[Pages H201-H210]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SUPPORTING PREGNANT AND PARENTING WOMEN AND FAMILIES ACT

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 969,
I call up the bill (H.R. 6918) to prohibit the Secretary of Health and
Human Services from restricting funding for pregnancy centers, and ask
for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost). Pursuant to House Resolution 969,
in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Ways and Means printed in the bill, an amendment in
the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee
Print 118-20 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 6918

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Supporting Pregnant and
Parenting Women and Families Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PREGNANCY
CENTERS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
may not finalize, implement, or enforce, with respect to
expenditures for any pregnancy center, the modification to
section 263.11 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, as
described in the proposed regulation set forth beginning on
page 67697 of volume 88 of the Federal Register, or any
substantially similar regulatory action.
(b) Definition of Pregnancy Center.--In subsection (a), the
term ``pregnancy center'' means any organization, such as a
pregnancy resource center, pregnancy help center or
organization, or pregnancy medical center, that--

[[Page H202]]

(1) supports protecting the life of the mother and the
unborn child; and
(2) offers resources and services to mothers, fathers, and
families, including but not limited to relationship
counseling, prenatal and pregnancy education, pregnancy
testing, diapers, baby clothes, or material supports.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Sanchez) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).

General Leave

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
submit extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, right after the Dobbs Supreme Court decision, nearly 100
pregnancy resource centers, pro-life organizations, and churches were
smashed, ransacked, vandalized, graffitied, and even firebombed. While
the violence has subsided, pregnancy resource centers around the
country are still under attack, this time by the Biden administration.
Last year, the Biden administration proposed a rule at the Department
of Health and Human Services that blocks States from funding pregnancy
resource centers through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
block grant program.
These centers exist to provide care and support for pregnant women
looking for an alternative to abortion. Mothers can receive help for
themselves and the health of their unborn child, including everything
from diapers and prenatal vitamins to transportation and parenting
classes.
The Biden administration's proposed rule has the potential to impact
over 2,700 such centers around the country that in 2019 alone provided
medical and material support to over 2 million women and families.
Nothing in the bipartisan law that created TANF gives the Biden
administration the authority to unfairly target pregnancy resource
centers. In fact, it prohibits the government from restricting TANF
funds, yet that is exactly what the Biden administration is trying to
do.
This funding is critical to keeping the doors open and providing care
for women seeking help. For example, in my home State of Missouri, TANF
provides $3 of every $4 the State provides to pregnancy resource
centers, where expectant moms can get everything from diapers and food
to transportation, parenting skills classes, and prenatal care. These
are services that every single expectant mother needs for a healthy
pregnancy, and pregnancy resource centers have stepped in to fill these
basic needs.
The hypocrisy on the part of the Biden administration could not be
more clear. They claim to support a woman's right to choose her own
healthcare while at the same time the President is making it harder for
moms to choose life for their unborn child so his administration can
funnel even more resources to organizations like Planned Parenthood. If
this rule takes effect, pregnant women in America will have fewer
healthcare options and less access to care.
As tomorrow's March for Life will remind us all, the rights of
mothers and the unborn must be protected.
I thank Representative Fischbach for introducing this bill that would
end the Biden administration's misguided rule targeting pregnancy
resource centers and for her unwavering support of women and the
unborn. I also thank Representatives Tenney and Chris Smith for
cosponsoring the bill and for their leadership on this issue. Each one
has been a tireless fighter to advance the right to life for decades.
I hope that each one of my colleagues will support this legislation,
stand up for mothers, and protect the right to life.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today, the majority is pushing yet another extreme anti-
choice bill just in time for the big antiwoman rally in Washington this
weekend.
Rather than helping hardworking American families, Republicans are
working to divert Federal funds from needy children in order to serve
their own extremist agenda that is out of step with the majority of
Americans.
Republicans are attempting to funnel more Federal funds into
dangerous anti-abortion facilities, the so-called pregnancy centers.
The other side doesn't even dispute that these centers have a specific
agenda: to do everything they can within their power to coerce women
into doing what the center thinks is best for the women, not what is in
the best interest of the mother.
These so-called crisis pregnancy centers provide deceptive and
inaccurate information to pregnant women.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program is intended to
help low-income women and families, not to reduce abortions. This
funding was not intended to bankroll deceptive anti-abortion centers
that misrepresent themselves as healthcare facilities. These facilities
often delay access to care, and they use emotional manipulation to
divert access to care from licensed medical professionals.
The American Medical Association, the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and even the National Institutes of
Health have all issued reports citing numerous ethical and medical
concerns with these so-called centers.
These facilities are unregulated. They have no legal obligation to
provide pregnant people with accurate information. They are not subject
to HIPAA protections, nor are they required by law to maintain client
confidentiality. In many cases, they don't even have licensed medical
professionals on staff.
One woman who sought out care at a Florida women's health center in
Jacksonville was told that having an abortion would cause breast
cancer. This is patently false. Another was advised to relax at the
beach after being incorrectly informed she was carrying an ectopic
pregnancy.

These facilities are unsafe. Multiple physician organizations have
stated that they are unethical. The bottom line is that anti-abortion
clinics should not receive Federal dollars to continue spreading false
information to low-income, often minority, women seeking comprehensive,
nonjudgmental fact- and science-based reproductive healthcare.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), who is the sponsor of this
legislation.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair for the opportunity to
say a few words.
Mr. Speaker, this administration and my colleagues on the left claim
that they want to give pregnant women every option. If that were true,
then they would have no problem with this bill.
The fact is the left is only interested in funding avenues that
encourage women to have abortions. This line of thinking belittles the
abilities of women to make informed decisions across the country.
Unfortunately for women everywhere, the left is shouting lies and
inaccuracies at the top of their lungs, calling pregnancy centers a
scam. These people clearly have not been to a pregnancy center. I have
been to many.
The fact is pregnancy centers empower women. Take, for example,
Kristen in Louisiana. She thought her pregnancy was the end of the
world. She contacted her local pregnancy center, sharing her concerns
about single parenting, including physical, emotional, and financial
concerns. She was so relieved to work with a team that was
``confidential and nonjudgmental every step of the way.'' They informed
her of all the resources available to her, including free Lamaze and
parenting classes and even scholarships.
She would never have known about all of these resources available to
her had she not gone to a pregnancy center

[[Page H203]]

that was committed to empowering her with the knowledge, information,
and support she needed to feel confident in choosing life.
Today, nobody could imagine their lives without Kristen's daughter.
Since working with her local pregnancy center, she has gotten married.
Her husband adopted her daughter, and the two went on to have more
children together. Kristen graduated college, got her master's degree,
is a professor, and is applying to the Ph.D. programs.
Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, conservatives are here for unborn
babies and their mothers. I introduced the Supporting Pregnant and
Parenting Women and Families Act to ensure the administration does not
block funding for pregnancy care centers across the country like the
one that helped Kristen. They are providing support and empowering
women to raise their families.

{time} 1230

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will point out that one of my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle mentioned some violence, and I will talk about the violence that
happens at abortion provider clinics.
They have been compiling statistics on instances of violence and
disruption against abortion providers for more than 40 years, and there
is definite uptick in the amount of clinic invasions, obstructions,
blockades, targeted mail, and harassing phone calls.
In recent years, we have seen incidents of violence with devastating
impacts. For example, in November 2015, three people were murdered and
nine injured when Robert Dear brought an assault-style rifle to a
Planned Parenthood healthcare center in Colorado Springs and opened
fire.
A gunman also attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic in Knoxville,
Tennessee, in the early hours of January 22, 2021. In December 2021,
the same clinic was burned to the ground by arsonists.
If you want to talk about incidents of violence, let's talk about the
onslaught of violent attacks that abortion providers have had to deal
with for over the past 40 years.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Chu), my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee and
a champion for women's rights.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6918, the
deceptively named Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families
Act.
This bill has a simple but negative purpose: It would divert
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families dollars that successfully keep
needy children and families from poverty to anti-abortion centers.
These so-called crisis pregnancy centers masquerade as healthcare
facilities, even going so far as to have staff dress in scrubs and
white coats to mimic medical professionals.
Let's be clear: They are organizations attempting to strong-arm,
manipulate, and coerce pregnant people seeking abortion care into
carrying pregnancies to full term, and this is to the great
disadvantage of women in need.
These anti-abortion centers are not actual medical facilities, so
they are not covered by the privacy and security rules of HIPAA. With
little or no consequence, staff at these facilities can lie to patients
and share their personal information with anti-abortion extremists in
order to survey, harass, pressure, or prosecute those seeking abortion
care.
The lies these centers tell can have profound impacts on a patient's
health. In Iowa, an OB/GYN has seen patients who were told at these
centers that using contraceptives was the same as having an abortion.
In Massachusetts, an unqualified staff member at an anti-abortion
center failed to diagnose a woman's ectopic pregnancy. That woman later
required emergency surgery. Worst of all, there are no consequences to
these centers for this.
A recent study of 607 anti-abortion centers across nine States found
that they ``promoted patently false and/or biased medical claims about
pregnancy, abortion, contraception, and reproductive healthcare
providers.'' Fewer than half of these centers reported having a
licensed medical professional on staff.
Unfortunately for the American people, spreading misinformation about
abortion and ultimately implementing a national ban on abortion seems
to be unifying objectives for Republicans here in Congress.
During our markup last week, Democrats offered a series of amendments
to allow funding to these centers if they could prove that they provide
medically accurate information, not harm women's health, and did not
mislead or coerce women into visiting their centers.
Committee Republicans rejected all of those amendments, making it
clear that their purpose is coercive propaganda, not support for
pregnant women.
If Republicans want to support expecting new parents, House Democrats
would welcome their backing of a fully expanded child tax credit,
universal paid family and medical leave, and affordable childcare.
However, instead of considering these measures or even doing the
basic business of keeping the government open, we are debating a bill
going nowhere in the Senate and intended, instead, to score political
points with anti-abortion groups gathering in Washington.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 6918.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
legislation introduced by my good friend from Minnesota, a strong voice
for the voiceless, Mrs. Fischbach.
The Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Families Act blocks a
disastrous rule proposed by the Biden administration which would strip
funding from pregnancy resource centers.
As we heard in last week's markup, those who oppose this bill have
even admitted that they are pro-life starting only 2 seconds after you
are born.
Ironically, so many on the other side of the aisle, most of whom
can't even define what a woman is, not only share in this delusion, but
also claim to be the party of women's rights.
Now, I am sorry. We just heard that these centers are masquerading as
women's healthcare facilities. You want to talk about masquerading as
providing women's healthcare? Let's look at their pro-abortion
facilities. They are not providing healthcare. Mr. Speaker, 97 to 98
percent of the services that they provide are abortions, not healthcare
services.
My colleagues on the left claim that it is somehow worse for a mother
to have access to the vital services offered by pregnancy resource
centers. In fact, the gentlewoman from California defined them as
extremists.
Let's explore the services that these pregnancy centers offer that my
colleagues find so offensive and so extreme.

Let's see. How does it hurt for a young family to have access to free
prenatal vitamins, formula, and diapers? How about free maternity and
baby clothing? How about educational classes on unplanned pregnancy,
childbirth, parenting, and adoption information? How about free life
skills training and help with housing? How extreme? How offensive?
As is clear by the nearly 1 million women assisted by pregnancy
resource centers in 2022, they provide an extraordinary service to
women and families across the country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds
to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Mr. Speaker, Texas is home to 200 pregnancy resource
centers, and I will not stand by as the Biden administration attempts
to take away choice from pregnant women, nor will I stand by and allow
them to block funding for the vital programs offered by these pregnancy
centers.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I will tell my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle that unlike these so-called pregnancy centers, Planned
Parenthood actually gives women factually and scientifically accurate
information and the full range of choices, while the pregnancy centers
have a clear agenda and only one point of view.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms.

[[Page H204]]

Moore), a champion for women everywhere.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
this bill that diverts funds from the welfare program and the TANF
program to these crisis pregnancy centers.
Before I get into my argument, let me say how I think it is wonderful
that these centers provide clothing, formula, diapers, and comfort to a
woman who is planning to have a child and they are able to provide
these resources.
However, I do agree with my colleagues that have argued that these
so-called crisis pregnancy centers don't meet the mark with regard to
meeting a woman who is actually having a crisis pregnancy.
When a woman is having a crisis pregnancy and presents herself, she
is having a crisis because she has mental health issues, some social
problems, she may have health problems, maybe she is 10 years old and
finds herself pregnant as a result of incest. Maybe--and I have known
cases like this--she has found herself pregnant and is now needing
treatment for cancer and wondering what to do because she is going to
have to have chemo and radiation and finds herself pregnant.
The problem with these crisis pregnancy centers is that they only
have one agenda, and that is to make sure you stay pregnant. They are
going to continue to ignore the facts of your particular case which
makes it a crisis pregnancy for you.
I will tell you that I have great credibility on this issue. I am a
mother. I am a grandmother of three granddaughters. I am a great-
grandmother of three great-granddaughters. I have held women's hands
when they have pushed and given birth, and I have held their hands when
they needed an abortion because of reasons that are none of our
business around here.
I think that if we are going to divert the measly $16.5 billion block
grant that we have to share all across the country that we should not
be diverting it to these 2,500 care centers that don't meet the TANF
goals of helping poor women deal with their poverty beyond 6 weeks
after giving birth.
It is fine to help women who are pregnant, but what do you do after
you have given birth and we have diverted all these funds to places
like pregnancy resource centers that care only about stopping you from
having an abortion?
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6918,
the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act.
Mr. Speaker, pregnancy centers play a vital role in supporting women
facing unexpected or unplanned pregnancies. Since the Dobbs ruling,
pregnancy centers have been under vicious attack by the radical left,
especially in my home State of Illinois.
Why? All for simply loving and supporting vulnerable women. There are
approximately 3,000 pregnancy centers across the Nation, serving nearly
2 million mothers, fathers, and families completely free of charge.
In 2019 alone, their services and material assistance totaled over
$266 million.
The goal of pregnancy centers is to support the mother and her unborn
child. However, they also offer many resources and services, including
relationship counseling, prenatal and pregnancy education, pregnancy
testing, diapers, and baby clothes, just to name a few.

Women in crisis situations deserve to be protected and supported,
period.
Banning funding to pregnancy centers not only discriminates against
women but deprives them of the vital care and materials they
desperately need, including information on the development of the baby
and an ultrasound.
As a volunteer and supporter of crisis pregnancy centers in Illinois,
I have seen firsthand how they minister to women in need. Unlike
Planned Parenthood, pregnancy centers don't prey upon vulnerable women
and coerce them into making decisions they will regret for the rest of
their lives.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Fischbach for leading the way to
protect the essential work of pregnancy centers, and I look forward to
the House swiftly passing this bill.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett), my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this bill is yet another step in the
Republican crusade to impose a national abortion ban to treat women
across America the way Texans have been abused already. And this
drastic, harmful strategy is about so much more than abortion
healthcare.
It is about the right to life for expectant mothers. It is about the
right of a mother to be physically able to deliver a future baby. What
happened to Texan Kate Cox is so very instructive. A mother herself,
she was advised that having another child could not be possible if she
was forced to deliver a fetus that could not live, yet Republicans
insisted that she do just that. Under the Texas vigilante law, medical
professionals--indeed, anyone who provides advice about an abortion,
even for a child who is the victim of rape or incest--there are
immediate penalties for them.

{time} 1245

As they seek to cut support for Women, Infants, and Children funding,
House Republicans want to divert tax money to these propaganda centers,
usually posing as a health center but lacking any medical professional
staff--public funds to centers designed to fearmonger and intimidate
vulnerable women.
While Republicans demand protection of life from the moment of
conception, they show so little interest in life after delivery. Women
deserve healthcare protection free from coercion. For every American
whose freedom is threatened by Republican interference, both patients
and their doctors, I strongly oppose this bill.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act, which
will block a Biden administration proposed rule prohibiting States from
funding pregnancy resource centers which support the lives of both
mothers and their unborn children.
Pregnancy resource centers offer compassionate support and care to
women as they choose to become mothers and bring life into this world.
Unfortunately, the Biden administration is trying to take away
resources from facilities that provide women and families with quality
healthcare services, emotional support, and supplies, like diapers. The
result is pregnant women having less access to maternal care critical
to both the health of the mother and unborn child. This is despicable.
As a pharmacist, I swore an oath to do no harm and to protect the
sanctity of human life. That means standing up for pregnancy resource
centers, which in my district provide valuable, life-changing support
for women and children.
I encourage any of my colleagues who are unwilling to support these
facilities to go and visit them. I have, and I saw for myself how the
work they do is changing lives.
We value women, we value life, and this bill prioritizes both.
I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and prevent the
defunding of these critical health centers.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 6918
because it is just another attempt by the Republican leadership to
advance their extremist war on women.
As we again face another Republican-manufactured shutdown crisis, the
Republican leadership advances this bill to divert money intended for
poor children to anti-abortion propaganda and facilities that provide
deceptive and inaccurate information.
The House should take immediate action to eliminate child poverty,
not promote efforts to restrict women's reproductive choices.
Alarmingly, just one year after the Republican-led expiration of
Democratic poverty-lowering investments in workers and families, the
child poverty rate more than doubled, causing the biggest one-year
increase in poverty we have ever seen.
If Republicans truly wanted to help pregnant and parenting families,
they

[[Page H205]]

would fully restore the child tax credit, dramatically increase
childcare funding to address the childcare crisis, and make it easier
to get critical services like Medicaid.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his
tremendous leadership on this and so many other important issues,
including life issues. I thank Michelle Fischbach for her brave and
courageous leadership, and our Speaker for making sure that this
legislation got to the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, at a New Jersey pregnancy resource center dinner, two
women, through tears of joy, expressed their deep and abiding gratitude
for the incredible love, respect, and care that persuaded them to
reverse their decision to abort their babies. They spoke about how
desperate they were, even hopeless. They spoke of the pressure that
they felt to abort, until they met the director of the pregnancy
resource center, who reached out to both of them in a gentle and
nonjudgmental way.
They chose life, and thanked God, the director, and the pregnancy
resource center for helping them to avert the loss of their babies'
lives.
Then, two teenaged girls took to the podium and spoke about their
lives--school, sports, friends--and their reverence for the sanctity of
all human life. Near the end of their remarks--I didn't see this coming
nor did many people in the room--they turned toward the director of the
center and thanked her for being there for their moms through those
difficult times and said: If you weren't there for them, we would be
dead. Two wonderful young women talking about how without the pregnancy
center, they would have been dead.
There are more than 2,700 pregnancy resource centers throughout the
United States. Each and every one of them is an oasis of love,
compassion, empathy, respect, and care for both mothers and their
precious children.
Americans agree with the noble work of pregnancy care centers. The
new Marist national poll, released just yesterday, found that 83
percent of all Americans, including 75 percent of Democrats, support--I
say again support--pregnancy resource centers.
There is a growing number of people throughout this country in this
great human rights movement who really protect the unborn child and
their mothers and stand with women and their children. We reject the
violence of abortion, dismemberment, child beheadings, and abortion
pills.
How does the pill work? It literally starves the baby to death. That
is how they die; they starve to death.
Congresswoman Michelle Fischbach's legislation prohibits Biden's new
policy proposal that discriminates against pregnancy resource centers.
The bill, the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act
ensures that pregnancy resource centers cannot be excluded or
restricted from receiving TANF funding as proposed by the rule that is
being pushed by the President.

The Biden administration and some Governors and lawmakers continue,
Mr. Speaker, to smear and misrepresent the noble work of pregnancy
resource centers. We can't allow that to happen.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Virginia (Ms. McClellan), my esteemed colleague.
Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on this dangerous H.R. 6918.
This legislation is the House Republicans' latest attempt to spread
inaccurate information while advancing their extreme anti-abortion
agenda and attacking reproductive freedom.
This bill would divert TANF funding that is intended to help
struggling families and children, the very families that face higher
maternal and infant death rates than some Third World countries. It
would divert funding to help these families to fund anti-abortion
crisis pregnancy centers whose sole purpose is to coerce, deceive, and
manipulate pregnant patients into carrying their pregnancies to term.
These centers often share biased and medically inaccurate information,
purposefully misleading patients into believing they can get the
healthcare they need. Abortion care is healthcare.
These centers delay care, deny access to qualified medical
professionals, and that is critically dangerous for pregnant patients
who need timely healthcare services. These centers are unethical and
jeopardize patients' well-being, yet extreme House Republicans want the
Federal Government to support them at the expense of the vulnerable
children and families, again, who face higher infant mortality rates
than in many Third World countries.
This legislation exemplifies Republicans' bad-faith efforts.
Essential TANF funds should not be used to help these programs instead
of helping needy families. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Yakym).
Mr. YAKYM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Supporting
Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act.
Mr. Speaker, pregnancy centers provide vital services to expectant
mothers and new parents at no cost. This includes pregnancy tests,
ultrasounds, parenting classes, diapers and wipes, formula, and
outfits.
When my wife and I had very little money and we were expecting our
first child, we turned to one such pregnancy center for an ultrasound.
Due to my personal experience with that pregnancy center, I find the
other side of the aisle's characterization of these pregnancy centers
to be nothing short of insulting.
The Biden administration is trying to circumvent Congress and take
away this critical lifeline from low-income women by stopping States
from using Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, funds for
pregnancy centers. Instead of securing our border, the Biden
administration is trying to take away diapers and parenting classes
from low-income women.
The Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act would
stop this harmful policy in its tracks and ensure pregnancy centers
continue to provide valuable services to low-income pregnant women and
new parents.
I thank my colleague, Mrs. Fischbach, for introducing this important
bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle are insulted by the issues that we are raising because I
have a brief here in front of me from the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists which talks about the fact that these
pregnancy crisis centers use digital marketing tactics to target people
seeking information about abortion care. According to their studies, 71
percent of these centers use deceptive means, such as spreading
thoroughly debunked misinformation, and 38 percent of them do not
clearly state on their home page that they don't provide abortion care.
If you are mad at us for raising these points, talk to the College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, because they have done an in-depth,
comprehensive study to talk about the repeated misinformation that
these centers give out to women who are in crisis. The deceptive
information that they give to them puts these women's lives at risk. If
you are so pro-life, why do you not care about the life of the mother?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Lois Frankel).
Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my, my, my, Republicans are
at it again, trying every which way to obstruct legal access to
abortion, preventing women from the freedom of making their own choice
of when or whether to start or grow a family.
This time, Republicans want to fund fake clinics run by anti-abortion
activists who deceptively provide women with misleading information
with one purpose: to scare, disgrace, or pressure them from getting an
abortion.
Shamefully, in order to bankroll these fake centers, this Republican
bill grabs funding from a program designed to assist needy pregnant
women and children get back on their feet.
Overwhelmingly, Americans believe that women should make their own
personal healthcare decisions without interference by politicians.

[[Page H206]]

This proposed legislation is dangerous hypocrisy on steroids and not
worthy of support.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Democrats and the Biden administration are purposely targeting and
misrepresenting pregnancy centers in their proposed rule and seeking to
intimidate States that fund them.
Pregnancy resource centers play a vital role to both mothers and
fathers, empowering them in their decision to choose life for their
baby, by providing realistic alternatives in stark contrast to
organizations exclusively focused on abortion.
There is no deceit underlying pregnancy centers. They are another
option for women who are looking for an alternative to abortion. It is
disgraceful that Democrats mischaracterize these organizations in an
effort to limit a woman's choice to raise her child.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Self).

{time} 1300

Mr. SELF. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of this bill.
Listening to my colleagues across the aisle talk about pregnancy
centers is astounding. They appear to have never set foot in one and
have fallen for the abortion industry's lies, hook, line, and sinker.
I served on the board of a pregnancy center in my area for many
years. During my service, we even contracted for a mobile sonogram to
go to help the ladies who were in disadvantaged areas and lacked
transportation to get to the pregnancy center.
The sonogram is the greatest tool in use against the death culture.
In Plano, Texas, if you find yourself unexpectedly pregnant without a
support network, feeling lost and anxious, you can go to a number of
local pregnancy centers. There, you will be met by kind, caring,
compassionate staff, both volunteer nurses and medical doctors. They
offer pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, counseling, classes, and testing,
all at no cost. There are nearly 3,000 of these centers around the
Nation, mainly run by local volunteers simply because they want to
help.
In 2021, the pregnancy centers served almost 1 million women and
their babies, and this number does not even include the fathers, who
are part of this equation.
Yet, in spite of all this good, the administration has decided to
punish pregnancy centers. Why? Because they do not perform abortions.
Let that sink in. Your tax dollars fund the death culture but not the
life culture. Pregnancy centers give out free diapers, parenting
classes, and ultrasounds, and their volunteers lend a helping hand to
moms across America who decide to keep their unborn person. Because
these centers will not bend the knee to the President's radical
abortion agenda, they are going to be punished.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill and
to stand with pregnant moms and their babies.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would just love to point out to anybody
who cares for real facts a 2006 congressional report and investigation
that found false and misleading health information provided by
federally funded pregnancy resource centers. That will give you an
accurate picture of just what goes on behind those doors.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon
(Ms. Bonamici).
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Sanchez for
yielding and for her leadership on this important issue.
I rise today in opposition to the so-called Supporting Pregnant and
Parenting Women and Families Act, which would prevent the Department of
Health and Human Services from restricting funds to crisis pregnancy
centers.
We know, as we have heard, and is included in the report that
Representative Sanchez just mentioned, that crisis pregnancy centers
prey on people at a very vulnerable time. They often spread
misinformation to further what is clearly an anti-choice agenda. They
routinely use deceptive advertising to get people into the doors, and
then they mislead them about the services they provide.
In fact, a center in Ohio was caught making outlandish assertions,
including that ``condoms were only 50 percent effective, the spread of
STDs could only be prevented if people followed `God's plan' of
avoiding sex before marriage, and that if a woman who has an STD gets
an abortion, `your STDs travel up your cervix into your organs and
could kill you.' ''
This deception is outrageous, dangerous, and unconscionable, which is
why I have introduced the Stop Antiabortion Disinformation Act, H.R.
2736, to direct the Federal Trade Commission to issue rules prohibiting
unfair or deceptive advertising of abortion services.
This, Mr. Speaker, will really make a difference because anyone
seeking reproductive care should have access to a real healthcare
provider that will provide them with comprehensive and accurate medical
information.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Scott Franklin of Florida). The time of
the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Oregon.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, anyone seeking reproductive care should
have access to a real healthcare provider that will provide them with
real, comprehensive, and accurate medical information. That is not what
they get at pregnancy resource centers. I urge my colleagues to reject
this bill.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube).
Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6918, the
Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act, introduced by
Congresswoman Fischbach, and I thank her for introducing this important
bill to push back against the Biden administration's shocking
demonization of pregnancy resource centers.
These centers provide loving care and resources for pregnant women
and mothers of newborns who face trying times.
Pregnancy resource centers provide a wide array of services,
including free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, parenting and prenatal
education, and lactation consultations. They give out free diapers,
formula, and baby clothes for mothers of newborns.
In my district, the Sarasota Medical Pregnancy Center does tremendous
work as a lifeline for pregnant women in need. They lovingly care for
these women who face challenging circumstances. There are trained
medical professionals present who perform free ultrasounds and provide
the care these women want and need.
Unfortunately, Democrats continually seek to delegitimize these vital
organizations simply because they provide an alternative to abortion.
After the Dobbs decision was released, nearly 100 pregnancy crisis
centers, including 4 in my home State of Florida, were attacked and
vandalized by leftwing radical groups. Despite repeated pleas from
Members of Congress, our Department of Justice largely refused to
actively investigate this organized criminal activity.

Now, the Biden administration is singling out pregnancy crisis
centers to exclude them from eligibility under the TANF program, all
because these centers encourage women to have their babies.
It was a deliberate act by the Biden administration to appease
radical pro-abortion activists by attacking pregnancy centers that
provide so much to pregnant women.
This bill simply ensures that the Biden administration cannot exclude
these centers from TANF eligibility.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to support pregnancy resource centers, and
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important
legislation.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding. I rise to oppose yet another extreme Republican assault on
families and reproductive freedoms.
This thinly veiled attack on abortion rights would let States divert
critical Federal funds meant for struggling families with children into
shady anti-choice groups.
These so-called crisis pregnancy centers claim to help women, but
they are unregulated, unlicensed, and not even required to have medical
professionals. They say whatever they want, and they

[[Page H207]]

offer inaccurate, biased information meant to scare women and limit
their choices.
Worse, this bill diverts vital TANF funds from needy children and
steers it to dangerous anti-choice outfits that will help Republicans
secure their extreme national abortion ban.
With partial government funding about to run out, why do Republicans
waste our time on these shameful stunts?
I want to be clear: This deceptive bill does not help pregnant women.
It simply funds groups that lie to them.
As a woman and mother of three young adult children, I ask my
Republican colleagues to truly help women and families and stop
deceiving and defunding them.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this deceptive bill.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, last year, Missouri provided $6.3
million in TANF funding to pregnancy resource centers. This funding is
provided for mothers and fathers for nonmedical support, such as baby
clothes and formula, and support for families until the age of 1.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Missouri
Department of Social Services to the Administration for Children and
Families opposing any restrictions on using TANF for these critical
services.

Missouri Department of

Social Services,

November 30, 2023.
Re Strengthening Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) as a Safety Net and Work Program (RIN 0970-AC99).

Administration for Children and Families,
Office of Family Assistance,
Washington, DC.
To Whom it May Concern: The Missouri Department of Social
Services (DSS) has reviewed in detail the Notice of Public
Rulemaking (NPRM), RIN 0970-AC99, issued by the
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) on October 2,
2023. Below, please find DSS' comments on the proposed rule.
DSS believes the proposed rule should be modified
significantly before being enacted. Our comments are in three
main areas:
Allowability of youth services designed to break the cycle
of poverty,
Allowability of programs that support pregnant women and
positive outcomes for their children, and
Allowability of using third party expenditures to meet TANF
MOE requirements.
In addition, we emphasize the importance of a phased
implementation to allow states time to adjust to the final
rule, regardless of any revisions made subsequent to the
issuance of the NPRM.
We elaborate on these points separately below.

Allow a broader range of youth services designed to break the cycle of
poverty

One of the hallmarks of the TANF program is that it allowed
flexibility for states to best serve the populations in their
states. The 1999 TANF Final Rule, 64 FR 17720 et seq. (April
12, 1999), drives home this point repeatedly in its preamble:
``The law gives States, and federally recognized Indian
tribes, the authority to use Federal welfare funds `in any
manner that is reasonably calculated to accomplish the
purpose' of the new program. It provides them broad
flexibility to set eligibility rules and decide what benefits
are most appropriate. It also enables States to implement
their new programs without getting the `approval' of the
Federal government. In short, it offers States and Tribes an
opportunity to try new, far-reaching changes that can respond
more effectively to the needs of families within their own
unique environments.''
States have used this flexibility to fund a wide range of
programs, including programs focused on serving youth in
afterschool settings. The NPRM suggests that these programs,
which provide a valuable social support and help reduce
school dropout and teen pregnancy rates, would no longer be
allowable except to the extent that ``pregnancy prevention
programming is a part of an ongoing program.'' States did not
make this connection between after-school programs and TANF
Purpose 3 on their own. ACF issued guidance at the outset of
the TANF program that explicitly made the connection between
youth programs and TANF purpose 3:
``A State may use its TANF or MOE funds for services and
benefits that directly lead to (or can be expected to lead
to) the accomplishment of one of these four purposes. For
example, it could fund special initiatives to improve the
motivation, performance, and self-esteem of youth (e.g.,
activities like those included in the HHS Girl Power!
Campaign or sponsored by the Boys and Girls Clubs) because
such initiatives would be expected to reduce school-dropout
and teen pregnancy rates.''
In addition to after-school programs, Missouri's TANF
expenditures have supported in-school initiatives that
support positive youth outcomes. For example, the Jobs for
America's Graduates (JAG) program gives students in selected
at-risk areas the tools needed to make a successful
transition to post-secondary education and meaningful
employment with self-sustaining wages to decrease the need
for government assistance.
The proposed rule would not only impact general youth
programs, but also a state's ability to provide employment
services to teens and older youth who are not yet parents.
ACF-IM-2012-01 speaks to the importance of programming that
supports youth employment and reminds states that ``. . . a
jurisdiction may use TANF and/or MOE funds to serve youth up
through the age of 24 in a subsidized employment program
under TANF statutory purpose one,'' and that TANF funds may
be used whether or not the youth resides in the home of a
parent or relative. Furthermore, the same memorandum speaks
to other allowable activities that support youth in summer
jobs programs, including education and training, supportive
services, transportation for employed persons for the purpose
of attending work or training, counseling and employment
related services, and incentive payments that reward the
participant for achieving a predetermined milestone.
Similarly, the NPRM calls into question the funding of
college scholarships for childless older youth as an
allowable TANF expenditure. Studies have indicated that
higher educational attainment typically translates into a
reduced likelihood of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and increases
the chances the individual will become a supportive member of
a two-parent household. These facts support both TANF
Purposes three and four. However, interpretations of this
research are subjective, and the uncertainty regarding ACF's
acceptance of supporting evidence places a significant risk
on states like Missouri that utilize TANF funds for
scholarships. At a minimum, we contend these expenditures
should be allowable for youth and young adults with
incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level.
After 25 years of guidance that reinforces that after-
school and other programs targeting youth and young adults
meet a TANF Purpose, the sudden shift to render these
programs unallowable is illogical and short sighted. The TANF
program was created to help states fund programs that break
the cycle of poverty, and serving youth is one of the proven
ways of doing so.
Missouri strongly encourages ACF to reconsider the proposed
rule and continue to allow states to invest in their youth,
which in turn is an investment in the future.

Allow programs that support pregnant women and positive outcomes for
their children

The NPRM states that--
``Programs that only or primarily provide pregnancy
counseling to women only after they become pregnant likely do
not meet the reasonable person standard because the
connection to preventing and reducing out-of-wedlock
pregnancies is tenuous or non-existent, and therefore do not
accomplish purpose three.''
Missouri funds programs for pregnant women that 1) set up
the unborn/newborn child for success by providing a range of
services and supports; and 2) offer resources to the mother
that decrease the chances of future unwanted pregnancies.
Examples of benefits and services provided through these
comprehensive programs include but are not limited to food,
clothing and supplies related to pregnancy, newborn care and
parenting, housing and utilities, job training and placement,
prenatal care and ultrasound services, medical and mental
health care, transportation, establishing and promoting
responsible paternity, and parenting skills classes.
We contend that these services are allowable under multiple
TANF purposes. And we understand that states will have the
opportunity to provide research or programmatic evidence that
supports these programs' link to a TANF purpose/s. However,
these judgements are subjective, and we are concerned that
decisions of TANF allowability after funds have been expended
place undue risk on state budgets and the comprehensive
nature of the programs. Accordingly, programs that support
pregnant women and positive outcomes for their children
should be clearly allowable and not subject to the reasonable
person test.

Consider allowing third party MOE to count in certain circumstances

The Uniform administrative requirements that govern TANF
explicitly allow third-party spending to count toward a
state's Maintenance of Effort spending, and this was codified
in the TANF regulations as part of the 2008 Final Rule for
the Deficit Reduction Act. The NPRM would continue to allow
third party spending from public entities to count as MOE but
would prohibit the use of nonprofit spending. This change
would severely impact Missouri, and we urge ACF to
reconsider.
Missouri has a unique set up with the non-profit agencies
that provide MOE toward the state's TANF claim in that the
same agencies also receive TANF block grant funding. Missouri
has established as matching requirement, whereby the TANF
funds received are contingent on the non-profits also
providing documented MOE spending. This cost-sharing
responsibility has created high quality public-private
partnerships, and the state's investment of TANF funds has
allowed the non-profits to expand services to low-income
families.
Missouri urges ACF to consider allowing third party MOE
from non-profit agencies if those dollars are part of a
matching requirement for receiving TANF funds. In this way,
the non-profit community will be invested in

[[Page H208]]

helping further the purposes of TANF alongside the state.

Consider slowing down implementation to allow states to adjust to new
rules

The NPRM includes several sweeping changes that will have a
dramatic impact on how states operate their TANF program.
Further it suggests that the rules could be in effect as soon
as October 2024, if the rules are enacted in the current
fiscal year. This is simply too fast, States are already in
the budgeting process for next year, and to have such
significant changes in what is allowable for TANF and TANF
MOE would be detrimental to states.
States need time to educate legislators on the changes in
what programs can and cannot be funded with TANF; in some
cases, they need to unlearn rules that have been in place
since the inception of TANF. Furthermore, states need time to
adjust contracts and spending plans.
Previous proposed changes to the TANF program that were
introduced in Congress would have included a phased-in
approach to changes. Missouri urges ACF to consider something
similar, with the changes in allowability and third-party MOE
going into effect over the course of three to five years. For
example, ACF could allow states that currently claim third
party MOE to establish a baseline, then allow them to claim
75 percent 50 percent, and 25 percent of that amount over the
next three years. This would allow states to adjust spending
over the course of several years, rather than leaving states
at risk of missing MOE requirements and losing federal TANF
dollars through a penalty process.
The proposed rules would be the most sweeping change to the
TANF program since its inception in 1996. To have these
changes all take place at the same time and with very little
lead time creates an undue burden on the states. Missouri DSS
strongly encourages ACF to reconsider these changes.
Our partners and providers have expressed many of the same
concerns we have noted above. Please see the attached twenty-
two (22) letters from stakeholders across the state who would
be impacted by these changes.
We appreciate your consideration of the submitted comments
and suggestions and look forward to working together to
strengthen TANF and to strengthen and support the families
that we serve.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Knodell,
Director.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, at least four other States--
Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania--provide TANF funding to
pregnancy resource centers, which meets the TANF purposes of assisting
needy families and reducing dependence on government.
As Missouri's comment letter states, it is imperative that we protect
this funding and the vital services pregnancy resource centers provide
for our families and communities.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Kansas (Ms. Davids).
Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, when Roe v. Wade was overturned,
people were scared. They feared for the future of their rights and
ability to make deeply personal decisions about their own bodies. I
have heard from many people who are concerned that their children and
grandchildren might grow up with less rights than they had.
In August 2022, Kansans made their voices overwhelmingly clear:
Politics and politicians have no place in the middle of healthcare
decisions. Those decisions are between a person and their doctor alone.
However, despite the resounding messages delivered by Kansans and
other States, extremists persist in their relentless effort to deprive
Americans of their fundamental right to choose.
Sadly, that is where we find ourselves today, where certain Members
of this body are attempting to push legislation that would directly
limit access to the full range of reproductive care.
This bill blatantly misleads the American people, diverting funds
meant for food, rent, and childcare to certain harmful facilities that
purposely provide disinformation to people seeking access to care. I
won't stand for it, and neither will Kansans.
We should be expanding access to healthcare, including reproductive
healthcare, rather than masking misinformation behind dishonest
policies that actually endanger a person's health. Even further, we
should be upfront with the American people. Isn't that the bare
minimum?
Let me be clear: The right to choose is fundamental. Working to strip
that right should never be a priority, especially days before a
possible government shutdown that would have devastating impacts on
hardworking families.
Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to
stand with me in delivering a powerful message, one that the American
people absolutely need to hear: Your ability to decide what is best for
you, your body, your family, and your future is inherently your choice,
now and always.
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to
recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I
would have offered the motion with an important amendment that would
ensure that taxpayer dollars cannot be allocated to pregnancy centers
that provide medically inaccurate information and put the health of a
woman at risk.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the
text of this amendment and hope that my colleagues will join me in
voting ``yes'' on this motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Kansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, tens of thousands of
pro-life Americans will converge on The National Mall for the March for
Life on the anniversary of the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling,
which legalized abortion in all 50 States.
Today's legislation will ensure that expectant mothers will have
access to alternatives to abortion and choose the life-affirming
services provided at pregnancy resource centers.
I include in the Record letters of support from the National Right to
Life Committee and CatholicVote and a statement of support from Susan
B. Anthony Pro-Life America.

National Right to Life,

Alexandria, VA, January 17, 2024.
Re Scorecard Advisory, H.R. 69 1 8, the Supporting Pregnant
and Parenting Women and Families Act

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) urges you to
support H.R. 6918, the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting
Women and Families Act. NRLC intends to include the roll call
on H.R. 6918 in its scorecard of key pro-life votes of the
118th Congress.
This legislation would ensure that pregnancy centers are
eligible for state-directed federal funds through the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
Pregnancy centers serve millions of clients annually and
offer hope and support for women and their unborn children.
In a post-Roe America, it is more important now than ever
that pregnancy centers can effectively support mothers and
their babies.
The Biden Administration is currently proposing a rule to
restrict federal funds from going to pregnancy centers in a
number of states that direct funds to them through the TANF
program. H.R. 6918 would prohibit HHS from finalizing,
implementing, or enforcing this or any similar rulemaking
that would restrict use of TANF for pregnancy centers.
National Right to Life and several affected states
submitted official comments in opposition to the proposed
Biden rule, ``Strengthening Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) as a Safety Net and Work Program,'' published
on October 2, 2023 (the ``Proposed Rule''). The Proposed
Rule, among other things, targets pregnancy resource centers
by threatening to strip them of millions of dollars of
funding claiming, without evidence, that pregnancy centers do
not meet TANF criteria. This is funding that is currently
being used to compassionately help women and their unborn
babies.
Nearly 3,000 pregnancy centers serve about 2 million
clients annually, saving local communities millions of
dollars by providing services at little to no cost. Many
pregnancy centers provide limited obstetrical ultrasounds
under a local doctor's oversight as well as parenting
classes. In addition, nearly all centers provide material
assistance such as diapers, cribs, and car seats as well as
practical help such as connecting a mother in need to local
resources that can help her with housing or transportation.
For the above reasons, the National Right to Life Committee
urges you to support H.R. 6918. NRLC intends to include the
roll call on H.R. 6918 in its scorecard of key pro-life votes
of the 118th Congress.
Sincerely
Carol Tobias,
President.
Scott Fischbach,
Executive Director.
Jennifer Popik, J.D,
Legislative Director.
____

January 15, 2024.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of Catholic Vote,
representing the voices of millions of Catholics across
America who seek to renew our country and our culture, I am
writing to voice our support for H.R. 6914, ``The Pregnant
Students' Rights Act'' and H.R. 6918, ``Supporting Pregnant
and Parenting Women and Families Act.''

[[Page H209]]

Women who choose life of their children, and the private
organizations that support them, are under unprecedented
attack by those who think abortion is the only answer.
Unfortunately, this pro-death approach is endorsed by both
the Biden administration as well as the Democratic Party. The
result is that women who find themselves in situations they
did not prepare for falsely believe they are alone and that
the only way out is the death of their unborn child.
H.R. 6914, introduced by Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-IA, would
amend the Higher Education Act to require higher education
institutions to distribute information about the rights of
pregnant students and the resources available to them at the
school, via their website, student handbooks, emails, and
during student orientations. The bill also reinforces current
law requiring schools to adopt and publish procedures for
students to file complaints of discrimination related to
their sex, pregnancy, or parental status by imploring
colleges to make these existing protections and
accommodations more widely known.
H.R. 6918, introduced by Rep. Michelle Fischbach, R-MN,
would block a Biden Administration rule that could prohibit
states from giving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) funds to pregnancy centers which support the life of
both the mother and unborn child.
Currently there have been hundred of physical attacks on
pregnancy resource centers. It is no surprise that the Biden
administration would tacitly endorse those attacks by
attempting to divert resources away from these lifesaving and
life affirming entities. Joe Biden would prefer to make it
harder for moms to choose life for their unborn child and
take care of themselves and their baby. If this rule takes
effect, women in America will have fewer alternatives to
abortion and less access to maternal care.
The passage of these bills should not be controversial;
however, the extremism of the Democratic Party has made it
clear that if you are a young mother who chooses life they
will make it harder for you to prosper. CatholicVote will
score in favor of both H.R. 6914, ``The Pregnant Students'
Rights Act'' and H.R. 6918, ``Supporting Pregnant and
Parenting Women and Families Act'' in our annual scorecard
for the 118th Congress.
Sincerely,

Thomas McClusky,

Director of Government Affairs,
CatholicVote.
____

House Committee Votes To Protect Pregnancy Resource Centers From
Discrimination--SBA Pro-Life America

(By Mary Owens, January 11, 2024)

Today, the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means
Committee passed the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women
and Families Act, legislation to ensure that pregnancy
centers cannot be discriminated against from receiving
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funding. The
House is expected to vote on the bill as early as next week.
This bill is in response to the Biden administration's
proposed Health and Human Services (HHS) rule that
discriminates against life-affirming non-profits. If the rule
goes into effect, it could render pregnancy centers
ineligible for this funding. In December, SBA Pro-Life
Anrerica and the Charlotte Lozier Institute submitted a
public comment pointing out how the rule is unfair and
inaccurate.
The national pro-life group SBA Pro-Life America celebrated
the committee's work in a statement:
The Biden administration is working overtime to prove they
are not pro-choice, but pro-abortion by proposing this
discriminatory rule and ignoring the majority of Americans
who support public funding of pregnancy resource centers,''
said the Honorable Marilyn Musgrave, SBA Pro-Life America's
vice president of government affairs. ``The nearly 3,000
pregnancy resource centers nationwide provide women with
medical, material and emotional support for themselves and
their families. We are grateful to the committee for passing
this bill that prevents discrimination against centers and
protects their ability to continue receiving TANF funds to
help moms and families.
Thank you to Chairman Jason Smith and Representatives
Michelle Fischbach, Claudia Tenney and Smith for championing
this important legislation and getting it through committee.
We urge the House to pass this commonsense legislation.''
The proposed rule is the latest in a string of political
attacks on life-affirming organizations.

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we will all celebrate
life and support pregnant and parenting women and families.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 6
minutes remaining.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
We keep hearing about how these centers provide infant formula, and
we have a program that helps mothers afford infant formula. It is
called WIC.
I remind my colleagues that House Republicans' fiscal year 2024
Agriculture appropriations bill would have made benefit cuts and
eligibility losses for millions of mothers who rely on WIC. It would
have shortchanged WIC by $800 million.
So, I find the argument that the centers are so necessary to be
specious because that could have been provided under the Agriculture
appropriations bill, which my Republican colleagues wanted to cut so
dramatically. If they really cared about working families, they
wouldn't be asking for those deep and unconscionable cuts to a program
that provides infant formula to mothers.

{time} 1315

As we have seen over the past hour, my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle are choosing to double down on their war on women. These
centers have coerced, deceived, and put women's lives in danger with
inaccurate, biased information, but don't just take my word for it. A
congressional investigation found that the majority of these clinics
surveyed provided false information about abortion. The American
Medical Association has called these centers unethical because of the
gross disinformation that they push on vulnerable women.
These centers are not regulated by State's consumer protection
statutes which govern the practice of medicine. Republicans have proven
they have no interest in amending this bill to actually protect
pregnant women seeking care from these facilities.
My Ways and Means Republican colleagues voted against ensuring these
facilities provide medically accurate information.
Why are they so afraid to provide women with medically accurate
information?
My Republican colleagues voted against prohibiting these facilities
from providing biased reproductive health information or counseling.
Let me be very clear. Democrats have fought, and we continue to
fight, for comprehensive equitable access to reproductive healthcare
for women.
We passed the Women's Health Protection Act twice.
We passed the right to contraception.
The American people have been very clear about supporting access to
reproductive healthcare. Democrats have proven that we stand with them,
and this bill that the Republicans have put on the floor today once
again shows that my Republican colleagues are willing to discard
pregnant women to appease their extremist anti-choice rightwing base.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time. Pregnancy resource centers are an important option for pregnant
women seeking care. They provide critical services to support the
health of mothers and their unborn children, including providing needed
resources, like diapers, prenatal vitamins, transportation, and
parenting classes.
It is unacceptable that the Biden administration proposes to take
this option away from mothers and to restrict their access to
healthcare.
The administration does not have authority under TANF to restrict
funds for pregnancy resource centers. What is worse is that the
administration is doing this in order to send more taxpayer dollars to
Planned Parenthood. This Congress must act on behalf of mothers and the
right to life.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6918, the
so called Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act.
This bill would achieve the exact opposite of its purported goal of
supporting parenting women and families--instead, it would divers
funding away from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program,
or TANF. TANF provides cash assistance directly to struggling families
with children to pay for essential needs. Hypocritically, this extreme
GOP bill would siphon off funding intended for our neediest families to
prop up a network of unlicensed, unregulated Crisis Pregnancy Centers
run by anti-choice activists.
If the GOP was truly the ``pro-life'' party, they would know that
TANF is the only federal assistance program that struggling families
can use to buy diapers for their babies. Families who receive direct
cash assistance

[[Page H210]]

through TANF can purchase diapers for their children at their nearest
store. Some of my Republican colleagues have argued that many Crisis
Pregnancy Centers provide diapers for families. However, if parents had
to instead rely on Crisis Pregnancy Centers for essential childcare
needs, they could be forced to travel long distances to centers that
might not be accessible through public transportation. Additionally, an
investigation by this very body found that 87% of anti-abortion
counseling centers provide false or misleading information about
reproductive care.
If the GOP was in touch with the needs of their constituents, they
would know that diaper need is a crisis in America that can overwhelm
families who are already financially struggling. An average monthly
supply of diapers for a single child costs $80 to $100. As of 2023,
half of U.S. families report not being able to afford enough diapers to
keep their child clean, dry, and healthy, and 3 in 5 parents report
missing work or school because they can't afford the diapers required
to leave their baby in childcare. Tell me, how is taking away the only
federal funding for diapers pro-life?
I strongly oppose this farce of a bill that would only harm
struggling families.
Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak in strong
opposition to the proposed legislation, H.R. 6918--Supporting Pregnant
and Parenting Women and Families Act.
This legislation, in my view, represents a concerning step in the
wrong direction.
It has been characterized by critics as part of a broader effort by
conservative Republicans to limit women's reproductive freedom.
With nearly 18 months having passed since the pivotal Roe v. Wade
decision was overturned, the introduction of this bill signals a
continued push towards what some view as a national ban on abortion.
I believe that reproductive rights are a fundamental aspect of
individual autonomy, and any legislative measures that may restrict or
impede these rights warrant scrutiny.
Furthermore, the potential allocation of federal funds to support
such measures raises serious concerns about the appropriate use of
taxpayer dollars and the role of government in personal healthcare
decisions.
I am committed to advocating for policies that uphold and protect the
reproductive rights of individuals, recognizing the importance of a
balanced and inclusive approach that respects diverse perspectives.
This legislation seeks to undermine a woman's right to access
abortion services by employing tactics that involve misleading
information, deceptive practices, and attempts at shaming individuals
seeking reproductive care.
We as Democrats, in response, remain steadfast in our commitment to
enshrine reproductive freedom as a legal right through the Women's
Health Protection Act (H.R. 12).
This comprehensive legislation aims to safeguard individuals' access
to essential reproductive healthcare services and protect them from
deceptive practices that may obstruct their right to make informed
choices about their reproductive health.
We must advocate for a legislative approach that prioritizes the
autonomy and well-being of individuals seeking reproductive care while
countering efforts to curtail their rights through disinformation and
coercion.
In addition, H.R. 6918 raises significant concerns as it proposes
funding for what are commonly referred to as ``crisis pregnancy
centers'' or anti-abortion centers (AACs).
These entities have been criticized for engaging in deceptive
practices that aim to manipulate women during their pregnancies,
potentially hindering their ability to access comprehensive
reproductive care.
In light of these considerations, I firmly oppose H.R. 6918 and will
work to ensure that the legislative process reflects a careful
examination of its potential impact on the rights and choices of
individuals.
In my home state of Texas where abortion have been completely banned,
our state has continued to struggle with maternal mortality and
morbidity, and the rates are only expected to increase as the years go
by.
In 2013, when Texas first started tracking deaths and severe illness
or injury from pregnancy and childbirth, Black women were twice as
likely as white women and four times as likely as Hispanic women to die
from pregnancy-related causes.
This number has only increased as more women are being denied
lifesaving abortion measures and face inadequate care after birth.
Another undermining aspect of this bill is in its use of TANF, or
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
TANF plays a crucial role as it is a vital resource for families
across the country.
This bill, however, introduces a concerning element by potentially
creating a loophole that could divert essential funding away from its
intended purpose, channeling it toward anti-abortion crisis pregnancy
centers.
These centers have faced scrutiny for their practices, with critics
arguing that they may engage in deceptive tactics, potentially
impacting the comprehensive support available to families.
By allowing TANF funding to be redirected to such centers, there is a
risk that the intended assistance for struggling families may be
compromised.
TANF's importance cannot be underestimated as it provides financial
support, job preparation, and other essential services to low-income
families.
The proposed diversion of funds to anti-abortion crisis pregnancy
centers raises questions about the broader impact on the social safety
net and the potential limitations it might place on the availability of
diverse and comprehensive resources for those in need.
As discussions on this bill unfold, it is crucial to assess how any
changes may affect the original objectives of TANF and the families it
is designed to support.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 969, 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. DAVIDS of Kansas. Mr. 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. DAVIDS of Kansas moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6918
to the Committee on Ways and Means.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Davids of Kansas is as
follows:
Ms. Davids of Kansas moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6918
to the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith, with the
following amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. _. LIMITATION.

Section 2 shall not take effect unless the Secretary of
Health and Human Services finds that there is no pregnancy
center (as defined in section 2) that provides medically
inaccurate or deceptive information or puts at risk the
health of women.

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 ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________