[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 153 (Thursday, October 13, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6885-H6903]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROTECT LIFE ACT
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R.
358 and to insert extraneous material on the bill.
[[Page H6886]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 430, I call up
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, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 430, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Energy and Commerce printed in the bill is adopted, and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 358
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Protect Life Act''.
SEC. 2. MODIFYING SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO COVERAGE OF
ABORTION SERVICES UNDER THE PATIENT PROTECTION
AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT TO CONFORM TO LONG-
STANDING FEDERAL POLICY.
(a) In General.--Section 1303 of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), as amended by
section 10104(c) of such Act, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(e) and (f), respectively;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) of subsection (b) as
subsection (d) and transferring such subsection (d) after the
subsection (c) inserted by paragraph (4) of this subsection
with appropriate indentation (and conforming the style of the
heading to a subsection heading);
(3) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
``(b) Special Rules Relating to Training in and Coverage of
Abortion Services.--Nothing in this Act (or any amendment
made by this Act) shall be construed to require any health
plan to provide coverage of or access to abortion services or
to allow the Secretary or any other Federal or non-Federal
person or entity in implementing this Act (or amendment) to
require coverage of, access to, or training in abortion
services.'';
(4) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new
subsection:
``(c) Limitation on Abortion Funding.--
``(1) In general.--No funds authorized or appropriated by
this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including
credits applied toward qualified health plans under section
36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing
reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay
for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any
health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except--
``(A) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or
incest; or
``(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a
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, including a
life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from
the pregnancy itself.
``(2) Option to purchase separate coverage or plan.--
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting
any non-Federal entity (including an individual or a State or
local government) from purchasing separate coverage for
abortions for which funding is prohibited under this
subsection, or a qualified health plan that includes such
abortions, so long as--
``(A) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only
funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and
``(B) such coverage or plan is not purchased using--
``(i) individual premium payments required for a qualified
health plan offered through an Exchange towards which a
credit is applied under section 36B of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986; or
``(ii) other non-Federal funds required to receive a
Federal payment, including a State's or locality's
contribution of Medicaid matching funds.
``(3) Option to offer coverage or plan.--Nothing in this
subsection or section 1311(d)(2)(B)(i) shall restrict any
non-Federal health insurance issuer offering a qualified
health plan from offering separate coverage for abortions for
which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a
qualified health plan that includes such abortions, so long
as--
``(A) premiums for such separate coverage or plan are paid
for entirely with funds not authorized or appropriated by
this Act;
``(B) administrative costs and all services offered through
such coverage or plan are paid for using only premiums
collected for such coverage or plan; and
``(C) any such non-Federal health insurance issuer that
offers a qualified health plan through an Exchange that
includes coverage for abortions for which funding is
prohibited under this subsection also offers a qualified
health plan through the Exchange that is identical in every
respect except that it does not cover abortions for which
funding is prohibited under this subsection.'';
(5) in subsection (e), as redesignated by paragraph (1)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``Regarding Abortion'';
(B) in the heading of each of paragraphs (1) and (2), by
striking each place it appears ``regarding abortion'';
(C) in paragraph (1), by striking ``regarding the
prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, funding, or''
and inserting ``protecting conscience rights, restricting or
prohibiting abortion or coverage or funding of abortion, or
establishing''; and
(D) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``Nothing'' and
inserting ``Subject to subsection (g), nothing'';
(6) in subsection (f), as redesignated by paragraph (1), by
striking ``Nothing'' and inserting ``Subject to subsection
(g), nothing''; and
(7) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Nondiscrimination on Abortion.--
``(1) Nondiscrimination.--A Federal agency or program, and
any State or local government that receives Federal financial
assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act),
may not subject any institutional or individual health care
entity to discrimination, or require any health plan created
or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this
Act) to subject any institutional or individual health care
entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care
entity refuses to--
``(A) undergo training in the performance of induced
abortions;
``(B) require or provide such training;
``(C) perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay
for induced abortions; or
``(D) provide referrals for such training or such
abortions.
``(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `health
care entity' includes an individual physician or other health
care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored
organization, a health maintenance organization, a health
insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility,
organization, or plan.
``(3) Remedies.--
``(A) In general.--The courts of the United States shall
have jurisdiction to prevent and redress actual or threatened
violations of this section by issuing any form of legal or
equitable relief, including--
``(i) injunctions prohibiting conduct that violates this
subsection; and
``(ii) orders preventing the disbursement of all or a
portion of Federal financial assistance to a State or local
government, or to a specific offending agency or program of a
State or local government, until such time as the conduct
prohibited by this subsection has ceased.
``(B) Commencement of action.--An action under this
subsection may be instituted by--
``(i) any health care entity that has standing to complain
of an actual or threatened violation of this subsection; or
``(ii) the Attorney General of the United States.
``(4) Administration.--The Secretary shall designate the
Director of the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of
Health and Human Services--
``(A) to receive complaints alleging a violation of this
subsection; and
``(B) to pursue investigation of such complaints in
coordination with the Attorney General.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1334(a)(6) of such Act
is amended to read as follows:
``(6) Coverage consistent with federal policy.--In entering
into contracts under this subsection, the Director shall
ensure that no multi-State qualified health plan offered in
an Exchange provides coverage for abortions for which funding
is prohibited under section 1303(c) of this Act.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts)
and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PITTS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I am humbled to stand in this Chamber and engage in
debate over such a critical matter as this. Like the civil rights
movement, the pro-life cause has always been about one of securing
rights for those who cannot speak for themselves and who cannot on
their own obtain them. The fight goes all the way back to our Nation's
beginning.
What more could our Founding Fathers have envisioned when they
drafted the Declaration of Independence, proclaiming to all that
America would ``hold these truths would be self-evident, that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness''? There it is.
The first unalienable right designated by the Declaration of
Independence is our right to life. Our Founding Fathers must have
deemed this an indispensable right, for its placement signifies it was
not an afterthought.
From the start of our great Nation until now, countless men and women
have fought and even sacrificed their own lives to protect that right
for others. Yet, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that
has
[[Page H6887]]
changed the course of history in this country. A right that had been
protected for nearly 200 years was tossed aside by a court decision to
legalize abortion. Up until that point, an unwanted pregnancy was
likely to lead to an adoption, a process that placed an unwanted child
in a caring home.
The legacy of the late Steve Jobs reminds us of the impact an
adoption can have on the entire world. Fortunately for us, Jobs was
born 18 years before Roe v. Wade. Shortly after his birth to a single
mother, Jobs was adopted by a married couple in central California. He
would go on to be the founder of a tech company that has literally
changed the world. His was the route of many unexpected children before
1973.
Maya Angelou, Babe Ruth, and Eleanor Roosevelt are just a few of the
many adoptees that have transformed the world we live in today.
Unfortunately, since Roe v. Wade, more and more women are being
persuaded that abortion is nothing more than a simple medical procedure
that will help them move on with their lives. This could not be further
from the truth.
A study of Medi-Cal patients in California revealed that women who
had had an abortion were 160 percent more likely to be admitted for
psychiatric treatment than those who had carried the child to term and
delivery. These women who chose to terminate their pregnancies then had
to deal with the psychological devastation that is often associated
with such a decision. Adding harm upon harm, abortion is a procedure
that brings mental trauma to the mother and irreparable damage to the
unborn.
Because of this, the policy of the Federal Government for the last 35
years has been to ban funding for such a procedure. Studies have shown
that when the government subsidizes abortion, their number increases.
The President, a supporter of abortion rights, has stated his
commitment to reducing the amount of abortions in this country.
Restoring the policy of prohibiting Federal funds for abortion would be
a good first step. The American people, to a large degree, agree with
this policy. In fact, as recently as last year, a survey revealed that
67 percent of Americans support a ban on abortion funding. But the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act failed to include this
prohibition, and that is why we are here today.
President Obama indicated his support for upholding the ban on
Federal funding for abortion in health reform, and that is exactly what
the Protect Life Act does. The issue of prohibiting taxpayer funds for
abortion is important to the American people. And so it should be
important to Congress as well. Protecting the unalienable right to life
is important to the American people. It should be to the Congress as
well.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Hon. Fred Upton,
Chairman, House Committee on Energy & Commerce, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman Upton, as you know, I requested a referral on
H.R. 358, the ``Protect Life Act,'' because it has provisions
that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Judiciary
Committee. We are able to agree to waive seeking a formal
referral of the bill in order that it may proceed
expeditiously to the House floor for consideration.
The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual
understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 358 at
this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject
matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our
Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the
bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may
address any issues in our jurisdiction. Our Committee also
reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate
number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving
this or similar legislation, and requests your support for
any such request.
I would appreciate your including this letter in the
Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the
House floor. Thank you for your attention to this request,
and for the cooperative relationship between our two
committees.
Sincerely,
Lamar Smith,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and
Commmerce,
Washington, DC, October 12, 2011.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith, thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 358, the ``Protect Life Act.'' As you noted, there are
provisions of the bill that fall within the Rule X
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary.
I appreciate your willingness to forgo action on H.R. 358.
I agree that your decision should not prejudice the Committee
on the Judiciary with respect to the appointment of conferees
or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar
legislation.
I will include a copy of your letter and this response in
the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 358 on
the House floor.
Sincerely,
Fred Upton,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, September 14, 2011.
Hon. Fred Upton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Upton, I am writing concerning H.R. 358, the
``Protect Life Act,'' which was favorably reported out of
your Committee on February 15, 2011.
As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has
jurisdiction over revenue measures generally, including
federal tax laws and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (IRC). Section 2(a)(4) of H.R. 358 amends section
1303 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L.
111-148), as amended by section 10104(c) of such Act, by
limiting the purposes for which taxpayers may claim tax
credits under section 36B of the IRC. I wanted to notify you
the Committee will forgo action on H.R. 358. This is being
done with the understanding that it does not in any way
prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of
conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or
similar legislation.
I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming
this understanding with respect to H.R. 358, and would ask
that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be
included in the Congressional Record during Floor
consideration.
Sincerely,
Dave Camp,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, September 15, 2011.
Hon. Dave Camp,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Camp, thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 358, the ``Protect Life Act.'' As you noted, there are
provisions of the bill that fall within the Rule X
jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
I appreciate your willingness to forgo action on H.R. 358.
I agree that your decision should not prejudice the Committee
on Ways and Means with respect to the appointment of
conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or
similar legislation.
I will include a copy of your letter and this response in
the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 358 on
the House floor.
Sincerely,
Fred Upton,
Chairman.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 358, legislation that infringes
upon a woman's right to choose. This bill is unnecessary, divisive, and
extreme. And it saddens me that the Republican leadership has chosen to
bring this bill to the House floor when Americans are struggling.
The American people want us to work together to address their top
priority: creating jobs. As such, we should be focusing on putting
Americans back to work, not dividing Congress on ideological issues.
And we certainly shouldn't be considering legislation that rolls back
women's reproductive rights 38 years.
Supporters of this bill claim it is amending the Affordable Care Act
to ensure U.S. tax dollars are not used to fund abortions. However, the
Affordable Care Act already prohibits the use of Federal dollars to
fund abortions. Instead, H.R. 358 will eliminate access to abortion
care for many women by banning insurance plans regulated by the
Affordable Care Act from offering abortion-inclusive coverage if they
take even one federally subsidized customer. So if a plan takes one
subsidized customer, then they can't provide abortion coverage
insurance to anyone else in the plan.
What's even more concerning is that this legislation could place many
women who need reproductive health care in dangerous, potentially life-
threatening situations by expanding a lopsided policy that allows
health workers and hospitals the ability to refuse to provide and refer
for abortion care and even deny emergency abortion care.
So that's why I was so appalled, truly appalled yesterday by comments
that
[[Page H6888]]
were made at the Rules Committee, and I want to set the record
straight. This bill is not simply the Stupak-Pitts amendment that was
debated and supported during the health reform consideration. During
the Rules Committee, I heard that over and over again from the
Republican side--this is just the Stupak bill all over again. That is
simply not true.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 358 goes significantly beyond the Stupak
amendment. The Stupak amendment limited its reach only to qualified
health plans and had no effect on completely private plans. But H.R.
358 affects any health plan.
The Stupak amendment limited its reach only to Federal funding and
insurance coverage of abortion. H.R. 358 includes access to abortion
services, a much broader term with far-reaching effects.
And the Stupak amendment limited its reach only to State conscience
protection laws that deal with abortion. But H.R. 358 expands that
protection to those covering health and medical services outside of
abortion.
The Stupak amendment did not create any exception to the obligation
of hospitals to comply with EMTALA. Instead, it left that obligation
intact.
So, as my colleagues will see, no one should be fooled by the
argument that this is simply Stupak because it's simply not. I want to
emphasize, the effect of this amendment would mean that, effectively,
women would not be able to get any kind of health insurance for
abortion coverage either because they wouldn't be able to get a
comprehensive plan on the exchange or because they would be forced to
try to buy one outside the exchange just for abortion services, which
isn't going to be available.
So, practically speaking, what the Pitts amendment does is make it
impossible for a woman to exercise her right under the Constitution if
she chooses to have an abortion because she won't be able to get
insurance coverage for it at all.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 358 is a massive overreach of women's health. It
extensively restricts women's access to reproductive health services
and lifesaving care. It is a step towards eliminating a choice that our
Supreme Court has deemed legal and remains legal to this day.
Now, if you want to overturn Roe v. Wade, and I know that there are
Members on the other side of the aisle who feel that way, then they can
try to do that. But don't do it in a sneaky way by denying women
insurance and effectively saying that they can't exercise what the
Supreme Court says is their right under the Constitution.
{time} 1730
Women need and are entitled to safe, affordable health care options.
This bill only serves to create health and financial challenges that I
think are going to be impossible to overcome. It's dangerous to women's
health.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``nay'' on the legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. John Fleming.
Mr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his work on
this bill and his lifelong career in protecting life.
Madam Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 358, the Protect Life
Act, would accomplish two important things: It would remove funding for
abortion and abortion coverage under the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, and it would extend the conscience protections to
pro-life doctors, nurses, hospitals, and other health care facilities
who object to destroying the lives of unborn children.
Madam Speaker, I've been a doctor for 36 years, father of four,
grandfather of two, and I can tell you that the taking of innocent life
is not health care. It is not health care. Having said that, this
country is still divided on whether or not a woman should have the
right to take an unborn infant. However, the country is not divided on
the issue for who should pay for it--and that issue is taxpayers. Two
to one, Americans say taxpayers should not be footing the bill. And
that's what this is about, as well as the conscience clause.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PITTS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. FLEMING. This protection is critical for pro-life and religious
health care providers and entities. EMTALA, which is part of the
discussion here, requires that health care providers such as myself
must take care of women and must take care of their infants, unborn or
otherwise.
And so I say to you, Madam Speaker, today, this bill protects life
and it does not require taxpayers to foot the bill for those who choose
to take innocent life.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished
Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding, and I
thank him for his leadership.
I rise in opposition to this bill, the so-called Protect Life Act.
First of all, over and over again we repeat the premise that somehow
we're using government funds through the Affordable Care Act for
abortion. We are not. No matter how many times you say it, the fact is
that we specifically precluded that from happening.
What this bill does goes much further. It threatens to make it harder
for women across the country to receive health care that they need. I
understand the doctor who just said that the termination of a pregnancy
is not health care. I understand his premise. But I also understand
that we in America have adopted the premise that if a woman comes to
the hospital and has at great risk to her life a pregnancy which is
causing her health to be at great risk and her life as well, what this
bill does is say you don't have to intervene under those circumstances.
I don't think that's protecting life, I say to my friend. In fact, I
think it is ignoring the protection of life.
Moreover, it does nothing to create jobs, which is what Congress
should be focusing on during this time when so many Americans are out
of work. Very frankly, you have criticized the President of the United
States for submitting a jobs bill to this Congress that doesn't have a
chance of passage. I have heard that over and over again. All of you
know this has no chance of passage. It may pass this House--I hope not;
I urge its defeat--but it won't pass. It won't become law.
So while millions of Americans' quality of life is put at risk
because of the lack of jobs and opportunity that they have, we consider
what I believe is simply legislation to speak to a particular interest
group in our parties. I understand that.
Republicans come to this floor and speak all the time about keeping
government out of people's lives, but this bill does exactly the
opposite. What it says is that women won't be able to spend their own
money on comprehensive reform for reproductive coverage under a new
health exchange. You don't want us to tell people they have to have
insurance, but you want to tell them what they can't have in an
insurance--with their own money. I'm not sure I get the distinction
there. Maybe you can come up with a distinction, but it certainly is a
very nuanced one, if it exists at all.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. HOYER. Even more unbelievably, the bill will allow a hospital to
refuse women emergency care of this kind even when necessary to save
their lives. I don't think that's what you intend. I certainly hope
it's not. But it is the interpretation that many of us have put on the
language of your bill.
So, ladies and gentlemen of this House, this issue has been debated
over and over again. We adopted a Hyde amendment. The premise of the
Hyde amendment was that we shouldn't take taxpayers' money and spend it
on abortion.
Very frankly, I represent 60,000 Federal employees. We precluded them
from using the salary that they receive to buy insurance that has
abortion coverage. It's their money. I hear that all the time: It's
their money. But you don't allow them to use their money for that
purpose. Now you are saying to the private sector women: You can't use
your money.
You can't have it both ways. Either it's their money for services
they constitutionally can receive or it's not.
[[Page H6889]]
Defeat this bill. This is a difficult issue. Let us let women,
doctors, and their faith deal with it.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I have
a copy here of the PPACA law. On page 65, I'll just read one title of a
paragraph: Abortions for which public funding is allowed.
At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana, Steve
Scalise.
Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for
yielding and especially for his leadership in bringing the Protect Life
Act to the floor of the House of Representatives.
When we look at a time right now when our country is going broke,
it's offensive to most Americans that taxpayer money can still be used
to subsidize abortion in this country. We had this debate during the
President's health care law. We've tried to put real language that
would protect that from happening. Unfortunately, we weren't able to
get that protection. For those of us that want to repeal the
President's health care law completely, we've already passed that bill
and sent it to the Senate and they've taken no action.
But we're here today to address specifically this problem and say
there should be no taxpayer money that is allowed to be used to
subsidize abortion. And if you look in the bill, there are employers
out there who are providing good health care to their employees today;
yet under the law that the President passed and signed into law,
Federal officials can tell those private employers that they have to
provide abortion services in their policy, and so they'll just drop the
policy. This prevents that from happening as well. It gives conscience
protections so that if there's a medical professional that doesn't want
to participate in abortion, they don't have to.
These are all commonsense proposals that should pass and have
bipartisan support, and they should also pass the Senate.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our ranking member
of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker and Members of the Congress of the United
States, this bill is an absolute disgrace. With all the problems we
have in this country--economic crisis, poverty levels at the highest
we've seen in a generation, urgent needs for our schools, Americans
still too dependent on foreign oil and imported energy--what does the
Republican leadership bring up for us to debate? Yet another bill to
limit women's access to reproductive health services.
{time} 1740
Now, I say another bill because the House has already adopted H.R. 3,
and that bill codified into law that no Federal dollars would be used
to pay for abortion services, whether it's under Medicaid, the
traditional Hyde amendment, or the D.C. appropriations, or for Federal
employees, or women who serve in the military, or those who get
subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.
What this bill seeks to do, pure and simple, is to destroy one of the
most hard-fought but delicately balanced sections of the Affordable
Care Act, and that was on abortion. This section came about as a result
of a lot of hard work by many Members in the House and the Senate--
particularly Senator Nelson, whose pro-life record speaks for itself,
clearly and unequivocally.
The law prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortion. It keeps
State and Federal abortion-related laws in place. It ensures that those
whose conscience dictates against abortion are protected and not
discriminated against. And it went further. The language in the
Affordable Care Act said you cannot use any subsidies to pay for your
abortion insurance coverage; you had to use only private personal
dollars. Well, this bill would restrict insurance plans' flexibility
regarding abortion coverage, and I think it will result in a virtual
shutdown of private coverage for this service for everyone.
This legislation also takes away the Affordable Care Act's limited
anti-discrimination protection for those providers whose conscience
dictates that women should have access to abortion. It's a legal and,
in many cases, an appropriate medical service.
Among the most disturbing features of the Pitts bill is it would say
that health care providers would no longer be required to provide
emergency services as required under the Emergency Medical Treatment
and Active Labor Act, commonly known as EMTALA.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. WAXMAN. In other words, a woman who may die from her pregnancy,
if she is in for emergency services, the doctor can refuse to give her
emergency services if his conscience would prohibit performing an
abortion.
Taken as a whole, this bill is a full-throttled assault on women's
health and a woman's right to choose. It's not what the American people
voted for last November. We should be focusing our attention on jobs,
economic growth, and the numerous pressing and important challenges we
face as a Nation.
This is a shameless, just a shameless bill. I urge a ``no'' vote on
H.R. 358.
Mr. PITTS. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished vice chairman of the
Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess.
Mr. BURGESS. I thank the chairman. I won't take the full minute. I
just simply wanted to respond to what we just heard here on the floor
of the House.
H.R. 358 does not change current law or any standard related to
section 1867 of the Social Security Act, commonly referred to as
EMTALA. The section states that a hospital must provide such treatment
to stabilize the medical condition. Paragraph (e) of section 1867
defines an emergency medical condition as a medical condition of
sufficient severity such that the absence of immediate medical
attention could be reasonably expected to place the life and health of
a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.
EMTALA currently recognizes both lives. Therefore, the Protect Life
Act provides conscience protection that is consistent with the
emergency treatment requirements of current law under EMTALA.
Mr. PALLONE. I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Health
Subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition--and I
must say honest bafflement--to this so-called ``Protect Life Act.'' I'm
baffled because it truly stretches the limits of the rational mind to
imagine why the Republican majority--a group of people who supposedly
say they make it their mission to limit government involvement in every
way possible--why they continue to insert themselves--and the
government--into the personal health care decisions of Americans across
the country.
What's even more baffling is that for 30 years Federal law has
prohibited funding of abortions. It's one thing to say the government
won't pay for abortions, but quite another, as we're doing here, to say
that women can't use their own dollars to pay for abortion coverage.
Here we are with this absurd song and dance that has no basis in
reality, is entirely about scoring political points with the Republican
base once again while, as my colleagues have said, doing nothing to
help employment and create jobs in this country. If this bill stopped
at being absurd, it would be one thing. But more than absurd, this
cruel legislation would actually allow hospitals to refuse to provide a
woman abortion care even if she would die without it.
Now, my colleagues who claim they want smaller government and say
they want to get the government out of people's lives, this is a hell
of a way to do it or to prove it.
I urge my colleagues to fight for common sense, to protect women from
this harsh attack, and to vote ``no'' on H.R. 358.
The gentleman before was talking about public funding being used for
abortions. What is that--using taxpayers' money for incest, or to save
the life of a woman, or for rape? Would we deny women the right to have
an abortion if they were raped or if it would save their lives? I think
not. I think the American people can see through this one. This is
nothing more than
[[Page H6890]]
playing to the base. It's bad policy for this country.
Let's get the government out of people's lives. Vote ``no'' on this
bill.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to another distinguished
member of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Phil
Gingrey.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for
yielding, and I commend him for his great work on this bill.
As a practicing OB/GYN for nearly 30 years, I believe that all life
is sacred. Having delivered more than 5,000 babies into this world, I
have a deep appreciation for how wonderful life is.
The issue of abortion is a very personal matter for me, as it is for
many in this country and on both sides of the aisle of this issue.
However, the decades-old debate on the issue of abortion in this
country, that's not why we're on the floor today. We're here today to
answer one question: Should taxpayer dollars be used to fund abortions?
And when an elective procedure--a choice--can decide between life and
death, I would suggest that it is an important question to answer. The
Protect Life Act is a piece of legislation that seeks to answer that
question and set right what the Congress got wrong.
Speaking as a grandfather, a father, a son, and an OB/GYN physician,
I will be voting to ensure that our government does not put taxpayer
dollars behind any person who seeks an elective abortion.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on both
sides of the aisle?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 16
minutes. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 20\3/4\ minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the
gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
Mrs. HARTZLER. I thank my dear colleague here for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Protect Life Act, which will
ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to pay for abortions through
last year's health care bill. It is right and proper that we should do
so.
Every life deserves to be born and is worthy of life. Every life has
a purpose and a plan. King David reminds us of the value of life in our
Creator's eyes when he penned the following: ``For You created my
inmost being; You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise You
because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful,
I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made
in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the
Earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me
were written in Your Book before one of them came to be.''
I'm thankful that our Declaration of Independence recognizes that we
are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights, including the right
to life.
{time} 1750
Our Founding Fathers laid out the principle of life, and today we
have an opportunity to affirm and carry on that mantle by passing the
Protect Life Act.
Mr. PALLONE. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
dangerous legislation, the so-called Protect Life Act, which will, in
fact, endanger the lives of women.
With only 23 legislative days remaining in this session before the
end of the year, I'm stunned by the decision to waste precious time
debating this bill, this unprecedented attack on women's health and the
right of women to access reproductive health care.
We should, instead, be spending this time debating ways to grow our
economy, ways to help small businesses create jobs, and ways to rebuild
our roads and schools so that we can put people back to work and
improve our competitiveness in the global marketplace.
But instead of talking about how we create jobs, we're debating
merits of a bill intended to continue the war on women being waged by
my Republican colleagues. This bill would effectively limit, for the
first time, how women can spend their own private dollars to purchase
health insurance. This is outrageous.
I am certain Members of this body would never dare to enact
legislation limiting the ability of men to access health care.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, to end the attack
on women's rights and women's health, and to focus, instead, on job
creation.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
Mrs. BLACK. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding.
For over 30 years, the Hyde amendment, in conjunction with a
patchwork of other policies, has regulated the Federal funding of
abortions under programs such as Medicaid; and together, these various
policies ensure the American taxpayer is not involved in funding the
destruction of innocent human life.
And despite the assurances from President Obama, the Patient
Protection and Affordability Care Act will allow Federal funds to
subsidize abortions for the first time since 1976 through State high-
risk pools and community health centers.
While the President's Executive order was an attempt to reassure
Congress after the Stupak amendment did not make it into the bill's
final version, the fact of the matter is that the Executive order is
not law and it can change all too easily.
This bill will prohibit funding for abortions and abortion coverage
under the Patient Protection and Affordability Act. This legislation
also protects the conscience rights for health care workers such as
myself by providing that Federal agencies and State and local
governments funding by PPACA may not discriminate against health care
entities that refuse to be involved in abortion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. PITTS. I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 seconds.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, this bill is not about a mother's right to
choose, as the President and the congressional Democrats would lead us
to believe. Rather, this is about ensuring that the proper restrictions
are in place in order to assure that taxpayer funds are not used to
fund abortion or abortion coverage under the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. A new poll
today suggests that the 9-9-9 campaign theme of the new Republican
Presidential front-runner is starting to gain traction. And it appears
that the majority has taken a page from the Cain playbook with their
10-10-10 program, because this is the 10th month without a jobs bill on
the floor, the 10th time we've put polarizing social issues and attacks
on women's health before job creation and economic security, and the
10th attempt at repealing parts or all of the Affordable Care Act.
This bill creates no jobs, it doesn't help the economy, and it
inserts the government smack in the middle of people's health care
decisions.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill and urge the majority to get to
work helping the economy and creating jobs.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another
leader on the life issue, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his
leadership on this issue, and I'm privileged to be on the floor with a
lot of pro-life activists.
I rise in support of the Protect Life Act, and I think we should talk
about what is really going on behind those dollars that would go into
abortion clinics.
It's been called cruel legislation. Think about how cruel it is to
take a pair of forceps and pull a baby apart piece by piece in dilation
and extraction, or D&E. Fourteen to 24 weeks, a fully formed, perfect,
perfectly formed and perfectly innocent baby pulled apart piece by
piece, put into a pan and added up to see if all the pieces are there.
It is ghastly, it's gruesome, it's ghoulish, and it's grotesque, and we
should never compel taxpayers to pay for something that we couldn't
bear the sight of. And you'll never see a video of it for that reason.
[[Page H6891]]
It is a process that degrades our entire culture. And to argue that
women can't spend their own dollars to get an abortion just simply
isn't true. There is a side piece in this that still prevails, and
there's always that cash right up to the Planned Parenthood.
So, Madam Speaker, I urge support for the Protect Life Act, and I
congratulate the people that have stood for innocent, unborn human life
so many times on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
At a time when the American people are crying out for action on jobs,
we are debating legislation that will instead trample on a woman's
fundamental reproductive rights. The fact of the matter is that the
Affordable Care Act prohibits any taxpayers' dollars from paying for
abortions. That's the law of the land.
The legislation before the House goes far beyond that, restricting,
for the first time, how women with private insurance can spend their
own private dollars in purchasing insurance. For women, this bill
constitutes nothing less than a full-fledged assault on their right to
choose.
Madam Speaker, with 8 million people unemployed in this country, with
wages going down, poverty is on the rise, and this is all that the
Republicans have to offer. This is why people are literally in the
streets demanding solutions to the job crisis, seeking greater
opportunity and an end to economic inequality.
The American people do not want ideological posturing. They want real
solutions that create real jobs. Vote down this legislation.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another
eloquent voice for the unborn, the chair of the Pro-Life Women's
Caucus, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).
Mrs. SCHMIDT. I'm actually one of the folks that read the bill before
we passed it, and there are passages in the bill that do allow for
Federal funding of abortion. What this bill does is it seeks to correct
that language.
The Hyde amendment clearly states that no Federal tax dollars can be
used for abortion. At the time that the Hyde amendment was created, we
really only had Medicaid to worry about; but with the vast changes in
our lifestyles, other avenues have come forward for Federal funding of
abortion to occur if we are not careful in the way we construct laws in
this awesome body.
Time and time again, the American public has said we're conflicted on
the issue of abortion, but we're not conflicted about not using Federal
funds to pay for it. Just in April of this year, 61 percent of
respondents on a CNN poll said no Federal funding of abortion.
What this bill does is what we should have done in March of 2010--not
allow any Federal funds to be used to pay for abortion any time, any
place in this health care bill.
I urge my colleagues to pass this and correct the language that
should have been done a year ago.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to another
outstanding voice for the unborn, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1800
Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Protect Life Act
with a grateful heart for Chairman Joe Pitts and Congressman Dan
Lipinski for their bipartisan leadership in bringing this legislation
to the floor. I believe that ending an innocent human life is morally
wrong. But I also believe that it's morally wrong to take the taxpayer
dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to subsidize
abortion or abortion coverage in this country. As it stands today,
ObamaCare requires millions of pro-life taxpayers to pay for abortions
and subsidize health care plans that cover abortions. This legislation
will correct that profound flaw.
Now, I know President Obama issued an Executive order during the heat
of the legislative battle over ObamaCare, but we all know Executive
orders do not carry the force of law. They can be overturned by the
courts and are superseded by statutes.
ObamaCare should be repealed. But in the meantime, let's take this
moment to say ``yes'' to life, to say ``yes'' to respecting the values
of tens of millions of Americans and make right that which was wrong in
ObamaCare itself. Let's pass the Protect Life Act, and let's protect
taxpayers of pro-life values all across this country and do it now.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin, who is also a member of the Health Subcommittee, Ms.
Baldwin.
Ms. BALDWIN. Notably absent from the Republican agenda this year are
the issues that the American people really care about--creating jobs
and growing our economy. Just when we should be pulling together to
work on these issues, instead, Republicans have put forth divisive and
extreme legislation that takes away women's ability to make their own
important life decisions about their reproductive health.
This extremist legislation is an unprecedented display of lack of
respect for American women and our safety. The effect of this bill
would be to cut off millions of women from the private care they
already have and limit the ability of a woman to get the care she
needs, even if the result is a serious permanent health condition that
could shorten her life.
So we now know the Republicans' real agenda: to roll back women's
health and rights. They have shown their true colors by trying to
weaken the rape and incest exceptions for abortions. It's hard to
believe, but a majority of the Republican House Members cosponsored
legislation to give insurance companies new authority to decide if a
woman had been raped and to deny care to incest victims. Thanks to the
American women who spoke out, this dangerous provision was dropped. But
I think it raises an important question: If Republicans are willing to
redefine what constitutes rape and incest, what are they going to try
next?
Enough is enough. It is time for the Republican majority to respect
women's important life decisions, and it is time that they start to
stand and start to refocus on the priorities of this country right
now--jobs and growing the economy. I urge my colleagues to oppose this
extreme and intrusive legislation.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the next gentleman, in
response to the gentlelady, the House has passed 12 different jobs
bills already. I believe the gentlelady has voted against every one.
They're sitting in the Senate waiting for action.
I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona, another
leader in the pro-life movement, Mr. Franks.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I certainly thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, when ObamaCare was being unceremoniously rammed
through this Congress against the will of the American people,
Democrats tried to assure everyone that it was all about compassion.
But, Madam Speaker, nothing so completely destroys the notion that
ObamaCare was ever about compassion more than the tragic determination
on the part of the Democratic leadership to include the killing of
little children by abortion in its provisions.
Now, Madam Speaker, as we face a debt that grows by $4 billion under
the strain of Mr. Obama's record-setting spending every day, maybe we
should all ask ourselves a question, and that is, is setting aside
millions of taxpayer dollars to pay for the killing of innocent unborn
children really one of our financial priorities?
And if it is, we should ask another question, and that is, what in
God's name has become of all of us?
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, may I ask about the time again?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 11 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 14\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Austria).
Mr. AUSTRIA. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his hard
[[Page H6892]]
work on this bill. As a member of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus and
original cosponsor of this bill, I strongly support the Protect Life
Act.
We heard during the health care reform debate that tax dollars would
not be used to fund abortions. However, this important language was
stripped from the final bill and replaced with accounting gimmicks and
an Executive order that can be reversed at any time by this President
or future administrations.
This opens the door for federally funded abortions in the future and
goes against the majority of Americans who believe that the government
should not be in the business of paying for abortions. Congress must
act now to protect the lives of our unborn children and to fully ensure
that no tax dollars from ObamaCare are used to fund abortions.
The Protect Life Act also ensures that medical providers and workers
are not discriminated against for refusing to perform abortions. These
protections are crucial for health care providers around the Nation
whose core values include a deeply held belief that we must protect all
human life. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Protect Life Act.
Mr. PALLONE. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Sutton).
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, the Republican majority is at it again.
With no real jobs plan, we've seen this majority attempt to thrust on
the American people bills that strip them of their rights instead of
putting them back to work. Make no mistake: Those proposing this know
this extreme bill will not pass the Senate and it will not be signed
into law by the President.
This bill, at its core, is an attack on women, especially poor women.
Its extreme provisions will jeopardize a woman's access to lifesaving
care. It is outrageous that this Republican majority continues to focus
on protecting subsidies for Big Oil, tax cuts for billionaires, and
targeting women and their access to health care.
Instead of working to help create jobs and empower women to improve
their lives, the Republican majority is, instead, trying to pass this
bill to allow hospitals to refuse to provide critical, lifesaving care.
That means women in rural areas who may only have access to one
hospital could be left to die.
This isn't the time to be putting America's women at risk. This is
the time to be putting them and all Americans back to work. I encourage
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this extreme bill.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, of which I'm a
cosponsor. It's been the practice of this House for decades to ensure
that federal funds are not used for abortion except in rare cases of
rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. This is typically done
by attaching language to appropriation bills that go through this
House. Unfortunately, we don't always have regular order.
Appropriation bills this year are likely to see a minibus or an
omnibus or a vehicle that might not lend itself to attachment of this
language. So I think it is prudent what the House is doing today to
ensure that this language goes into legislation to make sure that
federal funds are not used for abortion services and to carry on the
will of this body. For that, I urge support of the bill.
Mr. PALLONE. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Capps), who is a member of the Health Subcommittee.
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this misguided
legislation.
While the House leadership claims that this week's agenda is all
about jobs, the discussion of this bill on the House floor shows their
true colors. Just like when they almost shut down the government over
Planned Parenthood, today we, once again, witness how ideological
campaign promises trump needed actions on jobs and the economy.
It's been said before, and I'll say it again, H.R. 358 does not
create a single job--not one. Instead, it's an unprecedented assault on
the rights of women and families everywhere to make important life
decisions.
{time} 1810
This bill does a lot. It limits the choices of women and families to
purchase health insurance with their own dollars; it removes vital
protections to ensure that a pregnant woman with a life-threatening
condition can get lifesaving care; and it circumvents State laws that
ensure that women have access to preventive services, like screenings
and birth control.
But what this bill doesn't do is trust our Nation's women and
families to make their own health care choices.
This is unacceptable.
Some have claimed that the Affordable Care Act has led to taxpayer-
funded abortions. That is false. Others have claimed that this bill is
nothing but the Stupak language that divided our Chamber last year. I
was involved in every debate over the Stupak amendment in the House.
Madam Speaker, I can tell you this is way beyond that misguided
amendment.
So I urge my colleagues to abandon this divisive effort, to put the
brakes on this extreme legislation, and to let us turn our focus to the
issue of job creation to help the American people.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, just to correct the gentlelady, there were
three Stupak-Pitts amendments. Two were adopted in committee and one on
the floor, which got the most publicity. When they went to the Senate,
they were all taken out. We're going back to the original Stupak-Pitts
amendments.
With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Huizenga).
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I appreciate the leadership of my friend
from Pennsylvania, who has been stalwart on this issue.
Really, what we're seeing, folks, is a sleight of hand. They want to
talk about jobs, and they want to talk about Big Oil because they don't
want to talk about the preciousness of life and how this procedure
takes the life of an innocent. It has been labeled an ``extreme'' bill
when, actually, this is a reasonable step that codifies what this
President says is his own position.
I have a brother-in-law who is a doctor down in Cincinnati. A little
earlier today, I called him to talk to him about what he went through
in his training and what he had to deal with as to this particular
issue.
When I described to him what we were trying to do about allowing him
and any other med student and any other person who is going through
that to conscientiously object from putting forward a procedure that
they don't agree with, he said, Of course, that makes sense.
When I started talking to him about some of the rhetoric and about
some of the demagoguery that's surrounding this, he sarcastically said,
Boy, that doesn't sound political, does it?
That's exactly what it is.
The American people who are watching this right now need to
understand that this is about life and protecting that life and making
sure that our health care providers have the ability to say ``no'' to a
procedure that they don't want to do.
Mr. PALLONE. I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms.
Sheila Jackson Lee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, let me be very clear. The
only ``no'' that is being said is ``no'' to the vulnerable women who
are traveling in emergency ambulances to the hospital, desiring
emergency treatment, dying, and not being able to be treated, needing
to correct a problem that has, in fact, damaged their health and not
being able to be treated.
Not only is this bill unconstitutional, but the Affordable Care Act
does not promote abortion. Frankly, Federal funds are not being
utilized for abortion as it will complicate the insurance process for
all women in America.
All you can hear is the siren going around and around and around--
that woman lying on a gurney--and that hospital being able to say
``no'' and ``yes.'' The only ``no'' is that she will not live because
this bill is passed.
I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill. Vote for life. Vote
against this bill.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 358, The
Protect Life Act. This bill will have a detrimental impact on women's
[[Page H6893]]
health, and moreover, attacks a woman's constitutionally protected
right to choose. It will restrict Access to health care services. It
would effectively shut down the private insurance market for allowing
women to get complete health care coverage. Once again instead of
focusing on JOBS we are again focusing on issues that will not help to
feed American families.
As a strong advocate for women's health, I cannot stand by and watch
as those who do not support the rights of women to determine their
health care options find different and often insidious ways to take
away their ability to have full health care coverage.
We are asking women to give up their right to privacy. These
decisions need to be between a woman and her doctor. She has the right
to determine who, if anyone else she would like to inform of her health
care choices. In addition to rendering it nearly impossible for women
to get insurance coverage for abortion care in the new state health
exchanges, H.R. 358 allows public hospitals to refuse to provide
emergency abortion care, even in situations when the procedure is
necessary to save a woman's life.
This has been a long and hard fight. Thirty-eight years ago, the
American people learned of the Supreme Court's momentous ruling in Roe
versus Wade--the case which established constitutional restrictions on
the State's ability to regulate or restrict a woman's decision to have
an abortion. In the year 1973, the Supreme Court asserted that the 14th
amendment protects a woman's right to choose for herself whether to
have an abortion.
Many women in 1973 must have viewed the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe
versus Wade as an encouraging turning point in the way our courts
recognize the rights of women under the Constitution. The Roe versus
Wade decision at last offered a choice to many women who had been
victims of rape or incest, but had been denied abortion as a legal
option. Roe versus Wade offered a choice to many women whose lives
would have been threatened by going through childbirth, but had been
denied abortion as a legal option. And Roe versus Wade offered a choice
to women who, for a variety of personal reasons, would prefer not to
carry a pregnancy to term, but had earlier been denied abortion as a
legal option.
Indeed, it is my hope that the Supreme Court will continue to protect
women against any State erosion of a woman's individual rights. Let us
not undermine the breakthrough made for women by the Supreme Court in
1973. Let us not jeopardize the right of a woman to choose whether she
will bear children. Let us not place a woman's right to personal
privacy at risk. Instead, let us reaffirm those rights and give
consistent support not only to those who choose to have children, but
also to those who do not.
Since Roe v. Wade, a woman's right to choose has been systematically
eroded by anti-choice legislators. In fact, more than 450 anti-choice
measures have been enacted in the states since 1995, essentially
rolling back this fundamental right for many women. Women in 19 states
could face sweeping bans on abortion if the Supreme Court reverses Roe
and allows states to re-criminalize abortion, menacing doctors and
their patients with the threat of criminal investigation, prosecution,
and even imprisonment.
The argument has been over and over that tax payer dollars should not
be used to fund abortions. This argument is an extreme overreach. The
Affordable Care Act already includes a provision that prohibits any
U.S. taxpayer dollars from funding abortions. As this is the case the
purpose of this bill seems to only be to rattle people's cages by
attacking women and failing to address the job crisis in this country.
We should focus on creating jobs. This bill seems to be a red herring.
Instead of focusing on jobs, the economy, rebuilding America, we are
instead focusing on an issue that everyone knows is divisive.
Women would no longer be able to have full health care coverage
without disclosing very personal information. They must predict in
advance whether or not they are going to use a service that is legal in
this country. It is the law, and the law should be upheld. Women would
be required to buy separate coverage specifically for abortions. There
is no such policy for any health procedure that a man may be required
to undergo. This is an issue of privacy, this is an issue of fairness,
and this is an issue of gender equality. A woman like a man has the
right to make private, personal choices about her health. She should
not be punished by not having access to adequate health care. This is
about a constitutional right!
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to another outstanding
voice for the unborn, one of our freshmen from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
(Mr. LANKFORD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANKFORD. We are a Nation that values all life.
When a bridge is under construction and a migratory bird's nest with
eggs is discovered, the Fish and Wildlife Migratory Bird Treaty Act
forces the delay of construction until the birds have hatched and flown
away.
Why? Because life is important to us.
When a baby is born prematurely, we spend hundreds of thousands of
dollars to save that child because each life is important to us. We
have one glaring and obvious exception to this passion for life:
abortion.
For some reason, we see the life of a duck and its egg as more
valuable than an infant in the womb. For some reason, we think that a
baby born 5 weeks early is worthy of hundreds of thousands of dollars
of medical technology to save; but if that same mother wanted to hire a
doctor to reach in the womb and kill that child with scissors 5 weeks
before delivery, some would demand her choice must be protected.
What our Founding Fathers considered a self-evident truth is that we
have been endowed by our Creator with certain rights, beginning with
``life,'' which is now a topic open for discussion in our modern day
ethic.
I still believe in the value of the instructions given to leaders
thousands of years ago in Proverbs 31: ``Speak up for those who cannot
speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up
and judge fairly.''
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I believe there is still more time on the
other side; so I would reserve at this time.
Mr. PITTS. At this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him
for his tireless work for the unborn.
I think it's a little interesting. I came down here tonight to talk
about life, and my colleagues across the aisle are talking about the
jobs bill that their President introduced. Unfortunately, the last time
I checked, zero Democrats had cosigned that bill.
Really, what I want to talk about tonight, Madam Speaker, are the
rights of the unborn.
We were told when we did this health care bill, Don't worry about it.
We'll do the Executive order because we're going to take the Stupak-
Pitts amendment out.
The truth of the matter is, if we were going to do the Executive
order, why didn't we go ahead and pass the Stupak-Pitts amendment? The
reason is that we know, inside that bill, in several paragraphs and in
several areas, is the ability for taxpayer money to be used for
abortion.
In fact, according to Douglas Johnson, the Federal legislative
director of the National Right to Life Committee, ``ObamaCare contains
multiple provisions that provide authorizations for subsidies for
abortion, both implicit and explicit, and also multiple provisions
which may be used as bases for abortion-expanding administrative
actions.''
Let's vote for life.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We are running out of legislative days before the end of the year,
and instead of focusing on jobs or the economy, the House leadership
has decided once again to consider legislation that endangers and
attacks the rights of women.
H.R. 358 is extreme legislation that puts the lives of women in
danger. This legislation undermines the guarantee of emergency care
under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, EMTALA.
H.R. 358 strips EMTALA of its power to ensure that women receive
abortion care in emergency situations at hospitals by making their
right to health care secondary to a hospital's ability to refuse to
provide abortion care.
Abortion care is necessary in some circumstances to save a woman's
life. During the hearing on H.R. 358 in the Energy and Commerce
Committee, some witnesses wrongly claimed that this was not the case.
In response to those claims, Dr. Cassing Hammond, director of
Northwestern University's Center for Family Planning and Contraception
wrote a letter, based on his 20 years of experience in obstetric and
complex abortion care, to the committee to set the record straight.
In his letter, Dr. Hammond states:
``Most patients are healthy women having healthy babies, but I am
frequently asked to provide abortions for
[[Page H6894]]
women confronting severely troubled pregnancies or their own life-
endangering health issues. Physicians who provide health care to women
cannot choose to ignore the more tragic consequences of human
pregnancy--and neither should Congress.''
This legislation is an extreme and mean-spirited way to roll back
women's health and rights. It is too extreme for women, too extreme for
America, and we must reject it.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to one of
the outstanding pro-life leaders in this House, a pro-life Democrat, my
cosponsor of the Protect Life Act, the gentleman from Illinois, Dan
Lipinski.
{time} 1820
Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his
leadership on this issue.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Protect Life
Act, a bill which will apply the decades-old Hyde amendment policy
prohibiting taxpayer funding of elective abortion to the Affordable
Care Act.
While the discussion in our Nation continues concerning laws
governing abortions, there has been a general consensus to prohibit the
use of taxpayer money to pay for elective abortion or insurance
coverage of abortion. This has long been embodied in the Hyde amendment
that annually has been included in an appropriations bill which most of
us on both sides of the aisle have voted for.
The Protect Life Act simply applies the Hyde amendment to the
Affordable Care Act, just as the House did in 2009 with the Stupak-
Pitts amendment during our initial consideration of the Affordable Care
Act. At that time, 63 of my Democratic colleagues joined me in voting
for that amendment. However, the final bill that became law did not
include that language, and the President's Executive order does not
implement the Hyde amendment.
The order does not include Hyde prohibitions on taxpayer funding for
insurance coverage of abortion, and it can be struck down by courts or
overturned by any administration at any time. In addition, what
happened last year with State high-risk health plans covering abortion
demonstrates the vulnerability that the Executive order has and the
need for clarity.
Madam Speaker, today we have the opportunity to provide that clarity
and do what a large majority of Americans want and what Congress has
done for more than three decades; that is, prohibit the use of taxpayer
dollars for abortion. So today I urge my colleagues to support the
Protect Life Act.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, let me just ask about the time again. I
have two more speakers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 6 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
In the United States, if you destroy an eagle egg you are subject to
5 years in jail and a $250,000 fine. If you destroy a human egg, it's
not only legal, but it's taxpayer funded. That's what we're here to
talk about.
You would hear our friends say that we've taken too much time today,
that we can't give 2 hours out of the endless lunches, out of the
fundraisers, out of the rubbing elbows with the powerful to talk for
the unborn and the innocents.
I would tell you that even in economic times we cannot suspend our
voices against injustice. We cannot suspend our voices for the weak,
the powerless. It is our sacred duty to be a voice in the Republic for
those who have no standing. The unborn have no standing and no voice.
Let us allow our voices to be heard for these 2 hours.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
What I'm hearing from the people in my area, I think most Members are
hearing this, is the American people want the divisiveness to stop and
the jobs to start.
This bill tonight does the opposite. It's the most divisive issue we
could really put before this House and this country.
There was a carefully balanced compromise that's been the law of the
land--and is the law of the land--for a very long time that says that
taxpayer money should not pay for abortion, but that a woman who
chooses to have an abortion with her own money has that right.
This bill upsets that balance but, more importantly than that, I
think this bill ignores the opportunity for us to come together and
stop the divisiveness and start working on the problem the country
wants us to work on, which is the creation of jobs.
Tomorrow will be yet another Friday without a paycheck for millions
of Americans. It might be the day that a small businessman or
businesswoman closes their shop for the last time. It might be the day
that the mortgage foreclosure is executed and someone loses their home.
This country is in crisis. There is an emergency around this country
that needs to be dealt with right now.
People feel very, very deeply about the issue of abortion on both
sides. I respect both sides. The law respects both sides with the
compromise that we have.
What we ought to collectively respect is the urgent demands of the
American public to come together and get to work to put the country
back to work. That should be the agenda of the Congress, not this bill.
Let us work our will, and whatever it is tonight, I'll be voting
``no.'' But can't we work our will on a plan to work together and put
the country back to work?
Mr. PITTS. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
Mr. LANDRY. Madam Speaker, this is not a divisive issue; this is a
bipartisan issue. The language in H.R. 358 was in the Stupak-Pitts
amendment passed in the Democrat-led House last Congress.
If they supported it then, why would they not support it now? Because
of Executive order? Absolutely not.
ObamaCare created a fund specifically reserved for abortion coverage.
So what in the world makes one think this money will not support
abortion coverage? We all remember, ``We have to pass this bill before
we find out what's in it.''
Unfortunately, they passed the bill, and we found no language to
ensure taxpayers won't have to pay for something the majority of
Americans don't support.
Madam Speaker, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
insisted the health care law prohibits taxpayer funding for abortion,
then they should support the bipartisan H.R. 358 to ensure that it is,
indeed, the case.
Mr. PALLONE. I have one speaker left; so I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).
(Mr. HUELSKAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Speaker, I rise today, as the father of four
adopted children, to offer my strong support for the Protect Life Act.
Opponents of this bill allege it is unconstitutional, and that is
simply not true. While the Supreme Court has wrongfully decided
abortion is a constitutional right, they have also clearly upheld the
constitutionality of the Hyde amendment and the language in this bill.
Madam Speaker, this is not revolutionary, earth-shaking legislation
we are considering. I would like to see Congress go much further in
protecting life.
We should not be funding the abortions in the District. We should be
protecting conscience rights for health care providers. We should stop
giving money to organizations like Planned Parenthood. We should be
ending the practice of abortion in America.
This bill is an important step, but more certainly needs to be done.
I urge my colleagues to protect life and support this bill in honor of
all adopted children, their birth families, and their adoptive
families.
[[Page H6895]]
Mr. PALLONE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
chairman of the Pro-Life Caucus, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith).
(Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, abortion not only dismembers
and chemically poisons unborn children to death, and my friend from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) used to know that. He used to be very pro-life, as
some other Members who have reversed themselves.
But it also hurts women's health and puts future children
subsequently born to women who aborted at significant risk. At least
102 studies show significant psychological harm, major depression, and
elevated suicide risk in women who abort.
Published just last month in the British Journal of Psychiatry, a
meta-analysis comprised of 22 studies and over 887,000 participants,
the largest quantitative estimate of mental health risk associated with
abortion in world literature ever, revealed that women who have
undergone an abortion experience an 81 percent increased risk of mental
health problems. You never hear that from the abortion side.
The Times of London has also found the clear link that women had
twice the level of psychological problems and three times the level of
depression, and subsequent risk to children born to women who have had
a previous abortion.
This is all about no taxpayer funding for abortion.
Nothing less than a comprehensive prohibition on public funding,
promotion and facilitation of elective abortion in any federal health
program, satisfies the demands of social justice.
The Protect Life Act, authored by Chairman Joe Pitts and Dan
Lipinski, ensures that all the elements of the Hyde amendment applies
to all the programs that are both 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,
the actual Hyde Amendment has no legal affect whatsoever. Hyde only
affects Labor HHS programs not this 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
resulting in more dead babies and wounded moms than would otherwise
have been the case.
Because abortion methods dismember, decapitate, crush, poison, starve
to death and induce premature labor, pro-life Members of Congress, and
according to every reputable poll, significant majorities of Americans
want no complicity whatsoever in this evil. Obamacare forces us to be
complicit.
Despite breathtaking advances in recent years in respecting and
treating the unborn child as a patient--in need of diagnosis and
treatment for any number of diseases or conditions, just like any other
patient--far too many people dismiss the baby in the womb as persona
non grata.
I respectfully but firmly asked how violence against children by
abortion--dismemberment, chemical poisoning, lethal pills
euphemistically marketed as medical abortion--can be construed as
benign or compassionate or caring.
The dangerous myth of ``safe abortion'' must be exposed.
So-called ``safe abortion'' is the ultimate oxymoron, an Orwellian
manipulation of language, designed to convey bogus respectability to a
lethal act. Abortion is never safe for the child and is antithetical to
UN Development Goal 4--which rallies the world to reduce child
mortality. Abortion is, by any reasonable definition, child mortality.
It sole purpose is to kill a baby.
Arrogant and presumptuous talk that brands any child as an ``unwanted
child'' reduces that child to a mere object, bereft of inherent dignity
or value.
Abortion, not only dismembers and chemically poisons unborn children
to death, but hurts women's health and puts future children
subsequently born to women who, aborted at significant risk. At least
102 studies show significant psychological harm, major depression and
elevated suicide risk in women who abort.
Published last month in the British Journal of Psychiatry, a meta
analysis, comprised of 22 studies and 887,181 participants, the largest
quantitative estimate of mental health risks associated with abortion
in world literature revealed ``women who had undergone an abortion
experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems.''
Recently, the Times of London reported ``that women who have had
abortions have twice the level of psychological problems and three
times the level of depression as women who have given birth or who have
never been pregnant . . .''
Similarly, the risk of subsequent children being born with low birth
weight increases by 35 percent after one and 72 percent after two or
more abortions. Another study shows the risk increases 9 times after a
woman has had three abortions.
What does this mean for her children? Preterm birth is the leading
cause of infant mortality in the industrialized world after congenital
anomalies. Preterm infants have a greater risk of suffering from
chronic lung disease, sensory deficits, cerebral palsy, cognitive
impairments and behavior problems. Low birth weight is similarly
associated with neonatal mortality and morbidity.
Obamacare authorizes health care plans and policies funded with tax
credits to pay for abortion, so long as the issuer of the federally
subsided plan collects a new congressionally mandated fee from every
enrollee in that plan to pay for other peoples abortions. Requiring the
segregation of funds into allocation accounts--a mere bookkeeping
exercise touted by some as an improvement to the new pro-abortion
funding scheme--does absolutely nothing to protect any victims--baby or
mother--from publically funded abortion.
Also billions for new Community Health Centers are outside the scope
of the Hyde amendment as well.
Obamacare also contains a little known provision that creates a
devastating loophole for conscience rights. Section 1303(d) allows any
state or federal law involving emergency services to override any
conscience protections added to PPACA. Contrary to the claims of H.R.
358 opponents, Section 1303(d) is NOT uniquely about the 1986 Emergency
Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The section references
EMTALA but the operative language is much broader, giving authority to
override conscience laws to any federal or state law that employs the
term emergency services.
The ``Nondiscrimination on Abortion'' (new subsection 1303 (g))
portion of H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act applies to Obamacare the
language of the Hyde/Weldon amendment, which has been in the annual
Labor/HHS appropriations bills every year since 2004 without any effort
to change or remove it. This subsection is needed because Obamacare
creates many new funding streams that bypass the Labor/HHS
appropriations act, and therefore bypass the protections of the Hyde/
Weldon amendment in that act.
Also, Obamacare creates a huge new program administered by OPM that
would manage two or more new multi-state or national health plans. The
new law stipulates that at least one plan not pay for abortion. Which
only begs to question: what about the other new multi-state plans
administered by OPM? Why can those federally administered plans include
funding abortion on demand? This represents a radical departure from
current policy.
Additionally, other appropriated funds under Obamacare that have no
Hyde-type protections include billions for a temporary high risk health
insurance pools and billions in grants and loans for health care co-
ops.
In testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee on February, 9,
2011, Douglas Johnson, Federal Legislative Director for the National
Right to Life Committee said:
The first major component of the PPACA to be implemented,
the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) program, a
100% federally funded program, provided a graphic
demonstration of the problem: The Department of Health and
Human Services approved plans from multiple states that would
have covered elective abortions. NRLC documented this and
blew the whistle in July, 2010, which produced a public
outcry, after which DHHS announced a discretionary decision
that the PCIP plans would not cover elective abortions.
Commentators on all sides of the issue were in agreement
about one thing: Coverage of elective abortions within this
new, 100% federally funded program was not impeded by any
provision of the PPACA, and was not even addressed in
Executive Order 13535.
On the same day that DHHS issued its decision to exclude
abortion from this program--July 29, 2010--the head of the
White House Office of Health Reform, Nancy-Ann DeParle,
issued a statement on the White House blog explaining that
the discretionary decision to exclude abortion from the PCIP
``is not a precedent for other programs or policies [under
the PPACA] given the unique, temporary nature of the program
. . .'' Laura Murphy, director of the Washington Legislative
Office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said, ``The
White House has decided to voluntarily impose the ban for all
women in the newly-created high risk insurance pools. . . .
What is disappointing is that there is nothing in the law
that requires the Obama Administration to impose this broad
and highly restrictive abortion ban.'' (''ACLU steps into
healthcare reform fray over abortion,'' The Hill, July 17,
2010.)''
Then there's the Mikulski Amendment, Sec. 2713, which empowers the
HHS Secretary
[[Page H6896]]
with broad new authority to force private health care plans in America
to cover ``preventable'' services. When Senator Ben Nelson suggested
that abortion not be included in the so-called preventative services
mandate, Ms. Mikulski said no--raising a serious red flag that abortion
is being postured as ``preventable abortion service in the future''--
after all, abortion prevents a live birth, by exterminating the child.
Killing unborn children and calling it preventative health care isn't
new.
And as far back as 1976, Dr. Willard Cates, Jr. and Dr. David Grimes
then with CDC presented a paper to a Planned Parenthood meeting,
entitled: Abortion as a Treatment for Unintended Pregnancy: The Number
Two Sexually Transmitted ``Disease''. To designate pregnancy a sexually
transmitted disease; and call abortion a treatment or a means of
prevention for this ``disease'' is barbaric.
Abortion isn't health care--preventative or otherwise.
Madam Speaker, we live in an age of ultrasound imaging--the ultimate
window to the womb and it's occupant. We are in the midst of a fetal
health care revolution, an explosion of benign innovative interventions
designed to diagnose, treat and cure disease or illness any unborn
child may be suffering.
Unborn children are society's youngest and most vulnerable patients.
Obamacare should do them no harm. Tragically, it does the worst harm of
all. It kills them.
{time} 1830
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, is the gentleman prepared to close?
Mr. PITTS. We have two additional speakers.
Mr. PALLONE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PITTS. At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
legislation, the Protect Life Act. I do want to thank the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Lipinski) for this bipartisan legislation.
As we have heard during this debate, the health care legislation that
was signed into law back in 2010 simply did not protect the unborn. It
in no way included clear or direct provisions that would prohibit
Federal funding of abortion, and the President's Executive order on
this issue is totally inadequate. Executive orders can simply be
rescinded at any time and cannot be relied upon to clarify such an
issue at any time.
There are some people who have said the legislation that's before us
today will stop women from buying health insurance coverage that
includes abortion, even if they want to from their own money. According
to the bill that's before us, the bill sets out and articulates that an
individual may purchase plans that cover abortion with their own money.
On top of that, the bill also allows a supplemental abortion policy for
those who use a government subsidy to buy insurance.
So I wanted to point that out to my colleagues here this evening, and
I would ask for support for this legislation.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), who is really the most
knowledgeable on this issue.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Colorado is recognized
for 4 minutes.
Ms. DeGETTE. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, there are some days in this Congress I feel like I'm
in Alice in Wonderland where logic is turned on its head and all of us
have fallen down the rabbit hole. Today is certainly one of those days.
Here we stand on the 282nd day of this Congress, and the House
majority has not yet passed a jobs plan. Instead, we have spent all day
long once again attacking women's health with a bill that will never
become law. A similar bill already passed the House and died in the
Senate, and the President has issued a veto threat on this bill even if
it did somehow become law.
With only 20 legislative days left this year, the leadership of this
body has somehow decided that we should spend the day advancing
legislation which would severely compromise women's health.
Madam Speaker, despite the claims from my colleagues across the
aisle, this bill does not simply say that there won't be any public
funds for abortion. It goes far, far beyond. In fact, the Hyde
amendment, which is the law of the land, says that there will be no
Federal funds for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or the
life of the woman, period.
Let me say that again. There is no Federal funding of abortion
anywhere in Federal law.
Let me say that again. The Federal law, not the Federal employees
health care plan, not Medicaid, not the military, not the Affordable
Health Care Act, nowhere in the law is there Federal funding for
abortion, period. In the Affordable Health Care Act, in section 1303,
it specifically says there will be no Federal funding for abortion.
Now, this bill, contrary to the claims of its proponents, goes far
beyond current law, and here's how. It says women who purchase health
care insurance in the exchanges cannot use their own money to buy
private insurance plans that have a full range of reproductive
coverage. Under current law, women can use their own money to buy
insurance that covers that full range of reproductive health care. And,
Madam Speaker, that is not changed by the Affordable Health Care Act.
But under this law, what would happen would be women purchasing private
insurance plans in the exchanges with their own private money would not
be able to purchase a plan that had a full range of reproductive care.
That would take away the rights of women to exercise their own
constitutional rights to have a full range of health care.
In addition, Madam Speaker, this bill also includes such broad
refusal language it could override core patient protections contained
in the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, allowing
hospitals to refuse lifesaving treatment to women on religious or moral
grounds, thus causing their death inside the hospital despite their
treatable condition.
Now listen, when I listen to this debate, it's really clear to me
that the proponents of this bill, their main concern is not Federal
funding of abortion. Their main concern is they want abortion to be
illegal, and so here's my view. Having debated this now for 15 years in
this body, here's my view. If the majority wants to pass a bill banning
abortion, pass a bill banning abortion and we'll fight it out in the
courts. Don't make claims that there is somehow Federal funding for
abortion when in fact there is none to confuse the issues and to try to
confuse the American public because I'm going to tell you something.
The public will not be confused. They know what this bill does. They
know they want jobs, and they know that's our agenda.
Vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived piece of legislation.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for the recognition.
Let's be clear about the Affordable Care Act. The EMTALA provision of
the underlying law, the Affordable Care Act, is not actually the EMTALA
provision because it puts in a great big loophole. The loophole is in
the language of the law, and it said providing emergency services as
required by State or Federal law, which may be changed; and therein is
the problem.
Most of us remember the night before the Affordable Care Act passed.
We remember the drama of Bart Stupak going down to the White House. We
remember the drama of the Executive order. So what Mr. Pitts is
providing us today is the ability to put the language of the Executive
order into legislative language and make it law so that it may not be
arbitrarily changed by this President or some other President at a
future time.
Now, I want to take just a few moments and read into the Record from
doctors who have written to our committee, doctors who provide
emergency services, obstetric services, who tell us over and over again
that they have never been required to do something that was against
their conscience and put someone's life in danger.
A doctor from the University of Minnesota writes in: 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. In my
[[Page H6897]]
years of practice, I have never seen a woman denied appropriate care
because of the exercise of the rights of conscience in this regard.
Another letter, from a Virginia hospital: 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 and similar
policies. I continue to practice emergency medicine. I teach it. Based
on three 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.
Another letter, from the University of North Carolina: 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 of my colleagues, and a proportion of the
residents we train each year. I have not seen a situation where an
emergent event or urgent abortion was needed. No one in my entire 20
years of clinical practice has ever been denied appropriate care
because of the exercise of my rights of conscience.
Our committee receives these letters all of the time. I submit them
for the Record, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Pitts bill.
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 xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Sincerely,
Byron C. Calhoun, M.D., FACOG,
Professor and Vice Chairman of Maternal-Fetal Medicine,
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, West Virginia
University School of Medicine, Charleston Division,
Charleston, WV.
____
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 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 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
Hugh McAllister Distinguished Professor of Obstetrics and
Gynecology, Professor, Maternal & Child Health, School of
Public Health, Director, Women's Primary Healthcare.
____
Virginia Commonwealth
University Health System,
Richmond, VA, October 12, 2011.
Hon. Joe Pitts,
Hon. Dan Lipinski,
Hon. Eric Cantor.
Dear Reps. Pitts, Lipinski and Cantor: I understand that
the House of Representatives may soon consider HR 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 these 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 as 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,
Attending Physician, Emergency Medicine, Hunter Holmes
McGuire VA Medical Center Assistant Professor, Department of
Emergency Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University,
Richmond, Virginia.
____
University of Minnesota,
School of Public Health,
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,
Clinical Associate Professor of Obstetrics/Gynecology and
Women's Health, Co-chair Program in Human Rights and Health,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Ms. HIRONO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 358, a
bill restricting women's access to reproductive health services.
It's odd to me that we are choosing to take up this bill now, when
just last week, we saw that our country only created 103,000 jobs.
This is not what people in Hawaii or our nation want us working on.
Debating divisive social issues isn't going to create one single job.
[[Page H6898]]
Instead, this bill puts a fundamental freedom--our right to choose--
under direct attack.
Those supporting this bill say it's necessary to prevent federal
funding for abortion. They're wrong.
Longstanding federal policy prohibits federal funding of abortion, a
provision preserved in The Affordable Care Act. President Obama even
issued an executive order reaffirming this prohibition in March 2010.
So what's the real reason behind this bill?
The real reason is to make abortion as unavailable as possible
because making abortion illegal is still not possible under Roe v.
Wade. This is yet another bill taking a shot at restricting women's
access to reproductive health services.
It starts with restricting how women purchase private health
insurance with their own money.
The practical result of this bill would be to restrict, for the first
time, how women with private insurance can spend their own private
dollars in purchasing health insurance.
It says that women who receive a federal subsidy to make coverage
affordable in the health insurance exchanges would be unable to
purchase a comprehensive health plan.
These women could not even use their own money to pay for the portion
of the plan providing abortion coverage. These aren't federal dollars
going to purchase that coverage--these are the women's own dollars.
So what happens? It's the ripple effect.
Since many women would be prevented from purchasing insurance with
abortion coverage in the exchange, the insurers will probably stop
offering it.
Then, no woman will be able to buy health insurance in the exchange
with abortion coverage.
And their access to a legal medical procedure just got a lot smaller.
Let's be clear: The goal of this bill is not to maintain the status
quo.
Rather, its true goal is to make abortion as unavailable as possible.
For these reasons, it should be rejected.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to
H.R. 358 and the on-going Republican war against women's health in
America. This bill continues Congressional Republicans' extreme social
agenda that jeopardizes women's health care.
This Congress has already debated similar legislation to prevent
women from accessing their legal health care. H.R. 358 does nothing to
create jobs, reduce our federal deficits, or make America safer.
Instead, this legislation furthers a divisive agenda to impose
unprecedented restrictions on a woman's ability to access and purchase
health care for a legal medical procedure.
Contrary to what my colleagues have said today, H.R. 358 is not
needed to ensure federal funding does not pay for abortions. Current
federal law, including provisions included in the Affordable Care Act,
already prohibits federal money from being used to pay for abortion
services, except in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of
the mother. Instead this bill is another attempt by the Republican
majority to legislatively intimidate women with respect to their
constitutional right to abortion services.
The unprecedented restrictions included in this bill would
effectively end coverage of abortion-related services. Beginning in
2014, women and their families receiving federal subsidies would be
prohibited from purchasing a health plan that includes abortion
coverage within the Health Exchanges. This provision would leave
millions of women without affordable health care options that meet all
their health care needs.
Even more concerning is that this bill could jeopardize a woman's
ability to receive emergency medical care as required under Emergency
Medicare Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA; P.L. 99-272). This
bill could allow a hospital to deny a woman abortion-care even when
this legal medical procedure would save her life. H.R. 358 does not
protect life; rather it endangers the lives of American women.
Instead of this radical agenda, we should be focusing on policies
that will improve the lives of women and girls, put Americans back to
work, and advance our nation's economy. I encourage my colleagues to
vote against this bill and keep safe, comprehensive reproductive care
accessible to all Americans.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong opposition
to the bill before us today.
This bill would impose crippling restrictions on a woman's ability to
seek abortion services--services that are legal in this country and
upheld by the Supreme Court.
The so-called ``Protect Life Act'' would effectively ban private
insurance companies from offering abortion services.
I was shocked to learn that under this bill, a woman's life could be
in danger in the event she needs emergency care--even if the emergency
circumstances require an abortion--and that procedure is recommended by
a doctor. This change in the current law would amount to an extreme and
regressive policy.
Unfortunately, the bill before us is part of a larger attack on
women's health, specifically on programs like Title X and organizations
like Planned Parenthood.
Madam Speaker, let me tell you why it is so important that we
maintain women's access to the full range of legal health care options.
Recently, I heard from Cathy, who has been a health educator for the
past 13 years.
Cathy explained to me how the House Republican attacks on women's
health would, ``Cut millions of American women off from birth control,
cancer screenings, HIV tests, and other lifesaving care;'' that without
the information and preventative services that these programs provide
we are, ``Bound to accrue more expenses in reactive versus pro-active
measures.''
These outrageous attacks would have a devastating impact on the
women, men, and teens in our community.
At a time when we, as Members of Congress, should be debating and
passing job legislation, we are instead debating whether or not to
roll-back a woman's access to legal health services.
I urge my colleagues to reject this harmful bill.
Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 358, a
resolution which seeks to enhance current law to modify special rules
relating to abortion services and provides protections for those who
object to abortion. As a staunch supporter of pro-life principles, I
strongly urge this House to pass H.R. 358 the Protect Life Act.
It is important for Congress to remember that our work in pursuing
healthcare reform is to move our society toward accessible medical
coverage across the nation, especially for the poor and marginalized.
H.R. 358 builds off these tenets and enhances the compromise language
that was developed by former Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan, and
other pro-life members of Congress, to restrict federal funds from
being used for abortion coverage under the health reform Act passed in
the last Congress. Although the Stupak language upheld the key tenets
of the Hyde Amendment, H.R. 358 provides further clarification on that
matter. The Protect Life Act provides clearer conscience protection for
institutions and individual health care providers.
I commend the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Mr. Joe Pitts, for his
work on this bill and for his persistence in seeing this through our
legislative process. I urge members of the House of Representatives to
vote yes on H.R. 358 and to continue to work toward a society that
upholds the total respect of the human person and the commitment to the
right to life.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R.
358, the misleadingly titled the ``Protect Life Act''.
Let me be clear. The Affordable Care Act already prohibits the use of
federal funds to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or
where the woman's life is endangered. We included extensive mechanisms
to ensure that no federal subsidies in the health insurance exchanges
would go to pay for abortions.
The bill on the Floor today takes the unprecedented step of
preventing a woman from using her own private funds to purchase a full,
comprehensive health care plan through the exchanges established in the
Affordable Care Act. That is simply another way of denying a woman the
right to choose.
I urge House Republicans to stop playing ideological games and to
pursue an agenda to help create jobs, strengthen the economy, and move
our country forward.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 358, the
Protect Life Act.
The American people want us to work together to create jobs to
bolster the economy. Instead, we are 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.
This legislation revives a debate that has already been settled--
there is no federal funding for 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.
Federal funds are already prohibited from being used for abortions
under the Hyde Amendment--at the expense of poor women, federal
employees, women in the District of Columbia and women in the military.
But this bill goes way beyond that law.
It would take away a woman's right to make her own decisions about
her reproductive health--even with her own money.
It could expand the existing conscience objection to avoid providing
contraception.
And, it would allow public hospitals to deny emergency abortion care
to women in life-threatening situations.
H.R. 358 undermines the guarantee of emergency care under the
Emergency Medical
[[Page H6899]]
Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). EMTALA creates a legal safety
net that guarantees that anyone in need of emergency health care,
including those unable to pay for health care, cannot be denied such
care at hospitals.
H.R. 358 would strip EMTALA of its power to ensure that women receive
abortion care in emergency situations at hospitals by making their
right to health care secondary to the hospital's ability to refuse to
provide abortion care.
Abortion care is necessary in some circumstances to save a woman's
life. During the hearing on H.R. 358 in the Energy and Commerce
Committee, some witnesses wrongly claimed that this was not the case.
In response to those claims, Dr. Cassing Hammond, Director of
Northwestern University's Center for Family Planning and Contraception
as well as its academic Section of Family Planning, wrote a letter to
the Committee to set the record straight. Dr. Hammond has twenty years
of experience in obstetric and complex abortion care.
In his letter, Dr. Hammond states:
Most patients are healthy women having healthy babies, but
I am frequently asked to provide abortions for women
confronting severely troubled pregnancies or their own life
endangering health issues. Physicians who provide health care
to women cannot choose to ignore the more tragic consequences
of human pregnancy--and neither should Congress.
Dr. Hammond then proceeds to give several examples from his own
experience of women who required abortion care in life-saving
circumstances. The following examples illustrate just a few of those
instances:
One of my own obstetric patients carrying a desired
pregnancy recently experienced rupture of the amniotic sac at
20 weeks gestation. The patient had a complete placenta
previa, a condition where the afterbirth covers the opening
of the uterus. Although the patient hoped the pregnancy might
continue, she began contracting and suddenly hemorrhaged,
losing nearly a liter of blood into her bed in a single gush.
Had we not quickly intervened to terminate the pregnancy, she
would have bled to death, just as women do in countries with
limited access to obstetric services.
My service often receives consults regarding patients with
serious medical issues complicating pregnancy. We recently
had a 44-year-old patient whose pregnancy had been
complicated by a variety of non-specific symptoms. A CT scan
obtained at 23 weeks gestation revealed that the patient had
lung cancer that had metastasized to her brain, liver, and
other organs. Her family confronted the difficult choice of
terminating a desired pregnancy or continuing the pregnancy
knowing that the physiological burden of pregnancy and cancer
might worsen her already poor prognosis. The family chose to
proceed with the pregnancy termination.
My service frequently sees patients with early pre-
eclampsia, often referred to by the term ``toxemia.'' Pre-
eclampsia usually complicates later gestation, but
occasionally complicates pregnancy as early as 18 to 20
weeks, well before the fetus is viable. The only treatment
for severe pre-eclampsia is delivery. Otherwise, the
condition will worsen, exposing the mother to kidney failure,
liver failure, stroke and death. One Christmas morning I had
to leave my own family so that I could provide a pregnancy
termination for a remarkably sick, pre-eclamptic teenager.
These are women suffering from the most serious of health conditions.
If H.R. 358 were in place, they could be denied the emergency care they
need.
The attention Republicans are focusing on the private lives of
women--what American family 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, the
air we breathe, or the food we eat--but they do want to intrude in a
women's right to choose.
We are now at 280 days in 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.
We are running out of legislative days left before the end of the
year. When is the Republican majority going to focus on jobs and the
economy?
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.
This legislation is an extreme and mean-spirited way to roll back
women's health and rights. It is too extreme for women, too extreme for
America, and we must reject it.
Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, never in my life will I forget the Sunday
afternoon when this House, under the previous majority, passed a health
care law that permitted taxpayer funding of abortions.
It remains as inconceivable to me now, as it was then, that the very
first act by our government on an innocent and defenseless life could
be to end it. We all remember the assurances we heard that the bill
would respect the Hyde Amendment, which has enjoyed bipartisan support
in this House for decades. Many of us knew better.
The ink had barely dried on the legislation before instances came up
of taxpayer money potentially being used, in one form or another, for
abortion services. This House needs to state without equivocation that
the Hyde Amendment fully applies to the new health care law, for
however long the act may continue to be in effect. There should be no
possible wiggle room for abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.
The law also put health care providers and hospitals in the
unconscionable dilemma of having to perform abortions against their own
beliefs and principles. The government should not have the power to do
that. This bill protects the exercise of individual conscience.
In my view, the health care law--Obamacare, as many of us call it--is
so flawed that the best approach is to repeal it altogether, but we
will not get that with this President. Until that day, we must stand in
support of life and innocent babies and we can do that by passing The
Protect Life Act.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. The American people want us to work
together to address their top priority: creating jobs. We're now 280
days into this Congress, and we haven't passed a jobs plan.
With only 22 legislative days left this Congress, instead of
addressing jobs, Republicans are continuing to propose legislation
targeting women's health.
This bill disregards the compromise on abortion reached during last
year's debate on the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA is consistent
with long-standing federal law by prohibiting the use of federal funds
to pay for abortions (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the
life of the woman would be endangered). The Act requires two separate
premium payments for women and families receiving federal subsidies
that choose health plans that include abortion coverage. The language
is clear--no portion of federal subsidies may be used to pay for the
portion of coverage that is purchased in state exchanges that relates
to abortions. While I don't agree with the ban on federal funding,
Members decided last year to call a truce and preserve the status quo.
This bill would go further.
This bill restricts how women with private insurance can spend their
own private dollars in purchasing health insurance. The Protect Life
Act would prohibit all individuals who receive federal subsidies from
purchasing a plan that includes abortion coverage (even if they are
using their own private dollars to purchase the portion of coverage
relating to abortions), and would also prohibit insurance plans from
offering abortion services if they accept even one individual who
receives a subsidy. Health care plans will likely be deterred from
covering abortion, and since most insurance plans currently cover
abortion, the Protect Life Act would result in millions of women losing
the coverage they currently have.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican assault on women's
health and to oppose the Protect Life Act.
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 358, the
Protect Life Act. This legislation 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.
Proponents say that it would simply ban federal funding of abortion.
However, as we all know, current law prohibits federal funding of
abortion.
The American people want us to work together to address their top
priority: creating jobs. We are now at 280 days in this Congress
without passing a jobs plan. Yet the Republican Majority continues to
bring legislation to the floor that restricts women's reproductive
health care.
H.R. 358 is another attempt by the Majority to pass an anti-abortion
policy that already failed during the health care reform debate.
Current law allows policy holders to buy abortion coverage by making
separate payments, but H.R. 358 would prohibit any insurance plan from
offering abortion coverage if they have even one enrollee that receives
federal subsidies. Thus, it effectively forces plans to choose between
not offering abortion care to the entire population of a state and
offering a plan to only a small number of enrollees--which choice makes
more economic sense? What do you think insurance companies will choose?
H.R. 358 also supersedes current law by expanding the current
definition of health care providers to include any employee of a health
care entity that provides abortion services, whether they actually
provide patient care or not. Make no mistake: these newly designated
health care entities can refuse to provide or refer a woman for
abortion care, even when a woman's life is in critical danger.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 358 makes it clear to the American people that
the Republican Majority is much more interested in dismantling
[[Page H6900]]
health reform and playing politics with divisive social issues than
creating jobs and fixing our broken economy.
Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 358, the
Protect Life Act.
We've worked so hard over the last few decades to advance women's
health and the Protect Life Act just steamrolls right over that
progress.
This bill would bar anyone getting federal health subsidies from
purchasing private insurance policies that include abortion coverage.
This makes it unlikely that ANY health plan would cover abortion,
alienating all American women from truly comprehensive health plans.
It allows hospitals to refuse to provide life-saving abortions to
women who face imminent threat of death.
And it gives states the ability to attack coverage of non-abortion
related services, such as contraception.
I support a woman's legal right to opt for, or against, an abortion.
The decision is private. It's a matter of faith and it's a matter of
conscience, and our Constitution recognizes this.
The Protect Life Act is a shameful attempt to impose a radical
political agenda on women. It strips away their individual liberties
and puts their health at serious risk. This bill is wrong, this bill is
dangerous, and this House should reject it.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to
H.R. 358: a bill that is completely unnecessary; a bill that denies
women the freedom of choice; a bill that re-opens an abortion debate
that was settled in 2010; and a bill that will have a detrimental
impact on the health and health care of women across the United States
and in the U.S. Territories.
Contrary to the very false claims of my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle, not only is the Hyde Amendment fully in effect and fully
enforced, but the Affordable Care Act includes several strong
provisions that explicitly prohibit the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to
fund abortions. In fact, those provisions were endorsed by the Catholic
Health Association. Additionally, there have been numerous audits--
including by the Government Accounting Office and the Inspector
General--as well as congressional hearings, they all concluded that the
law is being followed.
The sad irony here is that this bill is named the ``Protect Life
Act.'' However, despite its name, this bill does very little to protect
and improve the lives of women. What this bill would do, however, is to
restrict--for the first time in history--how millions of women with
private health insurance can spend their own private health insurance
dollars. It also will undermine the success we achieved in expanding
access to affordable, quality health care for women because it will
force health plans participating in the health insurance Exchanges--
which will begin in 2014 and which are expected to lift tens of
millions of Americans out of the ranks of the uninsured--to drop
comprehensive coverage. And, if those aspects of this bill are not bad
enough, consider this: H.R. 358 also eliminates the existing
protections for women who seek abortion care in emergency circumstances
and in situations that would literally save the woman's life. How, I
must ask, does such a provision protect a woman's life?
Today, millions of Americans are suffering the consequences of very
real hardships--so many of which sometimes seem insurmountable. In
times like these, we should be working together to create jobs by
passing the American Jobs Act and we should be working together to move
this nation forward building upon--and not trying to dismantle--the
many successes we achieved with the historical health reform law. The
problems we are facing today are very serious and require serious
people to develop serious solutions instead of pursuing an ideological
agenda that divides the nation. As a physician, I fully support
legislation that would actually protect and improve lives, not only in
title, but in reality. This bill, however, is not such a bill. I,
therefore, strongly oppose H.R. 358 and urge my colleagues to do the
same.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, today I rise in
strong opposition to H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act. Instead of
focusing on creating jobs, the House majority has decided instead to
continue their relentless assault on women's rights and limit access to
fair and adequate health care.
Despite its name, this bill is not about protecting life. In fact, it
is far from it. One provision in this bill would put women's lives in
danger by allowing hospitals to refuse to provide life-saving abortion
care even when a woman's life is in critical danger.
This bill would also allow states to ostensibly deny critical non-
abortion services to women. The Protect Life Act has the potential to
undermine laws guaranteeing health care services well beyond those in
the reproductive-health area. This could result in the denial of mental
health care, HIV counseling, and other vital services.
Current law is clear: Federal funding of abortion is forbidden except
under very limited circumstances. This bill would impose unprecedented
limitations on abortion coverage and restrict access to abortion
services and contraceptives for all women. I urge my colleagues to
reject this dangerous assault on women and I urge the majority to work
on legislation that will put Americans back to work.
Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
underlying bill. At a time when Americans' top priority is job
creation--when Americans are desperately calling on us to work together
to turn our economy around--some are instead launching the most
comprehensive and radical assault on women's health in our lifetime.
This shameful attack on women's ability to obtain complete health
information and services does a disservice to women, families, and all
Americans.
To begin with, according to the stated purpose of the bill, which is
to prevent federal funds from being used to cover abortion services,
the bill is already gratuitous. Recent legal challenges to the
Affordable Care Act have revealed that it contains ``strict safeguards
at multiple levels to prevent federal funds from being used to pay for
abortion services beyond those in the case of rape or incest or where
the life of the woman is endangered,'' rendering this legislation
unnecessary. This type of extreme and redundant legislation will prove
insightful to jobless Americans wondering why they have yet to see
meaningful economic turnaround.
H.R. 358 would effectively prevent women from obtaining private
insurance coverage for abortion services. By banning coverage of
abortion in health exchanges, the bill will ensure that no one will be
able to purchase abortion coverage--including women who do not receive
federal assistance. The bookkeeping burden that would be required for
insurers to offer separate policies, with and without abortion
coverage, is simply too high. Insurance providers are surely not
interested in providing both, when most women cannot afford to pay for
the abortion coverage option out-of-pocket anyway. Proponents of the
legislation suggest that insurance companies could simply offer an
``abortion rider.'' Women would have to plan for an unplanned pregnancy
by purchasing supplemental insurance. This is unlikely, considering
that most cannot afford to purchase even a single insurance policy.
Furthermore, history has shown that insurers are reluctant to offer
``riders'' even when given the option to do so. As health exchanges
grow as they are expected to, these restrictions will only affect more
and more women looking for affordable and adequate health insurance.
Furthermore, the bill seeks to dramatically expand dangerous refusal
provisions which contradict prevailing standards of care. Such
expansion ignores the basic tenant of ethical health care, which
requires that patients be presented with all of their medical options
when making health care decisions. This bill would allow professionals
with only a tangential connection to abortion services, such as a
hospital receptionists or claims adjusters at insurance companies, to
obstruct the medical process due to their beliefs. This would
effectively tip the balance against patients seeking effective and
comprehensive health care.
The `non-discrimination' provision in fact discriminates against
abortion providers, as it provides no protection for their beliefs. A
one-sided non-discrimination provision is not nondiscriminatory at all.
We cannot allow this expansion, which would create a culture of refusal
where anyone could obstruct access to abortion services for any reason.
Most disturbingly, a late addition to the Pitts bill would allow the
expansive refusal provision to trump important patient protections
guaranteed by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, as
well as similar protections in state laws requiring emergency care
providers to save a woman's life. This would be an unprecedented
expansion of the right to refusal. We simply cannot allow for the
possibility that a pregnant woman suffering from a medical emergency
would see her right to medical care overridden by health professionals'
moral views, which do not always place her health and safety first.
Unfortunately, we have already seen what happens when professionals
place their views over the health of the patient. In one case several
months ago, a woman almost died over an unviable fetus as medical
professionals exercised their right of refusal and waited for the fetus
to die, delaying treatment for the mother. We cannot allow women to
unwittingly seek emergency treatment at medical facilities that do not
value their safety first. We cannot override existing EMTALA patient
protections.
Finally, language in the Pitts bill extends far beyond abortion, and
could allow insurers to refuse to provide other vital health services
that are part of the minimum standards for health coverage set by the
Affordable Care Act. This bill would open the door to refusal of
effective reproductive services concerning contraception and
infertility, for example. As we look to preventative services to avoid
more
[[Page H6901]]
expensive future treatments, this bill could prevent access to
screening for sexually transmitted diseases and cervical cancer. At a
time when many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, put food on
the table, and pay their mortgages, it is unfathomable that we could
consider restricting access to these essential, safe, and effective
health services.
To reiterate, the Affordable Care Act contains ample protection
against federal funding for abortion. The Pitts bill, in addition to
being discriminatory, would create undue hardship on women and families
as they attempt to make private health care decisions. It is dangerous
to the health of pregnant women, and all women. At a time of staggering
unemployment and economic hardship, this bill, unnecessary and unfair
as it is, is not the kind of leadership Americans are looking for from
Congress. To vote Yes on this bill is to roll back the strides we have
been making toward equitable and effective health care for all
Americans, and that is unacceptable.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote No on this
Bill.
Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, today, I rise in support of H.R. 358, The
Protect Life Act. This bill would amend the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to prevent federal funding for abortion or
abortion coverage through any program authorized by the health care
law.
Nebraskans feel strongly--federal dollars should never be used to pay
for abortion coverage. Unfortunately, last year's misguided health care
law contains loopholes and ambiguities, which opens the door to allow
taxpayer subsidies for coverage that includes abortion. This bill also
protects the right of conscience for health care professionals by
ensuring private insurance companies are not mandated to cover
abortion. This bill does allow for some exemptions, including if the
pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or if the life of the mother
is endangered.
This bill specifically targets the abortion funding scheme created in
PPACA. I have always been an ardent supporter of the unborn, and
today's vote is a step towards protecting those that cannot protect
themselves.
Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 358. As
a staunch pro-life member of Congress, I have always supported the Hyde
Amendment. During the health care reform debate, I made it very clear
on the House floor and reassured my pro-life colleagues that the Hyde
Amendment was included in the Affordable Care Act. It has been the law
since 1976 and it is still the law now. Not only is the Hyde Amendment
included in the Affordable Care Act, but the President signed an
executive order reinforcing that federal funding cannot be used for
abortions. We cannot let people imply or infer that the Hyde Amendment
is not already part of the Affordable Care Act. A vote in support of
H.R. 358 would be an admission that the Hyde Amendment was not included
in the Affordable Care Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 430, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
{time} 1840
Motion to Recommit
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Mrs. CAPPS. I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. Capps moves to recommit the bill H.R. 358 to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report
the same to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
In section 2(a)(7), in the amendment instruction adding the
new subsection (g), strike ``subsection'' and insert
``subsections''.
Insert after the subsection (g) of section 1303 of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as proposed to be
added by section 2(a)(7), the following:
``(h) Protecting the Life of the Mother in a Medical
Emergency.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to exempt
any hospital or health care provider from Federal or State
laws that require such hospital or provider to provide
medical examination, treatment, referral, or transfer to
prevent the death of a pregnant woman with an emergency
medical condition.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, as the debate today has shown, this
Chamber is deeply divided over this bill. But we should all be able to
agree that when a pregnant woman is in a medical emergency, we must do
all we can to save her, and that is what this final amendment affirms.
I want to be clear: The passage of this amendment will not prevent
the passage of the underlying bill. If it's adopted, my amendment will
be incorporated into the bill and the bill will immediately be voted
upon.
Madam Speaker, the underlying bill creates a loophole which would
allow hospitals to circumvent the Emergency Medical Treatment and
Active Labor Act, a law that has saved many lives. The law, called
EMTALA for short, was established to ensure that when a patient arrives
at a hospital in critical condition, particularly women in labor, the
patient will at least be stabilized. It is truly the embodiment of the
Hippocratic Oath to ``apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures
that are required.''
EMTALA has been law for over 25 years--and it works. However, the
bill before us today could lead to a radical and uncalled for loophole
to this law. It would allow providers to refuse emergency care for
women even if their lives are endangered by their pregnancy. The
hospitals could even refuse to give a referral.
I'm a nurse who's worked long shifts in the hospital setting, and I
find it immoral to deny care to a woman with a life-threatening
condition just because she's pregnant. This loophole is wrong, it's
extreme, and it's cruel.
Unfortunately, there are some tragic complications that can occur
during pregnancy for which a therapeutic abortion is necessary to save
the life of a pregnant woman. I'm speaking about conditions like severe
preeclampsia, where a pregnant woman's rapid rise in blood pressure can
lead to seizure, stroke, multiple organ failure, and her death; or
pulmonary hypertension, a condition that the American College of
Cardiology guidelines explicitly states necessitates the termination of
a pregnancy to avoid maternal death.
If you've never heard of these conditions, it might be easy to think
they're not significant. But to the women whose lives are saved by
these emergency abortion services--oftentimes mothers who very much
want this pregnancy to be successful--this issue is more than politics.
It's literally life or death. What if your wife or your daughter was
rushed to the hospital, pregnant, with severe bleeding. You don't
research or compare the policies of your local hospitals. You go to the
one that's closest--the one you trust will save your loved one. But
when the diagnosis is made and an emergency abortion is necessary to
save her life, what would you do if that hospital refused to perform it
to stabilize her or even provide a referral for her care elsewhere?
Thanks to the protections provided by EMTALA, this cannot happen today.
But if this bill before us becomes law without my amendment, it very
well could.
Madam Speaker, my amendment is not just a debate between two sides of
the abortion issue. It is about saving women's lives in the middle of
very traumatic times for them and their families.
I would like to bring to your attention a letter sent to Chairman
Pitts from the Catholic Health Association. CHA is clear in its
religious affiliation and its opposition to abortion. So perhaps
because of this perspective, CHA says this best. ``CHA member hospitals
have been providing compassionate, quality care under both EMTALA and
the Weldon amendment without conflict since the enactment of these
provisions. Accordingly, the Catholic Health Association does not
believe that there's a need for the provider nondiscrimination section
to apply to EMTALA.''
CHA's statement is clear: EMTALA's treatment requirement and the
current provider conscience laws work together hand in hand. There is
no need for an unprecedented carveout or exception that would endanger
women's lives.
As a nurse, I respect the conscience clause language a great deal.
But I cannot ever imagine a situation where morally, ethically, and
legally a medical professional could be allowed to stand by and let
someone needlessly die. No pregnant woman or her family should be
afraid that she would be denied the care she needs when she goes to a
hospital in an emergency. We need to make sure that doesn't happen.
Today we have the opportunity to fix a problem created with this
legislation
[[Page H6902]]
before tragedy strikes. So I urge you to protect women's lives and
support this final amendment to this bill.
Catholic Health Association
of the United States,
Washington, DC, February 9, 2011.
Hon. Joseph R. Pitts,
Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Catholic Health Association of the
United States (CHA) would like to express our continued
support for the intent of your legislation, H.R. 358, the
Protect Life Act, to further ensure protection of the unborn
and of providers' conscience rights.
We have had the opportunity to review your revised version
of H.R. 358 and would like to share our concern regarding one
specific modification to your legislation. Section 1303(f)
regarding emergency services laws, including Emergency
Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), now includes
a reference to a new provision regarding provider
nondiscrimination (Section 1303(g)). Your provider
nondiscrimination language is similar to the conscience
protections of the Weldon Amendment. CHA member hospitals
have been providing compassionate, quality care under both
EMTALA and the ``Weldon Amendment,'' without conflict since
the enactment of these provisions. Accordingly, CHA does not
believe that there is a need for the provider
nondiscrimination section to apply to EMTALA.
As the national leadership organization of more than 2,000
Catholic health care systems, hospitals, long-term care
facilities, sponsors, and related organizations, the Catholic
health ministry provides care throughout the nation to
patients of all ages, races and religious beliefs. Catholic
hospitals provide a higher percentage of public health and
specialty services than other health care providers including
state and local government, other not-for-profit, or
investor-owned (for-profit) hospitals. These services include
neonatal ICU, obstetrics, breast cancer screening and
mammograms, children's wellness, child and adolescent
psychiatric services, community outreach, dental services,
crisis prevention, palliative care, pain management programs,
nutrition programs, hospice, HIV/AIDS services, geriatric
services, alcohol and drug abuse treatment, and trauma care.
Many of these services are critical to our communities and we
continue to provide them even though many of these services
are not self-sustaining and must be subsidized by other
hospital revenue.
Building upon our country's tradition of pluralism and the
freedom to exercise our beliefs, CHA has long supported
language within appropriations legislation to prohibit
federal funding of abortions (Hyde amendment) and language to
protect hospitals and other institutional and individual
health care providers should they decline to provide, pay
for, or refer for abortions (Weldon Amendment).
Again, while we continue to believe the current provisions
of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) prevent federal funding of
abortion, we support your efforts to further ensure permanent
protection of the unborn and of provider's conscience rights
and look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
Sr. Carol Keehan, DC,
President and CEO.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, a vast majority of Americans, regardless of
whether they support or oppose abortion being legal, believe that the
Federal Government should not be subsidizing abortions. Some on the
other side are bringing up a red herring in an attempt to continue to
allow Federal funding of abortion.
To dispel the myths being disseminated by opponents of H.R. 358,
every Member should understand that this bill would not change the Hyde
amendment, the EMTALA statute, or the standard of care required of
providers under the EMTALA law. Section 1867(e) of the Social Security
Act, commonly known as EMTALA, calls on emergency personnel to respond
to distress on the part of a pregnant woman or her unborn child by
stabilizing the condition of both mother and the unborn child.
It is ironic that opponents of H.R. 358 claim it will establish an
objectionable standard of care when that balanced standard has long
been recognized under EMTALA.
My colleagues, the question before us today is simple: If you favor
federally funded abortion coverage, then you should support the motion
to recommit and oppose the bill. If you believe, like a majority of
Americans, that the Federal Government should not be subsidizing
abortion, then you should oppose the motion to recommit and support
H.R. 358.
Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit. Vote ``yes'' on this critical
legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 173,
nays 249, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 788]
YEAS--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
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fudge
Garamendi
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
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
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
NAYS--249
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
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
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
Herrera Beutler
Holden
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
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
[[Page H6903]]
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)
NOT VOTING--11
Bachmann
Camp
Carter
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gonzalez
Paul
Polis
Reyes
Slaughter
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1913
Messrs. PETERSON and CASSIDY changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. TOWNS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 251,
noes 172, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 789]
AYES--251
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
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
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
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)
NOES--172
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
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
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--10
Bachmann
Brown (FL)
Camp
Giffords
Gonzalez
Paul
Polis
Reyes
Slaughter
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1920
Mr. LANDRY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________