PROTECT LIFE ACT
(House of Representatives - October 13, 2011)

Text of this article available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

        

[Pages H6885-H6903]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            PROTECT LIFE ACT

  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 
358 and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

[[Page H6886]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 430, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 358) to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
Act to modify special rules relating to coverage of abortion services 
under such Act, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 430, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce printed in the bill is adopted, and the bill, as 
amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 358

       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 ``Protect Life Act''.

     SEC. 2. MODIFYING SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO COVERAGE OF 
                   ABORTION SERVICES UNDER THE PATIENT PROTECTION 
                   AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT TO CONFORM TO LONG-
                   STANDING FEDERAL POLICY.

       (a) In General.--Section 1303 of the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), as amended by 
     section 10104(c) of such Act, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (e) and (f), respectively;
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (4) of subsection (b) as 
     subsection (d) and transferring such subsection (d) after the 
     subsection (c) inserted by paragraph (4) of this subsection 
     with appropriate indentation (and conforming the style of the 
     heading to a subsection heading);
       (3) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) Special Rules Relating to Training in and Coverage of 
     Abortion Services.--Nothing in this Act (or any amendment 
     made by this Act) shall be construed to require any health 
     plan to provide coverage of or access to abortion services or 
     to allow the Secretary or any other Federal or non-Federal 
     person or entity in implementing this Act (or amendment) to 
     require coverage of, access to, or training in abortion 
     services.'';
       (4) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Limitation on Abortion Funding.--
       ``(1) In general.--No funds authorized or appropriated by 
     this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including 
     credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 
     36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing 
     reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay 
     for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any 
     health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except--
       ``(A) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or 
     incest; or
       ``(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a 
     physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that 
     would, as certified by a physician, place the female in 
     danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a 
     life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from 
     the pregnancy itself.
       ``(2) Option to purchase separate coverage or plan.--
     Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting 
     any non-Federal entity (including an individual or a State or 
     local government) from purchasing separate coverage for 
     abortions for which funding is prohibited under this 
     subsection, or a qualified health plan that includes such 
     abortions, so long as--
       ``(A) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only 
     funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and
       ``(B) such coverage or plan is not purchased using--
       ``(i) individual premium payments required for a qualified 
     health plan offered through an Exchange towards which a 
     credit is applied under section 36B of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986; or
       ``(ii) other non-Federal funds required to receive a 
     Federal payment, including a State's or locality's 
     contribution of Medicaid matching funds.
       ``(3) Option to offer coverage or plan.--Nothing in this 
     subsection or section 1311(d)(2)(B)(i) shall restrict any 
     non-Federal health insurance issuer offering a qualified 
     health plan from offering separate coverage for abortions for 
     which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a 
     qualified health plan that includes such abortions, so long 
     as--
       ``(A) premiums for such separate coverage or plan are paid 
     for entirely with funds not authorized or appropriated by 
     this Act;
       ``(B) administrative costs and all services offered through 
     such coverage or plan are paid for using only premiums 
     collected for such coverage or plan; and
       ``(C) any such non-Federal health insurance issuer that 
     offers a qualified health plan through an Exchange that 
     includes coverage for abortions for which funding is 
     prohibited under this subsection also offers a qualified 
     health plan through the Exchange that is identical in every 
     respect except that it does not cover abortions for which 
     funding is prohibited under this subsection.'';
       (5) in subsection (e), as redesignated by paragraph (1)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Regarding Abortion'';
       (B) in the heading of each of paragraphs (1) and (2), by 
     striking each place it appears ``regarding abortion'';
       (C) in paragraph (1), by striking ``regarding the 
     prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, funding, or'' 
     and inserting ``protecting conscience rights, restricting or 
     prohibiting abortion or coverage or funding of abortion, or 
     establishing''; and
       (D) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``Nothing'' and 
     inserting ``Subject to subsection (g), nothing'';
       (6) in subsection (f), as redesignated by paragraph (1), by 
     striking ``Nothing'' and inserting ``Subject to subsection 
     (g), nothing''; and
       (7) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Nondiscrimination on Abortion.--
       ``(1) Nondiscrimination.--A Federal agency or program, and 
     any State or local government that receives Federal financial 
     assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), 
     may not subject any institutional or individual health care 
     entity to discrimination, or require any health plan created 
     or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this 
     Act) to subject any institutional or individual health care 
     entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care 
     entity refuses to--
       ``(A) undergo training in the performance of induced 
     abortions;
       ``(B) require or provide such training;
       ``(C) perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay 
     for induced abortions; or
       ``(D) provide referrals for such training or such 
     abortions.
       ``(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `health 
     care entity' includes an individual physician or other health 
     care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored 
     organization, a health maintenance organization, a health 
     insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, 
     organization, or plan.
       ``(3) Remedies.--
       ``(A) In general.--The courts of the United States shall 
     have jurisdiction to prevent and redress actual or threatened 
     violations of this section by issuing any form of legal or 
     equitable relief, including--
       ``(i) injunctions prohibiting conduct that violates this 
     subsection; and
       ``(ii) orders preventing the disbursement of all or a 
     portion of Federal financial assistance to a State or local 
     government, or to a specific offending agency or program of a 
     State or local government, until such time as the conduct 
     prohibited by this subsection has ceased.
       ``(B) Commencement of action.--An action under this 
     subsection may be instituted by--
       ``(i) any health care entity that has standing to complain 
     of an actual or threatened violation of this subsection; or
       ``(ii) the Attorney General of the United States.
       ``(4) Administration.--The Secretary shall designate the 
     Director of the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of 
     Health and Human Services--
       ``(A) to receive complaints alleging a violation of this 
     subsection; and
       ``(B) to pursue investigation of such complaints in 
     coordination with the Attorney General.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1334(a)(6) of such Act 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(6) Coverage consistent with federal policy.--In entering 
     into contracts under this subsection, the Director shall 
     ensure that no multi-State qualified health plan offered in 
     an Exchange provides coverage for abortions for which funding 
     is prohibited under section 1303(c) of this Act.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) 
and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PITTS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I am humbled to stand in this Chamber and engage in 
debate over such a critical matter as this. Like the civil rights 
movement, the pro-life cause has always been about one of securing 
rights for those who cannot speak for themselves and who cannot on 
their own obtain them. The fight goes all the way back to our Nation's 
beginning.
  What more could our Founding Fathers have envisioned when they 
drafted the Declaration of Independence, proclaiming to all that 
America would ``hold these truths would be self-evident, that all men 
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain 
unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit 
of happiness''? There it is.
  The first unalienable right designated by the Declaration of 
Independence is our right to life. Our Founding Fathers must have 
deemed this an indispensable right, for its placement signifies it was 
not an afterthought.
  From the start of our great Nation until now, countless men and women 
have fought and even sacrificed their own lives to protect that right 
for others. Yet, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that 
has

[[Page H6887]]

changed the course of history in this country. A right that had been 
protected for nearly 200 years was tossed aside by a court decision to 
legalize abortion. Up until that point, an unwanted pregnancy was 
likely to lead to an adoption, a process that placed an unwanted child 
in a caring home.
  The legacy of the late Steve Jobs reminds us of the impact an 
adoption can have on the entire world. Fortunately for us, Jobs was 
born 18 years before Roe v. Wade. Shortly after his birth to a single 
mother, Jobs was adopted by a married couple in central California. He 
would go on to be the founder of a tech company that has literally 
changed the world. His was the route of many unexpected children before 
1973.
  Maya Angelou, Babe Ruth, and Eleanor Roosevelt are just a few of the 
many adoptees that have transformed the world we live in today.
  Unfortunately, since Roe v. Wade, more and more women are being 
persuaded that abortion is nothing more than a simple medical procedure 
that will help them move on with their lives. This could not be further 
from the truth.
  A study of Medi-Cal patients in California revealed that women who 
had had an abortion were 160 percent more likely to be admitted for 
psychiatric treatment than those who had carried the child to term and 
delivery. These women who chose to terminate their pregnancies then had 
to deal with the psychological devastation that is often associated 
with such a decision. Adding harm upon harm, abortion is a procedure 
that brings mental trauma to the mother and irreparable damage to the 
unborn.
  Because of this, the policy of the Federal Government for the last 35 
years has been to ban funding for such a procedure. Studies have shown 
that when the government subsidizes abortion, their number increases. 
The President, a supporter of abortion rights, has stated his 
commitment to reducing the amount of abortions in this country. 
Restoring the policy of prohibiting Federal funds for abortion would be 
a good first step. The American people, to a large degree, agree with 
this policy. In fact, as recently as last year, a survey revealed that 
67 percent of Americans support a ban on abortion funding. But the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act failed to include this 
prohibition, and that is why we are here today.
  President Obama indicated his support for upholding the ban on 
Federal funding for abortion in health reform, and that is exactly what 
the Protect Life Act does. The issue of prohibiting taxpayer funds for 
abortion is important to the American people. And so it should be 
important to Congress as well. Protecting the unalienable right to life 
is important to the American people. It should be to the Congress as 
well.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.

     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, House Committee on Energy & Commerce, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Upton, as you know, I requested a referral on 
     H.R. 358, the ``Protect Life Act,'' because it has provisions 
     that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Judiciary 
     Committee. We are able to agree to waive seeking a formal 
     referral of the bill in order that it may proceed 
     expeditiously to the House floor for consideration.
       The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual 
     understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 358 at 
     this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject 
     matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our 
     Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the 
     bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may 
     address any issues in our jurisdiction. Our Committee also 
     reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate 
     number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving 
     this or similar legislation, and requests your support for 
     any such request.
       I would appreciate your including this letter in the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the 
     House floor. Thank you for your attention to this request, 
     and for the cooperative relationship between our two 
     committees.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Lamar Smith,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and 
           Commmerce,
                                 Washington, DC, October 12, 2011.
     Hon. Lamar Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith, thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 358, the ``Protect Life Act.'' As you noted, there are 
     provisions of the bill that fall within the Rule X 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary.
       I appreciate your willingness to forgo action on H.R. 358. 
     I agree that your decision should not prejudice the Committee 
     on the Judiciary with respect to the appointment of conferees 
     or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar 
     legislation.
       I will include a copy of your letter and this response in 
     the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 358 on 
     the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Fred Upton,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                               Washington, DC, September 14, 2011.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Upton, I am writing concerning H.R. 358, the 
     ``Protect Life Act,'' which was favorably reported out of 
     your Committee on February 15, 2011.
       As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has 
     jurisdiction over revenue measures generally, including 
     federal tax laws and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as 
     amended (IRC). Section 2(a)(4) of H.R. 358 amends section 
     1303 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 
     111-148), as amended by section 10104(c) of such Act, by 
     limiting the purposes for which taxpayers may claim tax 
     credits under section 36B of the IRC. I wanted to notify you 
     the Committee will forgo action on H.R. 358. This is being 
     done with the understanding that it does not in any way 
     prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of 
     conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or 
     similar legislation.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 358, and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in the Congressional Record during Floor 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Dave Camp,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                               Washington, DC, September 15, 2011.
     Hon. Dave Camp,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Camp, thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 358, the ``Protect Life Act.'' As you noted, there are 
     provisions of the bill that fall within the Rule X 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
       I appreciate your willingness to forgo action on H.R. 358. 
     I agree that your decision should not prejudice the Committee 
     on Ways and Means with respect to the appointment of 
     conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or 
     similar legislation.
       I will include a copy of your letter and this response in 
     the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 358 on 
     the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Fred Upton,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 358, legislation that infringes 
upon a woman's right to choose. This bill is unnecessary, divisive, and 
extreme. And it saddens me that the Republican leadership has chosen to 
bring this bill to the House floor when Americans are struggling.
  The American people want us to work together to address their top 
priority: creating jobs. As such, we should be focusing on putting 
Americans back to work, not dividing Congress on ideological issues. 
And we certainly shouldn't be considering legislation that rolls back 
women's reproductive rights 38 years.
  Supporters of this bill claim it is amending the Affordable Care Act 
to ensure U.S. tax dollars are not used to fund abortions. However, the 
Affordable Care Act already prohibits the use of Federal dollars to 
fund abortions. Instead, H.R. 358 will eliminate access to abortion 
care for many women by banning insurance plans regulated by the 
Affordable Care Act from offering abortion-inclusive coverage if they 
take even one federally subsidized customer. So if a plan takes one 
subsidized customer, then they can't provide abortion coverage 
insurance to anyone else in the plan.
  What's even more concerning is that this legislation could place many 
women who need reproductive health care in dangerous, potentially life-
threatening situations by expanding a lopsided policy that allows 
health workers and hospitals the ability to refuse to provide and refer 
for abortion care and even deny emergency abortion care.
  So that's why I was so appalled, truly appalled yesterday by comments 
that

[[Page H6888]]

were made at the Rules Committee, and I want to set the record 
straight. This bill is not simply the Stupak-Pitts amendment that was 
debated and supported during the health reform consideration. During 
the Rules Committee, I heard that over and over again from the 
Republican side--this is just the Stupak bill all over again. That is 
simply not true.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 358 goes significantly beyond the Stupak 
amendment. The Stupak amendment limited its reach only to qualified 
health plans and had no effect on completely private plans. But H.R. 
358 affects any health plan.
  The Stupak amendment limited its reach only to Federal funding and 
insurance coverage of abortion. H.R. 358 includes access to abortion 
services, a much broader term with far-reaching effects.
  And the Stupak amendment limited its reach only to State conscience 
protection laws that deal with abortion. But H.R. 358 expands that 
protection to those covering health and medical services outside of 
abortion.
  The Stupak amendment did not create any exception to the obligation 
of hospitals to comply with EMTALA. Instead, it left that obligation 
intact.
  So, as my colleagues will see, no one should be fooled by the 
argument that this is simply Stupak because it's simply not. I want to 
emphasize, the effect of this amendment would mean that, effectively, 
women would not be able to get any kind of health insurance for 
abortion coverage either because they wouldn't be able to get a 
comprehensive plan on the exchange or because they would be forced to 
try to buy one outside the exchange just for abortion services, which 
isn't going to be available.
  So, practically speaking, what the Pitts amendment does is make it 
impossible for a woman to exercise her right under the Constitution if 
she chooses to have an abortion because she won't be able to get 
insurance coverage for it at all.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 358 is a massive overreach of women's health. It 
extensively restricts women's access to reproductive health services 
and lifesaving care. It is a step towards eliminating a choice that our 
Supreme Court has deemed legal and remains legal to this day.
  Now, if you want to overturn Roe v. Wade, and I know that there are 
Members on the other side of the aisle who feel that way, then they can 
try to do that. But don't do it in a sneaky way by denying women 
insurance and effectively saying that they can't exercise what the 
Supreme Court says is their right under the Constitution.

                              {time}  1730

  Women need and are entitled to safe, affordable health care options. 
This bill only serves to create health and financial challenges that I 
think are going to be impossible to overcome. It's dangerous to women's 
health.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``nay'' on the legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. John Fleming.
  Mr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his work on 
this bill and his lifelong career in protecting life.
  Madam Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 358, the Protect Life 
Act, would accomplish two important things: It would remove funding for 
abortion and abortion coverage under the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act, and it would extend the conscience protections to 
pro-life doctors, nurses, hospitals, and other health care facilities 
who object to destroying the lives of unborn children.
  Madam Speaker, I've been a doctor for 36 years, father of four, 
grandfather of two, and I can tell you that the taking of innocent life 
is not health care. It is not health care. Having said that, this 
country is still divided on whether or not a woman should have the 
right to take an unborn infant. However, the country is not divided on 
the issue for who should pay for it--and that issue is taxpayers. Two 
to one, Americans say taxpayers should not be footing the bill. And 
that's what this is about, as well as the conscience clause.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PITTS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. FLEMING. This protection is critical for pro-life and religious 
health care providers and entities. EMTALA, which is part of the 
discussion here, requires that health care providers such as myself 
must take care of women and must take care of their infants, unborn or 
otherwise.
  And so I say to you, Madam Speaker, today, this bill protects life 
and it does not require taxpayers to foot the bill for those who choose 
to take innocent life.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished 
Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding, and I 
thank him for his leadership.
  I rise in opposition to this bill, the so-called Protect Life Act.
  First of all, over and over again we repeat the premise that somehow 
we're using government funds through the Affordable Care Act for 
abortion. We are not. No matter how many times you say it, the fact is 
that we specifically precluded that from happening.
  What this bill does goes much further. It threatens to make it harder 
for women across the country to receive health care that they need. I 
understand the doctor who just said that the termination of a pregnancy 
is not health care. I understand his premise. But I also understand 
that we in America have adopted the premise that if a woman comes to 
the hospital and has at great risk to her life a pregnancy which is 
causing her health to be at great risk and her life as well, what this 
bill does is say you don't have to intervene under those circumstances. 
I don't think that's protecting life, I say to my friend. In fact, I 
think it is ignoring the protection of life.
  Moreover, it does nothing to create jobs, which is what Congress 
should be focusing on during this time when so many Americans are out 
of work. Very frankly, you have criticized the President of the United 
States for submitting a jobs bill to this Congress that doesn't have a 
chance of passage. I have heard that over and over again. All of you 
know this has no chance of passage. It may pass this House--I hope not; 
I urge its defeat--but it won't pass. It won't become law.
  So while millions of Americans' quality of life is put at risk 
because of the lack of jobs and opportunity that they have, we consider 
what I believe is simply legislation to speak to a particular interest 
group in our parties. I understand that.
  Republicans come to this floor and speak all the time about keeping 
government out of people's lives, but this bill does exactly the 
opposite. What it says is that women won't be able to spend their own 
money on comprehensive reform for reproductive coverage under a new 
health exchange. You don't want us to tell people they have to have 
insurance, but you want to tell them what they can't have in an 
insurance--with their own money. I'm not sure I get the distinction 
there. Maybe you can come up with a distinction, but it certainly is a 
very nuanced one, if it exists at all.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. HOYER. Even more unbelievably, the bill will allow a hospital to 
refuse women emergency care of this kind even when necessary to save 
their lives. I don't think that's what you intend. I certainly hope 
it's not. But it is the interpretation that many of us have put on the 
language of your bill.
  So, ladies and gentlemen of this House, this issue has been debated 
over and over again. We adopted a Hyde amendment. The premise of the 
Hyde amendment was that we shouldn't take taxpayers' money and spend it 
on abortion.
  Very frankly, I represent 60,000 Federal employees. We precluded them 
from using the salary that they receive to buy insurance that has 
abortion coverage. It's their money. I hear that all the time: It's 
their money. But you don't allow them to use their money for that 
purpose. Now you are saying to the private sector women: You can't use 
your money.
  You can't have it both ways. Either it's their money for services 
they constitutionally can receive or it's not.

[[Page H6889]]

  Defeat this bill. This is a difficult issue. Let us let women, 
doctors, and their faith deal with it.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I have 
a copy here of the PPACA law. On page 65, I'll just read one title of a 
paragraph: Abortions for which public funding is allowed.
  At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana, Steve 
Scalise.
  Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding and especially for his leadership in bringing the Protect Life 
Act to the floor of the House of Representatives.
  When we look at a time right now when our country is going broke, 
it's offensive to most Americans that taxpayer money can still be used 
to subsidize abortion in this country. We had this debate during the 
President's health care law. We've tried to put real language that 
would protect that from happening. Unfortunately, we weren't able to 
get that protection. For those of us that want to repeal the 
President's health care law completely, we've already passed that bill 
and sent it to the Senate and they've taken no action.
  But we're here today to address specifically this problem and say 
there should be no taxpayer money that is allowed to be used to 
subsidize abortion. And if you look in the bill, there are employers 
out there who are providing good health care to their employees today; 
yet under the law that the President passed and signed into law, 
Federal officials can tell those private employers that they have to 
provide abortion services in their policy, and so they'll just drop the 
policy. This prevents that from happening as well. It gives conscience 
protections so that if there's a medical professional that doesn't want 
to participate in abortion, they don't have to.
  These are all commonsense proposals that should pass and have 
bipartisan support, and they should also pass the Senate.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our ranking member 
of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker and Members of the Congress of the United 
States, this bill is an absolute disgrace. With all the problems we 
have in this country--economic crisis, poverty levels at the highest 
we've seen in a generation, urgent needs for our schools, Americans 
still too dependent on foreign oil and imported energy--what does the 
Republican leadership bring up for us to debate? Yet another bill to 
limit women's access to reproductive health services.

                              {time}  1740

  Now, I say another bill because the House has already adopted H.R. 3, 
and that bill codified into law that no Federal dollars would be used 
to pay for abortion services, whether it's under Medicaid, the 
traditional Hyde amendment, or the D.C. appropriations, or for Federal 
employees, or women who serve in the military, or those who get 
subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.
  What this bill seeks to do, pure and simple, is to destroy one of the 
most hard-fought but delicately balanced sections of the Affordable 
Care Act, and that was on abortion. This section came about as a result 
of a lot of hard work by many Members in the House and the Senate--
particularly Senator Nelson, whose pro-life record speaks for itself, 
clearly and unequivocally.
  The law prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortion. It keeps 
State and Federal abortion-related laws in place. It ensures that those 
whose conscience dictates against abortion are protected and not 
discriminated against. And it went further. The language in the 
Affordable Care Act said you cannot use any subsidies to pay for your 
abortion insurance coverage; you had to use only private personal 
dollars. Well, this bill would restrict insurance plans' flexibility 
regarding abortion coverage, and I think it will result in a virtual 
shutdown of private coverage for this service for everyone.
  This legislation also takes away the Affordable Care Act's limited 
anti-discrimination protection for those providers whose conscience 
dictates that women should have access to abortion. It's a legal and, 
in many cases, an appropriate medical service.
  Among the most disturbing features of the Pitts bill is it would say 
that health care providers would no longer be required to provide 
emergency services as required under the Emergency Medical Treatment 
and Active Labor Act, commonly known as EMTALA.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. WAXMAN. In other words, a woman who may die from her pregnancy, 
if she is in for emergency services, the doctor can refuse to give her 
emergency services if his conscience would prohibit performing an 
abortion.
  Taken as a whole, this bill is a full-throttled assault on women's 
health and a woman's right to choose. It's not what the American people 
voted for last November. We should be focusing our attention on jobs, 
economic growth, and the numerous pressing and important challenges we 
face as a Nation.
  This is a shameless, just a shameless bill. I urge a ``no'' vote on 
H.R. 358.
  Mr. PITTS. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished vice chairman of the 
Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the chairman. I won't take the full minute. I 
just simply wanted to respond to what we just heard here on the floor 
of the House.
  H.R. 358 does not change current law or any standard related to 
section 1867 of the Social Security Act, commonly referred to as 
EMTALA. The section states that a hospital must provide such treatment 
to stabilize the medical condition. Paragraph (e) of section 1867 
defines an emergency medical condition as a medical condition of 
sufficient severity such that the absence of immediate medical 
attention could be reasonably expected to place the life and health of 
a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.
  EMTALA currently recognizes both lives. Therefore, the Protect Life 
Act provides conscience protection that is consistent with the 
emergency treatment requirements of current law under EMTALA.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Health 
Subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition--and I 
must say honest bafflement--to this so-called ``Protect Life Act.'' I'm 
baffled because it truly stretches the limits of the rational mind to 
imagine why the Republican majority--a group of people who supposedly 
say they make it their mission to limit government involvement in every 
way possible--why they continue to insert themselves--and the 
government--into the personal health care decisions of Americans across 
the country.
  What's even more baffling is that for 30 years Federal law has 
prohibited funding of abortions. It's one thing to say the government 
won't pay for abortions, but quite another, as we're doing here, to say 
that women can't use their own dollars to pay for abortion coverage.
  Here we are with this absurd song and dance that has no basis in 
reality, is entirely about scoring political points with the Republican 
base once again while, as my colleagues have said, doing nothing to 
help employment and create jobs in this country. If this bill stopped 
at being absurd, it would be one thing. But more than absurd, this 
cruel legislation would actually allow hospitals to refuse to provide a 
woman abortion care even if she would die without it.
  Now, my colleagues who claim they want smaller government and say 
they want to get the government out of people's lives, this is a hell 
of a way to do it or to prove it.
  I urge my colleagues to fight for common sense, to protect women from 
this harsh attack, and to vote ``no'' on H.R. 358.
  The gentleman before was talking about public funding being used for 
abortions. What is that--using taxpayers' money for incest, or to save 
the life of a woman, or for rape? Would we deny women the right to have 
an abortion if they were raped or if it would save their lives? I think 
not. I think the American people can see through this one. This is 
nothing more than

[[Page H6890]]

playing to the base. It's bad policy for this country.
  Let's get the government out of people's lives. Vote ``no'' on this 
bill.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to another distinguished 
member of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Phil 
Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding, and I commend him for his great work on this bill.
  As a practicing OB/GYN for nearly 30 years, I believe that all life 
is sacred. Having delivered more than 5,000 babies into this world, I 
have a deep appreciation for how wonderful life is.
  The issue of abortion is a very personal matter for me, as it is for 
many in this country and on both sides of the aisle of this issue. 
However, the decades-old debate on the issue of abortion in this 
country, that's not why we're on the floor today. We're here today to 
answer one question: Should taxpayer dollars be used to fund abortions? 
And when an elective procedure--a choice--can decide between life and 
death, I would suggest that it is an important question to answer. The 
Protect Life Act is a piece of legislation that seeks to answer that 
question and set right what the Congress got wrong.
  Speaking as a grandfather, a father, a son, and an OB/GYN physician, 
I will be voting to ensure that our government does not put taxpayer 
dollars behind any person who seeks an elective abortion.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on both 
sides of the aisle?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 16 
minutes. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 20\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
  Mrs. HARTZLER. I thank my dear colleague here for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Protect Life Act, which will 
ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to pay for abortions through 
last year's health care bill. It is right and proper that we should do 
so.
  Every life deserves to be born and is worthy of life. Every life has 
a purpose and a plan. King David reminds us of the value of life in our 
Creator's eyes when he penned the following: ``For You created my 
inmost being; You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise You 
because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, 
I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made 
in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the 
Earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me 
were written in Your Book before one of them came to be.''
  I'm thankful that our Declaration of Independence recognizes that we 
are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights, including the right 
to life.

                              {time}  1750

  Our Founding Fathers laid out the principle of life, and today we 
have an opportunity to affirm and carry on that mantle by passing the 
Protect Life Act.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
dangerous legislation, the so-called Protect Life Act, which will, in 
fact, endanger the lives of women.
  With only 23 legislative days remaining in this session before the 
end of the year, I'm stunned by the decision to waste precious time 
debating this bill, this unprecedented attack on women's health and the 
right of women to access reproductive health care.
  We should, instead, be spending this time debating ways to grow our 
economy, ways to help small businesses create jobs, and ways to rebuild 
our roads and schools so that we can put people back to work and 
improve our competitiveness in the global marketplace.
  But instead of talking about how we create jobs, we're debating 
merits of a bill intended to continue the war on women being waged by 
my Republican colleagues. This bill would effectively limit, for the 
first time, how women can spend their own private dollars to purchase 
health insurance. This is outrageous.
  I am certain Members of this body would never dare to enact 
legislation limiting the ability of men to access health care.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, to end the attack 
on women's rights and women's health, and to focus, instead, on job 
creation.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
  Mrs. BLACK. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding.
  For over 30 years, the Hyde amendment, in conjunction with a 
patchwork of other policies, has regulated the Federal funding of 
abortions under programs such as Medicaid; and together, these various 
policies ensure the American taxpayer is not involved in funding the 
destruction of innocent human life.
  And despite the assurances from President Obama, the Patient 
Protection and Affordability Care Act will allow Federal funds to 
subsidize abortions for the first time since 1976 through State high-
risk pools and community health centers.
  While the President's Executive order was an attempt to reassure 
Congress after the Stupak amendment did not make it into the bill's 
final version, the fact of the matter is that the Executive order is 
not law and it can change all too easily.
  This bill will prohibit funding for abortions and abortion coverage 
under the Patient Protection and Affordability Act. This legislation 
also protects the conscience rights for health care workers such as 
myself by providing that Federal agencies and State and local 
governments funding by PPACA may not discriminate against health care 
entities that refuse to be involved in abortion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. PITTS. I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 seconds.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, this bill is not about a mother's right to 
choose, as the President and the congressional Democrats would lead us 
to believe. Rather, this is about ensuring that the proper restrictions 
are in place in order to assure that taxpayer funds are not used to 
fund abortion or abortion coverage under the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. A new poll 
today suggests that the 9-9-9 campaign theme of the new Republican 
Presidential front-runner is starting to gain traction. And it appears 
that the majority has taken a page from the Cain playbook with their 
10-10-10 program, because this is the 10th month without a jobs bill on 
the floor, the 10th time we've put polarizing social issues and attacks 
on women's health before job creation and economic security, and the 
10th attempt at repealing parts or all of the Affordable Care Act.
  This bill creates no jobs, it doesn't help the economy, and it 
inserts the government smack in the middle of people's health care 
decisions.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill and urge the majority to get to 
work helping the economy and creating jobs.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another 
leader on the life issue, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his 
leadership on this issue, and I'm privileged to be on the floor with a 
lot of pro-life activists.
  I rise in support of the Protect Life Act, and I think we should talk 
about what is really going on behind those dollars that would go into 
abortion clinics.
  It's been called cruel legislation. Think about how cruel it is to 
take a pair of forceps and pull a baby apart piece by piece in dilation 
and extraction, or D Fourteen to 24 weeks, a fully formed, perfect, 
perfectly formed and perfectly innocent baby pulled apart piece by 
piece, put into a pan and added up to see if all the pieces are there. 
It is ghastly, it's gruesome, it's ghoulish, and it's grotesque, and we 
should never compel taxpayers to pay for something that we couldn't 
bear the sight of. And you'll never see a video of it for that reason.

[[Page H6891]]

  It is a process that degrades our entire culture. And to argue that 
women can't spend their own dollars to get an abortion just simply 
isn't true. There is a side piece in this that still prevails, and 
there's always that cash right up to the Planned Parenthood.
  So, Madam Speaker, I urge support for the Protect Life Act, and I 
congratulate the people that have stood for innocent, unborn human life 
so many times on the floor of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  At a time when the American people are crying out for action on jobs, 
we are debating legislation that will instead trample on a woman's 
fundamental reproductive rights. The fact of the matter is that the 
Affordable Care Act prohibits any taxpayers' dollars from paying for 
abortions. That's the law of the land.
  The legislation before the House goes far beyond that, restricting, 
for the first time, how women with private insurance can spend their 
own private dollars in purchasing insurance. For women, this bill 
constitutes nothing less than a full-fledged assault on their right to 
choose.
  Madam Speaker, with 8 million people unemployed in this country, with 
wages going down, poverty is on the rise, and this is all that the 
Republicans have to offer. This is why people are literally in the 
streets demanding solutions to the job crisis, seeking greater 
opportunity and an end to economic inequality.
  The American people do not want ideological posturing. They want real 
solutions that create real jobs. Vote down this legislation.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another 
eloquent voice for the unborn, the chair of the Pro-Life Women's 
Caucus, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. I'm actually one of the folks that read the bill before 
we passed it, and there are passages in the bill that do allow for 
Federal funding of abortion. What this bill does is it seeks to correct 
that language.
  The Hyde amendment clearly states that no Federal tax dollars can be 
used for abortion. At the time that the Hyde amendment was created, we 
really only had Medicaid to worry about; but with the vast changes in 
our lifestyles, other avenues have come forward for Federal funding of 
abortion to occur if we are not careful in the way we construct laws in 
this awesome body.
  Time and time again, the American public has said we're conflicted on 
the issue of abortion, but we're not conflicted about not using Federal 
funds to pay for it. Just in April of this year, 61 percent of 
respondents on a CNN poll said no Federal funding of abortion.
  What this bill does is what we should have done in March of 2010--not 
allow any Federal funds to be used to pay for abortion any time, any 
place in this health care bill.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this and correct the language that 
should have been done a year ago.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to another 
outstanding voice for the unborn, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Protect Life Act 
with a grateful heart for Chairman Joe Pitts and Congressman Dan 
Lipinski for their bipartisan leadership in bringing this legislation 
to the floor. I believe that ending an innocent human life is morally 
wrong. But I also believe that it's morally wrong to take the taxpayer 
dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to subsidize 
abortion or abortion coverage in this country. As it stands today, 
ObamaCare requires millions of pro-life taxpayers to pay for abortions 
and subsidize health care plans that cover abortions. This legislation 
will correct that profound flaw.
  Now, I know President Obama issued an Executive order during the heat 
of the legislative battle over ObamaCare, but we all know Executive 
orders do not carry the force of law. They can be overturned by the 
courts and are superseded by statutes.
  ObamaCare should be repealed. But in the meantime, let's take this 
moment to say ``yes'' to life, to say ``yes'' to respecting the values 
of tens of millions of Americans and make right that which was wrong in 
ObamaCare itself. Let's pass the Protect Life Act, and let's protect 
taxpayers of pro-life values all across this country and do it now.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin, who is also a member of the Health Subcommittee, Ms. 
Baldwin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Notably absent from the Republican agenda this year are 
the issues that the American people really care about--creating jobs 
and growing our economy. Just when we should be pulling together to 
work on these issues, instead, Republicans have put forth divisive and 
extreme legislation that takes away women's ability to make their own 
important life decisions about their reproductive health.
  This extremist legislation is an unprecedented display of lack of 
respect for American women and our safety. The effect of this bill 
would be to cut off millions of women from the private care they 
already have and limit the ability of a woman to get the care she 
needs, even if the result is a serious permanent health condition that 
could shorten her life.
  So we now know the Republicans' real agenda: to roll back women's 
health and rights. They have shown their true colors by trying to 
weaken the rape and incest exceptions for abortions. It's hard to 
believe, but a majority of the Republican House Members cosponsored 
legislation to give insurance companies new authority to decide if a 
woman had been raped and to deny care to incest victims. Thanks to the 
American women who spoke out, this dangerous provision was dropped. But 
I think it raises an important question: If Republicans are willing to 
redefine what constitutes rape and incest, what are they going to try 
next?
  Enough is enough. It is time for the Republican majority to respect 
women's important life decisions, and it is time that they start to 
stand and start to refocus on the priorities of this country right 
now--jobs and growing the economy. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
extreme and intrusive legislation.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the next gentleman, in 
response to the gentlelady, the House has passed 12 different jobs 
bills already. I believe the gentlelady has voted against every one. 
They're sitting in the Senate waiting for action.
  I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona, another 
leader in the pro-life movement, Mr. Franks.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I certainly thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, when ObamaCare was being unceremoniously rammed 
through this Congress against the will of the American people, 
Democrats tried to assure everyone that it was all about compassion.
  But, Madam Speaker, nothing so completely destroys the notion that 
ObamaCare was ever about compassion more than the tragic determination 
on the part of the Democratic leadership to include the killing of 
little children by abortion in its provisions.
  Now, Madam Speaker, as we face a debt that grows by $4 billion under 
the strain of Mr. Obama's record-setting spending every day, maybe we 
should all ask ourselves a question, and that is, is setting aside 
millions of taxpayer dollars to pay for the killing of innocent unborn 
children really one of our financial priorities?
  And if it is, we should ask another question, and that is, what in 
God's name has become of all of us?
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, may I ask about the time again?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 11 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 14\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Austria).
  Mr. AUSTRIA. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his hard

[[Page H6892]]

work on this bill. As a member of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus and 
original cosponsor of this bill, I strongly support the Protect Life 
Act.
  We heard during the health care reform debate that tax dollars would 
not be used to fund abortions. However, this important language was 
stripped from the final bill and replaced with accounting gimmicks and 
an Executive order that can be reversed at any time by this President 
or future administrations.
  This opens the door for federally funded abortions in the future and 
goes against the majority of Americans who believe that the government 
should not be in the business of paying for abortions. Congress must 
act now to protect the lives of our unborn children and to fully ensure 
that no tax dollars from ObamaCare are used to fund abortions.
  The Protect Life Act also ensures that medical providers and workers 
are not discriminated against for refusing to perform abortions. These 
protections are crucial for health care providers around the Nation 
whose core values include a deeply held belief that we must protect all 
human life. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Protect Life Act.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Sutton).
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, the Republican majority is at it again. 
With no real jobs plan, we've seen this majority attempt to thrust on 
the American people bills that strip them of their rights instead of 
putting them back to work. Make no mistake: Those proposing this know 
this extreme bill will not pass the Senate and it will not be signed 
into law by the President.
  This bill, at its core, is an attack on women, especially poor women. 
Its extreme provisions will jeopardize a woman's access to lifesaving 
care. It is outrageous that this Republican majority continues to focus 
on protecting subsidies for Big Oil, tax cuts for billionaires, and 
targeting women and their access to health care.
  Instead of working to help create jobs and empower women to improve 
their lives, the Republican majority is, instead, trying to pass this 
bill to allow hospitals to refuse to provide critical, lifesaving care. 
That means women in rural areas who may only have access to one 
hospital could be left to die.
  This isn't the time to be putting America's women at risk. This is 
the time to be putting them and all Americans back to work. I encourage 
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this extreme bill.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, of which I'm a 
cosponsor. It's been the practice of this House for decades to ensure 
that federal funds are not used for abortion except in rare cases of 
rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. This is typically done 
by attaching language to appropriation bills that go through this 
House. Unfortunately, we don't always have regular order.
  Appropriation bills this year are likely to see a minibus or an 
omnibus or a vehicle that might not lend itself to attachment of this 
language. So I think it is prudent what the House is doing today to 
ensure that this language goes into legislation to make sure that 
federal funds are not used for abortion services and to carry on the 
will of this body. For that, I urge support of the bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Capps), who is a member of the Health Subcommittee.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this misguided 
legislation.
  While the House leadership claims that this week's agenda is all 
about jobs, the discussion of this bill on the House floor shows their 
true colors. Just like when they almost shut down the government over 
Planned Parenthood, today we, once again, witness how ideological 
campaign promises trump needed actions on jobs and the economy.
  It's been said before, and I'll say it again, H.R. 358 does not 
create a single job--not one. Instead, it's an unprecedented assault on 
the rights of women and families everywhere to make important life 
decisions.

                              {time}  1810

  This bill does a lot. It limits the choices of women and families to 
purchase health insurance with their own dollars; it removes vital 
protections to ensure that a pregnant woman with a life-threatening 
condition can get lifesaving care; and it circumvents State laws that 
ensure that women have access to preventive services, like screenings 
and birth control.
  But what this bill doesn't do is trust our Nation's women and 
families to make their own health care choices.
  This is unacceptable.
  Some have claimed that the Affordable Care Act has led to taxpayer-
funded abortions. That is false. Others have claimed that this bill is 
nothing but the Stupak language that divided our Chamber last year. I 
was involved in every debate over the Stupak amendment in the House. 
Madam Speaker, I can tell you this is way beyond that misguided 
amendment.
  So I urge my colleagues to abandon this divisive effort, to put the 
brakes on this extreme legislation, and to let us turn our focus to the 
issue of job creation to help the American people.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, just to correct the gentlelady, there were 
three Stupak-Pitts amendments. Two were adopted in committee and one on 
the floor, which got the most publicity. When they went to the Senate, 
they were all taken out. We're going back to the original Stupak-Pitts 
amendments.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Huizenga).
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I appreciate the leadership of my friend 
from Pennsylvania, who has been stalwart on this issue.
  Really, what we're seeing, folks, is a sleight of hand. They want to 
talk about jobs, and they want to talk about Big Oil because they don't 
want to talk about the preciousness of life and how this procedure 
takes the life of an innocent. It has been labeled an ``extreme'' bill 
when, actually, this is a reasonable step that codifies what this 
President says is his own position.
  I have a brother-in-law who is a doctor down in Cincinnati. A little 
earlier today, I called him to talk to him about what he went through 
in his training and what he had to deal with as to this particular 
issue.
  When I described to him what we were trying to do about allowing him 
and any other med student and any other person who is going through 
that to conscientiously object from putting forward a procedure that 
they don't agree with, he said, Of course, that makes sense.
  When I started talking to him about some of the rhetoric and about 
some of the demagoguery that's surrounding this, he sarcastically said, 
Boy, that doesn't sound political, does it?
  That's exactly what it is.
  The American people who are watching this right now need to 
understand that this is about life and protecting that life and making 
sure that our health care providers have the ability to say ``no'' to a 
procedure that they don't want to do.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 
Sheila Jackson Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, let me be very clear. The 
only ``no'' that is being said is ``no'' to the vulnerable women who 
are traveling in emergency ambulances to the hospital, desiring 
emergency treatment, dying, and not being able to be treated, needing 
to correct a problem that has, in fact, damaged their health and not 
being able to be treated.
  Not only is this bill unconstitutional, but the Affordable Care Act 
does not promote abortion. Frankly, Federal funds are not being 
utilized for abortion as it will complicate the insurance process for 
all women in America.
  All you can hear is the siren going around and around and around--
that woman lying on a gurney--and that hospital being able to say 
``no'' and ``yes.'' The only ``no'' is that she will not live because 
this bill is passed.
  I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill. Vote for life. Vote 
against this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 358, The 
Protect Life Act. This bill will have a detrimental impact on women's

[[Page H6893]]

health, and moreover, attacks a woman's constitutionally protected 
right to choose. It will restrict Access to health care services. It 
would effectively shut down the private insurance market for allowing 
women to get complete health care coverage. Once again instead of 
focusing on JOBS we are again focusing on issues that will not help to 
feed American families.
  As a strong advocate for women's health, I cannot stand by and watch 
as those who do not support the rights of women to determine their 
health care options find different and often insidious ways to take 
away their ability to have full health care coverage.
  We are asking women to give up their right to privacy. These 
decisions need to be between a woman and her doctor. She has the right 
to determine who, if anyone else she would like to inform of her health 
care choices. In addition to rendering it nearly impossible for women 
to get insurance coverage for abortion care in the new state health 
exchanges, H.R. 358 allows public hospitals to refuse to provide 
emergency abortion care, even in situations when the procedure is 
necessary to save a woman's life.
  This has been a long and hard fight. Thirty-eight years ago, the 
American people learned of the Supreme Court's momentous ruling in Roe 
versus Wade--the case which established constitutional restrictions on 
the State's ability to regulate or restrict a woman's decision to have 
an abortion. In the year 1973, the Supreme Court asserted that the 14th 
amendment protects a woman's right to choose for herself whether to 
have an abortion.
  Many women in 1973 must have viewed the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe 
versus Wade as an encouraging turning point in the way our courts 
recognize the rights of women under the Constitution. The Roe versus 
Wade decision at last offered a choice to many women who had been 
victims of rape or incest, but had been denied abortion as a legal 
option. Roe versus Wade offered a choice to many women whose lives 
would have been threatened by going through childbirth, but had been 
denied abortion as a legal option. And Roe versus Wade offered a choice 
to women who, for a variety of personal reasons, would prefer not to 
carry a pregnancy to term, but had earlier been denied abortion as a 
legal option.
  Indeed, it is my hope that the Supreme Court will continue to protect 
women against any State erosion of a woman's individual rights. Let us 
not undermine the breakthrough made for women by the Supreme Court in 
1973. Let us not jeopardize the right of a woman to choose whether she 
will bear children. Let us not place a woman's right to personal 
privacy at risk. Instead, let us reaffirm those rights and give 
consistent support not only to those who choose to have children, but 
also to those who do not.
  Since Roe v. Wade, a woman's right to choose has been systematically 
eroded by anti-choice legislators. In fact, more than 450 anti-choice 
measures have been enacted in the states since 1995, essentially 
rolling back this fundamental right for many women. Women in 19 states 
could face sweeping bans on abortion if the Supreme Court reverses Roe 
and allows states to re-criminalize abortion, menacing doctors and 
their patients with the threat of criminal investigation, prosecution, 
and even imprisonment.
  The argument has been over and over that tax payer dollars should not 
be used to fund abortions. This argument is an extreme overreach. The 
Affordable Care Act already includes a provision that prohibits any 
U.S. taxpayer dollars from funding abortions. As this is the case the 
purpose of this bill seems to only be to rattle people's cages by 
attacking women and failing to address the job crisis in this country. 
We should focus on creating jobs. This bill seems to be a red herring. 
Instead of focusing on jobs, the economy, rebuilding America, we are 
instead focusing on an issue that everyone knows is divisive.
  Women would no longer be able to have full health care coverage 
without disclosing very personal information. They must predict in 
advance whether or not they are going to use a service that is legal in 
this country. It is the law, and the law should be upheld. Women would 
be required to buy separate coverage specifically for abortions. There 
is no such policy for any health procedure that a man may be required 
to undergo. This is an issue of privacy, this is an issue of fairness, 
and this is an issue of gender equality. A woman like a man has the 
right to make private, personal choices about her health. She should 
not be punished by not having access to adequate health care. This is 
about a constitutional right!
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to another outstanding 
voice for the unborn, one of our freshmen from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
  (Mr. LANKFORD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANKFORD. We are a Nation that values all life.
  When a bridge is under construction and a migratory bird's nest with 
eggs is discovered, the Fish and Wildlife Migratory Bird Treaty Act 
forces the delay of construction until the birds have hatched and flown 
away.
  Why? Because life is important to us.
  When a baby is born prematurely, we spend hundreds of thousands of 
dollars to save that child because each life is important to us. We 
have one glaring and obvious exception to this passion for life: 
abortion.
  For some reason, we see the life of a duck and its egg as more 
valuable than an infant in the womb. For some reason, we think that a 
baby born 5 weeks early is worthy of hundreds of thousands of dollars 
of medical technology to save; but if that same mother wanted to hire a 
doctor to reach in the womb and kill that child with scissors 5 weeks 
before delivery, some would demand her choice must be protected.
  What our Founding Fathers considered a self-evident truth is that we 
have been endowed by our Creator with certain rights, beginning with 
``life,'' which is now a topic open for discussion in our modern day 
ethic.
  I still believe in the value of the instructions given to leaders 
thousands of years ago in Proverbs 31: ``Speak up for those who cannot 
speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up 
and judge fairly.''
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I believe there is still more time on the 
other side; so I would reserve at this time.
  Mr. PITTS. At this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him 
for his tireless work for the unborn.
  I think it's a little interesting. I came down here tonight to talk 
about life, and my colleagues across the aisle are talking about the 
jobs bill that their President introduced. Unfortunately, the last time 
I checked, zero Democrats had cosigned that bill.
  Really, what I want to talk about tonight, Madam Speaker, are the 
rights of the unborn.
  We were told when we did this health care bill, Don't worry about it. 
We'll do the Executive order because we're going to take the Stupak-
Pitts amendment out.
  The truth of the matter is, if we were going to do the Executive 
order, why didn't we go ahead and pass the Stupak-Pitts amendment? The 
reason is that we know, inside that bill, in several paragraphs and in 
several areas, is the ability for taxpayer money to be used for 
abortion.
  In fact, according to Douglas Johnson, the Federal legislative 
director of the National Right to Life Committee, ``ObamaCare contains 
multiple provisions that provide authorizations for subsidies for 
abortion, both implicit and explicit, and also multiple provisions 
which may be used as bases for abortion-expanding administrative 
actions.''
  Let's vote for life.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We are running out of legislative days before the end of the year, 
and instead of focusing on jobs or the economy, the House leadership 
has decided once again to consider legislation that endangers and 
attacks the rights of women.
  H.R. 358 is extreme legislation that puts the lives of women in 
danger. This legislation undermines the guarantee of emergency care 
under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, EMTALA.
  H.R. 358 strips EMTALA of its power to ensure that women receive 
abortion care in emergency situations at hospitals by making their 
right to health care secondary to a hospital's ability to refuse to 
provide abortion care.
  Abortion care is necessary in some circumstances to save a woman's 
life. During the hearing on H.R. 358 in the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, some witnesses wrongly claimed that this was not the case. 
In response to those claims, Dr. Cassing Hammond, director of 
Northwestern University's Center for Family Planning and Contraception 
wrote a letter, based on his 20 years of experience in obstetric and 
complex abortion care, to the committee to set the record straight.
  In his letter, Dr. Hammond states:
  ``Most patients are healthy women having healthy babies, but I am 
frequently asked to provide abortions for

[[Page H6894]]

women confronting severely troubled pregnancies or their own life-
endangering health issues. Physicians who provide health care to women 
cannot choose to ignore the more tragic consequences of human 
pregnancy--and neither should Congress.''
  This legislation is an extreme and mean-spirited way to roll back 
women's health and rights. It is too extreme for women, too extreme for 
America, and we must reject it.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to one of 
the outstanding pro-life leaders in this House, a pro-life Democrat, my 
cosponsor of the Protect Life Act, the gentleman from Illinois, Dan 
Lipinski.

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his 
leadership on this issue.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Protect Life 
Act, a bill which will apply the decades-old Hyde amendment policy 
prohibiting taxpayer funding of elective abortion to the Affordable 
Care Act.
  While the discussion in our Nation continues concerning laws 
governing abortions, there has been a general consensus to prohibit the 
use of taxpayer money to pay for elective abortion or insurance 
coverage of abortion. This has long been embodied in the Hyde amendment 
that annually has been included in an appropriations bill which most of 
us on both sides of the aisle have voted for.
  The Protect Life Act simply applies the Hyde amendment to the 
Affordable Care Act, just as the House did in 2009 with the Stupak-
Pitts amendment during our initial consideration of the Affordable Care 
Act. At that time, 63 of my Democratic colleagues joined me in voting 
for that amendment. However, the final bill that became law did not 
include that language, and the President's Executive order does not 
implement the Hyde amendment.
  The order does not include Hyde prohibitions on taxpayer funding for 
insurance coverage of abortion, and it can be struck down by courts or 
overturned by any administration at any time. In addition, what 
happened last year with State high-risk health plans covering abortion 
demonstrates the vulnerability that the Executive order has and the 
need for clarity.
  Madam Speaker, today we have the opportunity to provide that clarity 
and do what a large majority of Americans want and what Congress has 
done for more than three decades; that is, prohibit the use of taxpayer 
dollars for abortion. So today I urge my colleagues to support the 
Protect Life Act.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, let me just ask about the time again. I 
have two more speakers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 6 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  In the United States, if you destroy an eagle egg you are subject to 
5 years in jail and a $250,000 fine. If you destroy a human egg, it's 
not only legal, but it's taxpayer funded. That's what we're here to 
talk about.
  You would hear our friends say that we've taken too much time today, 
that we can't give 2 hours out of the endless lunches, out of the 
fundraisers, out of the rubbing elbows with the powerful to talk for 
the unborn and the innocents.
  I would tell you that even in economic times we cannot suspend our 
voices against injustice. We cannot suspend our voices for the weak, 
the powerless. It is our sacred duty to be a voice in the Republic for 
those who have no standing. The unborn have no standing and no voice.
  Let us allow our voices to be heard for these 2 hours.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
  What I'm hearing from the people in my area, I think most Members are 
hearing this, is the American people want the divisiveness to stop and 
the jobs to start.
  This bill tonight does the opposite. It's the most divisive issue we 
could really put before this House and this country.
  There was a carefully balanced compromise that's been the law of the 
land--and is the law of the land--for a very long time that says that 
taxpayer money should not pay for abortion, but that a woman who 
chooses to have an abortion with her own money has that right.
  This bill upsets that balance but, more importantly than that, I 
think this bill ignores the opportunity for us to come together and 
stop the divisiveness and start working on the problem the country 
wants us to work on, which is the creation of jobs.
  Tomorrow will be yet another Friday without a paycheck for millions 
of Americans. It might be the day that a small businessman or 
businesswoman closes their shop for the last time. It might be the day 
that the mortgage foreclosure is executed and someone loses their home.
  This country is in crisis. There is an emergency around this country 
that needs to be dealt with right now.
  People feel very, very deeply about the issue of abortion on both 
sides. I respect both sides. The law respects both sides with the 
compromise that we have.
  What we ought to collectively respect is the urgent demands of the 
American public to come together and get to work to put the country 
back to work. That should be the agenda of the Congress, not this bill. 
Let us work our will, and whatever it is tonight, I'll be voting 
``no.'' But can't we work our will on a plan to work together and put 
the country back to work?
  Mr. PITTS. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
  Mr. LANDRY. Madam Speaker, this is not a divisive issue; this is a 
bipartisan issue. The language in H.R. 358 was in the Stupak-Pitts 
amendment passed in the Democrat-led House last Congress.
  If they supported it then, why would they not support it now? Because 
of Executive order? Absolutely not.
  ObamaCare created a fund specifically reserved for abortion coverage. 
So what in the world makes one think this money will not support 
abortion coverage? We all remember, ``We have to pass this bill before 
we find out what's in it.''
  Unfortunately, they passed the bill, and we found no language to 
ensure taxpayers won't have to pay for something the majority of 
Americans don't support.
  Madam Speaker, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
insisted the health care law prohibits taxpayer funding for abortion, 
then they should support the bipartisan H.R. 358 to ensure that it is, 
indeed, the case.
  Mr. PALLONE. I have one speaker left; so I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).
  (Mr. HUELSKAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Speaker, I rise today, as the father of four 
adopted children, to offer my strong support for the Protect Life Act.
  Opponents of this bill allege it is unconstitutional, and that is 
simply not true. While the Supreme Court has wrongfully decided 
abortion is a constitutional right, they have also clearly upheld the 
constitutionality of the Hyde amendment and the language in this bill.
  Madam Speaker, this is not revolutionary, earth-shaking legislation 
we are considering. I would like to see Congress go much further in 
protecting life.
  We should not be funding the abortions in the District. We should be 
protecting conscience rights for health care providers. We should stop 
giving money to organizations like Planned Parenthood. We should be 
ending the practice of abortion in America.
  This bill is an important step, but more certainly needs to be done. 
I urge my colleagues to protect life and support this bill in honor of 
all adopted children, their birth families, and their adoptive 
families.

[[Page H6895]]

  Mr. PALLONE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
chairman of the Pro-Life Caucus, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith).
  (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, abortion not only dismembers 
and chemically poisons unborn children to death, and my friend from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) used to know that. He used to be very pro-life, as 
some other Members who have reversed themselves.
  But it also hurts women's health and puts future children 
subsequently born to women who aborted at significant risk. At least 
102 studies show significant psychological harm, major depression, and 
elevated suicide risk in women who abort.
  Published just last month in the British Journal of Psychiatry, a 
meta-analysis comprised of 22 studies and over 887,000 participants, 
the largest quantitative estimate of mental health risk associated with 
abortion in world literature ever, revealed that women who have 
undergone an abortion experience an 81 percent increased risk of mental 
health problems. You never hear that from the abortion side.
  The Times of London has also found the clear link that women had 
twice the level of psychological problems and three times the level of 
depression, and subsequent risk to children born to women who have had 
a previous abortion.
  This is all about no taxpayer funding for abortion.
  Nothing less than a comprehensive prohibition on public funding, 
promotion and facilitation of elective abortion in any federal health 
program, satisfies the demands of social justice.
  The Protect Life Act, authored by Chairman Joe Pitts and Dan 
Lipinski, ensures that all the elements of the Hyde amendment applies 
to all the programs that are both authorized and appropriated in 
Obamacare.
  By now, I trust that all members fully understand that because 
programs in Obamacare are both authorized and appropriated in the law, 
the actual Hyde Amendment has no legal affect whatsoever. Hyde only 
affects Labor HHS programs not this massive expansion of government 
funded health care.
  Thus Obamacare when phased in fully in 2014 will open up the 
floodgates of public funding for abortion in a myriad of programs 
resulting in more dead babies and wounded moms than would otherwise 
have been the case.
  Because abortion methods dismember, decapitate, crush, poison, starve 
to death and induce premature labor, pro-life Members of Congress, and 
according to every reputable poll, significant majorities of Americans 
want no complicity whatsoever in this evil. Obamacare forces us to be 
complicit.
  Despite breathtaking advances in recent years in respecting and 
treating the unborn child as a patient--in need of diagnosis and 
treatment for any number of diseases or conditions, just like any other 
patient--far too many people dismiss the baby in the womb as persona 
non grata.
  I respectfully but firmly asked how violence against children by 
abortion--dismemberment, chemical poisoning, lethal pills 
euphemistically marketed as medical abortion--can be construed as 
benign or compassionate or caring.
  The dangerous myth of ``safe abortion'' must be exposed.
  So-called ``safe abortion'' is the ultimate oxymoron, an Orwellian 
manipulation of language, designed to convey bogus respectability to a 
lethal act. Abortion is never safe for the child and is antithetical to 
UN Development Goal 4--which rallies the world to reduce child 
mortality. Abortion is, by any reasonable definition, child mortality. 
It sole purpose is to kill a baby.
  Arrogant and presumptuous talk that brands any child as an ``unwanted 
child'' reduces that child to a mere object, bereft of inherent dignity 
or value.
  Abortion, not only dismembers and chemically poisons unborn children 
to death, but hurts women's health and puts future children 
subsequently born to women who, aborted at significant risk. At least 
102 studies show significant psychological harm, major depression and 
elevated suicide risk in women who abort.
  Published last month in the British Journal of Psychiatry, a meta 
analysis, comprised of 22 studies and 887,181 participants, the largest 
quantitative estimate of mental health risks associated with abortion 
in world literature revealed ``women who had undergone an abortion 
experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems.''
  Recently, the Times of London reported ``that women who have had 
abortions have twice the level of psychological problems and three 
times the level of depression as women who have given birth or who have 
never been pregnant . . .''
  Similarly, the risk of subsequent children being born with low birth 
weight increases by 35 percent after one and 72 percent after two or 
more abortions. Another study shows the risk increases 9 times after a 
woman has had three abortions.
  What does this mean for her children? Preterm birth is the leading 
cause of infant mortality in the industrialized world after congenital 
anomalies. Preterm infants have a greater risk of suffering from 
chronic lung disease, sensory deficits, cerebral palsy, cognitive 
impairments and behavior problems. Low birth weight is similarly 
associated with neonatal mortality and morbidity.
  Obamacare authorizes health care plans and policies funded with tax 
credits to pay for abortion, so long as the issuer of the federally 
subsided plan collects a new congressionally mandated fee from every 
enrollee in that plan to pay for other peoples abortions. Requiring the 
segregation of funds into allocation accounts--a mere bookkeeping 
exercise touted by some as an improvement to the new pro-abortion 
funding scheme--does absolutely nothing to protect any victims--baby or 
mother--from publically funded abortion.
  Also billions for new Community Health Centers are outside the scope 
of the Hyde amendment as well.
  Obamacare also contains a little known provision that creates a 
devastating loophole for conscience rights. Section 1303(d) allows any 
state or federal law involving emergency services to override any 
conscience protections added to PPACA. Contrary to the claims of H.R. 
358 opponents, Section 1303(d) is NOT uniquely about the 1986 Emergency 
Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The section references 
EMTALA but the operative language is much broader, giving authority to 
override conscience laws to any federal or state law that employs the 
term emergency services.
  The ``Nondiscrimination on Abortion'' (new subsection 1303 (g)) 
portion of H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act applies to Obamacare the 
language of the Hyde/Weldon amendment, which has been in the annual 
Labor/HHS appropriations bills every year since 2004 without any effort 
to change or remove it. This subsection is needed because Obamacare 
creates many new funding streams that bypass the Labor/HHS 
appropriations act, and therefore bypass the protections of the Hyde/
Weldon amendment in that act.
  Also, Obamacare creates a huge new program administered by OPM that 
would manage two or more new multi-state or national health plans. The 
new law stipulates that at least one plan not pay for abortion. Which 
only begs to question: what about the other new multi-state plans 
administered by OPM? Why can those federally administered plans include 
funding abortion on demand? This represents a radical departure from 
current policy.
  Additionally, other appropriated funds under Obamacare that have no 
Hyde-type protections include billions for a temporary high risk health 
insurance pools and billions in grants and loans for health care co-
ops.
  In testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee on February, 9, 
2011, Douglas Johnson, Federal Legislative Director for the National 
Right to Life Committee said:

       The first major component of the PPACA to be implemented, 
     the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) program, a 
     100% federally funded program, provided a graphic 
     demonstration of the problem: The Department of Health and 
     Human Services approved plans from multiple states that would 
     have covered elective abortions. NRLC documented this and 
     blew the whistle in July, 2010, which produced a public 
     outcry, after which DHHS announced a discretionary decision 
     that the PCIP plans would not cover elective abortions. 
     Commentators on all sides of the issue were in agreement 
     about one thing: Coverage of elective abortions within this 
     new, 100% federally funded program was not impeded by any 
     provision of the PPACA, and was not even addressed in 
     Executive Order 13535.
       On the same day that DHHS issued its decision to exclude 
     abortion from this program--July 29, 2010--the head of the 
     White House Office of Health Reform, Nancy-Ann DeParle, 
     issued a statement on the White House blog explaining that 
     the discretionary decision to exclude abortion from the PCIP 
     ``is not a precedent for other programs or policies [under 
     the PPACA] given the unique, temporary nature of the program 
     . . .'' Laura Murphy, director of the Washington Legislative 
     Office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said, ``The 
     White House has decided to voluntarily impose the ban for all 
     women in the newly-created high risk insurance pools. . . . 
     What is disappointing is that there is nothing in the law 
     that requires the Obama Administration to impose this broad 
     and highly restrictive abortion ban.'' (''ACLU steps into 
     healthcare reform fray over abortion,'' The Hill, July 17, 
     2010.)''

  Then there's the Mikulski Amendment, Sec. 2713, which empowers the 
HHS Secretary

[[Page H6896]]

with broad new authority to force private health care plans in America 
to cover ``preventable'' services. When Senator Ben Nelson suggested 
that abortion not be included in the so-called preventative services 
mandate, Ms. Mikulski said no--raising a serious red flag that abortion 
is being postured as ``preventable abortion service in the future''--
after all, abortion prevents a live birth, by exterminating the child.
  Killing unborn children and calling it preventative health care isn't 
new.
  And as far back as 1976, Dr. Willard Cates, Jr. and Dr. David Grimes 
then with CDC presented a paper to a Planned Parenthood meeting, 
entitled: Abortion as a Treatment for Unintended Pregnancy: The Number 
Two Sexually Transmitted ``Disease''. To designate pregnancy a sexually 
transmitted disease; and call abortion a treatment or a means of 
prevention for this ``disease'' is barbaric.
  Abortion isn't health care--preventative or otherwise.
  Madam Speaker, we live in an age of ultrasound imaging--the ultimate 
window to the womb and it's occupant. We are in the midst of a fetal 
health care revolution, an explosion of benign innovative interventions 
designed to diagnose, treat and cure disease or illness any unborn 
child may be suffering.
  Unborn children are society's youngest and most vulnerable patients. 
Obamacare should do them no harm. Tragically, it does the worst harm of 
all. It kills them.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, is the gentleman prepared to close?
  Mr. PITTS. We have two additional speakers.
  Mr. PALLONE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PITTS. At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation, the Protect Life Act. I do want to thank the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Lipinski) for this bipartisan legislation.
  As we have heard during this debate, the health care legislation that 
was signed into law back in 2010 simply did not protect the unborn. It 
in no way included clear or direct provisions that would prohibit 
Federal funding of abortion, and the President's Executive order on 
this issue is totally inadequate. Executive orders can simply be 
rescinded at any time and cannot be relied upon to clarify such an 
issue at any time.
  There are some people who have said the legislation that's before us 
today will stop women from buying health insurance coverage that 
includes abortion, even if they want to from their own money. According 
to the bill that's before us, the bill sets out and articulates that an 
individual may purchase plans that cover abortion with their own money. 
On top of that, the bill also allows a supplemental abortion policy for 
those who use a government subsidy to buy insurance.
  So I wanted to point that out to my colleagues here this evening, and 
I would ask for support for this legislation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), who is really the most 
knowledgeable on this issue.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Colorado is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker, there are some days in this Congress I feel like I'm 
in Alice in Wonderland where logic is turned on its head and all of us 
have fallen down the rabbit hole. Today is certainly one of those days.
  Here we stand on the 282nd day of this Congress, and the House 
majority has not yet passed a jobs plan. Instead, we have spent all day 
long once again attacking women's health with a bill that will never 
become law. A similar bill already passed the House and died in the 
Senate, and the President has issued a veto threat on this bill even if 
it did somehow become law.
  With only 20 legislative days left this year, the leadership of this 
body has somehow decided that we should spend the day advancing 
legislation which would severely compromise women's health.
  Madam Speaker, despite the claims from my colleagues across the 
aisle, this bill does not simply say that there won't be any public 
funds for abortion. It goes far, far beyond. In fact, the Hyde 
amendment, which is the law of the land, says that there will be no 
Federal funds for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or the 
life of the woman, period.
  Let me say that again. There is no Federal funding of abortion 
anywhere in Federal law.
  Let me say that again. The Federal law, not the Federal employees 
health care plan, not Medicaid, not the military, not the Affordable 
Health Care Act, nowhere in the law is there Federal funding for 
abortion, period. In the Affordable Health Care Act, in section 1303, 
it specifically says there will be no Federal funding for abortion.
  Now, this bill, contrary to the claims of its proponents, goes far 
beyond current law, and here's how. It says women who purchase health 
care insurance in the exchanges cannot use their own money to buy 
private insurance plans that have a full range of reproductive 
coverage. Under current law, women can use their own money to buy 
insurance that covers that full range of reproductive health care. And, 
Madam Speaker, that is not changed by the Affordable Health Care Act. 
But under this law, what would happen would be women purchasing private 
insurance plans in the exchanges with their own private money would not 
be able to purchase a plan that had a full range of reproductive care. 
That would take away the rights of women to exercise their own 
constitutional rights to have a full range of health care.
  In addition, Madam Speaker, this bill also includes such broad 
refusal language it could override core patient protections contained 
in the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, allowing 
hospitals to refuse lifesaving treatment to women on religious or moral 
grounds, thus causing their death inside the hospital despite their 
treatable condition.
  Now listen, when I listen to this debate, it's really clear to me 
that the proponents of this bill, their main concern is not Federal 
funding of abortion. Their main concern is they want abortion to be 
illegal, and so here's my view. Having debated this now for 15 years in 
this body, here's my view. If the majority wants to pass a bill banning 
abortion, pass a bill banning abortion and we'll fight it out in the 
courts. Don't make claims that there is somehow Federal funding for 
abortion when in fact there is none to confuse the issues and to try to 
confuse the American public because I'm going to tell you something. 
The public will not be confused. They know what this bill does. They 
know they want jobs, and they know that's our agenda.
  Vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived piece of legislation.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for the recognition.
  Let's be clear about the Affordable Care Act. The EMTALA provision of 
the underlying law, the Affordable Care Act, is not actually the EMTALA 
provision because it puts in a great big loophole. The loophole is in 
the language of the law, and it said providing emergency services as 
required by State or Federal law, which may be changed; and therein is 
the problem.
  Most of us remember the night before the Affordable Care Act passed. 
We remember the drama of Bart Stupak going down to the White House. We 
remember the drama of the Executive order. So what Mr. Pitts is 
providing us today is the ability to put the language of the Executive 
order into legislative language and make it law so that it may not be 
arbitrarily changed by this President or some other President at a 
future time.
  Now, I want to take just a few moments and read into the Record from 
doctors who have written to our committee, doctors who provide 
emergency services, obstetric services, who tell us over and over again 
that they have never been required to do something that was against 
their conscience and put someone's life in danger.
  A doctor from the University of Minnesota writes in: During my years 
of practice, I have worked under informal and formal conscience rights 
protections that permit me to provide the best pregnancy care without 
being forced to perform abortions. In my

[[Page H6897]]

years of practice, I have never seen a woman denied appropriate care 
because of the exercise of the rights of conscience in this regard.
  Another letter, from a Virginia hospital: As a physician who has 
worked in emergency rooms for over 30 years, I am well-versed in the 
Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and similar 
policies. I continue to practice emergency medicine. I teach it. Based 
on three decades of experience, I see absolutely no merit in the claim 
that conscience laws on abortion pose any risk of allowing pregnant 
women to die in emergency rooms.
  Another letter, from the University of North Carolina: My personal 
conscience directs me to provide the best of care to pregnant women and 
their unborn children, and I am able to do so without performing 
abortions, as are several of my colleagues, and a proportion of the 
residents we train each year. I have not seen a situation where an 
emergent event or urgent abortion was needed. No one in my entire 20 
years of clinical practice has ever been denied appropriate care 
because of the exercise of my rights of conscience.
  Our committee receives these letters all of the time. I submit them 
for the Record, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Pitts bill.

         Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center of West Virginia 
           University,
                                 Charleston, WV, October 12, 2011.
     Representatives Joe Pitts and Dan Lipinski,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Pitts and Lipinski: I am writing in 
     support of Sections 2(a)(6) and 2(a)(7) of H.R. 358 that 
     provide federal legal protection of conscience regarding 
     abortion for those who care for pregnant women. My experience 
     includes 20 plus years of clinical care, research, and 
     instruction as a Board certified Obstetrician & Gynecologist 
     and Maternal-Fetal medicine. I daily provide care for women 
     and babies who have medically complicated, life-threatening, 
     and uncommon pregnancy complications. Further, as the 
     originator of ``perinatal hospice'', I have cared for (and 
     still do) dozens of women with babies who have terminal 
     prenatal diagnoses who will die shortly after birth.
       No one in my entire 20 plus years of clinical experience 
     has ever been denied appropriate care because of the exercise 
     of rights of conscience in the provision of abortion. Women 
     and babies may die in spite of our best efforts, but this is 
     not related to abortion availability or provision.
       In my understanding of this new federal statute, conscience 
     will now be formally and legally protected. There is no need 
     for additional exceptions or amendments to this law as it is 
     written.
       I am more than happy to discuss this issue with either of 
     you or with one of your colleagues. I may be contacted by 
     email at byron.calhoun@camc.org or directly on my cell phone 
     at (304) 741-4031.
           Sincerely,
     Byron C. Calhoun, M.D., FACOG,
       Professor and Vice Chairman of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, 
     Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, West Virginia 
     University School of Medicine, Charleston Division, 
     Charleston, WV.
                                  ____

                                      University of North Carolina


                                           School of Medicine,

                                Chapel Hill, NC, October 12, 2011.
     Representatives Joe Pitts and Dan Lipinski,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Pitts and Lipinski: I am board 
     certified specialist in Obstetrics and Gynecology with a sub-
     specialty certification in Maternal-Fetal Medicine. I have 
     over twenty-seven years of experience in practice, teaching 
     and research at a major academic health center. During my 
     career I have cared for numerous women and babies with 
     complications that increase the risk of maternal death. In 
     some of these situations, both a mother and her baby have 
     lost their lives. I care deeply about the effects that public 
     policy and legislation can have on both those of us who 
     provide perinatal care and on our patients.
       My personal conscience directs me to provide the best of 
     care to pregnant women and their unborn children and I am 
     able to do so without performing abortions, as are several of 
     my colleagues and a proportion of the residents we train each 
     year. I have not seen a situation where an emergent or even 
     urgent abortion was needed to prevent a maternal death. I am 
     aware of, and have read, sections 2(a)(6) and 2 (a)(7) of 
     H.R. 358 and I am writing to provide my opinion that I 
     support the formalization of these protections. No woman at 
     UNC hospitals has ever been denied care due to her conscience 
     or beliefs; nor does any physician ever feel obliged to 
     direct or change the standard of care for any woman due to 
     race, ethnicity, religion, or conscience. I see no need for 
     any exceptions or amendments to the law as written.
       I am available for question or comment or for further 
     discussion on this matter. You may reach me at 
     thorp@med.unc.edu or by calling my office (919) 843-7851.
           Sincerely,
     John Thorp, MD
       Hugh McAllister Distinguished Professor of Obstetrics and 
     Gynecology, Professor, Maternal & Child Health, School of 
     Public Health, Director, Women's Primary Healthcare.
                                  ____

                                             Virginia Commonwealth


                                     University Health System,

                                   Richmond, VA, October 12, 2011.
     Hon. Joe Pitts,
     Hon. Dan Lipinski,
     Hon. Eric Cantor.
       Dear Reps. Pitts, Lipinski and Cantor: I understand that 
     the House of Representatives may soon consider HR 358, the 
     Protect Life Act. As a physician I am especially interested 
     in this bill's section reaffirming federal protection for 
     health care providers' conscience rights on abortion. I have 
     heard there may be an effort in the House to insert an 
     exception into this law, so governmental bodies can 
     discriminate against providers who decline to provide 
     abortions in ``emergency'' cases.
       As a physician who has worked in emergency rooms for over 
     30 years, I am well versed in the federal Emergency Medical 
     Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) and similar policies. 
     I continue to practice emergency medicine, and to teach it at 
     Virginia Commonwealth University. Based on these decades of 
     experience, I see absolutely no merit in the claim that 
     conscience laws on abortion pose any risk of allowing 
     pregnant women to die in emergency rooms. Current federal 
     laws as well as Virginia state law respect conscientious 
     objection to abortion in all circumstances; and I have never 
     seen or heard of a case in which these laws created any 
     conflict with women's safety or with legal obligations to 
     stabilize patients' conditions in emergencies.
       Your provision on conscience protection is warranted and I 
     do not think it should be weakened in any way.
           Sincerely,
     Edward J. Read, Jr., MD, FACEP,
       Attending Physician, Emergency Medicine, Hunter Holmes 
     McGuire VA Medical Center Assistant Professor, Department of 
     Emergency Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, 
     Richmond, Virginia.
                                  ____

                                          University of Minnesota,


                                      School of Public Health,

                                Minneapolis, MN, October 13, 2011.
     Representatives Joe Pitts and Dan Lipinski,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Representatives Pitts and Lipinski: I am a board 
     certified specialist in Obstetrics/Gynecology and Maternal/
     Fetal Medicine with 31 years of experience in practice, 
     teaching and research. During that time I have cared for 
     hundreds of women and babies with life-threatening, 
     complicated, and rare pregnancy conditions. In some of those 
     situations mothers and babies have lost their lives despite 
     undergoing the best available treatment including induced 
     delivery at the margins of viability. I care deeply about the 
     effects that public policy and legislation can have on the 
     care of mothers and babies.
       During my years of practice I have worked under informal 
     and formal conscience rights protections that permit me to 
     provide the best pregnancy care without being forced to 
     perform abortions. I have read Sections 2 (a)(6) and 2 (a)(7) 
     or H.R. 358 and I agree with the federal formalization of 
     these protections. In my years of practice I have never seen 
     a woman denied appropriate care because of the exercise of 
     rights of conscience in this regard. There is no need for 
     additional exceptions or amendments to this law as it is 
     written.
       I am happy to discuss this with either of you or with one 
     of your colleagues. I can be reached by email at 
     calvis@umn.edu or on my cell phone at 612-868-9199.
           Sincerely,
     Steve Calvin, MD,
       Clinical Associate Professor of Obstetrics/Gynecology and 
     Women's Health, Co-chair Program in Human Rights and Health, 
     University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 358, a 
bill restricting women's access to reproductive health services.
  It's odd to me that we are choosing to take up this bill now, when 
just last week, we saw that our country only created 103,000 jobs.
  This is not what people in Hawaii or our nation want us working on.
  Debating divisive social issues isn't going to create one single job.

[[Page H6898]]

  Instead, this bill puts a fundamental freedom--our right to choose--
under direct attack.
  Those supporting this bill say it's necessary to prevent federal 
funding for abortion. They're wrong.
  Longstanding federal policy prohibits federal funding of abortion, a 
provision preserved in The Affordable Care Act. President Obama even 
issued an executive order reaffirming this prohibition in March 2010.
  So what's the real reason behind this bill?
  The real reason is to make abortion as unavailable as possible 
because making abortion illegal is still not possible under Roe v. 
Wade. This is yet another bill taking a shot at restricting women's 
access to reproductive health services.
  It starts with restricting how women purchase private health 
insurance with their own money.
  The practical result of this bill would be to restrict, for the first 
time, how women with private insurance can spend their own private 
dollars in purchasing health insurance.
  It says that women who receive a federal subsidy to make coverage 
affordable in the health insurance exchanges would be unable to 
purchase a comprehensive health plan.
  These women could not even use their own money to pay for the portion 
of the plan providing abortion coverage. These aren't federal dollars 
going to purchase that coverage--these are the women's own dollars.
  So what happens? It's the ripple effect.
  Since many women would be prevented from purchasing insurance with 
abortion coverage in the exchange, the insurers will probably stop 
offering it.
  Then, no woman will be able to buy health insurance in the exchange 
with abortion coverage.
  And their access to a legal medical procedure just got a lot smaller.
  Let's be clear: The goal of this bill is not to maintain the status 
quo.
  Rather, its true goal is to make abortion as unavailable as possible.
  For these reasons, it should be rejected.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to 
H.R. 358 and the on-going Republican war against women's health in 
America. This bill continues Congressional Republicans' extreme social 
agenda that jeopardizes women's health care.
  This Congress has already debated similar legislation to prevent 
women from accessing their legal health care. H.R. 358 does nothing to 
create jobs, reduce our federal deficits, or make America safer. 
Instead, this legislation furthers a divisive agenda to impose 
unprecedented restrictions on a woman's ability to access and purchase 
health care for a legal medical procedure.
  Contrary to what my colleagues have said today, H.R. 358 is not 
needed to ensure federal funding does not pay for abortions. Current 
federal law, including provisions included in the Affordable Care Act, 
already prohibits federal money from being used to pay for abortion 
services, except in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of 
the mother. Instead this bill is another attempt by the Republican 
majority to legislatively intimidate women with respect to their 
constitutional right to abortion services.
  The unprecedented restrictions included in this bill would 
effectively end coverage of abortion-related services. Beginning in 
2014, women and their families receiving federal subsidies would be 
prohibited from purchasing a health plan that includes abortion 
coverage within the Health Exchanges. This provision would leave 
millions of women without affordable health care options that meet all 
their health care needs.
  Even more concerning is that this bill could jeopardize a woman's 
ability to receive emergency medical care as required under Emergency 
Medicare Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA; P.L. 99-272). This 
bill could allow a hospital to deny a woman abortion-care even when 
this legal medical procedure would save her life. H.R. 358 does not 
protect life; rather it endangers the lives of American women.
  Instead of this radical agenda, we should be focusing on policies 
that will improve the lives of women and girls, put Americans back to 
work, and advance our nation's economy. I encourage my colleagues to 
vote against this bill and keep safe, comprehensive reproductive care 
accessible to all Americans.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong opposition 
to the bill before us today.
  This bill would impose crippling restrictions on a woman's ability to 
seek abortion services--services that are legal in this country and 
upheld by the Supreme Court.
  The so-called ``Protect Life Act'' would effectively ban private 
insurance companies from offering abortion services.
  I was shocked to learn that under this bill, a woman's life could be 
in danger in the event she needs emergency care--even if the emergency 
circumstances require an abortion--and that procedure is recommended by 
a doctor. This change in the current law would amount to an extreme and 
regressive policy.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us is part of a larger attack on 
women's health, specifically on programs like Title X and organizations 
like Planned Parenthood.
  Madam Speaker, let me tell you why it is so important that we 
maintain women's access to the full range of legal health care options.
  Recently, I heard from Cathy, who has been a health educator for the 
past 13 years.
  Cathy explained to me how the House Republican attacks on women's 
health would, ``Cut millions of American women off from birth control, 
cancer screenings, HIV tests, and other lifesaving care;'' that without 
the information and preventative services that these programs provide 
we are, ``Bound to accrue more expenses in reactive versus pro-active 
measures.''
  These outrageous attacks would have a devastating impact on the 
women, men, and teens in our community.
  At a time when we, as Members of Congress, should be debating and 
passing job legislation, we are instead debating whether or not to 
roll-back a woman's access to legal health services.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this harmful bill.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 358, a 
resolution which seeks to enhance current law to modify special rules 
relating to abortion services and provides protections for those who 
object to abortion. As a staunch supporter of pro-life principles, I 
strongly urge this House to pass H.R. 358 the Protect Life Act.
  It is important for Congress to remember that our work in pursuing 
healthcare reform is to move our society toward accessible medical 
coverage across the nation, especially for the poor and marginalized. 
H.R. 358 builds off these tenets and enhances the compromise language 
that was developed by former Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan, and 
other pro-life members of Congress, to restrict federal funds from 
being used for abortion coverage under the health reform Act passed in 
the last Congress. Although the Stupak language upheld the key tenets 
of the Hyde Amendment, H.R. 358 provides further clarification on that 
matter. The Protect Life Act provides clearer conscience protection for 
institutions and individual health care providers.
  I commend the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Mr. Joe Pitts, for his 
work on this bill and for his persistence in seeing this through our 
legislative process. I urge members of the House of Representatives to 
vote yes on H.R. 358 and to continue to work toward a society that 
upholds the total respect of the human person and the commitment to the 
right to life.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
358, the misleadingly titled the ``Protect Life Act''.
  Let me be clear. The Affordable Care Act already prohibits the use of 
federal funds to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or 
where the woman's life is endangered. We included extensive mechanisms 
to ensure that no federal subsidies in the health insurance exchanges 
would go to pay for abortions.
  The bill on the Floor today takes the unprecedented step of 
preventing a woman from using her own private funds to purchase a full, 
comprehensive health care plan through the exchanges established in the 
Affordable Care Act. That is simply another way of denying a woman the 
right to choose.
  I urge House Republicans to stop playing ideological games and to 
pursue an agenda to help create jobs, strengthen the economy, and move 
our country forward.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 358, the 
Protect Life Act.
  The American people want us to work together to create jobs to 
bolster the economy. Instead, we are here, once again, to consider 
legislation that endangers and attacks the right of women and is far 
out of the mainstream of American priorities.
  H.R. 358 is extreme legislation. It is another attempt to unravel the 
health care law while at the same time expanding anti-choice laws that 
will harm women's health.
  This legislation revives a debate that has already been settled--
there is no federal funding for abortion in the health care reform law. 
Legal experts have said it. Independent fact check organizations have 
said it. Yet, Republicans continue to insist that the possibility of 
funding remains.
  Federal funds are already prohibited from being used for abortions 
under the Hyde Amendment--at the expense of poor women, federal 
employees, women in the District of Columbia and women in the military. 
But this bill goes way beyond that law.
  It would take away a woman's right to make her own decisions about 
her reproductive health--even with her own money.
  It could expand the existing conscience objection to avoid providing 
contraception.
  And, it would allow public hospitals to deny emergency abortion care 
to women in life-threatening situations.
  H.R. 358 undermines the guarantee of emergency care under the 
Emergency Medical

[[Page H6899]]

Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). EMTALA creates a legal safety 
net that guarantees that anyone in need of emergency health care, 
including those unable to pay for health care, cannot be denied such 
care at hospitals.
  H.R. 358 would strip EMTALA of its power to ensure that women receive 
abortion care in emergency situations at hospitals by making their 
right to health care secondary to the hospital's ability to refuse to 
provide abortion care.
  Abortion care is necessary in some circumstances to save a woman's 
life. During the hearing on H.R. 358 in the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, some witnesses wrongly claimed that this was not the case.
  In response to those claims, Dr. Cassing Hammond, Director of 
Northwestern University's Center for Family Planning and Contraception 
as well as its academic Section of Family Planning, wrote a letter to 
the Committee to set the record straight. Dr. Hammond has twenty years 
of experience in obstetric and complex abortion care.
  In his letter, Dr. Hammond states:

       Most patients are healthy women having healthy babies, but 
     I am frequently asked to provide abortions for women 
     confronting severely troubled pregnancies or their own life 
     endangering health issues. Physicians who provide health care 
     to women cannot choose to ignore the more tragic consequences 
     of human pregnancy--and neither should Congress.

  Dr. Hammond then proceeds to give several examples from his own 
experience of women who required abortion care in life-saving 
circumstances. The following examples illustrate just a few of those 
instances:

       One of my own obstetric patients carrying a desired 
     pregnancy recently experienced rupture of the amniotic sac at 
     20 weeks gestation. The patient had a complete placenta 
     previa, a condition where the afterbirth covers the opening 
     of the uterus. Although the patient hoped the pregnancy might 
     continue, she began contracting and suddenly hemorrhaged, 
     losing nearly a liter of blood into her bed in a single gush. 
     Had we not quickly intervened to terminate the pregnancy, she 
     would have bled to death, just as women do in countries with 
     limited access to obstetric services.
       My service often receives consults regarding patients with 
     serious medical issues complicating pregnancy. We recently 
     had a 44-year-old patient whose pregnancy had been 
     complicated by a variety of non-specific symptoms. A CT scan 
     obtained at 23 weeks gestation revealed that the patient had 
     lung cancer that had metastasized to her brain, liver, and 
     other organs. Her family confronted the difficult choice of 
     terminating a desired pregnancy or continuing the pregnancy 
     knowing that the physiological burden of pregnancy and cancer 
     might worsen her already poor prognosis. The family chose to 
     proceed with the pregnancy termination.
       My service frequently sees patients with early pre-
     eclampsia, often referred to by the term ``toxemia.'' Pre-
     eclampsia usually complicates later gestation, but 
     occasionally complicates pregnancy as early as 18 to 20 
     weeks, well before the fetus is viable. The only treatment 
     for severe pre-eclampsia is delivery. Otherwise, the 
     condition will worsen, exposing the mother to kidney failure, 
     liver failure, stroke and death. One Christmas morning I had 
     to leave my own family so that I could provide a pregnancy 
     termination for a remarkably sick, pre-eclamptic teenager.

  These are women suffering from the most serious of health conditions. 
If H.R. 358 were in place, they could be denied the emergency care they 
need.
  The attention Republicans are focusing on the private lives of 
women--what American family do with their own money--makes it clear 
that their real goal is to ban all abortions and end access to birth 
control and contraceptives.
  Republicans don't want government to protect the water we drink, the 
air we breathe, or the food we eat--but they do want to intrude in a 
women's right to choose.
  We are now at 280 days in this Congress without passing a jobs plan--
yet the Republican majority has consistently managed to pass extreme 
and divisive legislation targeted at women's health.
  The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 358, and this bill has no 
chance of becoming law.
  We are running out of legislative days left before the end of the 
year. When is the Republican majority going to focus on jobs and the 
economy?
  Now is the time to work on the issues that are most important to 
Americans--creating jobs and improving the economy--rather than 
restricting reproductive choice and access to family planning.
  This legislation is an extreme and mean-spirited way to roll back 
women's health and rights. It is too extreme for women, too extreme for 
America, and we must reject it.
  Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, never in my life will I forget the Sunday 
afternoon when this House, under the previous majority, passed a health 
care law that permitted taxpayer funding of abortions.
  It remains as inconceivable to me now, as it was then, that the very 
first act by our government on an innocent and defenseless life could 
be to end it. We all remember the assurances we heard that the bill 
would respect the Hyde Amendment, which has enjoyed bipartisan support 
in this House for decades. Many of us knew better.
  The ink had barely dried on the legislation before instances came up 
of taxpayer money potentially being used, in one form or another, for 
abortion services. This House needs to state without equivocation that 
the Hyde Amendment fully applies to the new health care law, for 
however long the act may continue to be in effect. There should be no 
possible wiggle room for abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.
  The law also put health care providers and hospitals in the 
unconscionable dilemma of having to perform abortions against their own 
beliefs and principles. The government should not have the power to do 
that. This bill protects the exercise of individual conscience.
  In my view, the health care law--Obamacare, as many of us call it--is 
so flawed that the best approach is to repeal it altogether, but we 
will not get that with this President. Until that day, we must stand in 
support of life and innocent babies and we can do that by passing The 
Protect Life Act.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. The American people want us to work 
together to address their top priority: creating jobs. We're now 280 
days into this Congress, and we haven't passed a jobs plan.
  With only 22 legislative days left this Congress, instead of 
addressing jobs, Republicans are continuing to propose legislation 
targeting women's health.
  This bill disregards the compromise on abortion reached during last 
year's debate on the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA is consistent 
with long-standing federal law by prohibiting the use of federal funds 
to pay for abortions (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the 
life of the woman would be endangered). The Act requires two separate 
premium payments for women and families receiving federal subsidies 
that choose health plans that include abortion coverage. The language 
is clear--no portion of federal subsidies may be used to pay for the 
portion of coverage that is purchased in state exchanges that relates 
to abortions. While I don't agree with the ban on federal funding, 
Members decided last year to call a truce and preserve the status quo. 
This bill would go further.
  This bill restricts how women with private insurance can spend their 
own private dollars in purchasing health insurance. The Protect Life 
Act would prohibit all individuals who receive federal subsidies from 
purchasing a plan that includes abortion coverage (even if they are 
using their own private dollars to purchase the portion of coverage 
relating to abortions), and would also prohibit insurance plans from 
offering abortion services if they accept even one individual who 
receives a subsidy. Health care plans will likely be deterred from 
covering abortion, and since most insurance plans currently cover 
abortion, the Protect Life Act would result in millions of women losing 
the coverage they currently have.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican assault on women's 
health and to oppose the Protect Life Act.
  Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 358, the 
Protect Life Act. This legislation intrudes on women's reproductive 
freedom and access to health care and unnecessarily restricts the 
private insurance choices that women and their families have today. 
Proponents say that it would simply ban federal funding of abortion. 
However, as we all know, current law prohibits federal funding of 
abortion.
  The American people want us to work together to address their top 
priority: creating jobs. We are now at 280 days in this Congress 
without passing a jobs plan. Yet the Republican Majority continues to 
bring legislation to the floor that restricts women's reproductive 
health care.
  H.R. 358 is another attempt by the Majority to pass an anti-abortion 
policy that already failed during the health care reform debate.
  Current law allows policy holders to buy abortion coverage by making 
separate payments, but H.R. 358 would prohibit any insurance plan from 
offering abortion coverage if they have even one enrollee that receives 
federal subsidies. Thus, it effectively forces plans to choose between 
not offering abortion care to the entire population of a state and 
offering a plan to only a small number of enrollees--which choice makes 
more economic sense? What do you think insurance companies will choose?
  H.R. 358 also supersedes current law by expanding the current 
definition of health care providers to include any employee of a health 
care entity that provides abortion services, whether they actually 
provide patient care or not. Make no mistake: these newly designated 
health care entities can refuse to provide or refer a woman for 
abortion care, even when a woman's life is in critical danger.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 358 makes it clear to the American people that 
the Republican Majority is much more interested in dismantling

[[Page H6900]]

health reform and playing politics with divisive social issues than 
creating jobs and fixing our broken economy.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 358, the 
Protect Life Act.
  We've worked so hard over the last few decades to advance women's 
health and the Protect Life Act just steamrolls right over that 
progress.
  This bill would bar anyone getting federal health subsidies from 
purchasing private insurance policies that include abortion coverage. 
This makes it unlikely that ANY health plan would cover abortion, 
alienating all American women from truly comprehensive health plans.
  It allows hospitals to refuse to provide life-saving abortions to 
women who face imminent threat of death.
  And it gives states the ability to attack coverage of non-abortion 
related services, such as contraception.
  I support a woman's legal right to opt for, or against, an abortion. 
The decision is private. It's a matter of faith and it's a matter of 
conscience, and our Constitution recognizes this.
  The Protect Life Act is a shameful attempt to impose a radical 
political agenda on women. It strips away their individual liberties 
and puts their health at serious risk. This bill is wrong, this bill is 
dangerous, and this House should reject it.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to 
H.R. 358: a bill that is completely unnecessary; a bill that denies 
women the freedom of choice; a bill that re-opens an abortion debate 
that was settled in 2010; and a bill that will have a detrimental 
impact on the health and health care of women across the United States 
and in the U.S. Territories.
  Contrary to the very false claims of my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle, not only is the Hyde Amendment fully in effect and fully 
enforced, but the Affordable Care Act includes several strong 
provisions that explicitly prohibit the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to 
fund abortions. In fact, those provisions were endorsed by the Catholic 
Health Association. Additionally, there have been numerous audits--
including by the Government Accounting Office and the Inspector 
General--as well as congressional hearings, they all concluded that the 
law is being followed.
  The sad irony here is that this bill is named the ``Protect Life 
Act.'' However, despite its name, this bill does very little to protect 
and improve the lives of women. What this bill would do, however, is to 
restrict--for the first time in history--how millions of women with 
private health insurance can spend their own private health insurance 
dollars. It also will undermine the success we achieved in expanding 
access to affordable, quality health care for women because it will 
force health plans participating in the health insurance Exchanges--
which will begin in 2014 and which are expected to lift tens of 
millions of Americans out of the ranks of the uninsured--to drop 
comprehensive coverage. And, if those aspects of this bill are not bad 
enough, consider this: H.R. 358 also eliminates the existing 
protections for women who seek abortion care in emergency circumstances 
and in situations that would literally save the woman's life. How, I 
must ask, does such a provision protect a woman's life?
  Today, millions of Americans are suffering the consequences of very 
real hardships--so many of which sometimes seem insurmountable. In 
times like these, we should be working together to create jobs by 
passing the American Jobs Act and we should be working together to move 
this nation forward building upon--and not trying to dismantle--the 
many successes we achieved with the historical health reform law. The 
problems we are facing today are very serious and require serious 
people to develop serious solutions instead of pursuing an ideological 
agenda that divides the nation. As a physician, I fully support 
legislation that would actually protect and improve lives, not only in 
title, but in reality. This bill, however, is not such a bill. I, 
therefore, strongly oppose H.R. 358 and urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, today I rise in 
strong opposition to H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act. Instead of 
focusing on creating jobs, the House majority has decided instead to 
continue their relentless assault on women's rights and limit access to 
fair and adequate health care.
  Despite its name, this bill is not about protecting life. In fact, it 
is far from it. One provision in this bill would put women's lives in 
danger by allowing hospitals to refuse to provide life-saving abortion 
care even when a woman's life is in critical danger.
  This bill would also allow states to ostensibly deny critical non-
abortion services to women. The Protect Life Act has the potential to 
undermine laws guaranteeing health care services well beyond those in 
the reproductive-health area. This could result in the denial of mental 
health care, HIV counseling, and other vital services.
  Current law is clear: Federal funding of abortion is forbidden except 
under very limited circumstances. This bill would impose unprecedented 
limitations on abortion coverage and restrict access to abortion 
services and contraceptives for all women. I urge my colleagues to 
reject this dangerous assault on women and I urge the majority to work 
on legislation that will put Americans back to work.
  Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
underlying bill. At a time when Americans' top priority is job 
creation--when Americans are desperately calling on us to work together 
to turn our economy around--some are instead launching the most 
comprehensive and radical assault on women's health in our lifetime. 
This shameful attack on women's ability to obtain complete health 
information and services does a disservice to women, families, and all 
Americans.
  To begin with, according to the stated purpose of the bill, which is 
to prevent federal funds from being used to cover abortion services, 
the bill is already gratuitous. Recent legal challenges to the 
Affordable Care Act have revealed that it contains ``strict safeguards 
at multiple levels to prevent federal funds from being used to pay for 
abortion services beyond those in the case of rape or incest or where 
the life of the woman is endangered,'' rendering this legislation 
unnecessary. This type of extreme and redundant legislation will prove 
insightful to jobless Americans wondering why they have yet to see 
meaningful economic turnaround.
  H.R. 358 would effectively prevent women from obtaining private 
insurance coverage for abortion services. By banning coverage of 
abortion in health exchanges, the bill will ensure that no one will be 
able to purchase abortion coverage--including women who do not receive 
federal assistance. The bookkeeping burden that would be required for 
insurers to offer separate policies, with and without abortion 
coverage, is simply too high. Insurance providers are surely not 
interested in providing both, when most women cannot afford to pay for 
the abortion coverage option out-of-pocket anyway. Proponents of the 
legislation suggest that insurance companies could simply offer an 
``abortion rider.'' Women would have to plan for an unplanned pregnancy 
by purchasing supplemental insurance. This is unlikely, considering 
that most cannot afford to purchase even a single insurance policy. 
Furthermore, history has shown that insurers are reluctant to offer 
``riders'' even when given the option to do so. As health exchanges 
grow as they are expected to, these restrictions will only affect more 
and more women looking for affordable and adequate health insurance.
  Furthermore, the bill seeks to dramatically expand dangerous refusal 
provisions which contradict prevailing standards of care. Such 
expansion ignores the basic tenant of ethical health care, which 
requires that patients be presented with all of their medical options 
when making health care decisions. This bill would allow professionals 
with only a tangential connection to abortion services, such as a 
hospital receptionists or claims adjusters at insurance companies, to 
obstruct the medical process due to their beliefs. This would 
effectively tip the balance against patients seeking effective and 
comprehensive health care.
  The `non-discrimination' provision in fact discriminates against 
abortion providers, as it provides no protection for their beliefs. A 
one-sided non-discrimination provision is not nondiscriminatory at all. 
We cannot allow this expansion, which would create a culture of refusal 
where anyone could obstruct access to abortion services for any reason.
  Most disturbingly, a late addition to the Pitts bill would allow the 
expansive refusal provision to trump important patient protections 
guaranteed by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, as 
well as similar protections in state laws requiring emergency care 
providers to save a woman's life. This would be an unprecedented 
expansion of the right to refusal. We simply cannot allow for the 
possibility that a pregnant woman suffering from a medical emergency 
would see her right to medical care overridden by health professionals' 
moral views, which do not always place her health and safety first. 
Unfortunately, we have already seen what happens when professionals 
place their views over the health of the patient. In one case several 
months ago, a woman almost died over an unviable fetus as medical 
professionals exercised their right of refusal and waited for the fetus 
to die, delaying treatment for the mother. We cannot allow women to 
unwittingly seek emergency treatment at medical facilities that do not 
value their safety first. We cannot override existing EMTALA patient 
protections.
  Finally, language in the Pitts bill extends far beyond abortion, and 
could allow insurers to refuse to provide other vital health services 
that are part of the minimum standards for health coverage set by the 
Affordable Care Act. This bill would open the door to refusal of 
effective reproductive services concerning contraception and 
infertility, for example. As we look to preventative services to avoid 
more

[[Page H6901]]

expensive future treatments, this bill could prevent access to 
screening for sexually transmitted diseases and cervical cancer. At a 
time when many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, put food on 
the table, and pay their mortgages, it is unfathomable that we could 
consider restricting access to these essential, safe, and effective 
health services.
  To reiterate, the Affordable Care Act contains ample protection 
against federal funding for abortion. The Pitts bill, in addition to 
being discriminatory, would create undue hardship on women and families 
as they attempt to make private health care decisions. It is dangerous 
to the health of pregnant women, and all women. At a time of staggering 
unemployment and economic hardship, this bill, unnecessary and unfair 
as it is, is not the kind of leadership Americans are looking for from 
Congress. To vote Yes on this bill is to roll back the strides we have 
been making toward equitable and effective health care for all 
Americans, and that is unacceptable.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote No on this 
Bill.
  Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, today, I rise in support of H.R. 358, The 
Protect Life Act. This bill would amend the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to prevent federal funding for abortion or 
abortion coverage through any program authorized by the health care 
law.
  Nebraskans feel strongly--federal dollars should never be used to pay 
for abortion coverage. Unfortunately, last year's misguided health care 
law contains loopholes and ambiguities, which opens the door to allow 
taxpayer subsidies for coverage that includes abortion. This bill also 
protects the right of conscience for health care professionals by 
ensuring private insurance companies are not mandated to cover 
abortion. This bill does allow for some exemptions, including if the 
pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or if the life of the mother 
is endangered.
  This bill specifically targets the abortion funding scheme created in 
PPACA. I have always been an ardent supporter of the unborn, and 
today's vote is a step towards protecting those that cannot protect 
themselves.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 358. As 
a staunch pro-life member of Congress, I have always supported the Hyde 
Amendment. During the health care reform debate, I made it very clear 
on the House floor and reassured my pro-life colleagues that the Hyde 
Amendment was included in the Affordable Care Act. It has been the law 
since 1976 and it is still the law now. Not only is the Hyde Amendment 
included in the Affordable Care Act, but the President signed an 
executive order reinforcing that federal funding cannot be used for 
abortions. We cannot let people imply or infer that the Hyde Amendment 
is not already part of the Affordable Care Act. A vote in support of 
H.R. 358 would be an admission that the Hyde Amendment was not included 
in the Affordable Care Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 430, 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.

                              {time}  1840


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Mrs. CAPPS. I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mrs. Capps moves to recommit the bill H.R. 358 to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report 
     the same to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
       In section 2(a)(7), in the amendment instruction adding the 
     new subsection (g), strike ``subsection'' and insert 
     ``subsections''.
       Insert after the subsection (g) of section 1303 of the 
     Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as proposed to be 
     added by section 2(a)(7), the following:
       ``(h) Protecting the Life of the Mother in a Medical 
     Emergency.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to exempt 
     any hospital or health care provider from Federal or State 
     laws that require such hospital or provider to provide 
     medical examination, treatment, referral, or transfer to 
     prevent the death of a pregnant woman with an emergency 
     medical condition.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, as the debate today has shown, this 
Chamber is deeply divided over this bill. But we should all be able to 
agree that when a pregnant woman is in a medical emergency, we must do 
all we can to save her, and that is what this final amendment affirms.
  I want to be clear: The passage of this amendment will not prevent 
the passage of the underlying bill. If it's adopted, my amendment will 
be incorporated into the bill and the bill will immediately be voted 
upon.
  Madam Speaker, the underlying bill creates a loophole which would 
allow hospitals to circumvent the Emergency Medical Treatment and 
Active Labor Act, a law that has saved many lives. The law, called 
EMTALA for short, was established to ensure that when a patient arrives 
at a hospital in critical condition, particularly women in labor, the 
patient will at least be stabilized. It is truly the embodiment of the 
Hippocratic Oath to ``apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures 
that are required.''
  EMTALA has been law for over 25 years--and it works. However, the 
bill before us today could lead to a radical and uncalled for loophole 
to this law. It would allow providers to refuse emergency care for 
women even if their lives are endangered by their pregnancy. The 
hospitals could even refuse to give a referral.
  I'm a nurse who's worked long shifts in the hospital setting, and I 
find it immoral to deny care to a woman with a life-threatening 
condition just because she's pregnant. This loophole is wrong, it's 
extreme, and it's cruel.
  Unfortunately, there are some tragic complications that can occur 
during pregnancy for which a therapeutic abortion is necessary to save 
the life of a pregnant woman. I'm speaking about conditions like severe 
preeclampsia, where a pregnant woman's rapid rise in blood pressure can 
lead to seizure, stroke, multiple organ failure, and her death; or 
pulmonary hypertension, a condition that the American College of 
Cardiology guidelines explicitly states necessitates the termination of 
a pregnancy to avoid maternal death.
  If you've never heard of these conditions, it might be easy to think 
they're not significant. But to the women whose lives are saved by 
these emergency abortion services--oftentimes mothers who very much 
want this pregnancy to be successful--this issue is more than politics. 
It's literally life or death. What if your wife or your daughter was 
rushed to the hospital, pregnant, with severe bleeding. You don't 
research or compare the policies of your local hospitals. You go to the 
one that's closest--the one you trust will save your loved one. But 
when the diagnosis is made and an emergency abortion is necessary to 
save her life, what would you do if that hospital refused to perform it 
to stabilize her or even provide a referral for her care elsewhere? 
Thanks to the protections provided by EMTALA, this cannot happen today. 
But if this bill before us becomes law without my amendment, it very 
well could.
  Madam Speaker, my amendment is not just a debate between two sides of 
the abortion issue. It is about saving women's lives in the middle of 
very traumatic times for them and their families.
  I would like to bring to your attention a letter sent to Chairman 
Pitts from the Catholic Health Association. CHA is clear in its 
religious affiliation and its opposition to abortion. So perhaps 
because of this perspective, CHA says this best. ``CHA member hospitals 
have been providing compassionate, quality care under both EMTALA and 
the Weldon amendment without conflict since the enactment of these 
provisions. Accordingly, the Catholic Health Association does not 
believe that there's a need for the provider nondiscrimination section 
to apply to EMTALA.''
  CHA's statement is clear: EMTALA's treatment requirement and the 
current provider conscience laws work together hand in hand. There is 
no need for an unprecedented carveout or exception that would endanger 
women's lives.
  As a nurse, I respect the conscience clause language a great deal. 
But I cannot ever imagine a situation where morally, ethically, and 
legally a medical professional could be allowed to stand by and let 
someone needlessly die. No pregnant woman or her family should be 
afraid that she would be denied the care she needs when she goes to a 
hospital in an emergency. We need to make sure that doesn't happen.
  Today we have the opportunity to fix a problem created with this 
legislation

[[Page H6902]]

before tragedy strikes. So I urge you to protect women's lives and 
support this final amendment to this bill.

                                       Catholic Health Association


                                         of the United States,

                                 Washington, DC, February 9, 2011.
     Hon. Joseph R. Pitts,
     Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Catholic Health Association of the 
     United States (CHA) would like to express our continued 
     support for the intent of your legislation, H.R. 358, the 
     Protect Life Act, to further ensure protection of the unborn 
     and of providers' conscience rights.
       We have had the opportunity to review your revised version 
     of H.R. 358 and would like to share our concern regarding one 
     specific modification to your legislation. Section 1303(f) 
     regarding emergency services laws, including Emergency 
     Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), now includes 
     a reference to a new provision regarding provider 
     nondiscrimination (Section 1303(g)). Your provider 
     nondiscrimination language is similar to the conscience 
     protections of the Weldon Amendment. CHA member hospitals 
     have been providing compassionate, quality care under both 
     EMTALA and the ``Weldon Amendment,'' without conflict since 
     the enactment of these provisions. Accordingly, CHA does not 
     believe that there is a need for the provider 
     nondiscrimination section to apply to EMTALA.
       As the national leadership organization of more than 2,000 
     Catholic health care systems, hospitals, long-term care 
     facilities, sponsors, and related organizations, the Catholic 
     health ministry provides care throughout the nation to 
     patients of all ages, races and religious beliefs. Catholic 
     hospitals provide a higher percentage of public health and 
     specialty services than other health care providers including 
     state and local government, other not-for-profit, or 
     investor-owned (for-profit) hospitals. These services include 
     neonatal ICU, obstetrics, breast cancer screening and 
     mammograms, children's wellness, child and adolescent 
     psychiatric services, community outreach, dental services, 
     crisis prevention, palliative care, pain management programs, 
     nutrition programs, hospice, HIV/AIDS services, geriatric 
     services, alcohol and drug abuse treatment, and trauma care. 
     Many of these services are critical to our communities and we 
     continue to provide them even though many of these services 
     are not self-sustaining and must be subsidized by other 
     hospital revenue.
       Building upon our country's tradition of pluralism and the 
     freedom to exercise our beliefs, CHA has long supported 
     language within appropriations legislation to prohibit 
     federal funding of abortions (Hyde amendment) and language to 
     protect hospitals and other institutional and individual 
     health care providers should they decline to provide, pay 
     for, or refer for abortions (Weldon Amendment).
       Again, while we continue to believe the current provisions 
     of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) prevent federal funding of 
     abortion, we support your efforts to further ensure permanent 
     protection of the unborn and of provider's conscience rights 
     and look forward to working with you.
           Sincerely,
                                             Sr. Carol Keehan, DC,
                                                President and CEO.

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, a vast majority of Americans, regardless of 
whether they support or oppose abortion being legal, believe that the 
Federal Government should not be subsidizing abortions. Some on the 
other side are bringing up a red herring in an attempt to continue to 
allow Federal funding of abortion.
  To dispel the myths being disseminated by opponents of H.R. 358, 
every Member should understand that this bill would not change the Hyde 
amendment, the EMTALA statute, or the standard of care required of 
providers under the EMTALA law. Section 1867(e) of the Social Security 
Act, commonly known as EMTALA, calls on emergency personnel to respond 
to distress on the part of a pregnant woman or her unborn child by 
stabilizing the condition of both mother and the unborn child.
  It is ironic that opponents of H.R. 358 claim it will establish an 
objectionable standard of care when that balanced standard has long 
been recognized under EMTALA.
  My colleagues, the question before us today is simple: If you favor 
federally funded abortion coverage, then you should support the motion 
to recommit and oppose the bill. If you believe, like a majority of 
Americans, that the Federal Government should not be subsidizing 
abortion, then you should oppose the motion to recommit and support 
H.R. 358.
  Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit. Vote ``yes'' on this critical 
legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 173, 
nays 249, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 788]

                               YEAS--173

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--249

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter

[[Page H6903]]


     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bachmann
     Camp
     Carter
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Paul
     Polis
     Reyes
     Slaughter
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1913

  Messrs. PETERSON and CASSIDY changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. TOWNS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 251, 
noes 172, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 789]

                               AYES--251

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--172

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bachmann
     Brown (FL)
     Camp
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Paul
     Polis
     Reyes
     Slaughter
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. LANDRY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________