[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 156 (Tuesday, October 18, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1891-E1892]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            PROTECT LIFE ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. LAURA RICHARDSON

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 13, 2011

  Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition of 
H.R. 358, the misnamed ``Protect Life Act''. At a time when the 
American people's top priority is job creation, Republicans continue to 
waste valuable time advancing legislation that has no chance of being 
signed into law. The real aim of the Protect Life Act is to restrict, 
if not eliminate all together, reproductive health options for American 
women. H.R. 358 is a callous piece of legislation that disrespects the 
judgment of American women.
  The Protect Life Act imposes an unprecedented limitation on abortion 
coverage and takes extreme measures to prevent women from accessing 
safe and legal abortion services. This legislation even prevents women 
from using their own money to purchase private insurance coverage for 
abortion, worse; the bill would relieve hospitals of their obligation 
to treat women who need an emergency abortion to save their life.
  The Affordable Care Act already contains strict safeguards at 
multiple levels to prevent federal funds from being used to pay for 
abortion services beyond those in cases of rape, incest or where the 
life of woman would be in grave and eminent danger. But the Protect 
Life Act goes further, much further. It is reckless and endangers 
women's lives.
  The Protect Life Act makes it virtually impossible for insurance 
companies in state health-insurance exchanges to offer abortion 
coverage, including those paying for coverage entirely with private 
dollars. The bill also prohibits all individuals who receive federal 
subsidies from purchasing a plan that includes abortion coverage, as 
well as barring insurance plans from covering abortion if they include 
even one individual who receives a subsidy.
  Today, nearly 87 percent of private employer-sponsored insurance 
offer plans which include abortion coverage. This bill would deter 
insurance companies from offering plans with such options and would 
likely force millions of women to drop the coverage they currently 
have.
  Currently, all hospitals in America that receive Medicare or Medicaid 
funding are bound by the 1986 law known as the Emergency Medical 
Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), to provide emergency care to 
all patients, regardless of the circumstance. Under EMTALA, if a woman 
required an emergency abortion to save her life and she was a patient 
at an anti-abortion hospital or being treated by a health care provider 
against abortion on religious or moral grounds, the hospital would be 
required to either perform the abortion or transfer the patient.
  The Affordable Care Act leaves laws that protect medical providers 
who have religious or moral objections to abortion services intact. But 
the Protect Life Act goes even further by removing the obligation for 
medical providers who are not willing to terminate a pregnancy to 
facilitate a transfer to a hospital that is willing to save the woman's 
life.
  Madam Speaker, in short, this irresponsible and dangerous legislation 
would allow a hospital to let a pregnant woman die rather than perform 
a life-saving procedure. Saving a woman's life should be every 
hospital's first priority, especially hospitals that receive federal 
funding.
  The Protect Life Act amends the historic Affordable Care Act, which 
was passed by the Democratic 111th Congress, so that it does not ensure 
access to abortion services. This broad language could prevent states 
and state-based health insurance exchanges from ensuring that women get 
information about the health care coverage options available to them. 
It should be an ethical healthcare provision that patients be presented 
with accurate and complete information about their medical options in 
order to make the best decisions regarding their health care. This bill 
denies women that fundamental right.
  In addition, another provision of the Protect Life Act could allow 
insurers to refuse to offer important services that are part of the 
minimum standards for health coverage such as services and supplies 
related to contraception, infertility and sexually transmitted 
diseases.
  Our friends across the aisle are fond of saying they are against 
government intrusion into the market place, excessive regulation, and 
limits on personal freedom. But here they are again trying to deny 
women the right to choose what is best for themselves and their 
families. Eliminating access to legal abortions denies women the right 
to make their own health decisions in accordance with their religious 
and moral beliefs and as a result, infringes on their equal rights. 
When it comes to attacking women's freedom and privacy, this 
legislation knows no bounds. It is an extreme attack against women's 
reproductive rights and undermines women's access to quality 
healthcare.
  Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I am proud to stand in strong 
opposition of H.R. 358, the

[[Page E1892]]

so-called Protect Life Act and urge my colleagues to join me. This bill 
is not only unconstitutional, but it is dangerous. A more accurate name 
for this bill is the ``Endanger Women's Lives Act of 2011.'' In a time 
of such tough economic hardship, we should be concentrated on created 
jobs and stabilizing the economy, not advancing extreme legislation 
that is nothing less than the most comprehensive and radical assault of 
women's health in our lifetime.

                          ____________________