Date: 2015-01-22
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. I rise again in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 7. the socalled "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." and the underlying bill. I oppose this bill because it is unnecessary. puts the lives of women at risk. interferes with womens constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy. and diverts our attention from the real problems facing the American people. A more accurate short title for this bill would be the "Violating the Rights of Women Act of 2015"! Instead of resuming their annual War on Women. our colleagues across the aisle should be working with Democrats to build upon the "MiddleClass Economics" championed by the Obama Administration that have succeeded in ending the economic meltdown it inherited in 2009 and revived the economy to the point where today we have the highest rate of growth and lowest rate of unemployment since the boom years of the Clinton Administration. We could and should instead be voting to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour so that people who work hard and play by the rules do not have raise their families in poverty. A far better use of our time would be to provide help to unemployed jobhunters by making access to community college affordable to every person looking to make a new start in life. Instead of voting to abridge the constitutional rights of women for the umpteenth time. we should bring to the floor for a first vote comprehensive immigration reform legislation or legislations repairing the harm to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Courts decision in Shelby County v. Holder. Madam Speaker. the one thing we should not be doing is debating irresponsible "messaging bills" that abridge the rights of women and have absolutely no chance of overriding a presidential veto. The version of H.R. 7 before us now is as bad today as it was when the House Republican leadership insisted on bringing it to a vote a year ago. The other draconian provisions of that terrible bill are retained in H.R. 7. which would: 1. Prohibit federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Thus making permanent existing federal policies.) 2. Prohibit the inclusion of abortion in any health care service furnished by a federal or District of Columbia health care facility or by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government or the District. 3. Apply such prohibitions to District of Columbia funds. 4. Prohibit individuals from receiving a refundable federal tax credit. or any costsharing reductions. for purchasing a qualified health plan that includes coverage for abortions. 5. Prohibit small employers from receiving the smallemployer health insurance credit provided by the health care law if the health plans or benefits that are purchased provide abortion coverage. If H.R. 7 were enacted. millions of families and small businesses with private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage would be faced with tax increases. making the cost of health care insurance even more expensive. Under the Affordable Care Act. insurers are able to offer abortion coverage and receive federal offsets for premiums as long as enrollees pay for the abortion coverage from separate. private funds. If enacted. H.R. 7 would deny federal subsidies or credits to private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage even if that coverage is paid for from private funds. This would inevitably lead to private health insurance companies dropping abortion coverage leaving millions of women without access to affordable. comprehensive health care. Currently. 87% of private insurance health care plans offered through employers cover abortion. If H.R. 7 were to become law. consumer options for private health insurance plans would be unnecessarily restricted and the tax burden on these policy holders would increase significantly. H.R. 7 would also deny tax credits to small businesses that offer their employees insurance plans that cover abortion. which would have a significant impact on millions of families across the nation who would no longer be able to take advantage of existing tax credits and deductions for the cost of their health care. For example. small businesses that offer health plans that cover abortions would no longer be eligible for the Small Business Health Tax Creditpotentially worth 35%50% of the cost of their premiumsthreatening 4 million small businesses. Selfemployed Americans who are able to deduct the cost of their comprehensive health insurance from their taxable income will also be denied similar tax credits and face higher taxes. H.R. 7 would also undermine the District of Columbias home rule by restricting its use of funds for abortion care to lowincome women. The Hyde Amendment stipulates that no taxpayer dollars are to be used for abortion care. and has narrow exceptions for rape. incest. and health complications that arise from pregnancy which put the mothers life in danger. H.R. 7 would restrict womens access to reproductive health care even further by narrowing the already stringent requirements set forth in the Hyde Amendment. When the Affordable Care Act was signed into law. the President issued an Executive Order to "ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services." This version of H.R. 7 goes far beyond the safeguards established under the Affordable Care Act. and sets a dangerous precedent for the future of womens reproductive health in this country because it includes two new provisions that were added at the nth hour but have never received a hearing or a markup. These new provisions would (1) ban abortion coverage in multistate health plans available under the ACA. and (2) mandate that health plans mislead consumers about abortion coverage by requiring all plans in the healthinsurance exchanges that include abortion coverage to display that fact prominently in all advertising. marketing materials. or information from the insurer but interestingly. does not require the same disclosure from plans that do not cover abortion. Madam Speaker. H.R. 7 would also force health plans to mislead consumers about the laws treatment of abortion. As a concession to antichoice lawmakers. the ACA requires insurance plans participating in the new health system to segregate monies used for abortion services from all other funds. In order to aid in identifying these funds and simplify the process of segregating general premium dollars from those used to cover abortion services. the ACA requires that health plans estimate the cost of abortion coverage at no less than $1 per enrollee per month. H.R. 7 would require plans covering abortion to misrepresent this practice as an "abortion surcharge." which is to be disclosed and identified as a portion of the consumers premium. By describing abortion coverage in this way. H.R. 7 makes it look as though it is an added. extra cost. available only at an additional fee. when in fact it is not. Taken together. the provisions in H.R. 7 have the effect. and possibly the intent. of arbitrarily infringing womens reproductive freedoms and pose a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme Courts ruling in Roe v. Wade. Madam Speaker. 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 develop beyond the 22week point. There was less than a 10% chance that. if born. Danielles baby would be able to breathe on its own and only a 2% 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 Vildris diabetes. her doctor determined that induced labor and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vildd 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. 7 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 not 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. The bill before us threatens this hard won right for women and must be defeated. I urge all members to join me in opposing the rule and the underlying bill. H.R. 7 should be pulled off of this floor! Madam Speaker. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 36. the "Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act." In the last Congress. I opposed this irresponsible and reckless legislation. I opposed the bill. which arbitrarily bans a woman from exercising her constitutionally protect right to choose to terminate a pregnancy after 20 weeks. last year for the same reasons I do now. This purely partisan and divisive legislation: 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. As introduced and considered in the Judiciary Committee. unfairly targeted the District of Columbia. and 4. Infringes upon womens right to privacy. which is guaranteed and protected by the U.S. Constitution. Madam Speaker. in 2010. Nebraska passed a law banning abortion care after 20 weeks. Since then 10 more red statesAlabama. Arizona. Arkansas. Georgia. Idaho. Indiana. Kansas. Louisiana. North Dakota. and Oklahomahave enacted similar bans. None of these laws has an adequate health exception. Only one provides an exception for cases of rape or incest. H.R. 36 seeks to take the misguided and meanspirited policy of these states and make it the law of the land. In so doing. 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. Madam Speaker. 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. It is these women who receive the 1.5 percent of abortions that occur after 20 weeks. 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 develop beyond the 22week point. There was less than a 10% chance that. if born. Danielles baby would be able to breathe on its own and only a 2% chance the baby would be able to eat on its own. Danielle and her husband decided to terminate the pregnancy but could not because of the Nebraska ban. Danielle had no recourse but to endure the pain and suffering that followed. Eight days later. Danielle gave birth to a daughter. Elizabeth. who died 15 minutes later. H.R. 36 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. Because Vikki was able to terminate the pregnancy. she was protected from the immediate and serious medical risks to her health and her ability to have children in the future was preserved. Madam Speaker. 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. That is why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. the nations leading medical experts on womens health. strongly opposes 20- week bans. citing the threat these laws pose to womens health. Madam Speaker. I also strongly oppose H.R. 36 because it lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother. In fact. the majority Republicans rejected an amendment offered by our colleague. Congressman NADLER. which would have added a "health of the mother" exception to the bill. Madam Speaker. this may come as news to some in this body. but each year approximately 25.000 women in the United States become pregnant as a result of rape. And about a third (30%) of these rapes involved women under age 18! Madam Speaker. last and most important. I oppose H.R. 36 because it 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. Late Wednesday night because of how absurd H.R. 36 wasit was pulled from the floor. By prohibiting nearly all abortions beginning at "the probable postfertilization age" of 20 weeks. H.R. 36 violates this clear and long standing constitutional rule. In striking down Texass previability abortion prohibitions. the Supreme Court stated in Roe v. Wade: With respect to the States important and legitimate interest in potential life. the compelling point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mothers womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justification. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability. it may go as far as to proscribe abortion during that period. except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. 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). NOT can the government restrict a womans autonomy by arbitrarily setting the number of weeks gestation so low as to effectively prohibit access to abortion services as is the case with the bill before us. If this bill ever were to become law. it would not survive a constitutional challenge even to its facial validity. A similar 20week provision enacted by the Utah legislature was struck down years ago as unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit because it "unduly burden[ed] a womans right to choose to abort a nonviable fetus." Jane L. v. Bangerter. 102 F.3d 1112. 1118 (10th Cir. 1996). And just last month. the Ninth Circuit struck down a 20 week ban on the ground that the U.S. Supreme Court has been "unalterably clear" that "a woman has a constitutional right to choose to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus is viable." Isaacson v. Home. F.3d. No. 1216670. 2013 WL 2160171. at *1 (9th Cir. May 21. 2013). Madam Speaker. 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.