IV 
119TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION 
H. RES. 938 
Condemning the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and 
Planned Parenthood v. Casey and committing to advancing reproductive 
justice and judicial reform. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
DECEMBER 9, 2025 
Mr. ESPAILLAT submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speak-
er, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the ju-
risdiction of the committee concerned 
RESOLUTION 
Condemning the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe 
v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and commit-
ting to advancing reproductive justice and judicial re-
form. 
Whereas, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme 
Court held that— 
(1) ‘‘Overruling Roe’s central holding would not only 
reach an unjustifiable result under stare decisis prin-
ciples, but would seriously weaken the Court’s capacity to 
exercise the judicial power and to function as the Su-
preme Court of a Nation dedicated to the rule of law’’; 
(2) ‘‘Roe determined that a woman’s decision to ter-
minate her pregnancy is a ‘liberty’ protected against 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:02 Dec 10, 2025
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR938.IH
HR938
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
•HRES 938 IH 
State interference by the substantive component of the 
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nei-
ther the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States 
at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption 
marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of such 
‘liberty’. Rather, the adjudication of substantive due 
process claims may require this Court to exercise its rea-
soned judgment in determining the boundaries between 
the individual’s liberty and the demands of organized so-
ciety’’; and 
(3) ‘‘The ability of women to participate equally in 
the economic and social life of the Nation has been facili-
tated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. 
The Constitution serves human values, and while the ef-
fect of reliance on Roe cannot be exactly measured, nei-
ther can the certain costs of overruling Roe for people 
who have ordered their thinking and living around that 
case be dismissed’’; 
Whereas it is tempting ‘‘to suppose that the Due Process 
Clause protects only those practices, defined at the most 
specific level, that were protected against government in-
terference by other rules of law when the Fourteenth 
Amendment was ratified . . . But such a view would be 
inconsistent with our law. It is a promise of the Constitu-
tion that there is a realm of personal liberty which the 
government may not enter. We have vindicated this prin-
ciple before. Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the Bill 
of Rights and interracial marriage was illegal in most 
States in the 19th century, but the Court was no doubt 
correct in finding it to be an aspect of liberty protected 
against State interference by the substantive component 
of the Due Process Clause in Loving v. Virginia’’; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:02 Dec 10, 2025
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR938.IH
HR938
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB