[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1218 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>






117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1218

  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

                              July 5, 2022

  Mr. Espaillat (for himself, Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick, Ms. Chu, Mr. 
Jones, Mr. Carter of Louisiana, Mr. Torres of New York, Ms. Velazquez, 
  Mr. Tonko, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Barragan, Ms. Titus, Mr. Bowman, Ms. 
 Jayapal, Ms. Norton, Ms. Meng, Mr. Connolly, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Ms. 
 Bonamici, Mr. Payne, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, 
  Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Takano, Ms. Clarke of New York, Ms. Omar, Mrs. 
     Lawrence, Mr. Brown of Maryland, Ms. Williams of Georgia, Mr. 
  Krishnamoorthi, Mr. Sires, Mrs. Hayes, Mr. Evans, Mr. Cleaver, Ms. 
  Pressley, Mr. Quigley, Ms. DelBene, Mr. McNerney, Mr. Moulton, Ms. 
Wilson of Florida, Mr. David Scott of Georgia, Mrs. Lee of Nevada, Mr. 
Khanna, Ms. Dean, Mr. Carson, Ms. Stevens, Mr. Schiff, Mr. DeSaulnier, 
   Mr. Levin of Michigan, Mr. Michael F. Doyle of Pennsylvania, Ms. 
   Escobar, Mrs. Napolitano, and Mr. Vargas) 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 Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
  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.

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 principles, but would seriously 
weaken the Court's capacity to exercise the judicial power and to function 
as the Supreme Court of a Nation dedicated to the rule of law'';

    (2) ``Roe determined that a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy 
is a `liberty' protected against state interference by the substantive 
component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Neither 
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 reasoned judgment in 
determining the boundaries between the individual's liberty and the demands 
of organized society''; and

    (3) ``The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and 
social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control 
their reproductive lives. The Constitution serves human values, and while 
the effect of reliance on Roe cannot be exactly measured, neither 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 interference 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 Constitution that 
        there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. 
        We have vindicated this principle 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'';
Whereas, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court 
        presided over a challenge to a 2018 Mississippi law that bans virtually 
        all abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy;
Whereas, during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 
        Justice Sonia Sotomayor, poignantly and correctly stated, ``Will this 
        institution [the Supreme Court] survive the stench that this creates in 
        the public perception that the constitution and its reading are just 
        political acts?'' ``I don't see how it is possible'';
Whereas, on June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its holding in Dobbs v. 
        Jackson Women's Health Organization by holding that--

    (1) ``the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and 
Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to 
the people and their elected representatives'';

    (2) a restrictive standard applies for substantive due process rights 
under the United States Constitution by only recognizing rights ``deeply 
rooted in [our] history and tradition'' and ``implicit in the concept of 
ordered liberty''; and

    (3) a State's regulation of abortion is not a sex-based classification 
and is thus not subject to the ``heightened scrutiny'' that applies to such 
classifications;

Whereas Justice Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's 
        Health Organization urges the Supreme Court to ``reconsider all . . . 
        substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and 
        Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is demonstrably 
        erroneous'';
Whereas Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan issued a dissenting 
        opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, stating--

    (1) for half a century, Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of 
Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, have protected the liberty and equality of 
women;

    (2) ``Roe held, and Casey reaffirmed, that the Constitution safeguards 
a woman's right to decide for herself whether to bear a child'';

    (3) ``The government could not control a woman's body or the course of 
a woman's life: It could not determine what the woman's future would be'';

    (4) ``Respecting a woman as an autonomous being, and granting her full 
equality, meant giving her substantial choice over this most personal and 
most consequential of all life decisions'';

    (5) the Supreme Court's majority today, ``says that from the very 
moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. A State can 
force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the steepest personal and 
familial costs. An abortion restriction, the majority holds, is permissible 
whenever rational, the lowest level of scrutiny known to the law. And 
because, as the Court has often stated, protecting fetal life is rational, 
States will feel free to enact all manner of restrictions'';

    (6) ``The Mississippi law at issue here bars abortions after the 15th 
week of pregnancy. Under the majority's ruling, though, another State's law 
could do so after ten weeks, or five or three or one--or, again, from the 
moment of fertilization'';

    (7) ``Some States have enacted laws extending to all forms of abortion 
procedure, including taking medication in one's own home. They have passed 
laws without any exceptions for when the woman is the victim of rape or 
incest. Under those laws, a woman will have to bear her rapist's child or a 
young girl her father's--no matter if doing so will destroy her life. So 
too, after today's ruling, some States may compel women to carry to term a 
fetus with severe physical anomalies . . . States may even argue that a 
prohibition on abortion need make no provision for protecting a woman from 
risk of death or physical harm. Across a vast array of circumstances, a 
State will be able to impose its moral choice on a woman and coerce her to 
give birth to a child'';

    (8) ``A State can of course impose criminal penalties on abortion 
providers, including lengthy prison sentences. But some States will not 
stop there. Perhaps, in the wake of today's decision, a state law will 
criminalize the woman's conduct too, incarcerating or fining her for daring 
to seek or obtain an abortion. And as Texas has recently shown, a State can 
turn neighbor against neighbor, enlisting fellow citizens in the effort to 
root out anyone who tries to get an abortion, or to assist another in doing 
so'';

    (9) ``After this decision, some States may block women from traveling 
out of State to obtain abortions, or even from receiving abortion 
medications from out of State. Some may criminalize efforts, including the 
provision of information or funding, to help women gain access to other 
States' abortion services'';

    (10) ``Most threatening of all, no language in today's decision stops 
the Federal Government from prohibiting abortions nationwide, once again 
from the moment of conception and without exceptions for rape or incest'';

    (11) ``Whatever the exact scope of the coming laws, one result of 
today's decision is certain: the curtailment of women's rights, and of 
their status as free and equal citizens'';

    (12) ``According to the majority, no liberty interest is present--
because (and only because) the law offered no protection to the woman's 
choice in the 19th century. But here is the rub. The law also did not then 
(and would not for ages) protect a wealth of other things. It did not 
protect the rights recognized in Lawrence and Obergefell to same-sex 
intimacy and marriage. It did not protect the right recognized in Loving to 
marry across racial lines. It did not protect the right recognized in 
Griswold to contraceptive use. For that matter, it did not protect the 
right recognized in Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson . . . not to be 
sterilized without consent. So if the majority is right in its legal 
analysis, all those decisions were wrong, and all those matters properly 
belong to the States too--whatever the particular state interests involved. 
And if that is true, it is impossible to understand (as a matter of logic 
and principle) how the majority can say that its opinion today does not 
threaten--does not even `undermine'--any number of other constitutional 
rights'';

    (13) ``Today's decision, taken on its own, is catastrophic enough. As a 
matter of constitutional method, the majority's commitment to replicate in 
2022 every view about the meaning of liberty held in 1868 has precious 
little to recommend it. Our law in this constitutional sphere, as in most, 
has for decades upon decades proceeded differently. It has considered 
fundamental constitutional principles, the whole course of the Nation's 
history and traditions, and the step-by-step evolution of the Court's 
precedents. It is disciplined but not static. It relies on accumulated 
judgments, not just the sentiments of one long-ago generation of men (who 
themselves believed, and drafted the Constitution to reflect, that the 
world progresses). And by doing so, it includes those excluded from that 
olden conversation, rather than perpetuating its bounds'';

    (14) ``The legitimacy of the Court is earned over time . . . it can be 
destroyed much more quickly'';

    (15) ``The American public . . . should never conclude that its 
constitutional protections hung by a thread--that a new majority, adhering 
to a new `doctrinal school', could `by dint of numbers' alone expunge their 
rights . . . It is hard--no, it is impossible--to conclude that anything 
else has happened here''; and

    (16) ``With sorrow--for this Court, but more, for the many millions of 
American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional 
protection--we dissent'';

Whereas the Supreme Court's holding in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health 
        Organization places other fundamental human rights, such as the right to 
        contraception, interracial marriage, and same-sex marriage at risk;
Whereas the Supreme Court's holding in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health 
        Organization strips millions of women of their status as free and equal 
        members of society, and has a corrosive impact on society, for example--

    (1) according to the World Health Organization, lack of access to safe, 
affordable, timely and respectful abortion care, and the stigma associated 
with abortion, pose risks to women's physical and mental well-being 
throughout their life;

    (2) approximately 64,000,000 women and girls of reproductive age live 
in the United States, and more than half of them live in States that could 
seek to ban or further restrict access to abortion now that the Supreme 
Court overturned Roe and Casey;

    (3) everyone risks losing access to abortion in 28 States, but those 
who are more likely to get the procedure include women of color, in part 
because of unequal access to opportunities like health care, jobs, 
education, and housing;

    (4) undocumented women will be disproportionately impacted by 
restrictions on abortions as they will not be able to travel to seek 
abortion services;

    (5) women living in poverty or on lower incomes will be 
disproportionately impacted by restrictions on abortions, as most women 
getting abortions are living in poverty;

    (6) transgender and gender non-binary (TGNB) individuals will be 
impacted, as the Guttmacher Institute found that approximately 500 TGNB 
individuals obtained abortions in 2017;

    (7) medication abortion accounted for 54 percent of all United States 
abortions in 2020, an increase from 39 percent in 2017, according to the 
Guttmacher Institute;

    (8) 19 States prohibit pills from being prescribed by telemedicine or 
delivered through the mail, and 9 additional States are proposing to do the 
same;

    (9) the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists estimates 
that miscarriage is the most common form of pregnancy loss, as many as 26 
percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage and according to reports, 
miscarriages and abortions are often clinically indistinguishable; and

    (10) reports find that medical providers who treat pregnancy-related 
issues, including miscarriages, fear performing any procedure that can be 
classified as an abortion--even while the procedures remain legal, risking 
being prosecuted, having their licenses revoked, or being thrown in jail; 
and

Whereas, on June 23, 2022, Gallup found that public confidence in the Supreme 
        Court has sunk to a historic low of 25 percent: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) condemns the restless and newly constituted Supreme 
        Court's holding in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health 
        Organization;
            (2) commits to utilizing constitutional authorities 
        provided to Congress under Article III of the Constitution to 
        enact judicial reform, helping reassure public confidence in 
        the Supreme Court so that it is not viewed as a partisan 
        institution;
            (3) commits to ensuring that Federal law advances 
        reproductive justice, recognizing that access to abortion 
        constitutes access to health care as a fundamental liberty of 
        all human beings;
            (4) commits to protecting communities that will be 
        disproportionately impacted by the holding in Dobbs v. Jackson 
        Women's Health Organization, including women of color, 
        undocumented women, women living in poverty, LGBTQIA+ 
        individuals, gender nonconforming individuals, and individuals 
        with disabilities; and
            (5) urges the executive branch to utilize constitutional 
        authorities and a whole-of-government approach to advance 
        reproductive justice.
                                 <all>