Date: 2014-01-28
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

That is very kind. sir. If. for example. you have pretax money for health care or a health savings account. you are taken care of. but if you live in the District of Columbia and you want to use local funds. you are left along the highway of unequalness. If you are in the United States military. you are left along the highway of unequalness. If. for example. you have been the victim of sexual assault that results in a situation that requires access to health care. you are left alone. Federal employees. you are left alone. Poor. you are left alone. The bill that we have was just submitted to the Rules Committee. It was not before the House Judiciary Committee. We dont know what is in it. So. Madam Speaker. I do not rise against a persons conscience. I rise and hold the Constitution in my hand. and that is that we have a right to privacy. and we have a right to use local or your own funds. and in this bill. all of that has been denied. I ask the question: Can we pass this legislation and deny Americans equal protection under the law? Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this legislation which is an assault on women. and ask that my colleagues also vote against H.R. 7. The No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act. What we have before us in H.R. 7 is a dangerous and misleading bill which has one goaleliminating abortion coverage in all of the insurance markets. And it is the reincarnation of H.R. 3 which was a featured bill in the last Congress. And although some terrible things were in the bill have been removedthis bill is still an attack on women. Let me be clear. if H.R. 7 were to become law. all women could either lose insurance coverage that includes abortion or be stigmatized while seeking such comprehensive insurance. Mr. Speaker. I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee last night along with ALL of the women on the Judiciary Committee. which was summarily rejected as were all of the other amendments to this bill. Our amendment would have corrected a shortcoming in the bill. which only considers a womans health when she is faced with death. I would like to thank all four women on the Judiciary Committee. KAREN BASS. JUDY CHU. SUSAN DELBENE. and ZOE LOFGREN who cosponsored this important amendment. Every year. 1015 million women suffer severe or longlasting damage to their health during pregnancy. This Congress should not be in business of interfering with a womans health nor should we ever single out women who choose not to endure a longlasting health defect or disease due to a pregnancy. Without this amendment. this Congress would submit millions of women to face serious and long- lasting health issues. Our amendment reflects the 1978 version of the Hyde Amendment by incorporating an exemption for severe and longlasting damage to a womans health in continuing a pregnancy. This amendment is supported by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Women must receive the best health care and disease prevention and have access to all medically appropriate legal medical procedures. And Mr. Speaker it must be stated over and over that this is purely partisan and divisive legislation which: 1. Unduly burdens a womans right to terminate a pregnancy and thus puts their lives at risk. 2. Does not contain exceptions for the health of the mother. 3. Unfairly targets the District of Columbia. and 4. Infringes upon womens right to privacy. which is guaranteed and protected by the U.S. Constitution. The bill poses a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme Courts ruling in Roe v. Wade. One of the most detestable aspects of this bill is that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of circumstances. Women like Danielle Deaver. who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water broke. Tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios. a premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved viability. This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move limbs. In addition. Danielles fetus likely would suffer deformities to the face and head. and the lungs were unlikely to devel beyond the 22week point. There was less than a 10 percent chance that. if born. Danielles baby would be able to breathe on its own and only a 2 percent chance the baby would be able to eat on its own. H.R. 7 hurts women like Vikki Stella. a diabetic. who discovered months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from several major anomalies and had no chance of survival. Because of Vikkis diabetes. her doctor determined that induced labor and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an abortion. Every pregnancy is different. No politician knows. or has the right to assume he knows. what is best for a woman and her family. These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make. in consultation with their partners. doctors. and their God. H.R. lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother. H.R. 7 is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy. as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases going back to Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade decided in 1973. In Roe v. Wade. the Court held that a state could prohibit a woman from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to protect her health prior to viability. While many factors go into determining fetal viability. the consensus of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation. Supreme Court precedents make it clear that neither Congress nor a state legislature can declare any one element-"be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factoras the determinant" of viability. Colautti v. Franklin. 439 U.S. 379. 38889 (1979). The constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability. and even later where continuing to term poses a threat to her health and safety. This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate. And again. our amendment would have helped to preserve this hard won right for women. Lets not turn back the hands of time Mr. Speakervote "no" on H.R. 7.