Date: 2015-04-30
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentlelady. So. in essence. Madam Speaker. this resolution is not in order. If I might make another analogy. what is not given to the Federal Government is left to the States in the Tenth Amendment. I know that D.C. is not a State. but what I would say is that this law has been clarified in the District of Columbia. We are intruding. The rights are protected under the Ninth Amendment. and this resolution is out of order. I ask my colleagues to vote against it. Madam Speaker. I rise in strong opposition of H.J. Res. 43 disapproving the District of Columbia governments approval of the Reproductive Health NonDiscrimination Act also known as RHNDA. As I have before. I maintain that the right of a woman to privacy must remain sacrosanct because the well being and protection of women is the nucleus of a healthy America and a healthy world. Indeed. in most parts of our country. the woman is the constant that keeps all the variables of family together. organized and on track. Thus. for three key reasons I oppose H.J. Res. 43. First. it is in derogation of DCs local autonomy. an autonomy that we enjoy in our respective states. pursuant to the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In relevant part. the Tenth Amendment states that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. nor prohibited by it to the States. are reserved to the States respectively. or to the people. I find it ironic. as duly elected officials that some of us seek to trample upon the rights that we enjoy vis a vis the separation of the federal and state powers. as delineated in our Constitution. To add insult to injury. some of us are even able to look the congressional representative from Washington. DC in the eye. while we take adverse decisions that affect the livelihood of her constituents. Second. the District of Columbia governments action does good without infringing on the First Amendment and religious freedoms of American citizens. Third. this recent iteration of the war on the rights of women underscores our misplaced priorities where we have numerous pressing issues. Among others. we continue to have unemployment. national security concerns with the continued proliferation of terrorist organizations across the globe. We continue to grapple with how we need to work in a bipartisan manner on the issues of education. healthcare and infrastructure building to protect children. our elderly. veterans and other groups. Our focus ought to be on bettering the quality of life for everyday American people. Let us zoom in on one of what should be our major priority areas: jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that over 8 million Americans are unemployed. Specifically. among the major worker groups affected by the current unemployment rates are adult men who account for 5.1 percent. adult women who account for 4.9 percent and teenagers who account for 17.5 percent. Whites make up 4.7 percent. African Americans 10.1 percent. Asians 3.2 percent and Hispanics make up 6.8 percent. Should we really be focusing our attention on a measure that blocks the District of Columbias effort to make laws that protects the privacy rights of women and their spouses when we have more pressing priorities? But back to H.J. Res. 43. What does this legislation do to undermine DCs autonomy. attack womens rights and waste precious tax payer resources? H.J. Res. 43 seeks to undermine an underlying Bill: the Reproductive Health NonDiscrimination Act considered. voted upon by the duly elected officials of the District of Columbia and signed into law by Mayor Muriel Bowser of Washington. DC in January of this year. The underlying bill signed into law in Washington. DC would do the following: Prohibit employers from discriminating against employees based on their reproductive health decisions. Protect the reproductive health decisions of spouses and dependents. Prohibit an employer from firing an employee for using in vitro fertilization or birth control. Contrary to assertions by my colleagues across the aisle. let us look at what RHNDA does not do: First. it does not impose any new requirements on employers to provide health insurance coverage. In fact. the D.C. Council considered this issue and clarified that RHNDAs protections do not reach insurance coverage by passing a temporary clarification. Second. the RHNDA does not infringe on First Amendment rights. Indeed. the RHNDA does not impact an organization or churchs ability to make hiring decisions based on religious or political views. Opponents may claim that the bill might require churches or religious organizations to hire prochoice candidates. This can hold no water because it is simply not within the scope of RHNDA.