[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 24, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H633-H646]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1415
NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION AND ABORTION INSURANCE FULL DISCLOSURE
ACT OF 2017
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 55, I call up
the bill (H.R. 7) to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions, and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 7
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page H634]]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``No
Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full
Disclosure Act of 2017''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--PROHIBITING FEDERALLY FUNDED ABORTIONS
Sec. 101. Prohibiting taxpayer funded abortions.
Sec. 102. Amendment to table of chapters.
TITLE II--APPLICATION UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
Sec. 201. Clarifying application of prohibition to premium credits and
cost-sharing reductions under ACA.
Sec. 202. Revision of notice requirements regarding disclosure of
extent of health plan coverage of abortion and abortion
premium surcharges.
TITLE I--PROHIBITING FEDERALLY FUNDED ABORTIONS
SEC. 101. PROHIBITING TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS.
Title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following new chapter:
``CHAPTER 4--PROHIBITING TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS
``301. Prohibition on funding for abortions.
``302. Prohibition on funding for health benefits plans that cover
abortion.
``303. Limitation on Federal facilities and employees.
``304. Construction relating to separate coverage.
``305. Construction relating to the use of non-Federal funds for health
coverage.
``306. Non-preemption of other Federal laws.
``307. Construction relating to complications arising from abortion.
``308. Treatment of abortions related to rape, incest, or preserving
the life of the mother.
``309. Application to District of Columbia.
``Sec. 301. Prohibition on funding for abortions
``No funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and
none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are
authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended
for any abortion.
``Sec. 302. Prohibition on funding for health benefits plans
that cover abortion
``None of the funds authorized or appropriated by Federal
law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds
are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be
expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage
of abortion.
``Sec. 303. Limitation on Federal facilities and employees
``No health care service furnished--
``(1) by or in a health care facility owned or operated by
the Federal Government; or
``(2) by any physician or other individual employed by the
Federal Government to provide health care services within the
scope of the physician's or individual's employment,
may include abortion.
``Sec. 304. Construction relating to separate coverage
``Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting
any individual, entity, or State or locality from purchasing
separate abortion coverage or health benefits coverage that
includes abortion so long as such coverage is paid for
entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by
Federal law and such coverage shall not be purchased using
matching funds required for a federally subsidized program,
including a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid
matching funds.
``Sec. 305. Construction relating to the use of non-Federal
funds for health coverage
``Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as restricting
the ability of any non-Federal health benefits coverage
provider from offering abortion coverage, or the ability of a
State or locality to contract separately with such a provider
for such coverage, so long as only funds not authorized or
appropriated by Federal law are used and such coverage shall
not be purchased using matching funds required for a
federally subsidized program, including a State's or
locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds.
``Sec. 306. Non-preemption of other Federal laws
``Nothing in this chapter shall repeal, amend, or have any
effect on any other Federal law to the extent such law
imposes any limitation on the use of funds for abortion or
for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of
abortion, beyond the limitations set forth in this chapter.
``Sec. 307. Construction relating to complications arising
from abortion
``Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply to
the treatment of any infection, injury, disease, or disorder
that has been caused by or exacerbated by the performance of
an abortion. This rule of construction shall be applicable
without regard to whether the abortion was performed in
accord with Federal or State law, and without regard to
whether funding for the abortion is permissible under section
308.
``Sec. 308. Treatment of abortions related to rape, incest,
or preserving the life of the mother
``The limitations established in sections 301, 302, and 303
shall not apply to an abortion--
``(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or
incest; or
``(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical
disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as
certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death
unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering
physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy
itself.
``Sec. 309. Application to District of Columbia
``In this chapter:
``(1) Any reference to funds appropriated by Federal law
shall be treated as including any amounts within the budget
of the District of Columbia that have been approved by an Act
of Congress pursuant to section 446 of the District of
Columbia Home Rule Act (or any applicable successor Federal
law).
``(2) The term `Federal Government' includes the government
of the District of Columbia.''.
SEC. 102. AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF CHAPTERS.
The table of chapters for title 1, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``4. Prohibiting taxpayer funded abortions...................301''.....
TITLE II--APPLICATION UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
SEC. 201. CLARIFYING APPLICATION OF PROHIBITION TO PREMIUM
CREDITS AND COST-SHARING REDUCTIONS UNDER ACA.
(a) In General.--
(1) Disallowance of refundable credit and cost-sharing
reductions for coverage under qualified health plan which
provides coverage for abortion.--
(A) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 36B(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``or any health
plan that includes coverage for abortions (other than any
abortion or treatment described in section 307 or 308 of
title 1, United States Code)''.
(B) Option to purchase or offer separate coverage or
plan.--Paragraph (3) of section 36B(c) of such Code is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Separate abortion coverage or plan allowed.--
``(i) Option to purchase separate coverage or plan.--
Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be construed as prohibiting
any individual from purchasing separate coverage for
abortions described in such subparagraph, or a health plan
that includes such abortions, so long as no credit is allowed
under this section with respect to the premiums for such
coverage or plan.
``(ii) Option to offer coverage or plan.--Nothing in
subparagraph (A) shall restrict any non-Federal health
insurance issuer offering a health plan from offering
separate coverage for abortions described in such
subparagraph, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long
as premiums for such separate coverage or plan are not paid
for with any amount attributable to the credit allowed under
this section (or the amount of any advance payment of the
credit under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act).''.
(2) Disallowance of small employer health insurance expense
credit for plan which includes coverage for abortion.--
Subsection (h) of section 45R of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended--
(A) by striking ``Any term'' and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--Any term''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Exclusion of health plans including coverage for
abortion.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified health plan' does
not include any health plan that includes coverage for
abortions (other than any abortion or treatment described in
section 307 or 308 of title 1, United States Code).
``(B) Separate abortion coverage or plan allowed.--
``(i) Option to purchase separate coverage or plan.--
Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be construed as prohibiting
any employer from purchasing for its employees separate
coverage for abortions described in such subparagraph, or a
health plan that includes such abortions, so long as no
credit is allowed under this section with respect to the
employer contributions for such coverage or plan.
``(ii) Option to offer coverage or plan.--Nothing in
subparagraph (A) shall restrict any non-Federal health
insurance issuer offering a health plan from offering
separate coverage for abortions described in such
subparagraph, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long
as such separate coverage or plan is not paid for with any
employer contribution eligible for the credit allowed under
this section.''.
(3) Conforming aca amendments.--Section 1303(b) of Public
Law 111-148 (42 U.S.C. 18023(b)) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (2);
(B) by striking paragraph (3), as amended by section
202(a); and
(C) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (2).
(b) Application to Multi-State Plans.--Paragraph (6) of
section 1334(a) of Public Law 111-148 (42 U.S.C. 18054(a)) is
amended to read as follows:
[[Page H635]]
``(6) Coverage consistent with federal abortion policy.--In
entering into contracts under this subsection, the Director
shall ensure that no multi-State qualified health plan
offered in an Exchange provides health benefits coverage for
which the expenditure of Federal funds is prohibited under
chapter 4 of title 1, United States Code.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2017,
but only with respect to plan years beginning after such
date, and the amendment made by subsection (b) shall apply to
plan years beginning after such date.
SEC. 202. REVISION OF NOTICE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING
DISCLOSURE OF EXTENT OF HEALTH PLAN COVERAGE OF
ABORTION AND ABORTION PREMIUM SURCHARGES.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 1303(b) of Public
Law 111-148 (42 U.S.C. 18023(b)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(3) Rules relating to notice.--
``(A) In general.--The extent of coverage (if any) of
services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) or (1)(B)(ii) by a
qualified health plan shall be disclosed to enrollees at the
time of enrollment in the plan and shall be prominently
displayed in any marketing or advertising materials,
comparison tools, or summary of benefits and coverage
explanation made available with respect to such plan by the
issuer of the plan, by an Exchange, or by the Secretary,
including information made available through an Internet
portal or Exchange under sections 1311(c)(5) and
1311(d)(4)(C).
``(B) Separate disclosure of abortion surcharges.--In the
case of a qualified health plan that includes the services
described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) and where the premium for
the plan is disclosed, including in any marketing or
advertising materials or any other information referred to in
subparagraph (A), the surcharge described in paragraph
(2)(B)(i)(II) that is attributable to such services shall
also be disclosed and identified separately.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to materials, tools, or other information made
available more than 30 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 55, the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) and the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
General Leave
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include any extraneous material on H.R. 7, currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in strong support of the No Taxpayer Funding for
Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act, and I thank the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his unflinching leadership on
this issue.
It was just a week ago that groups of women marched in the streets of
D.C. and other cities across the country apparently ready to write off
this Presidency as it just began.
There were millions of pro-life women who were explicitly told that
they were unwelcome at this event. So today, the people's House is
giving them and the more than 60 percent of Americans from all
political persuasions who oppose taxpayer funding of abortions a voice.
The legislation before us will protect Americans' conscience rights
by ensuring that their hard-earned tax dollars are not used to fund the
destruction of innocent life. That is a principle that Members of both
parties have supported in this Chamber before.
Every year, Democrats and Republicans alike have come together to
support funding bills that maintain the law called the Hyde amendment,
which prohibits the direct Federal funding of abortion, with limited
exceptions. This 40-year-old law has saved an estimated 2 million
lives, but it is not permanent, meaning that this time-honored
protection could be taken away on a whim. What is more, the law, in its
current form, has clear loopholes.
A 2014 GAO study found that taxpayer-funded insurance subsidies could
be used to pay for abortions on over 1,000 ObamaCare plans nationwide.
That is why today we have the opportunity to make this life-affirming
law permanent and governmentwide.
As a mother, a grandmother, and a nurse for more than 40 years, this
measure is especially meaningful to me. During my years in the
healthcare industry, I saw the joy in young parents' eyes when they met
their newborn for the very first time. I held the hands of grieving
spouses and children as they said good-bye to their loved ones. And,
sadly, I witnessed a young woman lose her life due to the effects of a
botched abortion.
These experiences informed my view that all life is a precious gift
from God. I pray that in time this truth will be reflected in our
Nation's laws. Until then, can't we at least do this much.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and
Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Madam Speaker, our constituents are looking to this Congress to
address the economy, jobs, our crumbling infrastructure, and so many
other issues. But despite these pressing needs, the only substantive
bill this House is considering this week is a bill restricting a
woman's ability to get a full range of healthcare services and a bill,
which passed before in this House and that we know is going nowhere in
the other body.
Its title alone must be part of the majority's new plan to redefine
facts. As we heard the other day, we now apparently have in our
discourse ``alternative facts.''
This bill takes that to a whole new level, and let me tell you why.
The bill is called the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion
Insurance Full Disclosure Act. But under current law, under the Hyde
amendment--which I hate, which I will do everything to repeal--we have
no taxpayer funding for abortion. Taxpayer funds are currently
prohibited from use for abortions. Instead, what this bill does is it
takes that concept and it uses it to far expand a restriction on a
woman's ability to get the full health care that she needs.
Let me talk about what this bill does exactly. First of all, it
codifies the Hyde amendment into statute, which has never been done in
this Nation's history.
Secondly, it codifies a ban on abortions in D.C., even when they are
done with D.C.'s taxpayer money and not with Federal money.
Number three, it codifies the Helms amendment, which denies women
abroad access to safe abortion care by severely restricting the use of
U.S. funds to pay for healthcare services in developing countries.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
It severely restricts abortion coverage in the ACA's exchanges by
forbidding people who have plans where they get subsidies from paying
for plans with their own money. This is a far expansion of a
restriction on a woman's right to get her own health insurance with her
own money.
It denies insurance-related tax credits to small businesses that
choose plans that offer abortion services. It permanently bans abortion
services for Federal employees and it codifies a ban on abortion
coverage for women in military services overseas.
The fact that we are debating this today, just 1 day after President
Trump issued an executive order reinstating the global gag rule, is a
slap in the face to the over 3 million women who marched last weekend.
Let's vote ``no'' on this bill and let's go to the business that the
American public really cares about.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is the chair of the Judiciary Committee
and a longstanding supporter of pro-life.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her ardent
work on this important cause.
However stark Americans' differences of opinion can be on the matter
of abortion generally, there has been long, bipartisan agreement that
Federal taxpayer funds should not be used to destroy innocent life.
The Hyde amendment, named for its chief sponsor, former House
Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, has prohibited the Federal
funding of abortions since 1976 when it passed the House and Senate
that was composed overwhelmingly of Democratic members. It has been
renewed each appropriations cycle with few changes for
[[Page H636]]
over 40 years, supported by Congresses controlled by both parties and
Presidents from both parties. It is probably the most bipartisan, pro-
life proposal sustained over a longer period of time than any other. It
is time the Hyde amendment was codified in the U.S. Code.
H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance
Full Disclosure Act, sponsored by Representative Chris Smith of New
Jersey, would do just that. It would codify the two core principles of
the Hyde amendment throughout the operations of the Federal Government;
namely, a ban on Federal funding for abortions and a ban on the use of
Federal funds for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of
abortion.
As hundreds of thousands of people from across the country come to
Washington to express their love of unborn children at the annual March
for Life and as we now have a President who supports this legislation,
let's reflect on what could be accomplished if the bill we consider
today were signed into law.
During the time the Hyde amendment has been in place, the most
reliable estimates--and those of the Congressional Budget Office--are
that millions of innocent children and their mothers have been spared
the horrors of abortion. Millions of lives have been saved. And of
those millions of lives saved, many more have grown up to bear their
own children and to raise them in happy, loving families.
This bill is more than a proposed law. It is a celebration of the
lives of those millions of Americans--boys and girls, men and women of
all races--who give joy and feel love and create and contribute all
because of the policies this bill contains. And even more than that,
this bill is a welcome sign for millions and millions more Americans to
come.
I congratulate the President for already reinstating the Mexico City
policy, which prohibits the Federal funding of abortions overseas. And
I look forward to his signing this bill into law to codify the same
policy here in America.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7.
We are only 10 days into this 115th Congress, and already Republicans
are bringing legislation to the floor to harm women's health. It is
clear that House Republicans do not respect women and our ability to
make our own decisions.
Millions of women peacefully marched in cities around the country and
around the world, yet here we are, once again, voting legislation to
give politicians more control over women's bodies than they have of
their own.
Let's be clear: the ultimate goal of this bill is to effectively
eliminate access to abortions, even when women pay for it themselves.
Seven in ten Americans believe that abortions should be safe and legal.
And just as we have seen in Texas, when women lose access to abortion,
they will take drastic action to seek back-alley abortions or to self-
abort.
Let's remember that Roe v. Wade was not the beginning of women having
abortions. It was the end of women dying from abortions.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mrs. NOEM. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7, the No
Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure
Act.
Specifically, this bill says directly that Federal taxpayer dollars
could not be used to provide abortions. It does not do more than that.
What it does is it puts into statute a permanency to legislation that
has annually been renewed.
Becoming a parent was something that my husband and I always dreamed
about. And when we did realize that we were having our first child, we
prayed for her and we prayed for our future children, recognizing that
they were a gift from God and that that life was to be protected even
from the moment of conception.
That is the belief that I have, and my hope and my dream for everyone
here in America is that we would recognize that those children are a
gift from God to us to protect, to keep, and to make sure that they are
brought into this world safely and helped from thereon. My perspective
and my profound commitment to protecting unborn children is why I am
standing here today.
Time and again, Congress has risen with bipartisan support to oppose
taxpayer-funded abortions. Annual provisions, including the Hyde
amendment, have been passed repeatedly; and they have been estimated to
save over 2 million innocent lives. Our goal here is to save even more.
We need to make these provisions permanent.
ObamaCare has allowed the tax dollars of hardworking Americans to
flow to over 1,000 abortion-covering health plans. This has made
today's bipartisan legislation more important than ever.
H.R. 7 would create a permanent governmentwide prohibition against
Federal dollars to fund abortive procedures. It would also ensure the
Affordable Care Act complies with the Hyde amendment until it is
repealed and replaced. That is the right thing to do.
{time} 1430
Today we stand to make sure that every single life is valued, not
just the ones that we pick and choose for political reasons; that every
single one that God has created has an opportunity to live out their
dreams here in the United States of America.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding
and for her tireless work and leadership on behalf of women's health.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7. This
discriminatory bill would undermine a woman's access to abortion care,
which is a constitutional right as affirmed by Roe v. Wade, 44 years
ago, by making the Hyde amendment permanent. This bill would restrict
access to reproductive health care for millions of women and
disproportionately harm low-income women and women of color.
As if this isn't enough, H.R. 7 comes on the heels of a dramatic
expansion of the global gag rule which denies lifesaving health care to
women around the world; not to mention continuous Republican attacks on
contraceptive access, comprehensive sex education, and Planned
Parenthood.
Madam Speaker, when I was a staffer on Capitol Hill when the Hyde
amendment was passed, I remember the days very clearly of back-alley
abortions.
Clearly, Republicans are trying to take us back to the days when
women died from unsafe abortions in this country.
That is why I offered an amendment that would have recognized that
women--not employers or politicians--have the right to make their own
reproductive health choices.
Shamefully, the Rules Committee refused to make it in order and allow
for a debate.
Madam Speaker, women should be able to make their own decisions about
reproductive health care, including abortions, without Members of
Congress or employers interfering.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I referenced in my opening remarks that
there has been bipartisan support for this measure, the Hyde amendment,
on a yearly basis. I just want to make mention that the former
gentlewoman from California who just spoke did vote for this measure in
the fiscal year 2016 omnibus bill.
Madam Speaker, it is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is the sponsor of the bill and is a
champion for the unborn. It is really an honor for me to have served
with him on this particular issue.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I want to first thank the
distinguished gentlewoman, my good friend Diane Black, for her
extraordinary leadership. I also want to say to my colleagues--and I
hope this really is accepted for the profound change that it
underscores--the Hyde amendment has saved 2 million lives; 2 million
survivors who would have died had Medicaid funding for abortion not
been available.
This is over the course of 40 years, but 2 million lives, some of
whom are 39, 38. It is about 60,000 children every year. And if you
look at where this comes from, much of the mega-analysis comes from a
peer review done by the Guttmacher Institute in 2009. They have found
that there is a 25 percent
[[Page H637]]
reduction in Medicaid abortions when Medicaid money is not available to
effectuate the dismemberment and the chemical poisoning of an unborn
child.
Defense of the unborn child is a human rights issue of our time,
Madam Speaker. We talk about the unborn child, we degrade them, we
treat them as if they are tumors or warts to be excised rather than
children growing, developing, and maturing.
Ultrasound imaging, as we all know, has shattered the myth that
somehow an unborn child is anything but human and alive. And I hope
that the science, which is very readily available, catches up with the
policy.
This makes Hyde and all of the other amendments permanent. We know
that every year we have an annual battle over several of those
amendments. It also, finally, title II, takes out of ObamaCare the
facilitation and the funding of abortion.
When President Obama did his executive order in December of 2010, he
said that the Hyde amendment would be applied to the ObamaCare
exchanges. For months and years after that in-House debate, people have
said that has happened. It did not. We know beyond any reasonable
doubt--and we enlisted GAO to look at that--well over 1,000 plans pay
for abortion on demand in the ObamaCare exchanges.
So that got the votes the pro-life Democrats needed to effectuate the
passage of the Affordable Care Act. But, frankly, it hasn't happened.
Title II of this bill says the Hyde amendment will be applied to the
ObamaCare exchanges. Had that been done faithfully by the President,
there would be no need for title II of this bill.
I remember when the President stood right there in September of 2009
and said: Under our plan, no taxpayer funding will be used to pay for
abortion. Absolutely untrue. This language in H.R. 7 makes that true.
We don't want to be complicit in the killing and the maiming of unborn
children. As we know now, beyond any reasonable doubt, post-abortive
women increasingly are coming forward and speaking out, those
especially who found peace and reconciliation to say abortion also
hurts women.
There are two victims in every abortion: mother and baby. Two million
lives saved. That is what we should be all about, life affirming and
the saving of human rights.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), one of our new Members.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
This weekend, millions of women made it clear that they demand respect.
Instead, for their efforts, they have received a trip to 1984 where,
once again, a paternalistic White House signed executive orders
infringing on a woman's right to choose.
H.R. 7, the bill we are considering here today, is the next notch in
the Republican belt that will take away our control over our own
bodies.
I have years of experience working in family planning, and I can tell
you that this bill takes away our ability to plan our families properly
and to make decisions about our own bodies, a decision that should be
left to a woman and her physician.
Make no mistake, this isn't a healthcare issue. It is part of an
extreme rightwing political agenda that puts women's rights on the
chopping block.
H.R. 7 tells millions of women that their voices don't matter and
their rights don't count. Passing this bill will create even more
barriers for women, including women of color, trying to access quality
health care.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided and heavy-handed bill.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Chair, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), one of my Ways and Means
colleagues and a long-time supporter of pro-life.
Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I have got a prediction to make, and here
is my prediction: In the course of this debate, the opponents of H.R. 7
will not acknowledge nor give voice to Congressman Smith's claim of
saving 2 million lives. Why? Because to acknowledge 2 million lives
that are saved is to acknowledge the weakness of an argument; that is,
those people are to be dismissed.
Madam Speaker, how do you dismiss 2 million people? How do you
dismiss 2 million people, over 60,000 people every year?
If you can imagine what it would be like if someone came in here and
with certainty, absolute confidence, said unambiguously, if you pass
this law you are going to save 2 million lives, we would line up. We
would be voting on that over and over and over again.
And yet, my prediction is, during the remainder of this debate--
because we have not heard about it so far--the opponents will be silent
about those 2 million lives.
We need to vote for this and save lives in the future.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I want to answer his question with a
question.
Do you care about the 4 million children today that live off of less
than $2 a day and live in extreme poverty and they are alive? No, you
don't.
Let me quote our Founding Father Samuel Adams. ``. . . freedom of
thought and the right of private judgement in matters of conscience
direct their course to this happy country. . . .''
The First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the 14th Amendment, all
sort of convene to this notion of rights of privacy in this country,
except when it comes to women and their bodies.
Republicans continue to wreak havoc for women's health, operating as
if they have some sort of moral imperative to tell us. Get your laws
off our bodies.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), who has been a longstanding
supporter of life.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman
Black for this bill. It seems like whenever we talk about this issue,
we always talk past each other. But the real question before us is:
Does abortion kill a little baby?
If it doesn't, I am ready to quit talking about it. But if it does,
then those of us sitting in the seat of freedom are also standing in
the midst of the greatest human genocide in the history of humanity.
And although we may not agree on all of the vicissitudes of abortion,
one thing is certain: Some day, we, as a society, will look back, we
will recognize the humanity of these little children of God and the
inhumanity of what was being done to them, and we will regret these
days.
Until then, at least can't we get together and say that we shouldn't
force taxpayers to pay for the killing of innocent little human beings?
I pray that we can open our eyes to that truth.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Madam Speaker, on Saturday, millions of
people took a stand against the assault on women's rights. Today, I
stand with them once again to say we have had enough.
Only 2 days after these historic marches, Republicans in Congress
have introduced H.R. 7 to silence women by limiting their
constitutional right to make personal choices about their reproductive
health, without undue government interference.
H.R. 7 is a woman's health catastrophe. Not only would it codify the
discriminatory Hyde amendment, it would penalize employers who offer
healthcare plans with comprehensive coverage and prevent the 80 percent
of ACA enrollees who receive subsidies from purchasing plans that cover
abortion services. In effect, it makes abortion an option only for the
wealthy.
The law of the land does not say that only some women have the right
to choose; it says that all women have the right to choose.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless legislation.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I want to once again mention that there
has been longstanding bipartisan support for the support of the Hyde
amendment.
As a matter of fact, the gentlewoman from California who just spoke
voted for this on three different occasions;
[[Page H638]]
most recently in the MACRA that was passed in 2015; the omnibus, which
was passed in December of 2015 and also in December of 2016; and in the
fiscal year 2017 CR.
It is now my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama
(Mrs. Roby), a member of the Appropriations Committee and a strong
supporter of pro-life.
Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for
yielding me this time. Opponents of this bill are suggesting that we
are against women's health care. What we are vehemently opposed to is
the killing of innocent lives, innocent babies.
{time} 1445
So let's call abortion abortion and be reminded that the one voice,
Madam Speaker, not heard today is that of the baby. So it is my
privilege, alongside my colleagues, to speak on behalf of those who are
not here today to speak for themselves. No taxpayer dollars should ever
go to fund abortions. This is a commonsense truth that even the most
ardent pro-abortion activists have a hard time arguing.
I am unapologetically pro-life, and it is no secret that I believe in
stronger protections for unborn children under the law, but I also
believe that we must assign greater respect for life within our
society. That is why it is so important for Congress to make a
statement, once and for all, that there is no place in the Federal
budget for abortion funding.
As an appropriator, I can tell you that the Hyde amendment has been
indispensable to stopping funding for abortion throughout our
government healthcare agencies. Now it is time to apply the same
longstanding provision across the entire Federal Government.
Madam Speaker, for my pro-life colleagues and me, fighting on behalf
of the unborn has been an uphill battle these last several years. The
abortion industry's fierce allies in the Senate and the Obama
administration have made sure that many worthy pro-life measures were
defeated. However, with a unified Republican government, our hope is
that our prospects have changed for the better. On just the second day
of his Presidency, President Trump issued an executive order blocking
Federal funding for international groups to provide or promote
abortions. For the pro-life community, this long-overdue action was a
welcome sign that the Trump administration will be a powerful ally in
the fight for life.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30
seconds.
Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, there are many policy improvements to
pursue: reasonable limits on abortions after 5 months of pregnancy,
stopping the shell game of title X funding at Planned Parenthood,
improving access to adoption services, and more. But a great place to
start is passing H.R. 7. It is our enduring responsibility to defend
the unborn, and it is imperative we get this right.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman from Tennessee has attempted to imply
that several of our speakers today support the Hyde amendment because
they voted for very large omnibus spending bills that included the Hyde
amendment. I would like to be really clear that none of the speakers on
this side today do support the Hyde amendment, and, in fact, in the
last Congress we had a bill, the EACH Woman Act, sponsored by a number
of us, 129 cosponsors, which would repeal the Hyde amendment. Sometimes
people vote for large pieces of legislation because they do things like
keep our government open and build highways and roads. But we will do
everything in our power to repeal this poorly thought-out and
regressive amendment, and we will do everything we can to defeat this
bill today.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Speier).
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her
leadership.
Madam Speaker, President Trump once said his favorite book is the
Bible. I think he is writing a new book for the Bible called the
``Apocalypse of Women.'' It is a reverse Genesis.
In the beginning, he divided the country in half with rightwing dog
whistles in his inaugural address. On the second day, he ignored
millions of people who marched across America and the world. On the
third day, he pondered changes to NAFTA and which women's rights to
trade away. On the fourth day, he reinstated and expanded the global
gag rule, risking women's lives worldwide. Today he and his House
mouthpieces are blocking access to domestic reproductive health
coverage trumpeting alternative facts about legal abortions that have
been somehow prevented, some 2 million of them.
Well, prove it.
I shudder to think what will happen tomorrow, and I doubt on the
seventh day it will be devoted to rest.
Madam Speaker, we must fight this madness and oppose H.R. 7.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my friend for yielding.
Madam Speaker, my distinguished colleague said ``prove it'' about the
2 million. Well, there is a very extensive study done by Michael J.
New. The Review of Literature done in June of 2009 by the Guttmacher
Institute found: ``Approximately one-fourth of women who would have had
Medicaid-funded abortions instead gave birth when this funding was
unavailable.''
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Brady), who is the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. This bill is pro-
life, it is pro-family, and it is pro-taxpayer. I want to thank
Representatives Chris Smith and Diane Black for their unwavering
leadership in bringing this bill forward.
Among other important actions, what I am excited about is this bill
finally makes the Hyde amendment permanent. This important and
longstanding policy prohibits taxpayer dollars from being used to fund
abortions through Federal programs. For many years, it was the policy
of America that, whether you were pro-choice or, as I am, strongly pro-
life, your taxpayer dollars would not be used for the controversial act
of abortion.
Taking this action now is especially important given that, under the
Affordable Care Act, taxpayer-funded health insurance subsidies have
been funneled toward health plans that do cover abortion services. The
bill before us today will ensure that taxpayer dollars aren't used in
any form to cover elective abortions. This policy will be permanent,
and it will apply governmentwide, including to the Affordable Care Act.
Right now, House Republicans are working to repeal this failed law
and put in place a 21st century healthcare system Americans deserve. By
passing this bill, we can also take immediate action to protect life
and taxpayer dollars from the law's harmful impacts.
For me, this is a family issue. My wife and I are proud parents of
two adopted children. We have a family only because two women in two
very difficult situations chose life. It is important that our
government and the laws that represent us encourage those choices and
encourage and protect innocent lives. This bill today takes such an
important step forward.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank, again, Congressman Smith and
Representative Diane Black for their leadership. I urge all my
colleagues to join me in supporting its passage.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).
Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
Colorado.
Madam Speaker, for women to thrive in the economic and social
opportunities of our Nation, we must have the ability to control our
own reproductive lives with full access to real healthcare choices.
Republican unrelenting efforts to force unwanted pregnancies and
eradicate affordable, safe abortion will not save lives. Repealing the
Affordable Care Act, defunding Planned Parenthood, and now driving
insurance coverage for abortion into extinction will
[[Page H639]]
return women to the days of coat hanger medicine. Allowing women to be
killed and maimed in back alleys is not pro-life. It will not make
America great again.
Women of America are on the march, and, Madam Speaker, we will not
retreat.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, once again, I want to talk about the
longstanding bipartisan support for the Hyde amendment. The gentlewoman
from Florida has supported this measure in the omnibus bill and also
the CR of 2017.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri
(Mrs. Wagner), who is a member of the Financial Services Committee. She
and her family have been fighting for pro-life issues for many, many,
many years.
Mrs. WAGNER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the
gentlewoman from Tennessee, Diane Black, for her wonderful leadership
on this issue along with Congressman Smith, also, for his wonderful
leadership.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the No Taxpayer
Funding for Abortion Act. The Hyde amendment has received bipartisan
support for 40 years because it is a testimony to the freedom of
conscience for all Americans and the dignity of the unborn.
I am heartbroken that opposition to the amendment has become a
political gimmick. All human beings--the born, the unborn, the young,
the old, the sick, and the healthy--are entitled to a government that
promotes their dignity, their conscience, and their gift of life.
This bill spells out Congress' commitment to all people--including
children--across our Nation that the profits of Big Abortion should not
be pilfered off the hard work of the American citizen. No tax dollar
should be spent on the destruction of human life.
In passing this bill and making the Hyde language permanent, we
affirm that protecting children and mothers is our most precious duty
as Members of Congress. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for
life.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank Congresswoman DeGette
for yielding the time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7 and urge the
Republican-led Congress to hear the voices of the millions who marched
on Saturday who proclaimed that women's rights must be respected,
including a woman's right to choose her own health care.
I was part of that march, with many of my neighbors from Florida, to
send a message to this Congress that our rights--our constitutional
rights--must be preserved. Americans have a right to privacy, as we are
reminded on this anniversary week of Roe v. Wade, but this Republican
bill tramples on that right to privacy.
Women, their families, and their doctors have the right to make their
personal healthcare decisions, not the mostly male politicians in
Washington. It is especially appalling that the Republicans have
targeted female veterans and those that serve in the military for
reduction in care.
So, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this unconstitutional bill
and encourage Americans to continue to lift their voices.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, once again, I want to say that there has
been longstanding bipartisan support for the Hyde amendment, and the
gentlewoman from Florida supported this measure back in 2015 on the
H.R. 2 MACRA bill and the 2015 omnibus bill, H.R. 2029.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs.
Love).
Mrs. LOVE. Madam Speaker, let's talk about what this is really about.
This is about the loss of human lives.
Each child potentially brings with him or her unique gifts and
talents that can be used for the betterment of our society. An unborn
child may be the doctor that cures cancer or Alzheimer's, may be the
astronaut that lands us on Mars or the future leader that solves the
problems of today. The list of our children's potential is infinite in
value.
Any time a child's life is lost, there is something more that is
lost. It is a loss for us, it is a loss for our society, and it is a
loss for our Nation. If you want to invest in our future, in the words
of Henry Hyde: ``We cannot in logic or in conscience help fund the
execution of these innocent, defenseless human lives.''
A strong majority of Americans and a bipartisan majority in Congress
opposes taxpayer-funded abortions. Because of this, there exists,
currently, over 40 years of laws that prevent this practice. These laws
have been deemed constitutional by the United States Supreme Court.
So this is not about women's health. I want you to know very clearly
that I support women's health. I support a healthy, organic, and open
healthcare system that gives women more care than they currently
receive today. What this bill does is codifies something that we
already have. It ends the patchwork and establishes permanent
protections for our children and the future of our society.
I want you to know, Madam Speaker, that when I stand up and I meet
with my Maker, I want you to know that I am not going to be ashamed. I
am going to know that I stood up for the lives of these innocent
children.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of our future,
in favor of our unborn potential, and in favor of H.R. 7.
{time} 1500
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Foster).
Mr. FOSTER. Madam Speaker, this weekend we saw millions of Americans
march in cities and towns across the country and around the world--far
more than attended the inauguration the day before.
I joined the march in Chicago, where one of the most visible concerns
was women's reproductive freedom. Today, House Republicans, roughly 90
percent of them White males, responded by showing the women of America
exactly how little they respect those rights.
Madam Speaker, a party that lost the popular vote by almost 3 million
votes does not have a mandate to deny women the right to make their own
healthcare decisions.
Perhaps I should remind my Republican colleagues that unless you are
their doctor, they don't need your opinion. Women in the Federal
workforce, low-income women, women in the military, women employed by
small businesses are all perfectly capable of having a conversation
with their doctor about their health.
So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill and ``no'' to
disrespecting the women of America.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Yoho).
Mr. YOHO. Madam Speaker, life begins at conception. I believe it is
our responsibility to protect the millions of unborn children whose
voices go unheard.
As a Christian and a father of three, I believe the lives of all
children, including the unborn, are just as important as yours or mine.
That is why I stand here today in support of H.R. 7. This bill
safeguards the lives of unborn children who are robbed of their
opportunity to experience the marvels of life.
H.R. 7 closes loopholes that have permitted the subsidization of
abortions by taxpayers who are morally opposed to the practice.
Additionally, this bill also requires insurance providers who receive
Federal subsidies through participation in the healthcare exchanges to
report to consumers whether or not they will be subject to a surcharge
that covers abortion services at the time of purchase.
It boggles the mind that our Federal Government had the arrogance to
skirt longstanding laws in order to trick the American taxpayer into
unknowingly contributing to abortions in the first place.
This bill has passed the House numerous times. The merits of the bill
are clear. I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of H.R. 7.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, on Saturday, millions of Americans around the Nation
[[Page H640]]
spoke with a collective voice, opposing President Trump's plans to
trample women's rights. Yet here we are, the first week of the new
administration, voting on a bill to scale back women's health benefits.
Let's be clear: this bill is not about preventing Federal funds from
going to abortions. Sadly, current law already prevents that. In
reality, this bill would affect millions of women who purchase coverage
with their own money. It will make it nearly impossible for insurance
providers to offer plans fully covering women's reproductive health. It
would harm low-income women who need access to an abortion, turning
back the clock on women's reproductive rights.
It is day five of the Trump Presidency and women are already being
attacked at every corner. I promise my colleagues this: the American
people are watching. They will remember this vote.
Vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I want to remind everyone of the
longstanding bipartisan support for the Hyde amendment. The gentlewoman
from New York voted for this measure in the omnibus bill, H.R. 2029, in
2015, and then on the MACRA bill, also in 2015.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Russell).
Mr. RUSSELL. Madam Speaker, the carving up and commercial sale of
dismembered unborn children ranks as one of the most horrific and
barbaric acts in American and human history.
As an adoptive father, I speak today on behalf of the 55 million
Americans that have had their lives brutally ended with the scalpel,
the suction hose, and the callousness of the murderous culture that
allows it to perpetuate.
These Americans had a right to choose life that they did not want to
lose. We have the ability to restore to future Americans that choice.
Until that day, no American should be forced to end the life of an
innocent human being with their tax dollars.
We can carve up a child and call it a choice. We can destroy human
life and call it health care. We can make the killing of children legal
and pretend it is beneficial. We can cover acts of barbarity with the
veneer of civility. But we cannot escape our accountability before the
Creator of life.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The gentlewoman from Tennessee keeps saying over and over that
different people voted for H.R. 2029 and, therefore, they must be for
the Hyde amendment. I would like to point out that she herself voted
against H.R. 2029. I guess maybe that means she is against the Hyde
amendment since she voted against that bill.
The point I am making is that all of us oppose the Hyde amendment. We
are all cosponsoring the EACH Woman Act. Simply because you vote for or
against a large omnibus bill does not mean you are necessarily in favor
of or against the Hyde amendment.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey
(Mrs. Watson Coleman).
Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
H.R. 7 will make permanent the harmful and discriminatory Hyde
amendment, penalizing small businesses who want to provide
comprehensive health coverage to their employees and, once again,
trampling on the District of Columbia by prohibiting the District from
spending its own local funds for abortion coverage.
Yet again, the GOP has put our bodies and the choices we should get
to make about them in the middle of a political firestorm. With every
exhaustingly repetitive argument about when, how, and where a woman
should be able to make those decisions, our country suffers.
If my Republican colleagues are so concerned about the life of a
child, why isn't there priority to put forth a plan for public
education? Why haven't we seen a comprehensive plan to continue the job
growth that President Barack Obama started?
Their motives are transparent and I refuse to let this White House or
any elected official play politics with women's bodies. As we continue
down this dangerous road, today, tomorrow, and every day thereafter
will be a day of resistance.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Mitchell) one of our newest Members.
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the No Taxpayer
Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act, which
I proudly cosponsored.
Four years ago, my wife and I adopted a young child from an
orphanage. People say it changed his life. It changed ours.
This year, the theme of the March for Life is ``The Power of One,''
meaning that every single person can change the course of history if
given the chance to live. Every year, 1 million unborn babies are
stripped of the right to life, which our Declaration of Independence
calls unalienable.
Moreover, those opposed to abortion have been forced to violate their
consciences through taxpayer-funded abortions. This legislation will
reinforce a culture of life by making current prohibitions against
taxpayer-funded abortions permanent.
Madam Speaker, I stand in the spirit of ``The Power of One'' to give
voice to the voiceless, rights back to the unborn, and I urge passage
of this legislation.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on
each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 14\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Tennessee has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, with H.R. 7, Republicans are again
targeting American women's health care.
This bill limits financial assistance in order to restrict women's
choices in the health insurance marketplaces, forcing women and their
families to select only certain plans. The goal is to restrict the
ability of a woman to make her own choices.
This bill comes up 1 day after President Trump reinstituted the
Mexico rule. It prohibits U.S. foreign assistance to any organization
which uses not those funds, but those from any other source for any
activity related to abortion services.
When I was Assistant Administrator of the AID in the late seventies,
I led the highly organized effort that established a strict process for
cordoning off any U.S. funds from any activity related to abortions, in
violation of the Hyde amendment.
What the Mexico rule means is that if any organization uses funds
from any source related to abortion, it cannot receive any U.S.
assistance, even if 99 percent of its activities related to women's
health are totally unrelated to abortions and even programs in a nation
where abortion is illegal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. LEVIN. The result will be the absence of health care for millions
of women in our Nation, as H.R. 7 will result for millions of women in
our Nation. We are seeing 48 hours of reckless disregard for women's
health.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
Mr. LaHOOD. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7, the No
Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure
Act.
Unfortunately, in our Nation, the most vulnerable and the most
helpless lives amongst us have had their lives ended unceremoniously
and tragically through abortion. Since 1973, 57 million lives have been
lost to abortion. Even more disheartening, taxpayer dollars have been
funding these abortions, despite the fact that polls show that 60
percent of Americans believe that abortions should not be directly paid
for with tax dollars.
Since 1976, the Hyde amendment has saved 2 million lives by
prohibiting tax dollars from funding abortions. It is time to make this
lifesaving amendment permanent and governmentwide. If signed by our new
President, this
[[Page H641]]
measure would do just that. Supporting comprehensive, life-affirming
care is a better and more effective way to invest in women's health.
I am thankful to all those who will come to Washington, D.C., this
week to March for Life on behalf of the unborn. As a practicing
Catholic and the father of three, I am proud to be the voice for the
unborn here in Congress.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7 and stand up for life.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. DelBene).
Ms. DelBENE. Madam Speaker, this weekend, millions of women marched
across the country to send a clear signal to Congress and President
Trump: Hear our voices and protect our rights.
Yet here we are, just 2 days later, voting on the same extremist
policies that House leaders have been pushing for years.
Women will not be fooled. We know H.R. 7 is another direct attack on
our health and our families. It creates sweeping new restrictions on
abortion care for women who purchase coverage under the Affordable Care
Act, with no meaningful exceptions to protect a woman's health.
That means women like Stephanie, from my district, who faced
heartbreaking complications during her wanted pregnancy, would be left
without coverage for the doctor-recommended care she needed.
We should not be injecting ideology into a woman's personal medical
decisions. This bill is an insult to the millions of women who marched
this weekend, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).
Mr. PITTENGER. Madam Speaker, just a few weeks ago, my family was
blessed with the arrival of a beautiful baby girl, our 10th grandchild.
If you have ever held a newborn, so defenseless and completely
dependent on you, you will understand why the idea that some people
advocate for the murder of little babies is unconscionable.
Since 1975, the Hyde amendment has saved an estimated 2 million
innocent babies by prohibiting taxpayer dollars from being used for
abortions. Unfortunately, ObamaCare ignores the Hyde amendment and uses
your tax dollars as subsidies for insurance policies which offer
abortion services.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the No
Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure
Act, which will make the Hyde amendment governmentwide policy and
ensure future government programs don't support abortion with your tax
dollars.
God tells us that He knew us in our mother's womb. His gift of life
is precious, unalienable, and must be protected.
{time} 1515
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin), another one of our excellent new Members.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7.
A few days ago, millions of Americans made history by marching for
freedom and equality against an administration that keeps threatening
to grab women by their privacy rights. H.R. 7 now tries to make it
impossible for millions of women, like my constituents in Maryland, to
have an abortion, even when their health is at stake and even to the
point of manipulating the tax laws to force private insurers in the ACA
not to offer complete coverage.
Here in Washington, D.C., the only capital of a democracy on Earth
where residents are denied voting representation in their national
legislature, this extreme legislation constitutes a special assault on
liberty. The hundreds of thousands of taxpaying citizens living in D.C.
have decided, like the people of Maryland, to offer Medicaid funding
for poor women to have complete coverage. This legislation strips this
modicum of democracy away in the District of Columbia, combining a
cavalier attack on democracy with a vicious attack on health care.
If a foreign repressive power like Russia tried to deny women in our
Capital City complete medical coverage, we would consider it an act of
aggression against the United States. As a Representative from
Maryland, the Free State, I reject this outrageous attempt to deprive
women of their constitutionally protected choices, and as the next-door
neighbor of the good people of Washington, D.C., I reject this brutal
attack on democracy and health care.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), a gentleman who has been a champion of
life.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank my dear colleague and friend, Diane Black,
for her leadership on this most essential issue.
Madam Speaker, if you look behind us on this dais right here, it
says, ``Peace, Liberty, Justice.'' We inscribe these words all around
our Nation's Capitol and on our monuments, but in truth, we cannot find
peace in a society that does not protect its most vulnerable members.
We cannot find liberty when we are indifferent to one another, and we
cannot claim justice when we throw away innocent life.
Madam Speaker, I find it very interesting that the early feminist
movement was pro-life. They saw abortion for what it is: the
abandonment of women. Once an abortion occurs, as Maddie Brinckerhoff,
an early feminist lecturer, once said:
It is evidence by either a lack of education or resources,
she has been greatly wronged.
At the very least, I think, Madam Speaker, we can stand with the vast
majority of Americans and not use our taxpayer dollars to subsidize the
abortion industry and the violence against women.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 11 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from Tennessee has 30 seconds remaining.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, what this bill is about is taking women who
can't afford to get an abortion and not allowing them to use taxpayer-
funded money to get it. The assumption on the other side is they won't
have money, because people who are in dire straits won't have money to
get it, and therefore they will have these 2 million children they are
talking about.
What we are talking about--let's make it clear--is they are talking
about poor women who they think can't afford to get to a doctor or to
an abortion provider and force them to have children that they can't
have because of economics.
So women, poor women, do not forgive them for they know what they do.
They are trying to put you at their mercy and make you have children
because you are poor. If they get their ultimate desire--and that is
the repeal of Roe v. Wade--then poor women will not be able to get an
abortion, but wealthy women will.
Trump said, yes, if they outlaw abortion, go to another State. Easy
to say when you are a billionaire, but not a thing to say to the middle
class and poor women of this country whom they want to force, through
their economic disparities, to bear children.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I know our time is short. I just want to
say that this bill signifies our staunch support for life, and in spite
of what has all been said, it just simply prevents taxpayer funds from
being used to pay for abortions.
For years our government has had a patchwork approach to this issue.
However, this bill, H.R. 7, would create a clear and unified policy
across all Federal agencies.
Our Founding Fathers set forth in the Declaration of Independence
``that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights.'' One of those unalienable
rights is life. Therefore, it follows that the right to life of each
human being should be preserved and protected.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Tennessee
has expired.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler), an activist on this issue.
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H642]]
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, there is obviously a difference of opinion
in this country on the morality of abortion. I am appalled by the moral
arrogance of the Republicans who would use political power to impose
their views on the millions of women who disagree with them and want to
make their own decisions.
Though the Supreme Court has determined that neither Congress nor a
State may place an undue burden on a woman's right to terminate a
pregnancy, the Hyde amendment makes abortion access virtually
impossible for low-income women.
As unjust and despicable as the Hyde amendment is, this bill goes
beyond it. For the first time, Republicans are attempting to restrict
the right of women to use their own money to pay for abortions by
denying normal tax deductions for medical expenses if those medical
expenses include an abortion, by denying normal tax credits for health
insurance if that insurance covers abortion, and by denying use of tax-
free money from an FSA or an HSA for an abortion.
The intent of this bill is obvious: to end insurance coverage for all
abortions, thereby making it nearly impossible for women to exercise
their constitutional rights.
Republicans should pay heed to the millions of women who marched to
protect their rights this weekend and are watching how we vote today.
Madam Speaker, there is obviously a difference of opinion in this
country on the morality of abortion. I am appalled at the moral
arrogance of the Republicans who would use political power to impose
their views on the millions of women who disagree with them and want to
make their own decisions.
If Saturday's protests are any indication, the women of America and
the world are watching us. They are not going to stand silently by
while Republicans in Congress and the White House take away their
rights, their health care, their families, and their livelihoods. They
sent this message loud and clear, but it seems my Republican colleagues
have not heard it. Yesterday morning, President Trump signed an
executive order reinstating the Global Gag Rule, which will deny
thousands of women around the world access to reproductive health care,
which will lead to a dramatic decline in maternal and infant health
around the world.
Today, Republicans are bringing up a bill that will deny women the
right to access comprehensive reproductive health care, a right
protected by the Constitution.
The right of a woman to decide whether to become pregnant, to decide
to continue her pregnancy, or to make the decision to terminate her
pregnancy is protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has
determined that neither Congress nor a state may place an ``undue
burden'' on that right. Denial of Medicaid or other government funding
that would be available for other medical procedures should be
considered an ``undue burden.'' For decades, Congress has imposed the
Hyde Amendment on every appropriations bill. This language
disproportionately impacts poor women and women of color, effectively
denying them their constitutional right to access abortion. Yet today,
Republicans want to make that language permanent.
As unjust and despicable as the Hyde Amendment is, this bill goes
beyond it. For the first time, Republicans are restricting the right of
women to use their own money to pay for abortions. This bill will deny
normal tax deductions for medical expenses if those expenses include
abortion, normal tax credits for health insurance if that insurance
includes abortion, and denying the ability to use tax-free money from
an FSA or HSA for an abortion.
The bill does include an exception in cases of rape, incest, or the
life of the mother. You may ask, how the IRS will know a woman's reason
for getting an abortion. Well, under this bill, women will have to
prove they are a victim of rape or incest or will have to provide
detailed medical records to determine just how at risk their life was.
Women will not only have to suffer the trauma of a sexual assault or
the loss of a pregnancy because of life-threatening complications, they
will now also have to face an IRS inquisition to get their own money
back. So much for Republicans' pledge to get ``big government'' out of
people's lives.
The intent of this bill is obvious: to end insurance coverage for all
abortions thereby making it nearly impossible for women to exercise
their constitutional rights. Republicans are clearly out of step with
the millions of women who marched to protect their rights this weekend.
Those women, and the millions more who stand with them, are watching
and ready to fight back. I am proud to vote against this bill and to
join their fight.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, these are the faces of innocent and
wonderful women like Dakota and Chenoa, who indicate that, if they did
not have Planned Parenthood, they would not be able to be where they
are today, or Chenoa, who indicated, without Planned Parenthood and the
Affordable Care Act, they wouldn't have access to health care.
That is what H.R. 7 intends to do, to deny these young, beautiful
women an opportunity. But more importantly, my colleagues on the other
side want to suggest they only--they only--have religion and faith. But
as a mother, let me say that every child I have loved and every woman
who has had a decision to make I have loved and respected for her
choice of a faith, her God, and her doctor.
Rather than having this war on women by Republicans, we need to be
dealing with the voting rights law. Rather than prohibiting individuals
from receiving a refundable tax credit on cost-sharing reductions for
purchasing a qualified health plan that encourages coverage for
abortions or denying the District of Columbia their rights, we should
be standing for rights. This is a constitutional right. It is also a
choice by a woman of her God, her doctor, and her family.
Vote against H.R. 7. It is violence against women. It is not helping
women or the unborn child.
Madam Speaker, I rise again in strong opposition to H.R. 7, the so-
called ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.''
I oppose this bill because it is unnecessary, puts the lives of women
at risk, interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed right of
privacy, and diverts our attention from the real problems facing the
American people.
A more accurate short title for this bill would be the ``Violating
the Rights of Women Act of 2017.''
Instead of resuming their annual War on Women, our colleagues across
the aisle should be working with Democrats to build upon the ``Middle-
Class Economics'' championed by the Obama Administration that have
succeeded in ending the economic meltdown it inherited in 2009 and
revived the economy to the point where today we have the highest rate
of growth and lowest rate of unemployment since the boom years of the
Clinton Administration.
We could and should instead be voting to raise the minimum wage to
$15.00 per hour so that people who work hard and play by the rules do
not have to raise their families in poverty.
A far better use of our time would be to provide help to unemployed
job-hunters by making access to community college affordable to every
person looking to make a new start in life.
Instead of voting to abridge the constitutional rights of women for
the umpteenth time, we should bring to the floor for a first vote
comprehensive immigration reform legislation or legislations repairing
the harm to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court's
decision in Shelby County v. Holder.
Madam Speaker, the one thing we should not be doing is debating
irresponsible ``messaging bills'' that abridge the rights of women and
have absolutely no chance of overriding a presidential veto.
The version of H.R. 7 before us now is as bad today as it was when
the House Republican leadership insisted on bringing it to a vote a
year ago.
The other draconian provisions of that terrible bill are retained in
H.R. 7, which would:
1. Prohibit federal funds from being used for any health benefits
coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Thus making permanent
existing federal policies.)
2. Prohibit the inclusion of abortion in any health care service
furnished by a federal or District of Columbia health care facility or
by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government
or the District.
3. Apply such prohibitions to District of Columbia funds.
4. Prohibit individuals from receiving a refundable federal tax
credit, or any cost-sharing reductions, for purchasing a qualified
health plan that includes coverage for abortions.
5. Prohibit small employers from receiving the small-employer health
insurance credit provided by the health care law if the health plans or
benefits that are purchased provide abortion coverage.
If H.R. 7 were enacted, millions of families and small businesses
with private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage would
be faced with tax increases, making the cost of health care insurance
even more expensive.
Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are able to offer abortion
coverage and receive
[[Page H643]]
federal offsets for premiums as long as enrollees pay for the abortion
coverage from separate, private funds.
If enacted, H.R. 7 would deny federal subsidies or credits to private
health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage even if that
coverage is paid for from private funds.
This would inevitably lead to private health insurance companies
dropping abortion coverage leaving millions of women without access to
affordable, comprehensive health care.
Currently, 87% of private insurance health care plans offered through
employers cover abortion.
If H.R. 7 were to become law, consumer options for private health
insurance plans would be unnecessarily restricted and the tax burden on
these policy holders would increase significantly.
H.R. 7 would also deny tax credits to small businesses that offer
their employees insurance plans that cover abortion, which would have a
significant impact on millions of families across the nation who would
no longer be able to take advantage of existing tax credits and
deductions for the cost of their health care.
For example, small businesses that offer health plans that cover
abortions would no longer be eligible for the Small Business Health Tax
Credit--potentially worth 35%-50% of the cost of their premiums--
threatening 4 million small businesses.
Self-employed Americans who are able to deduct the cost of their
comprehensive health insurance from their taxable income will also be
denied similar tax credits and face higher taxes.
H R. 7 would also undermine the District of Columbia's home rule by
restricting its use of funds for abortion care to low-income women.
The Hyde Amendment stipulates that no taxpayer dollars are to be used
for abortion care, and has narrow exceptions for rape, incest, and
health complications that arise from pregnancy which put the mother's
life in danger.
H.R. 7 would restrict women's access to reproductive health care even
further by narrowing the already stringent requirements set forth in
the Hyde Amendment.
When the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the President
issued an Executive Order to ``ensure that Federal funds are not used
for abortion services.''
This version of H.R. 7 goes far beyond the safeguards established
under the Affordable Care Act, and sets a dangerous precedent for the
future of women's reproductive health in this country because it
includes two new provisions that were added at the 11th hour but have
never received a hearing or a mark-up.
These new provisions would (1) ban abortion coverage in multi-state
health plans available under the ACA; and (2) mandate that health plans
mislead consumers about abortion coverage by requiring all plans in the
health-insurance exchanges that include abortion coverage to display
that fact prominently in all advertising, marketing materials, or
information from the insurer but interestingly, does not require the
same disclosure from plans that do not cover abortion.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 would also force health plans to mislead
consumers about the law's treatment of abortion.
As a concession to anti-choice lawmakers, the ACA requires insurance
plans participating in the new health system to segregate monies used
for abortion services from all other funds.
In order to aid in identifying these funds and simplify the process
of segregating general premium dollars from those used to cover
abortion services, the ACA requires that health plans estimate the cost
of abortion coverage at no less than $1 per enrollee per month.
H.R. 7 would require plans covering abortion to misrepresent this
practice as an ``abortion surcharge,'' which is to be disclosed and
identified as a portion of the consumer's premium.
By describing abortion coverage in this way, H.R. 7 makes it look as
though it is an added, extra cost, available only at an additional fee,
when in fact it is not.
Taken together, the provisions in H.R. 7 have the effect, and
possibly the intent, of arbitrarily infringing women's reproductive
freedoms and pose a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of
American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in
Roe v. Wade.
Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of this bill is
that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of
circumstances.
Women like Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water
broke. Tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a
premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved
viability.
This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a
shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move
limbs. In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to
the face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to develop beyond the
22-week point.
There was less than a 10% chance that, if born, Danielle's baby would
be able to breathe on its own and only a 2% chance the baby would be
able to eat on its own.
H.R. 7 hurts women like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered
months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from
several major anomalies and had no chance of survival. Because of
Vikki's diabetes, her doctor determined that induced labor and
Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an
abortion.
Every pregnancy is different. No politician knows, or has the right
to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her family.
These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in
consultation with their partners, doctors, and their God.
H.R. 7 lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life
of the mother.
H.R. 7 is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy,
as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases going back
to Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade decided in 1973.
In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could not prohibit a
woman from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to
protect her health prior to viability.
While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus
of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not
occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation.
Supreme Court precedents make it clear that neither Congress nor a
state legislature can declare any one element--``be it weeks of
gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor--as the
determinant'' of viability. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89
(1979).
The constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right
of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even
later where continuing to term poses a threat to her health and safety.
This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate.
The bill before us threatens this hard won right for women and must
be defeated.
I urge all members to join me in opposing the bill.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Madam Speaker, I stand with women and men
across our country in opposition to H.R. 7, the latest effort from
Republican leaders to take the opportunity for women to make choices
about their own healthcare decisions.
This weekend, my colleagues and I marched arm in arm with our
constituents in women's marches across the country. I heard these
Americans, and if you were listening, you would have heard them say,
``my body, my choice''; ``her body, her choice.'' This bill ignores the
voices of women and male feminists in the United States.
Particularly disturbing, H.R. 7 prevents small businesses that use
ACA tax credits from using them to pay for comprehensive health
coverage for their employees that includes abortion services. Passage
of this bill means the government, whom my colleagues claim is too big,
will dramatically expand its role in a woman's healthcare decision.
As we have seen time and time again, restrictions like these
disproportionately affect low-income women, younger women, and women of
color. All women deserve the ability to make their own healthcare
decisions without government interference. It is her body. It is her
choice.
I urge my colleagues to recognize the intrusive, unfair, and unequal
consequences of H.R. 7.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Barragan), another one of our new, wonderful Members.
Ms. BARRAGAN. Madam Speaker, women's reproductive rights are under
attack. We have heard today H.R. 7 disproportionately affects women of
color and low-income women, like my family.
Growing up in Carson, California, my two older sisters got pregnant
as teenagers--one at 15 and one at 16--so I know from my own family
experience and personal experience the importance of being able to make
your own choices for your own body and your own beliefs. As a teenager
without health insurance, I, like many women in my community, relied on
services like Planned Parenthood to access contraception, which I would
not have been able to afford otherwise.
[[Page H644]]
Despite what the other side claims, taxpayer dollars do not fund
abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or to preserve the life of a
mother. Like millions of other women, I am grateful for these services
and the opportunity to make decisions that are right for me. I oppose
the attack on women's reproductive rights.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Deutch).
Mr. DEUTCH. Madam Speaker, on Saturday, I proudly stood shoulder to
shoulder with thousands of strong women and their allies in south
Florida. It was one of hundreds of demonstrations across the country
and the globe, millions of people in the streets sending a loud message
that rang out all across the world.
But the GOP majority has chosen to ignore the calls for women to be
able to control their own bodies and their own health care. This bill
says to American women: your bodies, Washington's rules.
The majority uses talking points about getting Washington out of
health care when they are fighting to kick 32 million people off their
insurance, but when it comes to women's bodies, House Republicans are
happy to step between a woman and her doctor.
As a man, I have never had to drive across State lines to find a
doctor. I have never had my doctor silenced about a medical procedure.
As a man, I have never had to endure an invasive and unnecessary
procedure to satisfy someone else's twisted political desires. These
experiences are all too common for women in America today.
While I and my male colleagues in Congress get to have an open and
honest relationship with our doctors, this bill will deepen the ugly
fight against women's control of their own bodies. Reproductive rights
are women's rights and must be respected. Show that respect by voting
``no'' on H.R. 7.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, the fad,
apparently, this week, is the idea of alternative facts. In other
words, if politicians don't like the facts that they have been given or
the reality of the situation, then what we should do is we should just
come up with new facts; and apparently, the facts in this bill are
that, apparently, the other side is worried about taxpayer funding for
abortions.
As we have said repeatedly, we don't like this on this side of the
aisle, but right now, because of the annual Hyde amendment, there is no
taxpayer funding for abortion. We aim to change that because it is
probably the most regressive legislation that we have for women's
health.
{time} 1530
It says that rich women can get the full range of healthcare services
they need, including abortion; but poor women, the women least equipped
to be able to raise unwanted children, and certainly not with help from
this Congress, are the ones who cannot get those services that they
needed.
So I just want to say one more time because I keep hearing the
alternative facts over and over, there are right now no taxpayer
funding for abortions, something that we need to fix. But this bill
takes us the opposite direction. What this bill does is it codifies the
Hyde amendment in statute once and for all, and that would bar low-
income women from receiving these much-needed services. It codifies the
D.C. abortion ban, which would rob the D.C. City Council of giving the
healthcare services D.C. women need, even with D.C. tax revenues. It
codifies the Helms amendment, which is the same thing as the Hyde
amendment for international programs. And perhaps the biggest ban here
is it restricts people's ability to buy insurance policies on the
healthcare exchanges with their own money that will cover abortion.
I heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle over and
over again that there are a thousand policies. The lady from South
Dakota said that government dollars were supporting abortive
procedures. That is just simply not the case. There is no Federal money
in the exchanges paying for abortive procedures.
What this bill does is it greatly expands restrictions on women's
ability with their own money to buy insurance policies with legal
healthcare coverage that they feel that they need. And it says that if
you get a subsidy, then you can't get a policy with your own money.
That is a vast expansion, and it is well beyond the pale.
It is also, by the way, beyond what the American public says. Because
the American public, by 86 percent, says that if you are poor, then
politicians should not put their personal views on you and you should
be able to get the healthcare coverage that you need. We saw this with
the millions of American women and men in Washington and around the
country who marched this last weekend. But we see it in the polling.
People say, if you are poor, you should be able to get the healthcare
coverage you need, not what some politician in Washington tells you.
I have an idea. Every year, around the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and
the time that the protestors come to Washington, I don't think that we
should debate this futile exercise year after year. I think we should
come together across the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, to figure
out how we can prevent unwanted pregnancies.
I am getting ready to introduce a bill. I would urge my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle, including the Republican side, to cosponsor
this bill. This bill will expand contraception and family planning
services and long-range contraception for all American women so that we
can prevent unwanted pregnancies.
In Colorado, we have a program that is called LARC. And what it is is
a program where the State helps teen and young women get long-acting
contraception so they can prevent unwanted pregnancies. And here is
what happened in Colorado when we enacted this very robust and helpful
program. According to the data from the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment, both the birth rate and abortion rate for women
ages 15 to 19 fell 48 percent from 2009 to 2014 because of long-acting
contraception, and the same was true for women of the next age group
up.
We can do this. We can do this together. Let's start talking about a
way to improve women's health instead of to restrict their choices.
Vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TED LIEU of California. Madam Speaker, I will vote No on Roll
Call No. 65, on H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and
Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017.
Today, just two days after the 44th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade
Supreme Court ruling that protects the rights of women to control their
own bodies, House Republicans have once again taken up a vote attacking
the constitutionally-protected reproductive rights of women all across
the nation.
As if this past weekend's Women's March on Washington (which was far
more attended than President Trump's own inauguration) didn't signal
anything to our elected leaders, President Trump took the GOP's war on
women's rights and health a step further by signing an executive order
reinstating the `global gag rule' and blocking foreign aid for
international non-governmental organizations that provide basic
reproductive health services globally. This decision not only increases
abortion rates, it will cause more maternal complications, injuries,
and unintended pregnancies and provide less information on HIV/AIDS
prevention and treatment programs worldwide.
Republicans continue their shameful, radical assault on women's
reproductive health with today's vote on H.R. 7, a discriminatory bill
that among other things would prohibit the use of federal funds to pay
for any abortion services. Despite the fact that current law already
requires that federal funds not be spent on abortions, this bill would
prohibit individuals and small businesses from claiming tax credits for
any private insurance plans obtained through the ACA Marketplace that
include abortion coverage. Families buying their insurance in the
Marketplace would also be ineligible to receive a premium tax credits
if they enrolled in a health plan that covers abortion, likely
resulting in no abortion coverage policies being offered in the
Marketplaces. Furthermore, it undermines the District of Columbia's
home rule, which allows D.C. to use its own Medicaid funds to offer
abortion services. This is despite the fact that 17 states, including
California, are currently allowed to do so.
Women should be able to make their own decisions about reproductive
health care with dignity and respect, without the interference of
politicians or their employers. We should not be in the business of
telling women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.
Today's vote is just another step forward in the
[[Page H645]]
Republican party's plan to Make America Sick Again and take away the
comprehensive care women deserve.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this
rule. This is about a woman's fundamental right to make her own family
planning decisions. The courts have spoken: Roe v. Wade is settled law,
and a majority of Americans support it. But the Majority would rather
roll back the clock by decades, forcing women back into a reality when
women could not make their own health care decisions, by restricting
insurance coverage. Enough is enough.
We must promote and protect the rights of every woman, every family,
every American to make their own family planning decisions, and to have
access to a full range of healthcare services.
What we are facing now is not just an attack on the right to
abortion. It is not just an attack on women's health. It is an assault
on the health and wellbeing of millions of Americans. On Saturday,
millions of people across the country marched in support of an agenda
that puts women's health decisions in the hands of women and their
families--and that ensures safe and affordable access to women's
healthcare. This bill flies in the face of the mandate demonstrated
this weekend, and I oppose it.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7,
the so-called ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act and Abortion
Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017.''
The Majority marks the 44th anniversary of Roe v. Wade this week with
its latest attempt to undo that decision's unequivocal recognition of a
woman's constitutionally protected right to choose to terminate a
pregnancy.
We must recognize this bill for what it really is. H.R. 7 is yet
another attack by the Majority on women's health, a goal it
accomplishes in several respects.
To begin with, H.R. 7 would make it virtually impossible for a woman
to obtain abortion services even when paid for with purely private,
non-Federal funds.
It achieves this end by denying Affordable Care Act tax credits to
income-eligible women and small business employers who choose insurance
coverage that includes abortion.
Through its novel tax penalty provisions, H.R. 7 departs radically
from existing law, taking away women's existing health care and placing
their health and lives at risk.
Despite the claims of its sponsors, H.R. 7 does not merely codify
current law, but, rather, goes well beyond it to deny women basic
health care services.
Moreover, to the extent it bans federal funding of abortion services,
H.R. 7 is unnecessary, because such funding is already banned by the
Hyde Amendment, and the Affordable Care Act maintains that ban.
For more than 30 years, Congress has prohibited federal funding of
abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the
mother, through the Hyde Amendment and similar measures in annual
appropriations bills.
Nothing in the Affordable Care Act changes this. That Act does not
permit federal funding of abortion, and ensures that only private funds
can be used to purchase abortion insurance coverage.
There is absolutely no risk that public money will be used to pay for
abortion services.
So what is H.R. 7 really about? Plain and simple, it is part of the
Majority's relentless war against women's health and constitutional
freedoms.
Members should understand that a vote for H.R. 7 is not a vote to
codify existing law. It is, instead, a vote to attack women's health
and equality.
Finally, we should reject H.R. 7's permanent restriction on the
District of Columbia's use of local funds that Congress has approved.
H.R. 7 not only infringes women's constitutional rights, but also
intrudes deeply into local government decision-making by the District.
Women and families who live in the District should not be singled out
for additional harm simply because of where they live.
Last Congress, the Obama Administration ``strongly oppose[d]'' a
substantially similar bill, saying the legislation ``would intrude on
women's reproductive freedom and access to health care; increase the
financial burden on many Americans; [and] unnecessarily restrict the
private insurance choices that consumers have today.''
I agree wholeheartedly with that analysis and, accordingly, I
strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
7--another radical attempt by House Republicans to attack women's
health and limit women's access to comprehensive care.
The real purpose of this bill is to effectively eliminate insurance
coverage for abortion services, not only for federally funded coverage,
but also for private health insurance by raising taxes on women, their
families, and small businesses.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this bill
just codifies the Hyde Amendment, which already prohibits federal
funding for abortion except in limited cases of rape, incest, or to
save the life of the mother, and it is already enacted each year in
appropriations.
But in reality, this bill goes much further than that. Instead of
just limiting the Hyde Amendment's reach to federal funds, this bill
would place sweeping restrictions on how women with private insurance
can spend their own private dollars when obtaining insurance coverage.
Women and their families who have insurance through the health
insurance marketplaces would no longer be entitled to premium tax
credits if the plan in which they are enrolled includes abortion
coverage. Small business employers would be prohibited from receiving
small business tax credits if the insurance provided to employees
includes abortion services.
This would mean that women would likely forgo comprehensive coverage
in order to retain the premium tax credits they need, and small
businesses may limit coverage to ensure they receive small business tax
credits. But this is the true goal for proponents of this bill: to
effectively eliminate insurance coverage for abortion.
As we speak, Republicans are actively working to dismantle the
Affordable Care Act, to restrict access to contraception, and to defund
the life-saving health care services provided by Planned Parenthood. It
seems that this bill is another page in their playbook to attack
women's health. Let me be clear: this bill isn't about ensuring federal
finds are not used for abortion--this bill is about denying women
access to coverage Republicans disagree with.
Bringing this bill to the floor only days after millions of women
throughout the country marched on behalf of issues like reproductive
rights just shows how tone-deaf House Republicans continue to be.
We should be working to protect and expand women's access to
comprehensive health care, not considering ways to deny it.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my
opposition to H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.
Longstanding federal policy explicitly prohibits the use of federal
funds for abortions, except for certain narrow circumstances of rape,
incest, or severe health complications that threaten the life of the
mother.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) maintains this ban and a federal
appeals court confirmed that no federal dollars may be used to pay for
abortion services under the law.
Far more sweeping in scope than the title implies, the No Taxpayer
Funding for Abortion Act goes well beyond codifying the Hyde Amendment
and protecting public funds.
This bill intrudes on women's reproductive autonomy and access to
health care, manipulates the tax code to put additional financial
burdens on many women and small businesses, and unnecessarily restricts
the private insurance choices available to consumers today.
The House of Representatives should be spending our time working to
improve access to health care for all Americans, instead of deceptive
legislation that interferes with a woman's ability to make personal,
private medical decisions.
I urge my colleagues to stop the relentless attacks on women's health
and vote against this damaging, unnecessary legislation.
Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I was proud to join thousands of women
in the Women's March, both here in DC and in my home state of Rhode
Island.
We marched to demand that women's rights be respected and that women
should be trusted to make their own decisions.
However, a mere three days later, the GOP seeks to trample on women's
rights by considering H.R. 7, a bill that will deny access to basic
healthcare to millions of women.
This bill is also just another pathetic attempt by some politicians
in this town to get between a woman and her doctor.
Under current law, no federal money can be used to fund abortion. And
it's been that way since 1976.
This bill is a Trojan horse that effectively bans abortion coverage
even for women who use their own money to pay for health insurance.
It penalizes small business owners who offer their employees health
care coverage for abortion.
And it tells doctors who are employed by the federal government that
they can't provide the care that is in the best interests of their
patients.
Madam Speaker, the women of this country do not need Congress telling
them how to make their health care decisions.
Having an abortion is a decision that should be left between a woman
and her doctor.
None of us has a license to legislate our own personal morality in
this chamber.
[[Page H646]]
I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 7.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 55, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
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.
Motion to Recommit
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the
desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes, I am opposed to the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Schakowsky moves to recommit the bill H.R. 7 to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Add at the end of title I the following new section (and
amend the table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 103. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act may be construed to permit any health
plan to charge women higher premiums than men for coverage
under such health plan.
Mrs. BLACK (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise to offer the motion to recommit
on H.R. 7, the so-called No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion
Insurance Full Disclosure Act.
The motion to recommit is very simple. It would amend H.R. 7 to say
that nothing in this legislation would allow an insurance company to
charge women higher premiums than men just because they are women.
In the first few days of the Trump Presidency, we have seen one
action after another to discriminate against women, restrict access to
health services, and make their care more expensive. We also know that
Republicans are determined to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which
would, once again, allow insurance companies to discriminate against
women.
Repealing the ACA would be a triple whammy for women. Not only would
they have to pay more for their insurance, but their insurance would be
less likely to cover the services they need. And these higher costs
will take a bigger chunk out of their budget.
Before the ACA, insurers were able to exclude services critical to
women's health. And we are not just talking about preexisting
conditions, which, by the way, often included having a baby or being
the victim of domestic violence.
The benefit package itself left out medical care critical to women.
Only 12 percent of plans in the individual market offered maternity
coverage. And some insurance plans that offered that coverage imposed
waiting periods of a year or charges of up to $10,000 just for
maternity care. And even when maternity care was excluded from any
insurance plan, insurers still used gender rating to discriminate
against women, charging women more just because they were women,
regardless of their benefits. Being a woman was a preexisting
condition.
Thankfully, the ACA prohibits gender rating. Before the ACA, women
were forced to pay between 10 to 57 percent more than men for
essentially the same insurance. In my home State of Illinois, women
were charged 55 percent more than men for the same coverage. In fact, a
2012 National Women's Law Center study found that 92 percent of best-
selling insurance plans were gender rated.
A 25-year-old woman in Arkansas was charged 81 percent more than a
man for similar coverage. A 40-year-old woman in South Dakota was
charged over $1,200 more a year than a 40-year-old man for the same
coverage. In Kentucky, women were charged 57 percent more than men for
the same coverage. In Texas, they were charged 56 percent more. In
Indiana, they were charged 54 percent more. And the list goes on.
This study even found that over half of all insurance plans charged
women who didn't smoke significantly higher premiums than men of the
same age who did smoke. Overall, gender rating cost American women
about $1 billion a year. It also harmed businesses with predominantly
female employees who were routinely charged more for their insurance
coverage.
Finally, charging women more for health care is even more devastating
when you take into account that women still make only 77 cents to the
dollar compared to men. We cannot go back to the days when insurance
companies were free to discriminate against women. But that is exactly
what Republicans want to do. They want women to pay more for insurance
coverage that doesn't include the services they need.
So I am asking my colleagues to support the motion to recommit and
protect women from discrimination by insurance companies.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Tennessee is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, today I am simply asking my colleagues
across the aisle not to flip-flop on this issue. This legislation isn't
just the right thing to do; it also has broad support.
Polling shows that 6 in 10 Americans agree that taxpayer dollars
should not fund abortions. Despite this fact, a nonpartisan government
study found that abortions could be funded with taxpayer dollars
through ObamaCare, and this demands a response.
Today we have an opportunity to invest in women's health over
abortion by passing H.R. 7 and making the Hyde amendment permanent and
governmentwide.
I urge my colleagues to reject this motion to recommit and to vote
``yes'' on H.R. 7.
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.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________