[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 153 (Thursday, October 13, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6869-H6881]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 358, PROTECT LIFE ACT
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 430 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 430
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
358) to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
to modify special rules relating to coverage of abortion
services under such Act. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy
and Commerce now printed in the bill shall be considered as
adopted and that the bill, as amended, shall be considered as
read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Point of Order
Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order that the rule, H.
Res. 430, violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The
resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against
consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of
the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section
426(a).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin makes a point
of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The gentlewoman has met the threshold under the rule, and the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes of debate on the question of consideration. Following debate,
the Chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means
of disposing of the point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
Ms. MOORE. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I raise this point of order that H.R. 358 contains several potential
unfunded mandates that would burden the States, burden private
insurance companies, and burden women. I am also raising this point of
order because it is a powerful vehicle to register my concern that this
bill is a misguided ideological distraction from what should be our top
priority--getting people back to work and protecting working families
who have been hit hard by economic circumstances.
It is so clear to me that in spite of what our colleagues may say
across the aisle, this bill is not about public funding for abortion.
It's really crystal clear, Madam Speaker, that the Affordable Care Act
already explicitly prohibits Federal funding for abortion. It reaffirms
the Hyde amendment. It even includes the Nelson amendment to ensure
that there's no commingling of funds. H.R. 358 would bring back the
infamous world of Stupak-Pitts. But this time it adds even more
restrictive language to the proposal.
This bill would essentially ban insurance coverage of abortion in
health care exchanges, not just for women who are being publicly funded
or subsidized in the exchanges, but even for women paying with their
own private dollars, Madam Speaker. In addition, H.R. 358 would create
a system that plays Russian roulette with pregnant women's lives when
they enter a hospital. This would mean that any hospital could refuse
to perform an emergency abortion--even if a woman would die without
it--without violating the Federal law designed to prevent people from
being denied emergency medical care.
It goes even further by paving the way to allow State refusal laws
that are not limited to the provision of abortion services, but to
anything that would be considered controversial--treatment for STIs,
birth control services, screening services, and counseling.
With that, I would yield time to my good colleague from California,
Representative Speier.
Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentlelady from Wisconsin.
Madam Speaker, I think this bill goes to the farthest extreme in
trying to take women down not just a peg but take them in shackles to
some cave somewhere. Twenty-five years ago, this body passed EMTALA, a
bill that basically said anyone that shows up at an emergency room
would access health care, no questions asked. Now, my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle want to amend that law and basically say, Oh,
except for a woman who is in need of an abortion, or except for a woman
who's bleeding to death who happens to be pregnant, or except for a
woman who is miscarrying.
Basically, what this bill would do is say that any hospital could
decline to provide services to one class of people in this country. And
that one class of people is pregnant women.
Let me tell you something. My story is pretty well known now. I was
pregnant. I was miscarrying. I was bleeding. If I had to go from one
hospital to the next trying to find one emergency room that would take
me in, who knows if I would even be here today.
What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are attempting to
do is misogynist. It is absolutely misogynist.
The time has come for us to stop taking up this issue over and over
again this year and do something that the American people really care
about. They want jobs. They want to be able to hold on to their homes.
They want some mortgage relief. And what do we do? We stand here on the
floor and create yet another opportunity for women to be cast in
shackles.
Ms. MOORE. Thank you for that compelling story.
How much time do I have, Madam Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Ms. MOORE. I would like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from
Illinois, Representative Jan Schakowsky.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank my friend, the gentlewoman, for yielding to
me. I rise in support of her point of order.
The American people are begging us to work together to create jobs to
bolster the economy. Instead, we're here once again to consider
legislation that endangers and attacks the right of women and is far
out of the mainstream of American priorities.
H.R. 358 is extreme legislation. It is another attempt to unravel the
health care law while at the same time expanding anti-choice laws that
will harm women's health. It would take away a woman's right to make
her own decisions about her reproductive health--even with her own
money. It would allow public hospitals, as you heard, to deny emergency
abortion care to women in life-threatening situations. It would expand
the existing conscience objection to allow providers to avoid providing
contraception. We're talking now about birth control.
This legislation revives a debate that has already been settled.
There is no Federal funding for an abortion in the health care reform
law. Legal experts have said it, independent fact-check organizations
have said it. Yet Republicans continue to insist that the possibility
of funding remains.
[[Page H6870]]
{time} 1210
Federal funds are already prohibited from being used for abortions
under the Hyde amendment--at the expense, I should add, of poor women,
Federal employees, women of the District of Columbia, and women in the
military. But this bill goes way beyond that law. The attention
Republicans are focusing on the private lives of women--what American
families do with their own money--makes it clear that their real goal
is to ban all abortions and end access to birth control and
contraceptives.
Republicans don't want government to protect the water we drink--oh,
no--or the air we breathe or the food we eat, but they do want to
intrude in a woman's right to choose.
We are now at 280 days into this Congress without passing a jobs
plan, yet the Republican majority has consistently managed to pass
extreme and divisive legislation targeted at women's health. The
administration strongly opposes H.R. 358, and this bill has no chance
of becoming law. Now is the time to work on the issues that are most
important to Americans--creating jobs and improving the economy--rather
than restricting reproductive choice and access to family planning.
American women will suffer if this bill becomes law, but we're just
wasting time here because it will not. And it just shows how mean
spirited and extreme this legislation is. It's a way to roll back
women's health and rights. It's too extreme for women, too extreme for
America, and we should reject it right now.
Ms. MOORE. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the point of
order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. The question before the House is: Should the House now
consider H. Res. 430? While the resolution waives all points of order
against consideration of the bill, the committee is not aware of any
points of order. The waiver is prophylactic in nature.
The Congressional Budget Office has stated that H.R. 358 contains no
intergovernmental or private sector mandates, as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and would impose no cost on State, local,
or tribal governments. Again, Madam Speaker, this waiver is
prophylactic, and the motion of the gentlewoman is dilatory.
I would like to now yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina for yielding me this time.
I have listened very carefully to the arguments that have been
advanced by the speakers on the other side--my friend and neighbor, the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Speier), and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). None
of them address the question before the House. The question before the
House is whether or not to consider this bill. It's not about jobs--
although they're important. It's not about the merits of the bill--
which we will debate later should the House vote to consider this bill.
It's about whether there are unfunded mandates in the bill.
The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) read the CBO statement
of February 28, 2011: ``H.R. 358 contains no intergovernmental or
private sector mandates, as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments.''
That's what the CBO said, and that has not been rebutted either by the
proposer of the point of order, my colleague from Wisconsin (Ms.
Moore), or those who have spoken on behalf of this.
Now, if we're to follow the rules and say, okay, if there's an
unfunded mandate, we ought to waive it--which the resolution does--then
we've all got to vote ``yes'' on consideration, because there are no
unfunded mandates and nobody has claimed that there are any unfunded
mandates. That's why the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) is
correct in saying that the point of order is dilatory.
If you want to debate the bill, let's debate the bill. If you want to
object to consideration of the bill, then all you want to do, those who
decide to vote ``no'' on this motion to consider ought to have a debate
on whether there should be public funding of abortion.
Now, when the taxpayers are asked to fund abortions, that's a whole
different issue than whether there should be a right to abortion. This
question is whether there should be taxpayer funding of abortion. There
are no unfunded mandates. And the honest vote is ``yes'' on the motion
to consider.
Ms. MOORE. I would reserve my right to close.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina would
have the right to close.
Ms. MOORE. Does the gentlewoman have more speakers?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from North Carolina
have other speakers?
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. I believe that we
have the right to close; is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct. The gentlewoman from North
Carolina has the right to close.
Ms. FOXX. Then I will reserve my time.
Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, can you tell me how much time I have?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Ms. MOORE. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I would yield 1 minute to my colleague from California (Ms. Speier).
Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I find it actually somewhat humorous to think that the argument on
the other side of the aisle is that this is dilatory when, in fact, the
entire bill is dilatory when you look at what is really facing this
country right now.
This bill makes it very clear that any hospital that does not want to
provide emergency room services to a woman who is miscarrying and needs
an abortion would no longer have to do it. Let's make that very clear.
Let me read one little example from the American Journal of Public
Health:
A woman with a condition that prevented her blood from clotting was
in the process of miscarrying at a Catholic-owned hospital. According
to her doctor, she was dying before his eyes. In fact, her eyes were
filling with blood. But even though her life was in danger and the
fetus had no chance of survival, the hospital wouldn't let the doctor
treat her by terminating the pregnancy until the fetal heartbeat
ceased.
Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I can tell you this bill does waive the
health and lives of women if the point of order is not found to be in
order.
To sum it up, H.R. 358 is incredibly divisive. It takes away
comprehensive health coverage from women in not only eliminating the
protections they currently have right now, but going even further than
current law and completely undermining women's health.
At a time when the majority should be using its tremendous power to
create jobs and turn the economy around, the majority is using its
power to turn on women.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I find it unbelievable that our colleagues across the
aisle could make the comments that they are making today. H.R. 358
takes away no protections from women in this country. It takes away no
rights of women. It is not extreme.
Seventy-seven percent of the people in this country are opposed to
taxpayer funding for abortions. What H.R. 358 does is to say we are
going to make it absolutely certain that we are not going to use
taxpayer funding to pay for abortions, even under what has become known
as ObamaCare. This bill does not go beyond the pale, as our colleagues
have said. It is not outside the mainstream. It is our colleagues
across the aisle who are outside the mainstream. They represent 23
percent of the people in this country who do want to see taxpayer
funding for abortions. They are outside the mainstream.
And talk about dilatory, this whole point of order is dilatory. It is
an effort on their part to simply bring up issues that are irrelevant.
And in many cases, the points made are not true. They are
[[Page H6871]]
the ones who are wasting time. They say we should be dealing with the
jobs bill.
Well, Madam Speaker, let me point out to our colleagues across the
aisle that not one of them who spoke today, not one of them who gave 1-
minutes on the jobs bill have cared to be cosponsors of the jobs bill.
The jobs bill, which President Obama has been asking the Congress to
pass, was defeated in the Senate.
{time} 1220
It was introduced in the House by one Member, and he put on the bill,
``by request.'' That means it was a courtesy to the President. No other
Member across the aisle has chosen to cosponsor that bill. If they are
so eager to get that bill passed, you would think that they would
become cosponsors of the bill.
We are doing a lot on our side of the aisle to create jobs. We are
doing our best to reduce spending and to reduce rules and regulations,
and that will create jobs in this country.
Additional spending by the Federal Government doesn't create jobs. We
know that from the stimulus bill that was passed in 2009.
And for my colleagues across the aisle who say that this is a
misogynist bill, nobody has ever fought more for the rights of women
than I have. But 50 percent of the unborn babies that are being aborted
are females. So the misogyny comes from those who promote the killing
of unborn babies. That's where the misogyny comes in, Madam Speaker. It
doesn't come in from our trying to protect taxpayers' money from being
spent on killing unborn children.
Madam Speaker, in order to allow the House to continue its scheduled
business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of
consideration of the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 430 provides for a closed
rule providing for consideration of H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act.
I would now like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey
(Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding.
Madam Speaker, the Protect Life Act offered by Chairman Joe Pitts and
Dan Lipinski ensures that all the elements of the Hyde amendment apply
to all the programs that are authorized and appropriated in ObamaCare.
By now I trust that all Members fully understand that because
programs in ObamaCare are both authorized and appropriated in the law
on a parallel track but not subject to appropriations under HHS, the
actual Hyde amendment therefore has no legal effect whatsoever. Hyde
only affects Labor-HHS programs including Medicaid, not the massive
expansion of government-funded health care. Thus, ObamaCare, when
phased in fully in 2014, will open up the floodgates of public funding
for abortion in a myriad of programs, including and especially in the
``exchanges'', resulting in more dead babies and wounded mothers than
would otherwise have been the case.
Because abortion methods dismember, decapitate, crush, poison, or
starve to death or induce premature labor, pro-life Members of Congress
and, according to every reputable poll, majorities of Americans want no
complicity whatsoever in the destruction of human life. ObamaCare
forces us to be complicit.
Despite breathtaking advances in recent years, and respecting and
treating unborn children as patients in need of diagnosis and care and
treatment for any number of diseases just like any other patient, far
too many people dismiss the baby in the womb as persona non grata.
I respectfully submit: How can violence against children by abortion
be construed as benign or compassionate or caring?
The dangerous myth of ``safe abortion'' must be exposed--and
absolutely not subsidized by taxpayers. So-called safe abortion is the
ultimate oxymoron, an Orwellian manipulation of language designed to
convey bogus respectability to a lethal act. Abortion is, by any
reasonable definition, child mortality. Its sole purpose is to kill a
baby.
I would also suggest that presumptuous talk that brands any child as
``unwanted'' or an ``unwanted child'' reduces that child to a mere
object bereft of inherent dignity or value.
We should not be paying for abortion. I support the Protect Life Act.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, the Protect Life Act amends the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act to prohibit Federal funds from being used to pay
for abortion services or any health plan that includes such service. It
also imposes new restrictions on health insurance coverage for
termination care and expands conscience protection laws, while limiting
access to reproductive health services.
At a time when our Nation is facing great economic uncertainty and
millions of Americans are in need of jobs, please, somebody tell me why
we are here considering a bill that is a direct attack on a woman's
constitutionally protected right to choose and that does not create one
single job.
Let's be serious here. Republicans have yet to pass a jobs bill.
Instead of getting down to the business of creating jobs, they're
bringing to the House floor a deeply flawed and deeply divisive bill
that will not pass the Senate and would be vetoed if it reached the
President's desk. They know that. I know that. Everybody knows that.
The Protect Life Act is both unnecessary and clearly politically
motivated. Republicans are resorting to their old bag of tricks and
pulling the abortion card in order to distract from their clear lack of
leadership. In April they rammed through H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer
Funding for Abortion Act, instead of focusing on efforts to pass a
clean continuing resolution that would prevent a government shutdown.
As the deadline approaches for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit
Reduction in Congress to approve a deficit reduction plan in excess of
$1.5 trillion, Republicans have deemed it necessary to rehash the
health care reform debate and roll back women's rights.
And I want to clear up one thing. You keep saying ``ObamaCare.'' I've
said repeatedly that there are those of us, and I am among them, that
advocated for health care, including a public option and universal
health care long before we even knew Barack Obama's name. So perhaps it
should be called ``Hastings-ObamaCare.''
This time, however, they take it to a new harmful extreme. The
Protect Life Act is not about the regulation of Federal funds with
regard to abortion services. The Hyde amendment already does that. This
act is about restricting access to care and intimidating women and
their families in the use of their own money.
Since 1976, the Hyde amendment has prohibited the use of taxpayer
money for funding abortions, unless the abortion is performed in the
case of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother. The
Affordable Care Act is no exception.
Regardless of the facts, however, House Republicans continue their
assault on a woman's right to choose. Contrary to popular belief, the
Protect Life Act is not the Stupak-Pitts amendment of the 2009-2010
health care reform debate. It goes far beyond Stupak-Pitts to impose
unprecedented limitations on abortion coverage and restricts access to
abortion services for all women.
[[Page H6872]]
The Protect Life Act would have an adverse effect on women's access
to reproductive services, especially for low-income minority women who
are very likely to be underinsured or uninsured and use partial
subsidies to purchase insurance.
{time} 1230
It not only ends abortion coverage for women in the exchange who use
their own private funds to pay for their insurance, but also
essentially shuts down the private insurance market for abortion
coverage. This act imposes crippling administrative burdens on
insurance companies that choose to cover abortion care and bans
abortion coverage from all multi-State plans, interfering with private
insurance companies' decisions about what benefits to offer.
Simply put, the Protect Life Act is a misnomer. It poses a direct
threat to the health and lives of women by restricting access to
termination services, including factually accurate information such as
the availability and coverage of abortion care by insurance plans. Even
more troubling is the fact that this act creates an exception to the
obligation of hospitals to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment
and Labor Act, which requires appropriate treatment and referral for
emergency patients. If enacted, hospitals could refuse to provide
abortion services to pregnant women whose lives are in critical danger.
This is beyond irresponsible. It is, indeed, reprehensible.
Finally, the Protect Life Act vastly broadens already expansive
federal conscience laws without regard for patient protection or anti-
discrimination protection for providers of abortion services. It
safeguards from federal preemption State conscience laws beyond
abortion, which could allow providers to drop their coverage of other
reproductive health services like contraception and possibly even
reproductive care such as mental health services and HIV counseling.
All I hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
especially those within segments of their party, is that they want the
government to butt out. Why, then, are we considering legislation on
the House floor that effectively overturns the privacy rights
enumerated by the United States Supreme Court as well as increases
burdensome government regulations on insurance companies? Congress
should not be making personal health care decisions for women, and
Congressmen really shouldn't be even involved in making personal health
care decisions for women. That should be between a woman, her family,
and her doctor.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank my good friend for yielding me the time.
I stand in strong support of the Protect Life Act.
I thank my good friend, my colleague, Congressman Pitts, for
introducing this important legislation because this bill will help
ensure that no funds authorized or appropriated by the President's
health care law will be used to pay for abortion except in the cases of
rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.
This is not something new. This is not something radical. This simply
applies the bipartisan principles of the Hyde amendment, which has
helped guide this Chamber's legislative deliberations for over three
decades. It extends the same standards applied to Medicaid, the Federal
Employee Health Benefits Program, and other federal programs.
The American people, Madam Speaker, have made it quite clear that
they do not want their taxpayer dollars used to fund abortions. And the
Stupak-Pitts amendment, as we know, was gutted in the Senate. The
President's Executive order stating that the Hyde amendment would apply
is not enough. Why? It is flawed because Executive orders can disappear
as quickly as they are issued. But the Protect Life Act will create a
solid framework that will safeguard taxpayer dollars.
We must protect the sanctity of an innocent human life, we must stand
behind the rights of the unborn, and we must prevent taxpayer dollars
from being used to fund abortions. That's why I'm proud to support the
Protect Life Act and the rule for it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to
tell me how much time remains on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 23 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 26\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, with your permission, at this
time, I am going to yield to a number of Members for unanimous consent,
the first of whom is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and
extend my remarks in opposition to this bill because it is an assault
on a woman's health and her right to make her own life decisions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield for a unanimous consent request to
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and
extend my remarks in opposition to this bill because this extreme
legislation is dangerous to women's health and does nothing to address
the main issue affecting American families: the lack of jobs.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina will
state it.
Ms. FOXX. Is it appropriate for our colleagues across the aisle to
make comments about the bill when they're asking unanimous consent?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise Members to confine
their unanimous consent requests to a simple declarative statement of
the Member's attitude toward the measure, either ``aye'' or ``no.''
Further embellishments will result in deductions of time from the
gentleman from Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, further parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. That declarative statement that you speak
to, am I correct, Madam Speaker, that it could include a sentence?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A simple declarative statement is
acceptable. ``Because tada-tada-tada'' would be an embellishment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. At this time, I yield for a non-
embellishment, unanimous consent request to the distinguished lady from
California (Ms. Hahn).
Ms. HAHN. I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in
opposition to this bill because Americans need us to focus on jobs
right now, not this extreme bill that endangers the lives of women.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will begin deducting time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield for a unanimous consent request to
the distinguished lady from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and
extend my remarks in opposition to this bill that is extreme, dangerous
legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished
lady from California, a former member of the Rules Committee, Ms.
Matsui, for unanimous consent.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and
extend my remarks in opposition to this bill because it's extreme
legislation that is dangerous to women's health and does nothing to
address the jobs crisis facing America today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will be charged.
[[Page H6873]]
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am very
pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and
extend my remarks in opposition to this bill because it is an attack on
women, and it does nothing to deal with the job crisis of this country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will be charged.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the distinguished lady from
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and
extend my remarks in strident, strident opposition to this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, as a cosponsor and the proud
parent of two young boys--adopted young boys--whose family exists only
because two women in two difficult situations in two different States
chose life and gave us a family, I am proud to rise in strong support
of the rule to allow the House to consider the Protect Life Act, led by
my friend and colleague, Congressman Joe Pitts.
Over a year ago, President Obama's health care plan was signed into
law--despite a strenuous outcry by the American people--without
significant and substantial prohibitions on federal funding for
abortion. This funding of abortion through insurance plans, community
health centers, and other programs created by the new health care law
could have been avoided. But such language was intentionally left out.
There have been restrictions on abortions and subsidies for over 30
years, beginning with the Hyde amendment in 1976, and I'm proud that
today we are acting in that spirit.
Regardless of whether you are pro-choice or, like me, strongly pro-
life, Americans have always agreed we will not use federal tax dollars
to subsidize or incentivize abortion. And you don't have to take my
word for it.
{time} 1240
In poll after poll, more than 60 percent of Americans oppose using
Federal funding for abortions. More recently, two-thirds of Americans
said we shouldn't subsidize health insurance that includes abortions.
The President's health care plan fails to provide real conscience
protection for health care providers who decline to participate in
abortions by mandating that they not be discriminated against because
of their religious faiths.
The bottom line is that this bill we take up today strikes an
important balance. It makes sure your Federal tax dollars are not used
to subsidize abortions in the President's plan, and we make sure that
people and institutions are able to care for their patients and are not
forced to violate their moral principles.
I strongly urge my colleagues to respect America's conscientious
objections to abortion by voting for the rule and by voting for the
Protect Life Act.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, earlier this year, we learned what
opponents of choice really think of women when they attempted to
redefine rape in H.R. 3, when they claimed to be fiscal watchdogs and
then voted to repeal funding for family planning services and Planned
Parenthood, which saves the public $4 for every $1 invested.
Now they are pushing H.R. 358, the falsely named Protect Life Act,
which, rather than protecting life, would actually allow hospitals to
refuse lifesaving treatment to women on religious or moral grounds.
This bill would also effectively ban comprehensive insurance coverage,
which includes abortion care--even if a woman pays with her own private
dollars.
H.R. 358, like every extremist, antichoice measure before it reveals
what choice opponents really think of women. Here is what I think of
women: I think they should be able to make their own life choices about
their own bodies.
I think we should vote down this bill and every other destructive
measure being pushed by those who think so little of our mothers,
sisters, wives, and daughters.
Ms. FOXX. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. Pompeo).
Mr. POMPEO. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, and
I want to thank Congressman Pitts for his hard work on this
legislation.
Kansas has long been on the front lines of defending life, and I join
most other Kansans in acknowledging that life begins at conception.
Nearly all Kansans understand that Federal taxpayer dollars should
never be used for abortions.
I know the history here. For a very long time, there was bipartisan
support for the Hyde amendment and for legislation that said that
taxpayer money should not go for abortions; but today, the left has
moved so far that they object to this simple, commonsense measure which
will protect taxpayers from their money going to a procedure which they
find abhorrent.
Simply put, we must end what ObamaCare did, and we must stop
subsidizing abortions with Federal taxpayer dollars. I urge my
colleagues to support both this rule and H.R. 358 and to protect the
life of the unborn.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the so-called Protect
Life Act. Our first priorities here now must be to help to foster job
creation and support middle class families.
We are 280 days into this Congress without even having a jobs plan
from the majority. Instead, the Republicans have chosen to continue
their radical assault on women's health and health care in the guise of
preventing the use of Federal funds to pay for abortion procedures.
This bill is as unnecessary as it is offensive and inhumane. The bill
would penalize private insurers that offer comprehensive plans; would
allow hospitals to refuse lifesaving care to women; and would prevent
access to birth control, including providing emergency contraception to
sexual assault survivors.
Instead of debating how to put Americans back to work, the majority
party is spending our time on socially divisive bills that are going
nowhere.
Ms. FOXX. I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from New
Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I rise in support of H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act.
Doesn't that name really say it all, the ``Protect Life Act''?
Historically, the Federal funding of abortion has been restricted.
Time and time and time again, an overwhelming majority of Americans has
indicated that they oppose the Federal funding of abortion. Go all the
way back to 1976. Congress has repeatedly passed the Hyde amendment.
What does it do?
It ensures that no Federal Government dollars are used to pay for
elective abortion or insurance plans that provide elective abortion
under Medicaid. Unfortunately, the insurance plan that was forced
through Congress this last session would now allow Federal funds to
subsidize, to basically support and pay for, abortions on demand in
America for the very first time since 1976. So the Hyde amendment, as
it stands today, only extends to HHS.
The Obama health care plan, what does it do?
It exploits that loophole. As the law now stands, the government can
literally force that federally funded and private health care providers
cover abortion under the guise of family planning or pregnant women
services or countless other euphemisms.
[[Page H6874]]
My friends on the other side of the aisle will say, Well, that's
incorrect because President Obama signed an Executive order to bar
abortion funding.
No. Members on both sides of the aisle know that pointing to an
Executive order is disingenuous at best. We all know, as we come to
this floor, that this Executive order, the same one that the Planned
Parenthood Federation of America calls a ``symbolic gesture,'' can be
completely undone by a future administration.
The only way to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not spent on
abortion is--how?--through legislative action.
President Obama's insurance plan passed Congress. It did so over the
objection of the majority of the American public. So it is time now
that we come to the floor to respect that majority of Americans and to
ensure that they do not fund abortions simply by paying their taxes
every April 15. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to support this
bill, as I said at the very beginning, the Protect Life Act--the bill
that says it all.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Speaker, recently, I got an email from a
constituent from my hometown of Lowell, Massachusetts, that read, ``I
think Republicans are focusing on the wrong thing. We need jobs.''
Our constituents are pleading with us to focus on jobs; yet here we
are again, debating an ideologically driven bill that does nothing for
the economy as it endangers women's health. For women to receive the
best possible health care, they need--we need--access to all legal and
appropriate medical procedures. Decisions about these procedures should
be made by a woman in consultation with her doctor and her family.
I believe a woman's right to choose is fundamental to a woman's
freedom, but this bill puts the government in the middle of that
decision. This bill discriminates against women, and it goes so far as
to prevent those who want to buy health plans that cover abortion
services with their own money from making that choice. This bill also
permits hospitals and hospital workers to choose to deny women care
that could save their lives, putting ideology above women's health.
Let's focus on the right thing and vote down this bill.
Ms. FOXX. I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of both the rule
and the bill.
In 1973, the Supreme Court decided that a right to an abortion was a
constitutional right, but they did not decide that there was a
constitutional right to have the taxpayers pay for it.
The Hyde amendment has been passed every year since 1976 with my
support and with the support of an overwhelming bipartisan majority.
However, when the President's health care bill was rammed through this
House in March of last year, the Hyde amendment didn't apply. So, if
you try to get a Medicaid abortion, the Hyde amendment applies, and the
taxpayers don't finance it; but if you try to get an abortion under the
Obama plan or under the exchanges that have been set up under the Obama
plan, then there will be taxpayer money that will be used to pay for
it. This bill closes that loophole. It is in response to the
overwhelming sentiment of the American public, including the sentiment
of many of those who do support legalized abortion.
Secondly, this bill also reaffirms Federal and State conscience
protection laws. The Supreme Court, when it decided Roe v. Wade, did
not force people to choose between their faiths and their jobs if they
had religious objections to abortion. This protection is not afforded
in the Obama health care bill. This legislation closes that loophole.
{time} 1250
We've heard a lot about jobs from people on the other side of the
aisle that don't want to talk about the fact that this legislation
shuts the door to the two loopholes that I have just described.
Maybe there will be more unemployment if someone who has a license to
practice medicine or is in the healthcare profession is told that they
have to violate the tenets of their religion in order to keep their
job.
Now, we have a choice. We have a choice of freedom and liberty by
closing the loopholes and passing the bill or not.
I urge support of the bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished
gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for the purpose of offering a
unanimous consent.
Mrs. MALONEY. I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record my
opposition to this attack on women's access to reproductive health
services and our fundamental right to lifesaving medical care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 358.
There is no question and there can be no debating the fact that this
bill endangers women's health and puts their lives at risk and intrudes
on their constitutionally protected liberties.
This bill extends the reach of government more cynically and in a
more profoundly disturbing way than any piece of legislation in modern
times.
This bill carries with it the clear implication that under some
circumstances--a woman just doesn't have a right to live.
The Republican majority has consistently said its priority is jobs
and job creation, but here we are debating a bill that even their
Members admit is the wrong bill at the wrong time.
Instead of creating jobs, they remain focused on creating obstacles
for women to access safe, legal, and badly needed health care.
H.R. 358 is an attack on women's access to reproductive health
services and our fundamental right to life saving medical care.
It is stunning in its scope, appalling in its indifference and
outrageous in its arrogance.
This bill is deliberately divisive and cynical in its intent.
Madam Speaker, Americans want Congress to create jobs, strengthen
middle class families, and find bipartisan consensus.
It's time to end this attack on women and get to work on our top
priority: Creating Jobs.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, this bill threatens the health and basic
rights of American women.
The majority is once again trying to embed their extreme and divisive
ideological preferences into law. They are trying to impose their
backward view of a woman's role on everyone else, forcing women back
into traditional roles with limited opportunities.
They need to trust and respect American women. The bill goes beyond
prior legislation. It bans working women access to a legal medical
procedure. It denies all but the wealthiest women their choice in
health services. It puts the government between a woman and her doctor.
It allows hospitals to deny life-saving care to women. We should be
standing up today for the middle class by working to create jobs, not
trying to prevent women access to lifesaving health services.
This bill is an affront to women's health. I urge all of my
colleagues to oppose it.
Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I am a little appalled at some of the comments that I
have heard across the aisle, especially those that say talking about
jobs is more important than talking about saving lives.
I don't believe there are many Americans who would agree with our
colleagues who say that we in this country pride ourselves on saving
lives at every opportunity, both humans, animals, any form of life, and
I believe this is a worthy debate for us to be having today.
But, Madam Speaker, the Republican-led House has also been working
hard to rein in out-of-control government spending and represent the
majority of the American people who elected us, and we know that by
reining in spending we could do something to help create jobs. So we
are not a one-note party. We understand we can do both of those things.
The bill before us today is a continuing effort to steward the
taxpayer money wisely, represent the majority
[[Page H6875]]
of Americans who believe taxpayer money should not be used to pay for
elective abortions, and, thereby, protect innocent life.
Last year, as others have said, the liberal Democrats rammed through
their overall health care legislation and refused to include standard
pro-life protections that have had broad bipartisan support in the
past.
The rule before us today provides for consideration of H.R. 358, the
Protect Life Act, which prohibits taxpayer funding for elective
abortions under ObamaCare and also prohibits the Federal Government
from forcing private insurance companies to offer plans that cover
elective abortions. It does not take away any rights of women.
In addition, the underlying bill ensures that taxpayer subsidies for
purchasing health insurance plans on the ObamaCare exchanges are not
used to pay for plans that cover elective abortions, and does not allow
the Federal Government to administer health plans that cover elective
abortions. This is consistent with the history in our country of not
using taxpayer funding for elective abortions.
Finally, the bill provides for conscience protections for pro-life
health providers and entities to ensure they are not discriminated
against for their pro-life beliefs and practices.
This bill has gone through regular committee consideration and passed
the House Energy and Commerce Committee on February 15 with bipartisan
support. The need for this legislation is critical, as the Institute of
Medicine recommended in July that what has come to be called ObamaCare
should cover emergency contraception with no copay or deductible. Many
pro-life conservatives are concerned that their recommendation is a
slippery slope to, again, what has been known as ObamaCare mandating
and covering elective abortions, because the law does not contain
specific longstanding pro-life protections.
A Zogby poll last year found that 77 percent of Americans believe
Federal taxpayer funds should never pay for abortion or should pay only
to save the life of the mother, and it is unacceptable that the liberal
Democrats ignored the will of the people last year in ramming through
their government takeover of health care.
As you can see, Madam Speaker, the vast majority of Americans don't
want their tax dollars paying for or promoting abortion.
This isn't part of a radical agenda, as some of our friends on the
left like to say. This is part of a longstanding and growing social
consensus. Americans do not want their tax dollars supporting the
abortion industry or promoting this terrible practice.
In May this House passed H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion
Act. This legislation would codify many longstanding pro-life
provisions and ensure that taxpayer money is not being used to perform
abortions. H.R. 3 is now awaiting consideration in the Senate.
As a proud cosponsor of H.R. 3 and H.R. 358, I will not cease to
fight to protect the lives of the unborn at every turn. Since 1973,
approximately 52 million children's lives have been tragically aborted
in the United States. Until we have a permanent prohibition on taxpayer
funding of abortion and protection for health care providers who
cherish life, I will continue to offer and support efforts to protect
taxpayers' families and children from the scourge of abortion.
The unborn are the most innocent and vulnerable members of our
society, and their right to life must be protected.
Yesterday in the Rules Committee our friends across the aisle who
spoke against this rule and bill said we're bringing up ``hot-button
social issues as diversions from the important topic of jobs.''
I have two responses to them on that comment. The issue of life is
not a hot-button social issue; it's at the very core of our values as a
country. We go to extraordinary lengths to save not only human beings,
but even animals, because we value life so much. However, there are
many who do not hold the unborn in the same esteem, and that is tragic
for more than 1 billion unborn babies every year.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule
in favor of the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, would you tell us again how
much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 18 minutes
remaining, and the gentlewoman from North Carolina has 13\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you very much.
I am pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to the distinguished
minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
{time} 1300
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
giving me this opportunity.
As a mother of five children, when I brought my baby, my youngest
baby, number five home from the hospital, that week my oldest baby was
turning 6 years old. The birth of a baby is such a jubilant occasion,
and women's health is essential to the health of families and raising
our children in a way that has respect for all of them.
It's very interesting that we're taking this bill up now when the
American people are calling out for jobs. Their number one priority is
the creation of jobs, and once again we come to the floor of the House
with a major distraction that ``ain't going nowhere'' in order to cater
to an extreme agenda of the Republican majority.
The American people want us to take up jobs. They want us to take up
the American Jobs Act, which three-quarters of the American people say
they want us to consider. It would create nearly 2 million jobs. Or we
could vote on the China currency legislation which would save 1 million
jobs and has the support of the majority of the Members, including 61
cosponsors from the Republican side of the aisle. But again, instead,
we are pursuing the Republicans' ideological agenda, forcing us to
relitigate a very divisive issue.
Every woman in America should be very concerned about this assault on
women's health. Let us begin the debate with a very clear understanding
of the facts. The Federal funding of abortion is already, and has been
for a long time, prohibited under the Hyde amendment, except in cases
of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.
Furthermore, the Affordable Care Act prohibits the use of U.S.
taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. That is why the Catholic Health
Association said: ``We are confident that health care reform does not
allow Federal funding of abortion and that it keeps in place important
conscience protections for caregivers and institutions alike.'' I
repeat, the Catholic Health Association said: ``We are confident that
health care reform does not allow Federal funding of abortion and that
it keeps in place important conscience protections for caregivers and
institutions alike.''
This bill is a radical departure from existing law. It represents an
unprecedented and radical assault on a woman's access to the full range
of health care services. For the first time, this bill places
restrictions on how a woman with private insurance can spend her own
private dollars in purchasing health insurance. As a result of this
bill, millions of women using health insurance exchanges are likely to
no longer have access to insurance policies that cover all reproductive
services.
Furthermore, supporters of this bill falsely claim that this bill is
simply a restatement of the Stupak amendment considered by the House in
2009. It is not. This bill is very different from the Stupak amendment.
It appears that health care providers could withhold care for women
with life-threatening conditions. In other words, a woman could be
dying on the floor of the hospital and, when you vote for this bill,
you will be saying that caregivers would not allow medical
professionals to treat that woman and keep her from dying.
The Obama administration has come out strongly against this
legislation, rightly saying it intrudes on women's reproductive freedom
and access to health care and unnecessarily restricts the private
insurance choices that women and their families have today.
So just a few points again:
Public funding of abortion is prohibited under the Hyde amendment
except in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother;
The Catholic Health Association says: We are confident the Affordable
[[Page H6876]]
Care Act ``does not allow Federal funding of abortion and that it keeps
in place important conscience protections for caregivers and
institutions alike''; and
Third, it is not the Stupak amendment.
This legislation is bad public policy. It's the wrong priority for
Congress. It's an assault on women's health, and women should know
that. It prevents them from using their own dollars to buy their own
private insurance should they be part of an exchange.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and implore the Republican
majority to turn their attention to what this country needs, and that
is jobs, jobs, jobs, and more jobs.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues across the
aisle that they are entitled to form their own opinions, but they are
not entitled to form their own facts which are in opposition to what is
true.
Our colleagues across the aisle know that the Hyde amendment applies
only to discretionary spending, has to be introduced every year into
the appropriations bill, and has never applied to mandatory spending.
The Affordable Care Act is mandatory spending, and if the protection
for life were in the Affordable Care Act, then why did President Obama
issue his Executive order saying that he was clarifying the issue?
Ms. DeGETTE. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. FOXX. I will not yield.
I think it is very important that we get the facts out here again.
Several of my colleagues have pointed those out.
The gentlewoman has time on her side and she will be able to make her
points.
I now would like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Mississippi
(Mr. Nunnelee).
Mr. NUNNELEE. I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act,
which would prohibit Federal funding for abortions and would end
abortion coverage under President Obama's health care law.
As a member of the Mississippi State Senate, I introduced similar
legislation that would have prevented hard-earned tax dollars of
Mississippians for paying for abortions under ObamaCare. That
legislation specifically allowed Mississippi to opt out of using the
State tax money to pay for abortions in the State health care exchange.
And I'm proud to say that in May of 2010, our Governor, Haley Barbour,
signed that legislation into law and Mississippi became the third State
in the Nation to approve the abortion subsidy opt-out.
For 16 years, it was my privilege to stand up for life on the floor
of the Mississippi Senate. And I'm proud to say that as a result of
that effort, Mississippi is now one of the safest States in the Nation
for unborn children and one of the strongest pro-life States in the
Nation. Today, I'm proud to take that voice to the floor of the House
of Representatives in our Nation's Capitol.
ObamaCare should not have served as a vehicle for abandoning or
weakening Federal policies on abortion funding. Health care is about
saving and nurturing, not about taking human life. Even though
President Obama signed an Executive order to address abortion funding
concerns in the health care bill, an Executive order is not law. The
Protect Life Act would strengthen long-standing Federal policies on
abortions; and, more importantly, would codify the principles of the
President's Executive order.
As I stand here today, I have the privilege of serving the First
District of Mississippi in the United States House of Representatives,
and I will continue to fight to protect the lives of the innocent and
to serve as a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves.
Americans recognize the value of life.
As a cosponsor of this legislation, I urge my colleagues in the House
of Representatives to support this bill as we work to defend the morals
of our taxpayers and give the needed protections to the unborn.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thompson) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
place my statement in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very
pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Davis).
{time} 1310
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Since my colleague on the other side of the
aisle did not yield to my colleague from Colorado, I want to yield to
her.
Ms. DeGETTE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I just wanted to point out that while the gentlelady on the other
side is correct that the Hyde amendment is in the annual appropriations
bills, if she would look at section 1303(b) of the Affordable Health
Care Act, the provisions that say no Federal funding shall be used to
pay for abortion are extended to that Act and to the exchanges. So in
fact, the Democratic leader is correct. Under the Affordable Health
Care Act there are no Federal funds used under that Act to pay for
abortions, period, end of story.
I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I thank my colleague for clarifying that.
Madam Speaker, we have had this discussion many times on the floor.
That's why my colleagues and I want to get back to the issues at hand
today, which is jobs and enhancing and supporting the middle class in
this country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlelady an additional 15
seconds.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. But I want remind us all that what we were
talking about here is denying millions of women from purchasing
comprehensive coverage with their own private funds. This would upend
the promise of health care reform for many, many women across this
country. We need to put a stop to these attacks on women's health. I
urge my colleagues to join me as well in strong opposition.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. How much time is remaining again, Madam
Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 15\3/4\
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from North Carolina has 10
minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. At this time I am very pleased to yield 1
minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, when you ask Americans what Congress'
focus should be, guess what they don't say? They don't say, Forget
about jobs. What this country really needs is a divisive assault on
women's privacy and primary care.
This bill tells women, Madam Speaker, that if they use their own
money, using their own money they can't purchase insurance that
includes abortion coverage. Isn't it the majority party that is
constantly saying that they trust people with their own money? I guess
that applies if you're a CEO but not if you're a woman making a
wrenching decision about your reproductive health.
This bill has no chance of becoming law. It is a dog-and-pony show
designed to please the far-right fringe. I say: Do it on your own time,
Republicans, and not on the American people's time.
I ask us to vote ``no'' now and get to the job at hand, which is to
put America back to work.
Ms. FOXX. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman, my good friend from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
Mr. DEUTCH. Madam Speaker, it's not news that the majority refuses to
address our jobs crisis. But passing time by attacking women's health
is appalling.
Despite Americans' overwhelming support for the American Jobs Act,
today we have before us H.R. 358, a cruel attack on women's health. We
could help jobless workers feed their families today. Instead, this
bill grants hospitals the right to deny abortions even in life-and-
death cases. We could cut taxes for small businesses today. Instead,
this bill forbids Americans
[[Page H6877]]
from using their own dollars to buy private health insurance that
includes abortion coverage. We could put teachers back to work today.
Instead, this bill denies abortion even for the thousands of women each
year who develop breast cancer while pregnant and need an abortion to
start chemotherapy to save their lives and retain the hope of
childbirth.
Americans don't want a war on women. They want a war on joblessness.
They want us to work so that they can work. They want us, Madam
Speaker, to take up the American Jobs Act. Oppose this rule so that we
can get to work on their behalf.
Ms. FOXX. I yield myself 1 minute.
Madam Speaker, our colleague across the aisle I think was not here
earlier when we talked about the fact that the jobs bill, which he says
has overwhelming support by the American people, was introduced by
request and has not a single cosponsor. I'm curious as to why he is not
a cosponsor if he thinks we should be bringing up that bill.
I would also like to point out again that this bill, this rule, is
not a war on women. And if this is such a cruel act, I want to point
out that this is a bipartisan bill, and that the support for not giving
taxpayer funding for abortions has always been nonpartisan or
bipartisan in this House.
This is not purely a Republican issue. I thank God every day for our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are pro-life.
Mr. DEUTCH. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. FOXX. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished
woman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. EDWARDS. I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks
in opposition to this bill that doesn't create jobs but strips women of
appropriate reproductive health care services.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, with 21 legislative days remaining on the
calendar, I urge my colleagues in the Majority to finally bring to the
floor a jobs bill that puts Americans back to work rather than work to
restrict a woman's right to receive affordable and comprehensive care.
Bills like the falsely named Protect Life Act only serve as cover for
the Republicans' unwillingness to bring forth a real jobs plan and
restore the economy.
This Republican package is wrapped in a label that says, ``I care'',
but contains nothing more than an empty promise. Let me be clear--this
bill jeopardizes the health and wellness of women throughout this
country and is a clear assault on women's choice. I have heard from
women throughout Maryland and across the 4th Congressional District who
value access to and information on abortion services. I have heard from
women who have had planned and wanted pregnancies, but suffered
unexpected and costly complications. I have heard from women like Mary
who, after undergoing years of fertility treatment, had finally been
pregnant with her son David, but found out that due to atrophy of his
lungs and kidneys there was virtually no chance of his survival beyond
a few hours. I have heard from women who are faced with difficult,
personal, and emotional choices about their health and that of their
children.
These are the women who need access to health care when they face
unexpected health complications. H.R. 358 would allow hospitals to deny
care to patients whose lives are in peril, while also denying many
Americans, not just women, access to safe, affordable, and
comprehensive care when they need it most.
It is simply unfair, unwise, and irresponsible for this Chamber to
decide what health care options women and families are able to explore.
I urge my colleagues to oppose both this unfair rule that does not
allow any amendments and the underlying, mean-spirited legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1
minute to the distinguished lady from California (Ms. Chu).
Ms. CHU. H.R. 358 would stop abortion coverage for millions of women.
It allows doctors and hospitals to refuse treatment even if women will
die without their help. This bill is so extreme that it prohibits a
pregnant woman with cancer from getting an abortion so radiation can
save her life. For those women, every day and every week of treatment
could be the difference between life and death.
If this bill passes, we will see thousands more women abandoned by
their doctors--women like Stephanie, who was pregnant at 19 weeks. She
came to the hospital with a 108-degree fever. The whites of her eyes
were filled with blood. She was dying before her doctor's eyes. But the
hospital considered the life of the fetus more important than the life
of the mother and refused treatment until the fetus died. Because they
delayed, Stephanie almost lost her life.
This bill should really be called the ``Don't Protect the Life of the
Mother Act.''
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Harris).
Mr. HARRIS. Much has been said on the floor about perhaps taking time
out from a jobs agenda to pass the bill. The fact of the matter is this
bill corrects a problem with the bill that shouldn't have been
discussed by the last Congress; they should have spent time dealing
with the jobs issue instead of leaving it to this Congress. So we do
need to make a correction.
Madam Speaker, this one very important correction is the conscience
protection in this bill. And I know as someone who's worked in a
hospital where abortions are done--but they never forced me to do it
because we have conscience protections in the State of Maryland. We
need those conscience protections for everyone in the country, so that
if you don't believe in abortion, you don't have to participate in it.
That's a basic freedom, a basic religious freedom, we should protect
for every single American health care provider.
Madam Speaker, I would like to introduce into the Record four letters
from obstetricians who work in facilities who point out that the
conscience clause is not going to harm anyone's health in this bill.
There's no evidence that it will.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, the conscience protection clause is
needed. It's a correction for the work of the last Congress. We should
pass this bill.
Virginia Commonwealth
University Health System,
Richmond, VA, October 12, 2011.
Hon. Joe Pitts,
Hon. Dan Lipinski,
Hon. Eric Cantor.
Dear Representatives Pitts, Lipinski, and Cantor: I
understand that the House of Representatives may soon
consider H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act. As a physician I am
especially interested in this bill's section reaffirming
federal protection for health care providers' conscience
rights on abortion. I have heard there may be an effort in
the House to insert an exception into this law, so
governmental bodies can discriminate against providers who
decline to provide abortions in ``emergency'' cases.
As a physician who has worked in emergency rooms for over
30 years, I am well versed in the federal Emergency Medical
Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) and similar policies.
I continue to practice emergency medicine, and to teach it at
Virginia Commonwealth University. Based on then decades of
experience, I see absolutely no merit in the claim that
conscience laws on abortion pose any risk of allowing
pregnant women to die in emergency rooms. Current federal
laws as well a Virginia state law respect conscientious
objection to abortion in all circumstances and I have never
seen or heard of a case in which these laws created any
conflict with women's safety or with legal obligations to
stabilize patients' conditions in emergencies.
Your provision on conscience protection is warranted and I
do not think it should be weakened in any way.
Sincerely,
Edward J. Read Jr., MD, FACEP.
____
University of North Carolina
School of Medicine,
Chapel Hill, NC, October 12, 2011.
Representatives Joe Pitts and Dan Lipinski,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives Pitts and Lipinski: I am a board
certified specialist in Obstetrics and Gynecology with a sub-
specialty certification in Maternal-Fetal Medicine. I have
over twenty-seven years of experience in practice, teaching
and research at a major academic health center. During my
career I have cared for numerous women and babies with
complications that increase the risk of maternal death. In
some of these situations, both a mother and her baby have
lost their lives. I care deeply about the effects that public
policy and legislation can have on both those of us who
provide perinatal care and on our patients.
My personal conscience directs me to provide the best of
care to pregnant women and their unborn children and I am
able to do so without performing abortions, as are several
[[Page H6878]]
of my colleagues and a proportion of the residents we train
each year. I have not seen a situation where an emergent or
even urgent abortion was needed to prevent a maternal death.
I am aware of, and have read, sections 2(a)(6) and 2(a)(7) of
H.R. 358 and I am writing to provide my opinion that I
support the formalization of these protections. No woman at
UNC hospitals has ever been denied care due to her conscience
or beliefs; nor does any physician ever feel obliged to
direct or change the standard of care for any woman due to
race, ethnicity, religion, or conscience. I see no need for
any exceptions or amendments to the law as written.
I am available for question or comment or for further
discussion on this matter. You may reach me at
[email protected] or by calling my office (919) 843-7851.
Sincerely,
John Thorp, MD.
____
Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center of West Virginia
University,
Charleston, WV, October 12, 2011.
Representatives Joe Pitts and Dan Lipinski,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives Pitts and Lipinski: I am writing in
support of Sections 2(a)(6) and 2(a)(7) of H.R. 358 that
provide federal legal protection of conscience regarding
abortion for those who care for pregnant women. My experience
includes 20 plus years of clinical care, research, and
instruction as a Board certified Obstetrician & Gynecologist
and Maternal-Fetal medicine. I daily provide care for women
and babies who have medically complicated, life-threatening,
and uncommon pregnancy complications. Further, as the
originator of ``perinatal hospice'', I have cared for (and
still do) dozens of women with babies who have terminal
prenatal diagnoses who will die shortly after birth.
No one in my entire 20 plus years of clinical experience
has ever been denied appropriate care because of the exercise
of rights of conscience in the provision of abortion. Women
and babies may die in spite of our best efforts, but this is
not related to abortion availability or provision.
In my understanding of this new federal statute, conscience
will now be formally and legally protected. There is no need
for additional exceptions or amendments to this law as it is
written.
I am more than happy to discuss this issue with either of
you or with one of your colleagues. I may be contacted by
email at [email protected] or directly on my cell phone
at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Sincerely,
Byron G. Calhoun, M.D., FACOG.
____
University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, MN, October 13, 2011.
Representatives Joe Pitts and Dan Lipinski,
House of Representatives,
Washington DC.
Dear Representatives Pitts and Lipinski: I am a board
certified specialist in Obstetrics/Gynecology and Maternal/
Fetal Medicine with 31 years of experience in practice,
teaching and research. During that time I have cared for
hundreds of women and babies with life-threatening,
complicated, and rare pregnancy conditions. In some of those
situations mothers and babies have lost their lives despite
undergoing the best available treatment including induced
delivery at the margins of viability. I care deeply about the
effects that public policy and legislation can have on the
care of mothers and babies.
During my years of practice I have worked under informal
and formal conscience rights protections that permit me to
provide the best pregnancy care without being forced to
perform abortions. I have read Sections 2 (a) (6) and 2 (a)
(7) or H.R. 358 and I agree with the federal formalization of
these protections. In my years of practice I have never seen
a woman denied appropriate care because of the exercise of
rights of conscience in this regard. There is no need for
additional exceptions or amendments to this law as it is
written.
I am happy to discuss this with either of you or with one
of your colleagues. I can be reached by email at
[email protected] or on my cell phone at xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sincerely,
Steve Calvin, MD.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, this bill seeks to undo women's
constitutional rights under the guise of being about government funding
for abortion. The law, unfortunately, already forbids Federal funds
from paying for abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or where
the woman's life is in danger. This bill goes well beyond that. It
would make it virtually impossible for any of the health plans offered
through the health exchanges set up as part of the Affordable Care Act
to cover abortions.
As the authors plainly intend, it would make it virtually impossible
for most women to buy insurance coverage for abortions with their own
money. The bill would also allow a doctor or hospital to refuse to
provide an abortion to a woman whose life is in imminent peril. They
could let that woman die right there in the emergency room, and the
government would be powerless to do anything.
{time} 1320
Madam Speaker, I remember a time not that long ago when women had no
options for legal abortions and had to resort to illegal back alley
abortionists. Women were butchered, many died, others became sterile,
all because the medical care they desperately sought and the compassion
they desperately needed was denied to them. No woman should be treated
with this contempt.
The real purpose of this bill--which denies women the right to
purchase insurance coverage for legal abortions, even with their own
money--is to make it impossible for women to exercise their
constitutional right to choose for themselves.
This bill is an abomination. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to my colleague
across the aisle that if we have a constitutional right for taxpayer
funding of abortions, then we should have a right to taxpayer funding
of guns. The Second Amendment allows us to keep and bear arms.
I now would like to yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague
from Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy.
Mr. CASSIDY. Madam Speaker, if anyone is concerned about our jobs
program, go to gop.gov.jobs. That's all the bills we've introduced so
far that we have passed--most of the time you have not participated,
but indeed it directly addresses the need for more jobs.
Secondly, I think we may have some common ground, it just may be that
we have not read the same bill. For example, folks keep saying that
this will not allow women to purchase coverage even with their own
money. May I direct folks to page 6, line 8: Premiums for such coverage
or plan--it goes on to say--may be used as long as it's not government
money. It can be the individual's own money.
Third, there is this kind of myth that this will prevent women from
having abortions. Medicaid currently does not pay for abortions; there
are many Medicaid women who get abortions. The Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program does not cover abortion. I suspect--although I don't
know--that there are many women covered by the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program who indeed get abortions. Empirically, we know what's
being asserted is not true.
Then there is the question of whether or not they're going to be
denied lifesaving health care. If you go to page 4, line 20: This does
not apply in the case where a pregnant woman suffers from physical
disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified
by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion
is performed.
So I think we have common ground.
The leader on the other side's next point said that this is a
dramatic departure from current law, but that's kind of a curious term
or phrase, because we know that current law is the President's health
care plan. It is current law that has turned upside down the
equilibrium that had been reached between freedom of faith for the
provider to practice versus the dicta of State as to what to provide.
So she is right; it dramatically overturns current law--that's the
point--because the Affordable Care Act dramatically overturned that
delicate balance.
Lastly, I want to point out something else. I'm a physician. I work
in a hospital for the uninsured, and I teach medical students. I was
there last Monday teaching medical students. You know, over 50 percent
of the residents, probably 60 percent of the residents doing OB/GYN are
women, and many of them are concerned about issues like this.
As we speak about women, let's not also forget the woman's right to
practice her faith. And if she chooses to practice her faith in a way
which preserves life, she should not be coerced by the dictates of an
overreaching State.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished lady from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
[[Page H6879]]
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and this
bill. Instead of focusing on jobs, Republicans are continuing to wage
their war on women with this dangerous legislation today.
This bill forces comprehensive coverage for women to be dropped from
the State exchanges, cutting off millions of women from affordable,
comprehensive health care. And you know that Federal funds have not
been allowed for abortion since 1976--to my dismay--and nothing has
changed.
This bill makes it virtually impossible for any health care plan to
offer abortion coverage and allows hospitals to refuse--mind you,
refuse--to provide lifesaving care to a woman who needs an abortion to
protect her own life. This is unprecedented and should be rejected.
We cannot and must not allow the Republicans to turn the clock back
on women, on choice, and on our access to health care. I remember the
days of back alley abortions--women died, women were injured for life.
Let's not go back there.
I urge my colleagues to reject this unnecessary and harmful
legislation. Health care decisions should be made by women and their
health care providers, not Republicans and the House of Representatives
who want to impose their own ideological agenda on women. We should be
creating jobs, not interfering with women's reproductive rights.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. At this time, I am very pleased to yield 1
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong
opposition to this so-called Protect Life Act. This bill is another
egregious, over-the-top assault on America's women, their health and
their autonomy over their bodies. Instead of doing what we've been sent
here to do, focus on jobs, once again we are talking about this extreme
Republican right-wing agenda against women.
What we're essentially talking about is going back to the dark ages
here. We started this Congress by talking about ending Federal support
for birth control, a debate that women in my district thought ended a
generation ago. And now we're going so far as to say that women can't
even have access to information about the full extent of choices with
respect to their health care.
This is a war on women. This is a distraction from job creation. We
should reject this bill; we should end this assault on women's health
care; and we should get back to the work that we were sent here to do,
to fix this economy for everyone in this country, women and men,
together.
Ms. FOXX. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1
minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition.
I'm not surprised by this bill. In March, they tried to close down
the Federal Government over a woman's right to go to Planned Parenthood
for health care, and today they are trying to close down a woman's
right to lifesaving treatment in our hospitals.
They call this ``protecting life.'' It is the opposite of protecting
life, Madam Speaker. This allows hospitals to deny lifesaving treatment
to women. It limits essential health care services to women. It denies
preventive health care to women. It even hurts the victims of rape and
sexual assault who have been hurt enough.
Madam Speaker, the American people want a Republican majority that
will help create a climate for small businesses to create jobs, not
create a climate of war against women's health care. They want a war on
unemployment; they do not want a war on women. They want more jobs and
less extremism. This bill is about extremism, and it ought to be
defeated.
Ms. FOXX. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN. I thank my friend.
Madam Speaker, how much floor time do we have to spend on redundant
legislation that will surely die in the Senate and has already been
threatened with a veto?
We've had this debate. We know what the final result will be. Federal
funding of abortion is already illegal except in cases of incest, rape,
and life-threatening situations. We accept that. But while millions of
Americans are losing their jobs and seeing their life savings
evaporate, the Republican majority insists on wasting our time on
publicly demagoguing a deeply personal issue.
This bill also contains a refusal clause that would allow emergency
room health professionals to deny lifesaving care to a pregnant woman
because of their personal beliefs. Evidence shows that barriers to
abortion services increase the risk of maternal injury and death, and
that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is with accurate
sexual education and the widespread availability of contraception. Yet
the same people who oppose abortions also oppose appropriate sex
education and family planning services.
The Supreme Court has ruled abortion is legal. Federal funds don't
pay for abortion. Those policies are in place. Let's move on with help
for the millions of unemployed individuals who need a good job and
leave the women of America alone to control their own body and their
own lives.
Ms. FOXX. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished colleague from
Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, health care is a necessary element to
a good and orderly and compassionate society. We all support health,
but abortion is not health care.
{time} 1330
The vast majority of Americans do not support using their dollars in
support of the abortion industry, and Americans should not be forced by
the strong arm of the government to subsidize the abortion industry.
Here's the problem. The health care law passed in 2010 contains some
serious flaws in this regard. Namely, now the Federal Government will
subsidize insurance policies that cover abortion on demand.
The health care law also forces enrollees in health care plans that
cover abortion to pay for abortions obtained by others. The health care
law also gives license to Federal agencies to mandate abortion
coverage.
We have just seen that the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
Kathleen Sebelius, under the guise of preventative care, has now
promulgated rules that will force everyone to pay for abortifacient
drugs and not to mention sterilization. And this also tramples on the
conscience rights of health care entities that do not perform or
promote abortion.
Madam Speaker, I believe this: The Protect Life Act is in the
interest of the right type of health care for America.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. It's unfortunate that we have to come to
the floor of the House to discuss the personal decisions that a woman
has to make. And I can assure you that the question of choice, the
question of abortion, the question of what a woman does to her body is
not one that a woman takes lightly. On many occasions, there is the
necessity for a doctor and his female patient to make decisions to save
the life or health of the mother.
Just as the federal courts have ruled unconstitutional and rejected
the Texas law that requires a doctor to talk first to a woman seeking
an abortion and to allow or force them both to listen to sounds that
might discourage this needed action, this is going to be held
unconstitutional. This is not a law that can pass. You can not tell a
woman her insurance company can not provide her all the benefits of
that coverage. It goes way beyond the pale.
I would ask my colleagues to vote against this rule and protect the
right of a woman to choose and the dignity of all people in this Nation
to make their own decisions over their lives, through consultation with
her family, faith leader and doctor. I am saddened that we're here
today discussing such an issue. Please vote no on this rule and for a
woman's right to choose.
[[Page H6880]]
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. We all know that the ObamaCare bill allows for both
the implicit and explicit taxpayer funding of abortion, and we all know
that the Executive order signed by the President is not worth the paper
that it was written on. It repeats the accounting gimmick that allows
for Federal subsidies to go to insurance plans that cover abortion. And
that's why we need to pass the Protect Life Act, which would apply the
principles of the Hyde amendment to every component of ObamaCare. The
Protect Life Act eliminates that accounting gimmick and ensures that
Americans are not forced to pay an abortion surcharge, if you will, in
order to get a health care plan. It ensures State laws are not
preempted by Federal law.
This is the right move, the right bill. Americans deserve to have
this assurance.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, this is nothing more or less than an
attack on poor women.
I stood beside the bed of a couple of women in the Buffalo General
Hospital in 1963 and watched them die because of back alley abortions.
I was in the State legislature in 1970 when we, in the State of
Washington, granted, by referendum, a vote of all the people, the right
of women to have an abortion. Now the question is how to get it paid
for.
Well, when I came to Seattle, if you wanted an abortion, what you did
was you went down and bought a ticket to Japan; you flew to Japan, had
an abortion, had a day of shopping in Tokyo while you made sure that
you were okay medically; and then you came home. Rich women never had
any problem, but the women that I stood next to as they died and left
12 kids without mothers were poor. And that's what this is really all
about. It is an attack by the right wing who consider that they wrap
themselves in theological raiment and then attack poor women. Christ
wouldn't have done that.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers,
and I would ask the gentlelady if she is prepared to close.
Ms. FOXX. I am.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you very much.
Madam Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from North Carolina has 2
minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I won't take all of that time, Madam
Speaker, but I do wish to assert into this debate, it's been said often
on the other side, and my distinguished friend from the Rules Committee
made the point, that people came here and said that jobs were more
important than life. I didn't hear anybody say that, and I don't
believe anybody believes that.
But what I do believe that most of us understand is that this is not
going to become the law and, therefore, what we are doing, in the final
analysis, is a waste of time, and we could have been trying to do as we
have not done in this session of Congress, address the subject of jobs.
Madam Speaker, what we have before us is an extremely flawed bill;
and, contrary to their self-professed commitment to an open process,
this particular provision being considered is under a closed rule.
Furthermore, I would also like to call into question how it's
possible for us to consider this bill on the House floor when its
sponsor, Mr. Pitts of Pennsylvania, failed to provide a statement
citing Congress's constitutional authority to enact it. Mr. Pitts's
statement of constitutional authority for the Protect Life Act cites no
provision of the Constitution or any amendment to the Constitution.
Therefore, I would like to request of him or Members on the other
side to share with us the basis for this bill which violates the
fundamental right to privacy upheld by the Supreme Court. It restricts
women's access to health care and imposes further regulations on health
insurance coverage. It's clear that the Protect Life Act lacks both
constitutional and moral integrity.
Let me insert additionally some feelings that have been expressed in
public, and I take the prerogative of using them here on the floor.
H.R. 358 comes on top of votes by the Republican-led House to
eliminate all Federal funding for title X, the National Family Planning
Program, to eliminate funding for all other reproductive health
programs offering breast and cervical cancer exams or well-woman and
primary health care and family planning to prevent unintended
pregnancies and to reduce the need for abortion.
They've led measures that eliminate requirements in health care
reform covering maternal health care, mammograms, breastfeeding
support, and other essential health services.
In addition, they've made it impossible for women to speak to their
doctors about abortion using Internet-based telemedicine.
{time} 1340
Now, these are just a few examples. The Republicans are full of fuzzy
facts. I start my day almost every day, Madam Speaker, by reading the
cartoon, after other parts of the newspaper, ``Get Fuzzy.'' And the cat
in that particular cartoon constantly comes up with fuzzy facts. If you
put all the fuzzy facts together and all the things that the Republican
majority has done, they include Tea Party-led efforts to gut
Environmental Protection Agency rules that keep the air we breathe, the
water we drink, and the environment in which we live safe. They have
done efforts to virtually eliminate child nutrition. And I can't
believe that 20 years I'm here, and I hear Republicans talk about
cutting out the Head Start program, the one documented program that has
benefited American society over and above what was thought.
They have done things to eliminate programs to help the unemployed to
survive, to slash Medicaid and Medicare, to effectively abrogate any
social contract and tear to shreds any social safety net.
I have to ask, exactly whose lives are we protecting here?
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, our position on taxpayer funding for elective abortion
is bipartisan, bicameral, and supported by the majority of the American
people. We all know that.
I'd like to point out to my colleagues across the aisle when they
keep saying we need to be talking about jobs, when the Democrats took
control of the Congress in 2007, the unemployment rate was 4.6 percent.
Between then and the time that Republicans regained control of the
House this January, the unemployment rate rose to over 9 percent--6.9
million more Americans became unemployed during that period of time.
I'd also like to point out to my colleague that the constitutional
authority for H.R. 358 is in the Congressional Record. He knows it's
required when the bill is introduced.
Madam Speaker, the American people are probably a little confused by
listening to this debate because they hear two very conflicting
stories. I would like to urge them to go to thomas.gov. H.R. 358 is
only nine pages long. It's very simple to read. It's not like what they
call the Affordable Care Act, which we had to get passed before we
would know what was in it.
There is nothing more important, Madam Speaker, than protecting
voiceless, unborn children and their families from the travesty of
abortion. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to put aside all this
rhetoric that has been spoken of in this debate today and vote for life
by voting in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
[[Page H6881]]
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 248,
nays 173, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 786]
YEAS--248
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--173
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--12
Bachmann
Broun (GA)
Cardoza
Giffords
Herrera Beutler
Hoyer
Langevin
Lewis (GA)
Paul
Polis
Slaughter
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1407
Ms. ESHOO and Mr. DICKS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. FRANKS of Arizona, FLEMING, STIVERS, Mrs. BIGGERT, and Mr.
CAMP changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 786 I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes.''
____________________