms. MANNING. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Women's
Health Protection Act. Congress must take action against the
Republican's relentless attacks on women's reproductive freedom,
including medically unnecessary restrictions and blatantly
unconstitutional bans on abortions. These State bans go against 50
years of judicial precedent.
We must take action now to protect women and their freedom to make
decisions about their own bodies, their own health, their own families.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this vital bill.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from Georgia (Ms. Williams).
Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of
reproductive freedom; for the people I met while working for Planned
Parenthood who had to travel across State lines just to get the care
that they need.
The relentless assault on abortion in State legislatures and
courtrooms has nothing to do with health or care. It is about scoring
political points on the backs of those most marginalized.
It might be Texas first, then Mississippi, then my home State of
Georgia where, as we speak, another despicable abortion ban is having
its day in Federal court right now.
We can't leave the right to safe and legal abortion to the whim of
States. Congress must ensure that everyone, no matter their ZIP Code,
can make decisions about their health and families freely.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the
Women's Health Protection Act.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), my classmate and champion
for life.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, the Women's Health Protection Act has
a powerfully good name, but the name masks its intention.
This bill would make America the most pro-abortion Nation on Earth.
It in no way advances the principles of inclusion and equity routinely
championed on this floor. It does just the opposite: it hurts the most
vulnerable in our society, expectant mothers and their preborn
children.
So, my colleagues, my friends, I urge us, let's please turn from the
contradictions here and maybe, just maybe, open our hearts to another
way. When there is news of an unexpected pregnancy and that vulnerable
moment of uncertainty, suppose that we as a community of care committed
to the journey of life to help a mother and her child, before birth, at
birth, and after birth. That is called commitment. That is called
compassion. That is called love. That is called care for her.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, S.B. 8 will kill women. It is a
dangerous, dangerous depriving of our constitutional rights, but it
will kill women. It is a bill that provides a provision that I have
never seen in my lifetime living in the United States of America, a
free Nation.
It actually sets a bounty, reminiscent of eras of dastardly life in
this country, the slave life; a bounty in order to stalk a woman to
ensure that the provider does not give and the woman does not get an
abortion.
I support this legislation because it upholds the Constitution, and I
look forward to my bill on preventing vigilante stalking being passed.
Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and the
Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security; a
member of the Democratic Working Women's Task Force, the representative
of 700,000 highly interested and affected persons in the Eighteenth
Congressional District of Texas; as a sponsor of the legislation; and
as a woman who was born and came of age during a period when the women
of America were denied rights that men took for granted, including the
basic human right of autonomy over one's own body and to decide for
herself the profound and fundamental question of whether to bear or
beget a child, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3755, the Women's
Health Protection Act, which protects 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.
I am extremely pleased that the Biden-Harris Administration strongly
endorses this legislation and urges its swift passage by the Congress.
Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 3755 because it states clearly and
unequivocally in Section 4 that 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 burdensome
limitations or requirements.
Burdensome and unlawful requirements include:
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.

[[Page H5153]]

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.
It is important to note that prior to fetal viability, the law
prohibits a health care requiring a patient seeking abortion services
to disclose the patient's reason or reasons for seeking abortion
services, or a limiting 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 the health care
provider believes the patient has for obtaining abortion services.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 3755 contains another important provision, this
one directed toward the judiciary, and it is that all courts are to
``liberally construe'' the provisions of the law to effectuate the
congressional intent in enacting the law and that courts are not to
construe the act in anyway ``to authorize any government to interfere
with a person's ability to terminate a pregnancy, or to diminish or in
any way negatively affect a person's constitutional right to terminate
a pregnancy.''
To enforce the provisions of the legislation, the Attorney General is
authorized to commence a civil action for prospective injunctive relief
on behalf of the United States against any government official that is
charged with implementing or enforcing any limitation or requirement
that is challenged as a violation of a statutory right under this Act.
In addition, H.R. 3755 authorizes private rights of action to be
brought for injunctive relief against the government official that is
charged with implementing or enforcing the challenged limitation or
requirement by any individual or entity, including any health care
provider, aggrieved by the alleged violation of this Act.
Madam Speaker, swift, clear, and decisive action to codify the rights
and protections provided by the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision
in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is the clearly required response to
the more than 500 state laws restricting abortion access over the past
decade.
These regressive restrictions have eliminated access to abortion care
in large swaths of the United States; nearly 90 percent of U.S.
counties are without a single abortion provider and five states are
down to their last clinic.
The people hurt most by abortion restrictions are those who already
face barriers to accessing health care-including Black, indigenous and
persons of color, women, those working to make ends meet, members of
the LGBTQI+ community, immigrants, young people, those living in rural
communities, and people with disabilities.
Madam Speaker, right-wing Republican legislators passed, and the
Republican governor signed, Texas SB8, an extreme and facially
unconstitutional law that contemptuously violates existing Supreme
Court precedent.
The Texas law significantly impairs women's access to critical
reproductive health care, particularly affecting communities of color,
individuals with low incomes, and those who live in rural or
underserved communities.
The law also turns private citizens into bounty hunters who are
empowered to bring lawsuits against anyone who they believe has helped
another person get an abortion, including family members, faith
leaders, Uber drivers and others providing transportation, and health
care providers.
The new Texas law prohibits abortions as early as six weeks into a
pregnancy and creates the opportunity for almost any private citizen to
sue abortion providers and women seeking to terminate their pregnancy
past six weeks.
The law effectively bans abortion in Texas, as the six-week cutoff is
just two weeks after a missed menstrual cycle.
The ``hotline'' reporting system in the Texas law is particularly
malicious.
Since enforcement of the bill lies entirely with private citizens,
Texans are incentivized to stalk women as they make vitally important
decisions about their own health.
It is anathema to the conscience of the United States of America to
have individuals following women to determine whether they have or will
receive an abortion.
We saw similar occurrences during the KGB era of the Soviet Union, as
neighbor spied on, lied against, and turned against neighbor to hand
over their fellow citizens to the state.
We are Americans, and to have a law that so blatantly foments
distrust and stalking among our citizenry is a blatant spit in the face
of the principles on which this country was founded.
To assist in stopping this law, and to protect women from vigilante
bounty hunters, I have introduced H.R. 5226, the ``Preventing Vigilante
Stalking that Stops Women's Access to Healthcare and Abortion Rights
Act of 2021.''
This bill would enhance criminal penalties under the federal stalking
statute if the stalking is done with the intent to prevent or report on
a woman's health decisions.
Importantly, this bill does not include any mandatory minimums.
This bill will weaken the incentive to stalk women by bolstering the
criminal penalties under the federal stalking statute if the stalking
is intended to prevent or report on a woman's health decisions.
Additionally, earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court announced
that in December it will hear argument on a Mississippi law banning
abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, which represents a direct
challenge to the continued vitality of Roe v. Wade.
Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of these continued
attacks to undermine a woman's right to reproductive health care is
that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of
circumstances.
Women like Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water
broke and tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a
premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved
viability.
This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a
shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move
limbs.
In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to the
face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to develop beyond the 22-
week point.
There was less than a 10% chance that, if born, Danielle's baby would
be able to breathe on its own and only a 2% chance the baby would be
able to eat on its own.
Abridging a woman's right to reproductive health care hurts women
like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered months into her pregnancy
that the fetus she was carrying suffered from several major anomalies
and had no chance of survival and whose physician determined that
because of Vikki's diabetes, induced labor and Caesarian section were
both riskier procedures for Vikki than an abortion.
SB8 is the most brazen, but not the first, attempt to roll back
women's reproductive health care rights in Texas.
In 2013 Texas passed a law that would have cut off access to 75
percent of reproductive healthcare clinics in the state had it not been
challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015.
On October 2, 2014, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional
a Texas law that required that all reproductive healthcare clinics that
provided the full range of services would be required to have a
hospital-style surgery center building and staffing requirements.
This requirement meant that only 7 clinics in the entire state would
be allowed to continue to provide a full spectrum of reproductive
healthcare to women.
But because Texas is a vast state comprising 268,580 square miles,
(second only in size and population to the state of California),
implementation of the law would have ended access to reproductive
services for millions of women in my state.
In 2015, the State of Texas once again threatened women's access to
reproductive health care when it attempted to shutter all but 10
healthcare providers in the state of Texas.
The Supreme Court once again intervened on behalf of Texas women to
block the move to close clinics.
Madam Speaker, since the United States Supreme Court ruled over 40
years ago, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), that a woman's
constitutional right to privacy includes her right to abortion, both
abortion rates and risks have substantially declined, as have the
number of teen and unwanted pregnancies.
If opponents were so concerned about women's health and safety, they
would be promoting any one of the number of evidence-based proactive
policies that improve women's health and well-being.
Instead, they are continuing their assault on women's constitutional
rights and their campaign to outlaw abortion.
That is their number one priority; it is certainly not about
protecting women's health; it is about politics.

[[Page H5154]]

It is clear women are under attack and must be on perpetual guard
against new attacks on women's access to reproductive health care,
often couched in those same terms.
Madam Speaker, this is not what the American people want.
Support for abortion access is at an all-time high; nearly 80 percent
of Americans do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.
There is no state in the Nation where making abortion illegal is
popular.
The American people want more access to health care, not less, and it
is more critical than ever to see through this inflammatory
misinformation campaign.
Madam Speaker, the right to make decisions about reproductive health
care, including abortion, is central to individual equality.
The right enables a person to decide if, when, and how to start and
grow their family.
It enables people to pursue and advance in their education and
employment, and to be full and equal participants in society.
Laws that restrict reproductive freedom, including restrictions on
abortion and birth control, perpetuate harmful stereotypes about gender
roles and undermine gender equality.
Courts, federal law, and the public have long connected reproductive
freedom with equality.
Reproductive freedom is central to women's equality, for as the
Supreme Court said in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992):
``The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and
social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to
control their reproductive lives.''
Americans understand this connection and it is reflected in a January
2019 national poll showing 71% of voters agree--48% agree strongly--
that equal rights for women includes access to reproductive health
care.
State laws like Texas SB8 represent unconstitutional infringements on
the right to privacy, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long
line of cases going back to Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479
(1965) and, of course, Roe v. Wade.
In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could not prohibit a
woman from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to
protect her health prior to viability.
While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus
of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not
occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation.
Supreme Court precedents make it clear that neither Congress nor a
state legislature can declare any one element--``be it weeks of
gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor--as the
determinant'' of viability. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89
(1979).
The constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right
of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even
later, where continuing the pregnancy to term poses a threat to a
woman's life, health, or safety.
This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate.
Madam Speaker, every pregnancy is different, and no politician knows,
or has the right to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her
family.
These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in
consultation with their partners, doctors, and their God.
I urge all Members to join me in voting 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 by voting
for H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act.

[From the Intelligencer, Sept. 3, 2021]

Texas Is Already Creating Abortion Refugees

(By Melissa Jeltsen)

Just pause and breathe. We're going to help, but I need you
to take a breath and calm down for a moment.
Kathaleen Pittman, director of the Hope Medical Clinic for
Women in Shreveport, Louisiana, repeated this mantra over and
over to the teary women on the other end of the phone. The
calls were coming from all over Texas, where abortion is
currently banned at about six weeks, before many women know
they are pregnant. They wanted to know if they could get an
abortion in Louisiana instead.
``The phone has been ringing off the wall, patients
attempting to get in,'' Pittman said. But appointments were
scarce. When I spoke with her on Thursday, Hope Medical
Clinic was the only functioning abortion clinic in the state
of Louisiana; the other two remaining clinics were closed due
to power outages caused by Hurricane Ida. ``Right now we are
booked out three, possibly four weeks just to get in for that
first visit,'' Pittman said, noting that a state-mandated
waiting period requires patients to come to the clinic twice.
``We're going to see women who are terminating later in the
pregnancy than desired because they simply can't get in
quickly enough,'' she said. Others, she feared, wouldn't be
able to get an abortion at all. ``Of course it's going to be
the women who have no money,'' she added. ``It's always the
women without the means that suffer the most.''
In the wake of SB 8, which went into effect on Wednesday,
many clinics in Texas are still providing abortions for
patients up to six-weeks pregnant, or before embryonic
cardiac activity can be detected. Everyone else--estimated to
be about 85 percent of all abortion patients--is now being
referred out of state. As a result, clinics in Oklahoma,
Louisiana, New Mexico, Colorado, and Kansas are being
inundated with a surge of pregnant people who are racing
against the clock for care. Yet, in many of these states,
years of constant antiabortion attacks have eroded the
existing reproductive health infrastructure, leaving a
fragile system that is ill-equipped to absorb the additional
demand.
``The second largest state in the country goes dark on a
service and everyone else surrounding is trying to support
and provide care,'' said Emily Wales, interim president and
CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, which covers
Arkansas, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Clinics in all three states
are seeing an increase in Texas patients, she said,
especially in Oklahoma. At the same time, abortion access is
under attack there; five new abortion restrictions are set to
go into effect on November 1. ``It feels a little bit like
it's whack-a-mole right now in trying to beat back what are
medically unnecessary requirements to ensure ongoing
access,'' Wales said.
While other states have passed similar six-week abortion
bans, the Texas law is the only one that has been allowed to
go into effect. That's because of the unique way it was
drafted. The state does not enforce the law. Instead, SB 8
deputizes regular people to file civil lawsuits against
doctors or anyone else who knowingly ``aids or abets'' an
abortion. The law appears to have been intentionally designed
this way to thwart judicial action.
At Trust Women's clinic in Oklahoma City, which is one of
the closest abortion clinics for people in north Texas,
abortion appointments are already being booked three weeks
into September, just like at Hope Medical Clinic in
Louisiana. ``All of our doctors fly in from other states,''
explained Zack Gingrich-Gaylord, communications director for
Trust Women. ``We're currently asking them to consider
working additional days, but of course, our doctors also
practice medicine in their home states as well.'' Trust Women
has another clinic in Wichita, Kansas, with slightly more
availability, but to get there, Texas patients must travel
even further. ``We've already started seeing some of those
Texas patients today, and we've got some scheduled
tomorrow,'' said Ashley Brink, the Wichita clinic director.
``It's been a really emotional time. A lot of these folks,
they're scared, they're confused, they're sad.''
Kristina Tocce, medical director at Planned Parenthood of
the Rocky Mountains, said she was seeing the same uptick in
Colorado and New Mexico. ``I'm very nervous for patients who
need services immediately because this was an immediate hard
stop to abortion services in Texas without a clear path for
those patients as to where they can go,'' she said. ``Texas
is essentially a pre-Roe world now.''
The distance to the nearest clinic is only one of the
problems that Texas patients now face, said Alan Braid, the
owner and medical director of Alamo Women's Reproductive
Services in San Antonio. Many patients are already mothers,
and cannot leave their jobs or their children for the length
of time needed to access care in another state. Some are
undocumented and cannot travel with ease.
``It sounds very easy--oh well, you can't get it in Texas,
just go to Oklahoma, New Mexico. But the people that we see--
that hourly wage patient, the single mom, the people that
don't have the means to travel--it's impossible for them,''
he said. ``That's like saying well, just hop on a plane and,
you know, go to France. It's beautiful there, you can get an
abortion and then take a walk down the Champs-Elysees.''
Braid, who has been providing abortion care in Texas since
he began his OB/GYN internship in 1972, said this was the
worst climate he had ever seen for reproductive rights in
Texas since before Roe v. Wade. The new law, with its
vigilante-enforcement scheme, is spreading fear and distrust.
``You can feel it in the room,'' he said. ``It hangs heavy.''
As a provider, he said, he is usually optimistic that he can
support his patients and meet their needs. ``Now, when I walk
in the room, I have huge doubts about whether I'm going to be
able to help,'' he said. ``I'm not used to that.''
He expressed deep concern about what patients will do to
obtain abortions if they can't get one inside Texas when they
need it. He still has a powerful memory of three teenagers
dying from septic shock and organ failure after obtaining
back-alley abortions back when he was an intern in 1972.
``That's where we're headed,'' he said. ``I promise you
that people are going to cross the border to Mexico. They're
going to self-induce.''

[From the AP News, Sept. 2, 2021]

New Texas Abortion Law Pushes Women to Out-of-State Clinics

Even before a strict abortion ban took effect in Texas this
week, clinics in neighboring states were fielding growing
numbers of calls from women desperate for options.
An Oklahoma clinic had received more than double its number
of typical inquiries, two-thirds of them from Texas. A Kansas
clinic is anticipating a patient increase of up

[[Page H5155]]

to 40% based on calls from women in Texas. A Colorado clinic
that already had started seeing more patients from other
states was preparing to ramp up supplies and staffing in
anticipation of the law taking effect.
The Texas law, allowed to stand in a decision Thursday by
the U.S. Supreme Court, bans abortions once medical
professionals can detect cardiac activity, typically around
six weeks. In a highly unusual twist, enforcement will be
done by private citizens who can sue anyone they believe is
violating the law.
``There's real panic about how are they going to get an
abortion within six weeks,'' said Anna Rupani, co-director of
Fund Texas Choice, one of several nonprofits that help pay
for travel and other expenses for patients seeking out-of-
state abortions. ``There's this fear that if I can't get it
done in six weeks, I may not be able to get it done because I
may not be able to leave my job or my family for more than a
day.''
Traveling for an abortion may be impossible for women who
would struggle to find child care or take time off work. And
for those without legal U.S. status along Texas' southern
border, traveling to an abortion clinic also entails the risk
of getting stopped at a checkpoint.
Fund Texas Choice is among the groups seeking to expand a
network that helps women in Texas and other places with
restrictive abortion laws end their pregnancies in other
states. It already has seen more women reaching out. The
organization typically handles 10 new cases per week but
received 10 calls from new clients just Wednesday, when the
law took effect.
The phenomenon is not new. Women have been increasingly
seeking out-of-state abortions as Republican legislatures and
governors have passed ever-tighter abortion laws,
particularly in the South. At least 276,000 women terminated
their pregnancies outside their home state between 2012 and
2017, according to a 2019 Associated Press analysis of state
and federal data.
The trend appears to have accelerated over the past year.
Abortion clinics in neighboring states began seeing an uptick
in calls from Texas after Gov. Greg Abbott banned abortions
in March 2020 for nearly a month under a COVID-19 executive
order.
The number of Texans seeking abortions in Planned
Parenthood clinics in the Rocky Mountain region, which covers
Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming and southern Nevada, was 12
times higher that month. In California, 7,000 patients came
from other states to Planned Parenthood clinics in 2020.
The number of Texans getting abortions in Kansas jumped
from 25 in 2019 to 289 last year. The Trust Women clinic in
Wichita accounted for 203 of those procedures in a three-
month period. Those patients traveled an average of 650 miles
(1,000 kilometers), Trust Women spokesman Zack Gingrich-
Gaylord said.
``Last year was a dress rehearsal,'' he said, predicting
similar numbers under the new Texas law.
One woman discovered she was pregnant just as Abbott's
emergency order banning abortions was lifted. She and her
partner had lost their jobs in San Antonio during the
pandemic.
``We didn't know which way the world was going to go with
everything shut down and no change in sight,'' said Miranda,
who spoke on the condition that only her first name be used
for fear of harassment and intimidation. ``The last thing I
wanted to do was be pregnant.''
She struggled to find an abortion clinic that could help
her. An online search led her to Fund Texas Choice and the
Lilith Fund, another organization that offers financial
assistance to Texans seeking abortions. They offered to pay
for a flight to New Mexico.
``It's so comforting because it's like someone saying, `We
got you. Let's take care of this together,' '' Miranda said.
Eventually, she found an appointment at a clinic in Dallas,
a five-hour drive away. The groups helped with gas and
lodging, aid that will be even more important with the new
law, Miranda said.
``To be able to help me in a time of need when I had
nothing, not even a job--that's something I think a lot of
women would benefit from if they knew those options were
there,'' she said.
Trust Women Wichita clinic director Ashley Brink said the
phones have been busier than normal this week with potential
patients from Texas and beyond. Women also have been calling
from Louisiana and Alabama who would typically get abortion
care in Texas but are having to travel even farther.
The clinic typically sees 40 to 50 abortion patients in a
week and now is expecting an additional 15 to 20.
At Trust Women's clinic in Oklahoma City, 80 appointments
were scheduled over the past two days, more than double the
typical amount, co-executive director Rebecca Tong said. Two-
thirds were from Texas, and the earliest opening was three
weeks out.
``Oklahoma has just barely enough clinics for the amount of
people here,'' Tong said. ``If anyone is thinking, `Oh, they
can just go out of state, it'll be so easy,' a lot of clinics
in the Midwest and South, we don't do abortion care five days
a week.''
Oklahoma providers also face the potential for abortion
restrictions similar to those in Texas in a matter of months.
In recent months, 15% of patients supported by Cobalt, an
abortion access advocacy group in Colorado, were from out of
state, president Karen Middleton said. She expects that
number to keep rising.
The group administers a fund to cover the cost of the
procedure, travel, lodging and meals. It began preparing for
a potential influx of patients from Texas several weeks ago.
``We reached out to everyone who provides abortion care in
the state of Colorado,'' Middleton said. ``We asked them to
be ready and to let us know if they could handle increased
capacity.''
Traveling for the procedure may still be out of reach for
some. Women without legal U.S. status might turn to abortion
medication, said Diana Gomez, advocacy manager with Progress
Texas, though even that option is in question.
Several Republican-led states have passed laws making it
harder to access the pills and banning prescriptions through
virtual health visits. Texas is considering similar
restrictions, which could force women to get pills by mail
for do-it-yourself abortions or other methods.
``They are going to have to go underground and find
alternative means in our state,'' Gomez said.

[From TIME, Sept. 23, 2021]

Florida Lawmaker Proposes Abortion Ban That Mimics Texas SB-8 Law

A Florida legislator has proposed banning most abortions in
the state and allowing lawsuits against doctors who violate
it, mirroring a Texas law that instituted the strictest
abortion restrictions in the U.S.
It wasn't immediately clear how much support the bill would
garner. The Republican-controlled Florida legislature has
shown significant support for tighter abortion policies, but
Governor Ron DeSantis said he hadn't reviewed this specific
proposal and the GOP House speaker was similarly noncommittal
on Wednesday.
The bill, proposed by state Representative Webster Barnaby,
a Republican, would require doctors in Florida to perform
tests to determine if a fetus has a detectable heartbeat
before performing an abortion.
If a physician detects a heartbeat, according to the bill,
abortion would be prohibited. The measure also would allow
doctors to be sued if suspected of performing an abortion
after detecting a heartbeat, matching a powerful provision in
the Texas law, known as Senate Bill Eight, or SB-8.
The bill appeared to be a clear example of a Texas copycat
law in another large, GOP-controlled state. In the days after
the Texas law took effect, abortion clinics turned away
hundreds of patients. It was seen by abortion-rights
supporters as an end-run around Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme
Court decision that has been the foundation of abortion
rights in the U.S. ever since.
Florida's Republican House Speaker Chris Sprowls said
through a spokesman that he supported stricter abortion
restrictions, but said that any bill brought to the floor
would have to withstand judicial scrutiny.
``We look forward to bringing to the Floor a bill that
saves every unborn life possible,'' he said. ``I have asked
House Judiciary Committee Chairwoman Erin Grall and House
Health & Human Services Chairwoman Colleen Burton to review
the various proposals, look at other ideas, and take point on
this issue this Session.''
Still, the Florida proposal sparked immediate condemnation
from abortion rights advocates, who called legislation
unconstitutional and part of a flurry of harsh restrictions
on women's rights.
``We are horrified to see anti-choice politicians in
Florida following in Texas' footsteps, and there's no
question that lawmakers hostile to reproductive freedom in
other states will do the same,'' Adrienne Kimmell, acting
president of Naral Pro-Choice America, said in a statement.
Early this month, a sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court
refused to block the Texas law, which outlaws most abortions
after six weeks of pregnancy. SB-8, bars abortion after a
fetal heartbeat can be detected and puts clinics at risk of
being shut down if they are found to be in violation.
Asked about Barnaby's bill on Wednesday in Kissimmee,
Desantis said he considered his record ``100% pro-life'' but
added that he had not seen it.
Desantis, a Republican seen as a potential presidential
candidate, has rejected coronavirus mask mandates and so-
called vaccine passports, saying his position is largely
about an individual's right to determine their healthcare
choices. He said Wednesday that the abortion question was
different because ``another life is at stake.''
Democratic candidates vying to replace Desantis in the 2022
election firmly opposed the legislation.
``This is a direct attack on a woman's right to choose,''
Charlie Crist, a former governor, said on Twitter. ``We're
going to have to fight tooth and nail to protect reproductive
freedom.''
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am ready to close, whenever the
gentlewoman is ready. I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1045

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne), who is a champion for life.

[[Page H5156]]

Ms. VAN DUYNE. Madam Speaker, years ago, I, like many women, suffered
a miscarriage. I should have been able to hold my son in my arms, but
that was not God's plan. Years later, I still grieve that loss--and not
the loss of a generic cluster of cells, but an actual baby who would
have been about this size. My son had his own unique set of DNA,
fingerprints, blood type, and a heartbeat--every marker that we use to
identify a human being.
Pregnancy is difficult on a policy and personal level, but to deny
that a child growing inside a woman is nothing more than an
inconvenience is to ignore the value of life. Losing a child changed
who I was, and it is the same for most women. We can't pretend that
this loss doesn't have lifelong consequences.
Instead of promoting ways for women to end their pregnancies, we
should be helping expectant mothers find the medical, emotional, and
financial support they need. But that has never been the Democrats'
focus. The party that claims to protect women is actively supporting
policies that devalue the lives of women and children across the globe.
Their policies have turned the human trafficking of children into a
multibillion dollar industry and supported a terrorist regime since
Afghanistan's takeover that went from educating and valuing the
contribution of women to whipping them in the streets.
This bill is called the Women's Health Protection Act. But make no
mistake, Madam Speaker, no woman is protected under this bill. Rather,
it authorizes killing for the sake of convenience. Innocent human lives
are either valued or they are not. This bill is merely another example
of the dehumanizing policy platform the Democrats have adopted. America
is founded on the protection of life.
Madam Speaker, as a Texas woman, a mother, and an American, I
encourage the Chamber to reject this barbaric bill and embrace life.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Louisiana (Ms. Letlow), who is the 31st pro-life
Congresswoman.
Ms. LETLOW. Madam Speaker, I rise to offer an amendment to this bill.
However, before I talk about the amendment, I think it is important
for the House to note that the legislation before us is perhaps the
most extreme abortion measure that Congress has ever considered. It
will overturn countless protections for the unborn that States have
already put into place, including those in my home State of Louisiana.
As both a woman and, most importantly, a mother of two children, I
feel uniquely qualified to speak about this issue. I have experienced
firsthand the miracle of life and know the incredible intricacy of how
a child is formed in the womb. Intimately knowing the special bond that
grows between a mother and a child over those 9 months, I do not
understand how we can pass this bill, a law that will allow an abortion
to be performed up until the actual moment of birth, despite the fact
that the child has a fully developed heart and can feel pain.
The amendment I am bringing forward is the text of the Born-Alive
Abortion Survivors Protection Act in which my distinguished colleague
from Missouri, Ann Wagner, has been an outstanding leader.
This amendment is simple, straightforward, and the right thing to do.
It would ensure that newborn children who survive an abortion are given
the same crucial, lifesaving medical care that any infant would
receive.
The most transformational moment in my life was when I held my two
children in my arms for the first time. I have always considered myself
to be pro-life, but I never truly understood the sanctity of life until
that moment. I can't image why anybody would intentionally deny a
precious child taking his first beautiful, beautiful breaths of life
the very care that would keep them alive.
This language has received bipartisan support in the past, and I hope
my colleagues across the aisle will join us in voting in favor of this
important measure that will truly save the lives of countless children.
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 Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Ms. DeGETTE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Madam
Speaker.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my
colleagues to stop this bill. Open your minds to science and
technology. Look and see the mysteries of the mother's womb. Open your
ears to the cries of the unborn. May hearts break, and may we celebrate
life--life in the United States of America--life for the living and the
unborn.
Vote ``no.''
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Judy Chu, the
author of this legislation who has been fighting tirelessly for years,
also Barbara Lee, my co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus, and to all of
our colleagues who value Americans' freedoms and the freedom of women
to have the full range of healthcare that they need.
This bill codifies the content of the law of the land, Roe v. Wade,
no more and no less.
The overheated and incorrect rhetoric on the other side of the aisle
is shameful. It is shameful because it denies the freedom of all
Americans to get the healthcare services that they need and to which
they are entitled.
Madam Speaker, we are a country of freedom, and we are a country of
freedom of religion. As a practicing Christian, I am offended by the
efforts on the other side of the aisle for people to impose their--
their personal--religious views on me as a Christian.
Every woman and every man in this country deserves the freedom to
exercise their religion and also to exercise their ability to get the
healthcare that they need.
For more than 50 years, as so many of my wonderful colleagues said,
women across this country have had the right to get the abortion care
they need because of a landmark decision made right across the street.
But that right is being severely undermined in States across the
country like Texas, Mississippi, and other States.
For people in Texas and these other States, 50 years of precedent and
healthcare access is being undermined as we speak. There are more than
500 laws that have been introduced in States across this country that
would restrict the ability of Americans to get the healthcare that they
need and deserve. As a result, more than 90 percent of American
counties no longer have abortion clinics. Some people might think that
is good, but the vast majority of Americans believe that it is the
choice of a woman and her healthcare provider about what healthcare she
should receive.
So today, if the Justices across the street won't act to protect this
freedom of healthcare, this House of Representatives will.
I will say it again: the decision of a woman to have an abortion
should be made between her and her doctor. The last thing the women in
this country want is a bunch of politicians in Washington, D.C., or in
Austin, Texas, or someone else telling them what their healthcare
should be.
So, therefore, let's codify Roe v. Wade. Let's codify these rights.
Let's stop the histrionics and inaccurate rhetoric. Let's oppose the
motion to recommit. Let's support this wonderful bill, the Women's
Health Protection Act.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'', and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues and this
House to oppose H.R. 3755. This legislation overrides nearly all pro-
life protections on the books and codifies a federal right to abortion
at any stage of pregnancy until birth. This bill isn't just misleading.
It's a radical departure from the national consensus that exists in
America right now in favor of life. But if H.R. 3755 goes forward, laws
that protect unborn children with Down Syndrome and babies with other
disabilities go away everywhere. Laws allow parents to be involved in
their minor children's decision-making disappear. Laws that provide for
medical consultations prior to this procedure--

[[Page H5157]]

gone. This isn't just politics as usual. It's a power play that targets
the powerless. It should never come to this. There is a common-sense
consensus on this issue. A great majority of the American people want
to see life protected. This is worth the fight. This is the time to
stand up for our most vulnerable. This is the time to reach for what
matters most. This is the time to choose life. H.R. 3755 must not
become law of the land.
Ms. ADAMS. Madam Speaker, I want to amplify the voice of Calla Hales,
a woman in my district who is both an abortion care provider, and a
mother.

``Last year, I made the choice to have a child with my
husband.
What I didn't choose was prenatal checkups with COVID
precautions. I didn't choose the complications I had during
my pregnancy. I didn't choose delivering my amazing baby girl
without my family because the pandemic limited the visitors
in the maternity ward.
I didn't choose worrying every day if she would be safe
from the coronavirus, despite her pulmonary issues.
I am proud of the choice that I made, in spite of
everything that's gone wrong over the past two years.
But no one should ever be forced to make that choice. No
person should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, during
a global pandemic, or any other time.''
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act. I want to thank my
colleague Rep. Judy Chu for leading the charge on this important
legislation to protect the full range of health care, including
abortion.
Every American deserves to live a safe and healthy life, and that
means ensuring that everyone has access to the health services they
need including contraceptives, checkups, abortion care, cancer
screenings, pre-natal visits and more. The full range of health care.
But too often in America access to high-quality, affordable health care
has been limited due to racial disparities or economic disparities or
where someone lives.
I'm really proud of what Democrats have done over the decades to
improve the lives of American families and improve their health care,
Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and children's health
insurance, but we're in a moment in time where there's a radical fringe
trying to take over these decisions.
We must remember that the decision about when, whether or how to
become a parent is a deeply personal life decision. It's a decision for
a person and their family; it is not a decision for politicians in
Washington or in state capitols across this country. Americans do not
want to outsource these important fundamental life decisions to
politicians. And I hope we can agree that we should not treat people
differently just because they are working to make ends meet, or because
of the color of their skin or where they live. As fundamental human
dignity means being able to make decisions about your pathway in life,
being able to determine your own pathway in life for yourself, not have
it be made by some politician. I have to say it is so alarming to see
this radical move by Republicans in Congress and in the recent extreme
new law in Texas that would effectively ban abortion.
For too long, we have seen Republicans across this country attack
family planning and reproductive health care, including abortion and
contraceptives. It's radical and it's wrong.
Well good news, we are going to do our job as members of Congress
today to put people's health, safety and real needs first. We've got to
ensure that all people no matter who they are, where they live and how
much they make and the color of their skin, have access to reproductive
health care--including abortion--that they need, and they deserve.
I urge my colleagues to make health care accessible to all Americans
by supporting H.R. 3755.
Mr. LATTA. Madam Speaker, the Women's Health Protection Act (H.R.
3755)--otherwise known as the Abortion on Demand Act--is an extreme
measure that would impose abortion on demand nationwide, at any stage
of pregnancy, through federal statute. This would result in the
elimination of every state's pro-life laws and protections. Overriding
state pro-life laws and prohibiting states from enacting legislation
protecting unborn children would make protections for babies with Down
syndrome and other disabilities illegal. Plain and simple, this
legislation is extreme.
This legislation is radically out of step with the American public,
who do not support abortions with no limits. According to the
Associated Press, 80 percent of Americans say abortion should be
illegal in the third trimester.
This bill would create a national standard to allow for abortions of
unborn children for any reason and at any stage of pregnancy up until
birth. A better and more accurate name for this bill would be the
Abortion on Demand until Birth Act--because it is clear the focus of
this bill is not protecting women's health like the current name
suggests.
Abortion ends the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human
being. Tragically, abortion continues to put women in danger, takes the
life of innocent children, and fails to recognize the dignity of all
lives, regardless of how small. I adamantly oppose this legislation and
any legislation that fails to protect the unborn.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, abortion care is healthcare.
The Women's Health Protection Act protects the right of healthcare
providers to provide abortion care free from undue burdens.
This bill is needed now more than ever with Texas creating the
harshest most inhumane abortion ban. And for all the men in this room--
that is one missed period. One.
And frankly, I'm old enough to remember what this country looked like
before Roe . . .
Such draconian laws disproportionally impact Black, indigenous,
LGBTQ+ individuals, and especially those experiencing domestic violence
and sexual assault.
Abortion care is essential. Period.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson Lee). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 667, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
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

Ms. LETLOW. 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. Letlow moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3755 to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Letlow is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

SECTION 10. 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

[[Page H5158]]

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 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.
Ms. LETLOW. 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 210,
nays 219, not voting 2, as follows:

[Roll No. 294]

YEAS--210

Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Young
Zeldin

NAYS--219

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--2

Cheney
Lesko

{time} 1125

Mses. SPEIER, LEGER FERNANDEZ, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York,
Mses. CLARK of Massachusetts, HOULAHAN, Messrs. GOMEZ, TRONE, Ms.
KUSTER, Mr. DELGADO, Mses. JAYAPAL and SPANBERGER changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. GREENE of Georgia and Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress

[[Page H5159]]

Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
Higgins (NY) (Tonko)
Himes (Hayes)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Kim (NJ) (Underwood)
Kirkpatrick (Levin (CA))
Larson (CT) (DeLauro)
Latta (Walberg)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
Levin (MI) (Raskin)
McEachin (Wexton)
McHenry (Banks)
Meng (Jeffries)
Morelle (Tonko)
Napolitano (Correa)
Neal (McGovern)
Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
Perlmutter (Neguse)
Peters (Rice (NY))
Porter (Wexton)
Reschenthaler (Meuser)
Rice (SC) (Timmons)
Rush (Underwood)
Ryan (Kildee)
Sewell (Cicilline)
Sires (Pallone)
Stanton (Levin (CA))
Stefanik (Miller-Meeks)
Steube (Franklin, Scott C.)
Strickland (Torres (NY))
Wagner (Walorski)
Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Lee of California). The question is on
the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 211, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 295]

YEAS--218

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--211

Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Young
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--3

Cheney
Lawson (FL)
Lesko

{time} 1153

Mr. CHABOT changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. LAWSON of Florida. Madam Speaker, the Member, who is my
designated proxy, did not submit my vote as instructed on September 24,
2021. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No.
295, passage of H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act.

Personal Explanation

Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, on Friday, September 24, 2021, I was
attending a funeral in Wyoming and was absent for votes. Had I been
present, I would have voted: yea on rollcall No. 294 and nay on
rollcall No. 295.

Personal Explanation

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted
``yea'' on rollcall No. 294 and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 295.

Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

Babin (Nehls)
Boyle, Brendan F. (Jeffries)
Carter (GA) (Rodgers (WA))
Carter (TX) (Calvert)
Craig (McCollum)
DeSaulnier (Thompson (CA))
DesJarlais (Fleischmann)
Escobar (Garcia (TX))
Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
Fulcher (Johnson (OH))
Gaetz (Greene (GA))
Gallego (Gomez)
Gimenez (Waltz)
Gonzalez (OH) (Timmons)
Gosar (Boebert)
Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
Higgins (NY) (Tonko)
Himes (Hayes)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Kim (NJ) (Underwood)
Kirkpatrick (Levin (CA))
Larson (CT) (DeLauro)
Latta (Walberg)
Levin (MI) (Raskin)
McEachin (Wexton)
McHenry (Banks)
Meng (Jeffries)
Morelle (Tonko)
Napolitano (Correa)
Neal (McGovern)
Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
Perlmutter (Neguse)
Peters (Rice (NY))
Porter (Wexton)
Reschenthaler (Meuser)
Rice (SC) (Timmons)
Rush (Underwood)
Ryan (Kildee)
Sewell (Cicilline)
Sires (Pallone)
Stanton (Levin (CA))
Stefanik (Miller-Meeks)
Steube (Franklin, Scott C.)
Strickland (Torres (NY))
Wagner (Walorski)
Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

____________________