[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 117 (Friday, July 15, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H6631-H6647]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 WOMEN'S HEALTH PROTECTION ACT OF 2022

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1224, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 8296) to protect a person's ability to determine 
whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care 
provider's ability to provide abortion services, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 8296

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Women's Health Protection 
     Act of 2022''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) On June 24, 2022, in its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson 
     Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court overruled Roe 
     v. Wade, reversing decades of precedent recognizing the 
     constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before fetal 
     viability, and to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability 
     where it is necessary, in the good-faith medical judgment of 
     the treating health care professional, for the preservation 
     of the life or health of the person who is pregnant.
       (2) In their joint dissent, Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and 
     Kagan write, ``[The majority] says that from the very moment 
     of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. A State 
     can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the 
     steepest personal and familial costs.''.
       (3) The dissenting Justices continue, ``The Mississippi law 
     at issue here bars abortions after the 15th week of 
     pregnancy. Under the majority's ruling, though, another 
     State's law could do so after ten weeks, or five or three or 
     one--or, again, from the moment of fertilization. States have 
     already passed such laws, in anticipation of today's ruling. 
     More will follow.''.
       (4) The dissenting Justices also stated, ``one result of 
     [the] decision is certain; the curtailment of women's rights, 
     and of their status as free and equal citizens.''.
       (5) Indeed, some States acted to ban abortion outright in 
     the immediate aftermath of the Dobbs decision, with half the 
     States in the country expected to ban abortion entirely in 
     the days and weeks to come.
       (6) Even before Roe was overturned, access to abortion 
     services had been obstructed across the United States in 
     various ways, including blockades of health care facilities

[[Page H6632]]

     and associated violence, prohibitions of, and restrictions 
     on, insurance coverage; parental involvement laws 
     (notification and consent); restrictions that shame and 
     stigmatize people seeking abortion services; and medically 
     unnecessary regulations that neither confer any health 
     benefit nor further the safety of abortion services, but 
     which harm people by delaying, complicating access to, and 
     reducing the availability of, abortion services.
       (7) Abortion services are essential to health care, and 
     access to those services is central to people's ability to 
     participate equally in the economic and social life of the 
     United States. Abortion access allows people who are pregnant 
     to make their own decisions about their pregnancies, their 
     families, and their lives.
       (8) Reproductive justice requires every individual to have 
     the right to make their own decisions about having children 
     regardless of their circumstances and without interference 
     and discrimination. Reproductive Justice is a human right 
     that can and will be achieved when all people, regardless of 
     actual or perceived race, color, national origin, immigration 
     status, sex (including gender identity, sex stereotyping, or 
     sexual orientation), age, or disability status have the 
     economic, social, and political power and resources to define 
     and make decisions about their bodies, health, sexuality, 
     families, and communities in all areas of their lives, with 
     dignity and self-determination.
       (9) Reproductive justice seeks to address restrictions on 
     reproductive health, including abortion, that perpetuate 
     systems of oppression, lack of bodily autonomy, white 
     supremacy, and anti-Black racism. This violent legacy has 
     manifested in policies including enslavement, rape, and 
     experimentation on Black women; forced sterilizations; 
     medical experimentation on low-income women's reproductive 
     systems; and the forcible removal of Indigenous children. 
     Access to equitable reproductive health care, including 
     abortion services, has always been deficient in the United 
     States for Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color 
     (BIPOC) and their families.
       (10) The legacy of restrictions on reproductive health, 
     rights, and justice is not a dated vestige of a dark history. 
     Presently, the harms of abortion-specific restrictions fall 
     especially heavily on people with low incomes, BIPOC, 
     immigrants, young people, people with disabilities, and those 
     living in rural and other medically underserved areas. 
     Abortion-specific restrictions are even more compounded by 
     the ongoing criminalization of people who are pregnant, 
     including those who are incarcerated, living with HIV, or 
     with substance-use disorders. These communities already 
     experience health disparities due to social, political, and 
     environmental inequities, and restrictions on abortion 
     services exacerbate these harms. Removing medically 
     unjustified restrictions on abortion services would 
     constitute one important step on the path toward realizing 
     Reproductive Justice by ensuring that the full range of 
     reproductive health care is accessible to all who need it.
       (11) Abortion-specific restrictions are a tool of gender 
     oppression, as they target health care services that are used 
     primarily by women. These paternalistic restrictions rely on 
     and reinforce harmful stereotypes about gender roles, women's 
     decision-making, and women's need for protection instead of 
     support, undermining their ability to control their own lives 
     and well-being. These restrictions harm the basic autonomy, 
     dignity, and equality of women, and their ability to 
     participate in the social and economic life of the Nation.
       (12) The terms ``woman'' and ``women'' are used in this 
     bill to reflect the identity of the majority of people 
     targeted and affected by restrictions on abortion services, 
     and to address squarely the targeted restrictions on 
     abortion, which are rooted in misogyny. However, access to 
     abortion services is critical to the health of every person 
     capable of becoming pregnant. This Act is intended to protect 
     all people with the capacity for pregnancy--cisgender women, 
     transgender men, non-binary individuals, those who identify 
     with a different gender, and others--who are unjustly harmed 
     by restrictions on abortion services.
       (13) Since 2011, States and local governments have passed 
     nearly 500 restrictions singling out health care providers 
     who offer abortion services, interfering with their ability 
     to provide those services and the patients' ability to obtain 
     those services.
       (14) Many State and local governments have imposed 
     restrictions on the provision of abortion services that are 
     neither evidence-based nor generally applicable to the 
     medical profession or to other medically comparable 
     outpatient gynecological procedures, such as endometrial 
     ablations, dilation and curettage for reasons other than 
     abortion, hysteroscopies, loop electrosurgical excision 
     procedures, or other analogous non-gynecological procedures 
     performed in similar outpatient settings including vasectomy, 
     sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy.
       (15) Abortion is essential health care and one of the 
     safest medical procedures in the United States. An 
     independent, comprehensive review of the state of science on 
     the safety and quality of abortion services, published by the 
     National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 
     2018, found that abortion in the United States is safe and 
     effective and that the biggest threats to the quality of 
     abortion services in the United States are State regulations 
     that create barriers to care. These abortion-specific 
     restrictions conflict with medical standards and are not 
     supported by the recommendations and guidelines issued by 
     leading reproductive health care professional organizations 
     including the American College of Obstetricians and 
     Gynecologists, the Society of Family Planning, the National 
     Abortion Federation, the World Health Organization, and 
     others.
       (16) Many abortion-specific restrictions do not confer any 
     health or safety benefits on the patient. Instead, these 
     restrictions have the purpose and effect of unduly burdening 
     people's personal and private medical decisions to end their 
     pregnancies by making access to abortion services more 
     difficult, invasive, and costly, often forcing people to 
     travel significant distances and make multiple unnecessary 
     visits to the provider, and in some cases, foreclosing the 
     option altogether. For example, a 2018 report from the 
     University of California San Francisco's Advancing New 
     Standards in Reproductive Health research group found that in 
     27 cities across the United States, people have to travel 
     more than 100 miles in any direction to reach an abortion 
     provider.
       (17) An overwhelming majority of abortions in the United 
     States are provided in clinics, not hospitals, but the large 
     majority of counties throughout the United States have no 
     clinics that provide abortion.
       (18) These restrictions additionally harm people's health 
     by reducing access not only to abortion services but also to 
     other essential health care services offered by many of the 
     providers targeted by the restrictions, including--
       (A) screenings and preventive services, including 
     contraceptive services;
       (B) testing and treatment for sexually transmitted 
     infections;
       (C) LGBTQ health services; and
       (D) referrals for primary care, intimate partner violence 
     prevention, prenatal care and adoption services.
       (19) The cumulative effect of these numerous restrictions 
     has been to severely limit, and now eliminate entirely, the 
     availability of abortion services in some areas, creating a 
     patchwork system where the provision of abortion services is 
     legal in some States and illegal in others. A 2019 report 
     from the Government Accountability Office examining State 
     Medicaid compliance with abortion coverage requirements 
     analyzed seven key challenges (identified both by health care 
     providers and research literature) and their effect on 
     abortion access, and found that access to abortion services 
     varied across the States and even within a State.
       (20) International human rights law recognizes that access 
     to abortion is intrinsically linked to the rights to life, 
     health, equality and non-discrimination, privacy, and freedom 
     from ill-treatment. United Nations (UN) human rights treaty 
     monitoring bodies have found that legal abortion services, 
     like other reproductive health care services, must be 
     available, accessible, affordable, acceptable, and of good 
     quality. UN human rights treaty bodies have likewise 
     condemned medically unnecessary barriers to abortion 
     services, including mandatory waiting periods, biased 
     counseling requirements, and third-party authorization 
     requirements.
       (21) Core human rights treaties ratified by the United 
     States protect access to abortion. For example, in 2018, the 
     UN Human Rights Committee, which oversees implementation of 
     the ICCPR, made clear that the right to life, enshrined in 
     Article 6 of the ICCPR, at a minimum requires governments to 
     provide safe, legal, and effective access to abortion where a 
     person's life and health is at risk, or when carrying a 
     pregnancy to term would cause substantial pain or suffering. 
     The Committee stated that governments must not impose 
     restrictions on abortion which subject women and girls to 
     physical or mental pain or suffering, discriminate against 
     them, arbitrarily interfere with their privacy, or place them 
     at risk of undertaking unsafe abortions. Furthermore, the 
     Committee stated that governments should remove existing 
     barriers that deny effective access to safe and legal 
     abortion, refrain from introducing new barriers to abortion, 
     and prevent the stigmatization of those seeking abortion.
       (22) UN independent human rights experts have expressed 
     particular concern about barriers to abortion services in the 
     United States. For example, at the conclusion of his 2017 
     visit to the United States, the UN Special Rapporteur on 
     extreme poverty and human rights noted concern that low-
     income women face legal and practical obstacles to exercising 
     their constitutional right to access abortion services, 
     trapping many women in cycles of poverty. Similarly, in May 
     2020, the UN Working Group on discrimination against women 
     and girls, along with other human rights experts, expressed 
     concern that some states had manipulated the COVID-19 crisis 
     to restrict access to abortion, which the experts recognized 
     as ``the latest example illustrating a pattern of 
     restrictions and retrogressions in access to legal abortion 
     care across the country'' and reminded U.S. authorities that 
     abortion care constitutes essential health care that must 
     remain available during and after the pandemic. They noted 
     that barriers to abortion access exacerbate systemic 
     inequalities and cause particular harm to marginalized 
     communities, including low-income people, people of color, 
     immigrants, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ people.

[[Page H6633]]

       (23) Abortion-specific restrictions affect the cost and 
     availability of abortion services, and the settings in which 
     abortion services are delivered. People travel across State 
     lines and otherwise engage in interstate commerce to access 
     this essential medical care, and more would be forced to do 
     so absent this Act. Likewise, health care providers travel 
     across State lines and otherwise engage in interstate 
     commerce in order to provide abortion services to patients, 
     and more would be forced to do so absent this Act.
       (24) Health care providers engage in a form of economic and 
     commercial activity when they provide abortion services, and 
     there is an interstate market for abortion services.
       (25) Abortion restrictions substantially affect interstate 
     commerce in numerous ways. For example, to provide abortion 
     services, health care providers engage in interstate commerce 
     to purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary 
     goods and services. To provide and assist others in providing 
     abortion services, health care providers engage in interstate 
     commerce to obtain and provide training. To provide abortion 
     services, health care providers employ and obtain commercial 
     services from doctors, nurses, and other personnel who engage 
     in interstate commerce and travel across State lines.
       (26) It is difficult and time and resource-consuming for 
     clinics to challenge State laws that burden or impede 
     abortion services. Litigation that blocks one abortion 
     restriction may not prevent a State from adopting other 
     similarly burdensome abortion restrictions or using different 
     methods to burden or impede abortion services. There is a 
     history and pattern of States passing successive and 
     different laws that unduly burden abortion services.
       (27) When a health care provider ceases providing abortion 
     services as a result of burdensome and medically unnecessary 
     regulations, it is often difficult or impossible for that 
     health care provider to recommence providing those abortion 
     services, and difficult or impossible for other health care 
     providers to provide abortion services that restore or 
     replace the ceased abortion services.
       (28) Health care providers are subject to license laws in 
     various jurisdictions, which are not affected by this Act 
     except as provided in this Act.
       (29) Congress has the authority to enact this Act to 
     protect abortion services pursuant to--
       (A) its powers under the commerce clause of section 8 of 
     article I of the Constitution of the United States;
       (B) its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment 
     to the Constitution of the United States to enforce the 
     provisions of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment; and
       (C) its powers under the necessary and proper clause of 
     section 8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United 
     States.
       (30) Congress has used its authority in the past to protect 
     access to abortion services and health care providers' 
     ability to provide abortion services. In the early 1990s, 
     protests and blockades at health care facilities where 
     abortion services were provided, and associated violence, 
     increased dramatically and reached crisis level, requiring 
     Congressional action. Congress passed the Freedom of Access 
     to Clinic Entrances Act (Public Law 103-259; 108 Stat. 694) 
     to address that situation and protect physical access to 
     abortion services.
       (31) Congressional action is necessary to put an end to 
     harmful restrictions, to federally protect access to abortion 
     services for everyone regardless of where they live, and to 
     protect the ability of health care providers to provide these 
     services in a safe and accessible manner.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act--
       (1) to permit health care providers to provide abortion 
     services without limitations or requirements that single out 
     the provision of abortion services for restrictions that are 
     more burdensome than those restrictions imposed on medically 
     comparable procedures, do not significantly advance 
     reproductive health or the safety of abortion services, and 
     make abortion services more difficult to access;
       (2) to promote access to abortion services and women's 
     ability to participate equally in the economic and social 
     life of the United States; and
       (3) to invoke Congressional authority, including the powers 
     of Congress under the commerce clause of section 8 of article 
     I of the Constitution of the United States, its powers under 
     section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of 
     the United States to enforce the provisions of section 1 of 
     the Fourteenth Amendment, and its powers under the necessary 
     and proper clause of section 8 of article I of the 
     Constitution of the United States.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Abortion services.--The term ``abortion services'' 
     means an abortion and any medical or non-medical services 
     related to and provided in conjunction with an abortion 
     (whether or not provided at the same time or on the same day 
     as the abortion).
       (2) Government.--The term ``government'' includes each 
     branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official of 
     the United States or a State.
       (3) Health care provider.--The term ``health care 
     provider'' means any entity or individual (including any 
     physician, certified nurse-midwife, nurse practitioner, and 
     physician assistant) that--
       (A) is engaged or seeks to engage in the delivery of health 
     care services, including abortion services; and
       (B) if required by law or regulation to be licensed or 
     certified to engage in the delivery of such services--
       (i) is so licensed or certified; or
       (ii) would be so licensed or certified but for their past, 
     present, or potential provision of abortion services 
     permitted by section 4.
       (4) Medically comparable procedure.--The term ``medically 
     comparable procedures'' means medical procedures that are 
     similar in terms of health and safety risks to the patient, 
     complexity, or the clinical setting that is indicated.
       (5) Pregnancy.--The term ``pregnancy'' refers to the period 
     of the human reproductive process beginning with the 
     implantation of a fertilized egg.
       (6) State.--The term ``State'' includes the District of 
     Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory 
     and possession of the United States, and any subdivision of 
     any of the foregoing, including any unit of local government, 
     such as a county, city, town, village, or other general 
     purpose political subdivision of a State.
       (7) Viability.--The term ``viability'' means the point in a 
     pregnancy at which, in the good-faith medical judgment of the 
     treating health care provider, based on the particular facts 
     of the case before the health care provider, there is a 
     reasonable likelihood of sustained fetal survival outside the 
     uterus with or without artificial support.

     SEC. 4. PERMITTED SERVICES.

       (a) General Rule.--A health care provider has a statutory 
     right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may 
     provide abortion services, and that provider's patient has a 
     corresponding right to receive such services, without any of 
     the following limitations or requirements:
       (1) A requirement that a health care provider perform 
     specific tests or medical procedures in connection with the 
     provision of abortion services, unless generally required for 
     the provision of medically comparable procedures.
       (2) A requirement that the same health care provider who 
     provides abortion services also perform specified tests, 
     services, or procedures prior to or subsequent to the 
     abortion.
       (3) A requirement that a health care provider offer or 
     provide the patient seeking abortion services medically 
     inaccurate information in advance of or during abortion 
     services.
       (4) A limitation on a health care provider's ability to 
     prescribe or dispense drugs based on current evidence-based 
     regimens or the provider's good-faith medical judgment, other 
     than a limitation generally applicable to the medical 
     profession.
       (5) A limitation on a health care provider's ability to 
     provide abortion services via telemedicine, other than a 
     limitation generally applicable to the provision of medical 
     services via telemedicine.
       (6) A requirement or limitation concerning the physical 
     plant, equipment, staffing, or hospital transfer arrangements 
     of facilities where abortion services are provided, or the 
     credentials or hospital privileges or status of personnel at 
     such facilities, that is not imposed on facilities or the 
     personnel of facilities where medically comparable procedures 
     are performed.
       (7) A requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a 
     patient make one or more medically unnecessary in-person 
     visits to the provider of abortion services or to any 
     individual or entity that does not provide abortion services.
       (8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in 
     time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or 
     restriction on a particular abortion procedure.
       (9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, 
     in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health 
     care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a 
     risk to the pregnant patient's life or health.
       (10) A limitation on a health care provider's ability to 
     provide immediate abortion services when that health care 
     provider believes, based on the good-faith medical judgment 
     of the provider, that delay would pose a risk to the 
     patient's health.
       (11) A requirement that a patient seeking abortion services 
     at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability 
     disclose the patient's reason or reasons for seeking abortion 
     services, or a limitation on the provision or obtaining of 
     abortion services at any point or points in time prior to 
     fetal viability based on any actual, perceived, or potential 
     reason or reasons of the patient for obtaining abortion 
     services, regardless of whether the limitation is based on a 
     health care provider's degree of actual or constructive 
     knowledge of such reason or reasons.
       (b) Other Limitations or Requirements.--The statutory right 
     specified in subsection (a) shall not be limited or otherwise 
     infringed through, in addition to the limitations and 
     requirements specified in paragraphs (1) through (11) of 
     subsection (a), any limitation or requirement that--
       (1) is the same as or similar to one or more of the 
     limitations or requirements described in subsection (a); or
       (2) both--
       (A) expressly, effectively, implicitly, or as implemented 
     singles out the provision of abortion services, health care 
     providers who

[[Page H6634]]

     provide abortion services, or facilities in which abortion 
     services are provided; and
       (B) impedes access to abortion services.
       (c) Factors for Consideration.--Factors a court may 
     consider in determining whether a limitation or requirement 
     impedes access to abortion services for purposes of 
     subsection (b)(2)(B) include the following:
       (1) Whether the limitation or requirement, in a provider's 
     good-faith medical judgment, interferes with a health care 
     provider's ability to provide care and render services, or 
     poses a risk to the patient's health or safety.
       (2) Whether the limitation or requirement is reasonably 
     likely to delay or deter some patients in accessing abortion 
     services.
       (3) Whether the limitation or requirement is reasonably 
     likely to directly or indirectly increase the cost of 
     providing abortion services or the cost for obtaining 
     abortion services (including costs associated with travel, 
     childcare, or time off work).
       (4) Whether the limitation or requirement is reasonably 
     likely to have the effect of necessitating a trip to the 
     offices of a health care provider that would not otherwise be 
     required.
       (5) Whether the limitation or requirement is reasonably 
     likely to result in a decrease in the availability of 
     abortion services in a given State or geographic region.
       (6) Whether the limitation or requirement imposes penalties 
     that are not imposed on other health care providers for 
     comparable conduct or failure to act, or that are more severe 
     than penalties imposed on other health care providers for 
     comparable conduct or failure to act.
       (7) The cumulative impact of the limitation or requirement 
     combined with other new or existing limitations or 
     requirements.
       (d) Exception.--To defend against a claim that a limitation 
     or requirement violates a health care provider's or patient's 
     statutory rights under subsection (b), a party must 
     establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that--
       (1) the limitation or requirement significantly advances 
     the safety of abortion services or the health of patients; 
     and
       (2) the safety of abortion services or the health of 
     patients cannot be advanced by a less restrictive alternative 
     measure or action.

     SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY AND PREEMPTION.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Except as stated under subsection (b), this Act 
     supersedes and applies to the law of the Federal Government 
     and each State government, and the implementation of such 
     law, whether statutory, common law, or otherwise, and whether 
     adopted before or after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and neither the Federal Government nor any State government 
     shall administer, implement, or enforce any law, rule, 
     regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and 
     effect of law that conflicts with any provision of this Act, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, including 
     the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000bb et seq.).
       (2) Federal statutory law adopted after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act is subject to this Act unless such law 
     explicitly excludes such application by reference to this 
     Act.
       (b) Limitations.--The provisions of this Act shall not 
     supersede or apply to--
       (1) laws regulating physical access to clinic entrances;
       (2) insurance or medical assistance coverage of abortion 
     services;
       (3) the procedure described in section 1531(b)(1) of title 
     18, United States Code; or
       (4) generally applicable State contract law.
       (c) Defense.--In any cause of action against an individual 
     or entity who is subject to a limitation or requirement that 
     violates this Act, in addition to the remedies specified in 
     section 8, this Act shall also apply to, and may be raised as 
     a defense by, such an individual or entity.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect immediately upon the date of 
     enactment of this Act. This Act shall apply to all 
     restrictions on the provision of, or access to, abortion 
     services whether the restrictions are enacted or imposed 
     prior to or after the date of enactment of this Act, except 
     as otherwise provided in this Act.

     SEC. 7. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) In General.--In interpreting the provisions of this 
     Act, a court shall liberally construe such provisions to 
     effectuate the purposes of the Act.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to authorize any government to interfere with, 
     diminish, or negatively affect a person's ability to obtain 
     or provide abortion services.
       (c) Other Individuals Considered as Government Officials.--
     Any person who, by operation of a provision of Federal or 
     State law, is permitted to implement or enforce a limitation 
     or requirement that violates section 4 of this Act shall be 
     considered a government official for purposes of this Act.

     SEC. 8. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Attorney General.--The Attorney General may commence a 
     civil action on behalf of the United States against any State 
     that violates, or against any government official (including 
     a person described in section 7(c)) that implements or 
     enforces a limitation or requirement that violates, section 
     4. The court shall hold unlawful and set aside the limitation 
     or requirement if it is in violation of this Act.
       (b) Private Right of Action.--
       (1) In general.--Any individual or entity, including any 
     health care provider or patient, adversely affected by an 
     alleged violation of this Act, may commence a civil action 
     against any State that violates, or against any government 
     official (including a person described in section 7(c)) that 
     implements or enforces a limitation or requirement that 
     violates, section 4. The court shall hold unlawful and set 
     aside the limitation or requirement if it is in violation of 
     this Act.
       (2) Health care provider.--A health care provider may 
     commence an action for relief on its own behalf, on behalf of 
     the provider's staff, and on behalf of the provider's 
     patients who are or may be adversely affected by an alleged 
     violation of this Act.
       (c) Equitable Relief.--In any action under this section, 
     the court may award appropriate equitable relief, including 
     temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief.
       (d) Costs.--In any action under this section, the court 
     shall award costs of litigation, as well as reasonable 
     attorney's fees, to any prevailing plaintiff. A plaintiff 
     shall not be liable to a defendant for costs or attorney's 
     fees in any non-frivolous action under this section.
       (e) Jurisdiction.--The district courts of the United States 
     shall have jurisdiction over proceedings under this Act and 
     shall exercise the same without regard to whether the party 
     aggrieved shall have exhausted any administrative or other 
     remedies that may be provided for by law.
       (f) Abrogation of State Immunity.--Neither a State that 
     enforces or maintains, nor a government official (including a 
     person described in section 7(c)) who is permitted to 
     implement or enforce any limitation or requirement that 
     violates section 4 shall be immune under the Tenth Amendment 
     to the Constitution of the United States, the Eleventh 
     Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or any 
     other source of law, from an action in a Federal or State 
     court of competent jurisdiction challenging that limitation 
     or requirement.

     SEC. 9. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act, or the application of such 
     provision to any person, entity, government, or circumstance, 
     is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or 
     the application of such provision to all other persons, 
     entities, governments, or circumstances, shall not be 
     affected thereby.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour 
equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Mrs. Rodgers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and add extraneous material on H.R. 8296, the Women's Health Protection 
Act of 2022.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 8296, the 
Women's Health Protection Act.
  This bill is necessary now more than ever following the Republican-
controlled Supreme Court's extreme decision ripping away a woman's 
right to abortion. The Court's ideological decision ignored nearly 50 
years of precedent and is the culmination of decades of unrelenting 
efforts by Republican politicians to control women and their bodies.
  The consequences of last month's decision have been swift and severe. 
Already, abortion bans are in effect in nine States, and more than a 
dozen more are expected to either ban or severely limit abortion soon.
  As a result, women are being forced to travel long distances to 
States where abortion remains lawful or, for those who lack logistical 
or financial support to travel, continue pregnancies against their 
wishes. There have been devastating stories of patients being denied 
care and doctors hesitating to provide lifesaving healthcare services 
out of fear of criminalization.
  States have enacted dangerous laws banning abortion without any 
exceptions, inciting citizens to track and report women in need of an 
abortion and criminalizing providers or those assisting someone in 
obtaining care.
  These laws turn back the clock on the health, well-being, and 
equality of women across the Nation. Republicans have made it clear: 
This is just the beginning. Congressional Republicans are

[[Page H6635]]

already pushing a nationwide abortion ban that would criminalize 
abortion in all 50 States.
  That is why this House is acting today on the Women's Health 
Protection Act to restore the right to abortion nationwide. This 
legislation ensures that no matter where you live, you have a right to 
comprehensive healthcare that is free from unnecessary restrictions 
that are intended only to impede access.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to 
protect the right to abortion and ensure that all Americans are 
entitled to make their own healthcare decisions.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, to protect the helpless, most powerless, most innocent 
among us, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8296, the abortion on 
demand until birth act.
  This is not about codifying Roe v. Wade. Why? Because it nationalizes 
abortion for all 9 months of pregnancy--all 9 months. This would make 
America as radical as China and North Korea.
  The abortion on demand until birth act would legalize discriminatory 
abortion based upon sex, race, and disability, including Down syndrome. 
It overrides State laws that protect women from coercion. It would 
weaken conscience protections to force pro-life doctors to perform 
abortions and end a life.
  This is especially frightening for pregnancy centers, faith-based 
providers, and medical professionals who are using amazing medical 
achievements in treating both mothers and their babies in the wombs as 
patients. We are doing prenatal heart surgery today in the United 
States of America.
  The abortion on demand until birth act has nothing to do with 
protecting the health of women. It has everything to do with forcing an 
extreme agenda on the American people.
  Rather than prey on women's vulnerabilities and fears and nationalize 
abortion for all 9 months, we should be coming together to support 
women and their families at every stage of pregnancy and beyond.
  Every mother matters. Seventy-six percent of women seeking abortions 
say they would choose life if their circumstances were different. The 
focus should be on how to change their circumstances, help them access 
the care and support that they need, and improve their lives.
  Presenting abortion up until birth as a woman's only option is a 
false choice. There are nearly 3,000 pregnancy centers in all 50 
States. They outnumber Planned Parenthood by more than 2,000 
facilities. These pregnancy centers, which are right now under violent 
attack by pro-abortion groups, provide medical care, resources, 
education, and mentoring to women. They must be protected, not 
undermined and threatened by an extreme abortion agenda.
  The Supreme Court has affirmed the American people's rights to speak 
through their elected officials and enact laws that protect unborn 
children. The question upon us today is: How are we going to respond? 
How is this body going to respond to the greatest human rights issue of 
our generation? That is the question. This is the human rights issue of 
our generation.
  Do not close your ears. Do not close your eyes. Do not close your 
heart.
  Is it by dehumanizing life and promoting a culture that destroys the 
weakest among us? Is that how we are going to do it? Or is it by making 
abortion unthinkable by leading a new era where every person's God-
given, unalienable human right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness for all be the way we will define ourselves?
  Let's come together. Let's protect the human rights of the unborn. We 
cannot deny life to the most disadvantaged and marginalized among us. 
They have no voice to defend themselves.
  Madam Speaker, abortion for all 9 months is not the will of the 
American people.
  Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to H.R. 8296, the abortion on demand 
until birth act because all lives are worth living, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Chu), the sponsor of this legislation.
  Ms. CHU. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bill, 
the Women's Health Protection Act, or WHPA.
  WHPA is the bill that will protect the right to access abortion after 
the tragic fall of Roe v. Wade. It ensures in Federal law the right to 
abortion care for every woman in every State and ensures States may not 
erode that right.
  You will hear Republicans say our bill goes too far, but that is 
simply not true. Our bill preserves the protections of Roe that we have 
lived with for 50 years, affirmed through decades of subsequent court 
decisions. WHPA prohibits the bans and restrictions that violate the 
spirit of Roe, from outright bans to laws forcing women to undergo 
invasive ultrasounds, unnecessary waiting periods, or forcing doctors 
to give patients medically inaccurate information.
  You will hear Republicans repeat over and over again that Democrats 
are voting for abortion up until the moment of birth. Actually, for 50 
years the Court had the provision of an exception for late-term 
abortion in Roe to preserve the life or the health of the mother. It is 
because they valued the life of the mother.
  Do Republicans actually believe the mother's life is expendable?
  Apparently so.
  What you will not hear is Republicans say that the vast majority of 
Americans do not want Roe to be overturned.
  You will not hear an apology to the 10-year-old who was raped and had 
to travel to Indiana for an abortion because it was prohibited in her 
home State.
  You will not hear an acknowledgment that women are capable of 
deciding for themselves whether to terminate a pregnancy.
  This bill respects our right to make our own decisions about our 
bodies. It is time to put control of our bodies back in our hands. Now 
is the time to pass the Women's Health Protection Act.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Escobar).
  Ms. ESCOBAR. Madam Speaker, it has been 22 days since the Supreme 
Court overturned Roe v. Wade, taking away women's ability to make 
choices about their own future, setting us back nearly 50 years. But 
even that is not enough for Republicans.
  In the last 24 hours alone, we have gotten a glimpse into the dark 
future Republicans have in store for women, doctors, and vulnerable 
children:
  The Indiana attorney general says he is investigating the doctor who 
treated a 10-year-old rape victim.
  Texas sues the Biden administration for requiring abortions in 
medical emergencies so that women's lives could be saved.
  And the National Right to Life official who said the 10-year-old 
should have had her baby.
  Yes, according to Republicans, even a little girl impregnated by a 
brutal rape should be denied an abortion and have to endure a 
government-mandated birth.
  Remember, this is the same party that has voted against:
  Paid family and medical leave for parents of that baby.
  Childcare for babies.
  Universal pre-K for babies.
  The Child Tax Credit, which helps babies.
  School lunch programs that help babies.
  Commonsense gun violence prevention measures that keep those babies 
safe in school, and much more.
  The Republicans' war on women has never been more dangerous. Today, 
we will vote on the Women's Health Protection Act to ensure that women 
across this country have access to abortion and the freedom to make 
their own decisions about their bodies and their futures.
  America, Democrats have your back.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack), a dynamic example of life in 
her own testimony.

[[Page H6636]]

  

  Mrs. CAMMACK. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record some articles 
that I feel are relevant to this debate.

                [From the New York Times, July 3, 2022]

                     Abortion Laws Around the World

       The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on abortion quickly led to 
     bans in at least eight states, a shift toward criminalization 
     that runs counter to recent easings in countries that had 
     longstanding bans.
       The Supreme Court's elimination of the constitutional right 
     to abortion, after nearly a half-century, has made the United 
     States one of the few countries actively strengthening 
     abortion restrictions.
       Abortion is now banned in at least eight states, a shift 
     toward criminalization that runs counter to the longstanding 
     policies of some close allies, like Canada, and to recent 
     easings in several nations that had long imposed bans, like 
     Ireland, Mexico and South Korea.
       But no nations share the same history regarding abortion, 
     nor does any part of the world have uniform laws: Women 
     seeking abortions everywhere must navigate distinct rules, in 
     a variety of health care systems, if access is available at 
     all. The following examples, while not comprehensive, 
     illustrate the diversity of those laws--and how they're 
     changing.


                                 Canada

       No laws restrict abortion in Canada, where it is covered by 
     provincial and territorial public health care systems as an 
     essential medical procedure within 20 weeks of conception 
     and, under some circumstances, after that point, such as when 
     a pregnancy threatens the mother's life. Access and 
     exceptions vary by province, and sometimes by hospital.
       Until 1988, criminal laws allowed abortions only if 
     approved by committees of physicians. That year, the Supreme 
     Court struck down the laws in a landmark case. Most legal 
     scholars agree that if the issue were to reach the court 
     again, it would make the right to abortion explicit.--Ian 
     Austen


                                 Mexico

       Before a court ruling last year, abortion was largely 
     restricted, with Mexico City and only three of 31 states 
     permitting the procedure up to 12 weeks of fetal gestation. 
     But the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the fall that 
     penalizing women who undergo abortions was unconstitutional, 
     and in the months since, five more states have moved to 
     legalize abortions.
       The justices did not specify how far into a pregnancy 
     abortion was permitted, leaving the details to the states. 
     For the states that still ban abortion, legislatures will 
     need to change laws to permit the procedure.--Maria Abi-Habib


                               nicaragua

       Abortion is completely illegal and punishable by jail for 
     the woman and the doctors.
       The Legislature eliminated all exceptions in 2006, ending a 
     century of law that allowed abortions in cases of life-
     threatening complications or pregnancies caused by rape. 
     President Daniel Ortega, a strong supporter of criminalizing 
     abortion, has received support from Evangelical leaders in 
     Nicaragua and the United States.--Yubelka Mendoza and Maria 
     Abi-Habib


                                Britain

       Abortions have been legal in England, Scotland and Wales 
     for more than 50 years, protected by the Abortion Act of 
     1967. Abortions can be legally performed up to the 24th week 
     of pregnancy and must be medically approved by two doctors.
       The 1967 law allows some exceptions for later-term 
     abortions, including when the pregnancy endangers the woman's 
     health or if a prenatal scan reveals a fetus abnormality. A 
     provision of the law allowing abortion if the fetus carries 
     significant risk of serious disability was at the center of a 
     court case last year.
       In rare circumstances, such as when a woman, without 
     doctors' consent, takes medicine intended to terminate a 
     pregnancy, an abortion could be prosecuted as a criminal act.
       The 1967 law did not cover Northern Ireland, which for 
     decades prohibited almost all abortions.
       British lawmakers overturned that ban in 2019, legalizing 
     ``unconditional termination'' of pregnancy within the first 
     12 weeks. But with resistance coming from anti-abortion and 
     church groups, abortion services remain limited.--Saskia 
     Solomon


                                Ireland

       A 1983 constitutional amendment banned nearly all abortion, 
     reflecting the Roman Catholic Church's deep influence in the 
     country. That influence had waned by 2018, when a referendum 
     to end the ban was approved by 66 percent of voters.
       Lawmakers then legalized abortion in the Health Act of 
     2018, allowing abortion for any reason up to the end of the 
     first trimester. The law provides exceptions beyond 12 weeks 
     in cases of fetal abnormalities considered fatal after birth 
     or a potential risk to the woman's health.--Saskia Solomon


                                 Poland

       Soviet-era Poland offered some of Europe's broadest 
     abortion access, and it became a destination for women 
     seeking abortions. But after the Soviet Union's collapse, and 
     under the influence of the Catholic Church, the Polish 
     Parliament in 1993 passed one of Europe's strictest bans, 
     asserting that ``every human being shall have an inherent 
     right to life from the moment of conception.''
       It allowed three categories of exception: danger to the 
     mother's health or life; rape or incest; severe fetal 
     abnormalities.
       Despite mass protests, the ban was tightened last year by 
     the nationalist Law and Justice Party, eliminating the most-
     used exception--fetal abnormalities--which accounted for 
     almost all of the roughly 1,000 legal abortions a year. An 
     estimated 100,000 to 150,000 illegal abortions take place 
     very year in the country, activists say.
       The remaining exceptions are problematic for abortion 
     seekers. Rape victims face a deadline of the 12th week of 
     pregnancy, and they require a certificate from a prosecutor, 
     which takes a long time to acquire. And the definition of 
     what constitutes a ``serious'' risk to a woman's health is 
     too vague for doctors to always act decisively. In a small 
     number of cases, women have died of sepsis after doctors 
     refused to intervene while the fetus's heart was still 
     beating.
       Women cannot be punished for taking an abortion pill or 
     undergoing an abortion abroad.
       Anyone deemed to have aided or abetted an illegal abortion 
     faces up to eight years in prison.--Katrin Bennhold


                                 India

       A total ban was eased in 1971 with the Medical Termination 
     of Pregnancy Act, which made some abortions legal.
       But activists continued to seek further easing, to include 
     abortion in cases of fetal anomaly or pregnancy caused by 
     rape. In 2021, the federal government amended the law, 
     expanding the criteria for legal abortions and adding a 
     privacy clause to protect women who went to clinics.
       The law allows women to terminate pregnancies until 20 
     weeks. Between 20 and 24 weeks, a woman needs two doctors to 
     approve an abortion, and after 24 weeks, abortions are 
     allowed only when the woman's health is at risk. Women can 
     now terminate unwanted pregnancies caused by contraceptive 
     failure regardless of marital status; before the amendment, 
     only a married couple could do that.
       Still, abortions done in violation of the law are 
     punishable by up to seven years in prison for the woman and 
     medical personnel.--Sameer Yasir


                                 China

       Abortion has been legal in some form since 1953. By the 
     1970s, as the ruling Chinese Communist Party grew 
     increasingly worried about overpopulation, abortion became 
     more widely accessible, and the one-child policy led to some 
     forced abortions.
       Sex-selective abortions are illegal, meant to counter the 
     widespread preference for boys over girls. In response to 
     recent concerns over declining birthrates and an aging 
     population, families may now have three children without 
     penalty. Given the government's invasive family planning 
     policies, some women fear it will restrict abortion access. 
     The authorities last year said they intended to reduce 
     ``medically unnecessary abortions,'' without explaining how.
       Access to abortion services varies by region, with some 
     requiring women to produce certificates of medical necessity. 
     In Jiangxi Province, women who are more than 14 weeks 
     pregnant need three signatures from medical personnel.
       Scholars, activists and some foreign governments have 
     accused the authorities of using family planning policies to 
     suppress ethnic minorities, which the government denies.--
     Vivian Wang


                                 Kenya

       Under the 2010 Constitution, abortion is permitted if a 
     trained health professional determines a need for emergency 
     treatment, or if the pregnancy endangers the life or health 
     of the mother. In other circumstances, abortion providers can 
     face up to 14 years in prison under Kenya's penal code.
       In practice, many women who could obtain a legal abortion 
     cannot because of poverty, lack of access to health services 
     or a lack of information about their rights.--Matthew Mpoke 
     Bigg


                                 Benin

       Last fall, Benin joined South Africa and Mozambique as one 
     of the few African countries to broadly legalize abortion 
     within 12 weeks.
       Under the new law, abortion will be allowed ``when the 
     pregnancy is likely to aggravate or cause a situation of 
     material, educational, professional or moral distress 
     incompatible with the interest of the woman and/or the unborn 
     child.'' In doing so, Benin became the third country in 
     Africa, along with Ethiopia and Zambia, to allow abortion 
     based on the social or economic needs of the woman.
       The previous law authorized abortion only if the pregnancy 
     endangered the woman's life or was the result of rape or 
     incest, or if the fetus was malformed. The new law will take 
     effect after the authorities detail how it will be applied, 
     which could take months.--Elian Peltier


                                 Egypt

       A strict anti-abortion law has been on the books for 85 
     years, derived from the French Penal Code of the colonial era 
     that bans the procedure under nearly any circumstances. The 
     woman and doctor face imprisonment if convicted.
       It does have one loophole, which is based on the medical 
     code of ethics: Doctors are allowed--but not legally 
     obligated--to terminate a pregnancy if it puts the woman's 
     life

[[Page H6637]]

     at risk and she signs a document saying the procedure was 
     lifesaving.
       Though convictions are uncommon, the law and social stigma 
     have pushed abortion practices out of public sight, where the 
     woman's safety cannot be protected and the procedure can be 
     prohibitively expensive.--Nada Rashwan


                                 Turkey

       Since 1983, abortion has been legal up to 10 weeks after 
     conception. Married women need spousal consent. The law 
     allows exceptions after 10 weeks when the pregnancy threatens 
     the life of the woman, if the doctor concludes the fetus has 
     a grave disability, and in cases of rape.
       Violators face prosecution and prison--for both the woman 
     and the doctor.
       Abortion remains a divisive issue. In 2012, Recep Tayyip 
     Erdogan, now the president and then prime minister, called 
     abortion murder and urged more restrictions. After popular 
     outrage, the law was never amended, but in practice, abortion 
     services are unavailable in many state hospitals--Safak Timur
                                  ____


                   [From CATHOLICVOTE, June 9, 2022]

  Summer of Rage: Tracking Attacks on Pregnancy Centers and Pro-Life 
                                 Groups


                    attacks since supreme court leak

       CV News Feed--More than 50 pregnancy resource centers and 
     offices of pro-life groups have been attacked and vandalized 
     since a draft Supreme Court opinon overturning Roe v. Wade 
     was leaked in early May. Pro-abortion domestic terrorists 
     have claimed responsibility--and are promising more attacks 
     in a ``summer of rage''.
       Pregnancy centers are bracing for more attacks and acts of 
     vandalism after the Supreme Court issued its final ruling 
     overturning Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022. The Department of 
     Homeland Security issued a memo the same day warning that 
     ``domestic violent extremists'' would exploit the decision to 
     commit acts of violence against various targets, specifically 
     naming Jane's Revenge. Various terror groups have issued 
     threats against them on social media since the decision was 
     made, with one group urging its followers to ``mask up, stay 
     dangerous''.
       Some attacks are going unreported because pregnancy 
     resource centers want to protect their clients. This post 
     covers attacks which have been reported in the news media, 
     sent as tips directly to CatholicVote, or uncovered from 
     terrorist groups online. If you know of an attack which is 
     not covered here, please email [email protected]. All 
     tips are anonymous and your identity will not be revealed.
       The map and this post will be updated as the new develops.
       This list covers attacks on pregnancy centers and offices 
     of pro-life organizations. Attacks on Catholic churches are 
     covered here.
       List of attacks:
       Austin, Texas--Trotter House (May 3, 2022).
       Frederick, Maryland--CareNet Frederick (May 4, 2022).
       Portland, Oregon--Southeast Portland Pregnancy Resource 
     Center (May 5, 2022).
       Concord, California--Options Health (June 25, 2022).
       Iowa City, Iowa--Informed Choices Clinic (June 25, 2022).
       Portland, Oregon--First Image (June 26, 2022).
       Winter Haven Florida--LifeChoice Pregnancy Center (June 26, 
     2022).
       Burlington. Vermont--BirthRight (June 26, 2022).
       Everett, Washington--Two Hearts Pregnancy Aid (June 27, 
     2022).
       Dayton, Ohio--Women's Centers of Ohio (June 27, 2022).
       Littleton. New Hampshire--Pathways Pregnancy Center (June 
     28, 2022).
       Nashville, Tennessee--Hope Clinic for Women (June 29, 
     2022).
       Yuba City, California--A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Resource 
     Clinic (June 29, 2022).
       Hialeah, Florida--Pregnancy Help Medical Clinic (July 3, 
     2022).
       St. Paul, Minnesota--BirthRight of St. Paul (July 5, 2022).
       Kenmore, Washington--Care Net Pregnancy & Family Services 
     of Puget Sound (July 5. 2022).
       Moab, Utah--Arches New Hope Pregnancy Center (July 5, 
     2022).
       Oreland, Pennsylvania--Pro-Life Union of Greater 
     Philadelphia (July 6, 2022).
       Worcester, Massachusetts--Problem Pregnancy Resource Center 
     (July 6, 2022).
       Worcester, Massachusetts--Clearway Clinic (July 6, 2022).
       Akron, Ohio--Northeast Ohio Right to Life (July 8, 2022).

  Mrs. CAMMACK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to fight for life and in 
strong opposition to H.R. 8296, the abortion on demand until birth act. 
You know, I never thought that I would have to stand here on the House 
floor and debate the fact that killing someone for their gender, their 
sex, their race--but here we are.
  We are debating a bill that is being pushed by my colleagues on the 
other side that would legalize abortions based on a baby's sex, race, 
or potential disability. I am going to say that again because I think 
that is perhaps the most outrageous, horrific, regressive, sexist, and 
racist part of this legislation.
  This bill allows for abortions up until the day of natural delivery 
because the child maybe isn't the right sex or the right race, 
according to the mother, who is a woman, by the way. We need to stop 
this lie that suddenly abortion is healthcare--it is not.
  I have heard repeatedly talk about this 10-year-old girl who was 
brutally raped--this is a heartbreaking situation--yet, not a single 
peep about the man who did this. He was an illegal who crossed our 
border, who never should have been in our country in the first place, 
who committed this crime. Not one peep.
  In our country, we are based really, quite frankly, on a simple 
notion that we are of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Abortion, 
that is equal outcome. We know the outcome.
  All I am asking today is that my colleagues think a little bit 
critically about what they are doing and what they are saying, the 
message that they are sending--that they believe in equal outcome, not 
opportunity because they are, quite frankly, denying the right for 
every single one of these children the opportunity to live.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).
  Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Madam Speaker, my, my, my, here we go 
again--or should I say to my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle--lie, lie, lie.
  The United States Supreme Court has dismantled access to legal 
abortion giving the very, very personal decision concerning a person's 
reproductive health, their life and future to strange politicians.
  Now, Republicans across the country and in Congress are moving full 
steam ahead toward their dark and extreme goal of a nationwide abortion 
ban that will throw doctors into jail, force children to bear children, 
lead to tragic deaths, and life-changing hardships for people in our 
country.
  That is why I rise in support of the Women's Health Protection Act 
that will facilitate access to legal abortion care regardless of a 
person's ZIP Code.
  Let me warn everyone that the Republican agenda includes even more 
drastic intrusions into our personal lives--banning legal abortion is 
just the start. We will fight back.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the chairwoman of Oversight and 
Investigations Subcommittee.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, the horror of a 10-year-old girl, the 
victim of rape, re-victimized when her parents were forced to take her 
out of State because of Ohio's abortion law.
  A woman who was having a miscarriage, whose doctor refused to give 
her the medical procedure she needed because of fear of being 
prosecuted.
  A woman trying to get long-acting birth control, whose pharmacist 
refused to prescribe the necessary medication for the procedure.
  The chaos in the wake of the terrible Dobbs decision is only going to 
get worse from here.
  The Supreme Court and the Republican Party have declared a war on 
Americans' healthcare rights. Every single American has the right and 
the freedom to make the healthcare decisions that they need, including 
abortion.
  We passed this bill last September. We passed it in September after 
the first decision in the Supreme Court. We are going to pass this bill 
today in the U.S. House of Representatives. We are going to pass this 
bill, which codifies Roe v. Wade, every time we need to, to protect 
Americans' rights to healthcare and to protect everybody's equality.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I don't know of any State 
laws that prevent birth control. Miscarriages are obviously a tragedy.
  The question before us today is on the legislation that would allow 
for abortion up until birth, 9 months. It is not the will of the 
American people; it is the extreme agenda of those that are promoting 
abortion.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Guthrie), the leader on the Health Subcommittee.

[[Page H6638]]

  

  Mr. GUTHRIE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the abortion on 
demand until birth act.
  This Supreme Court ruled each individual State can decide the rights 
for the unborn. This bill would override State laws to nationalize 
abortion for any reason at any stage of pregnancy up until birth.
  This does not merely ban pre-viability restrictions on abortion, as 
supporters say that it does. This bill allows the person doing the 
abortion to decide what qualifies as pre-viability. This is 
unacceptable.
  The majority of Americans do not support abortions with no limits. In 
fact, 80 percent of the Americans say abortions should be illegal in 
the third trimester. This is a radical bill, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Tonko), who chairs our Environment and Climate 
Change Subcommittee.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I rise in resounding support of the Women's 
Health Protection Act.
  This bill will restore a fundamental constitutional right that has 
been simply stripped away by a rogue rightwing Supreme Court.
  While my Republican colleagues celebrate this injustice and cook up 
plans for a nationwide abortion ban, Americans across the country are 
already feeling the devastating effects of the decision to overturn Roe 
v. Wade.
  Stories of a 10-year-old child having to travel to neighboring States 
to receive care, or women bleeding from ectopic pregnancies have 
shocked the world--as red States, many with some of the highest 
maternal mortality rates in the country, have rolled back abortion 
access.
  None of the courts, nor States, nor politicians should have a say in 
women's ability to make their own decisions about their health, their 
well-being, and their future. That rests with their loved ones, their 
doctor, and their God.
  If we claim to love freedom--to be a free and just society--we must 
ensure that this basic human right is finally enshrined into law.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), a health provider saving lives 
every day and a champion for life.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record two articles of attacks on 
churches and pro-life pregnancy centers.

                 [From the National Catholic Register]

        Attacks on Churches, Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers Continue

       A pro-life sign at St. Teresa of Avila Catholic Church in 
     Hutchinson, Kansas, about 50 miles northwest of Wichita, was 
     vandalized over the weekend.
       Since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization 
     decision on Friday, attacks on Catholic churches and pro-life 
     pregnancy centers have been reported in West Virginia, 
     Washington, Virginia, Louisiana, Colorado, California, Texas, 
     Florida, New York, and Indiana.
       Below are the latest recorded attacks since the decision.
       Matt Vainer, a spokesperson for the Diocese of Wichita, 
     said that the perpetrator was followed by a witness who 
     called the police. The perpetrator was arrested, he said.
       The pastor of St. Teresa of Avila, Father Aaron Spexarth, 
     placed the sign underneath a crucifix in the church, as he 
     believed it was most appropriate to place it at Christ's 
     feet, Vainer confirmed to CNA.
       All Saints Catholic Church in Portland, Oregon had its sign 
     defaced with pro-abortion graffiti June 25.
       A photo of the vandalism shows the words ``If abortions 
     aren't safe, neither are you!--XOXO Jane.'' The FBI is 
     investigating, Barbara Custer, a parish secretary at the 
     church, told CNA.
       A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic in Yuba City, 
     California was vandalized June 27.
       The clinic had one of its windows smashed by what seems to 
     be one perpetrator according to video footage, the clinic's 
     executive director Kristen Bird told CNA.
        Video shows the perpetrator throwing three rocks at the 
     window until it broke. Repairs will cost anywhere between 
     $700 and $900. The FBI is investigating, Bird said.
                                  ____


                 [From the Daily Caller, July 12, 2022]

  Elizabeth Warren Calls To `Shut Down' Crisis Pregnancy Centers Amid 
                          Pro-Abortion Attacks

                          (By Nicole Silverio)

       Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren called on 
     crisis pregnancy centers to be ``shut down'' across the 
     country Tuesday as pro-abortion groups vandalize and commit 
     arson on centers throughout the nation.
       The senator claimed the centers ``fool'' and ``torture'' 
     women into carrying their pregnancies to term as they seek 
     abortion access. She lamented that the centers outnumber 
     abortion clinics in Massachusetts by 3 to 1.
       ``In Massachusetts right now, those crisis pregnancy 
     centers that are there to fool people who are looking for 
     pregnancy termination help outnumber true abortion clinics by 
     3 to 1, she said. ``We need to shut them down here in 
     Massachusetts and we need to shut them down all around the 
     country,'' she told NBC 10 Boston. ``You should not be able 
     to torture a pregnant person like that,''
       Warren's criticisms of crisis pregnancy centers follow 
     multiple attacks on the centers facilitated by pro-abortion 
     activists since the Supreme Court draft majority opinion 
     leaked in May.
       Surveillance footage showed a suspect spray painted the 
     words ``If Abortions Aren't Safe, You Aren't Either'' and 
     broke the windows of the Next Step Pregnancy Center in 
     Lynwood, Washington, in late May. An unknown pro-abortion 
     group splattered the Capitol Hill Crisis Pregnancy Center 
     with red paint and marked the words ``Jane Says Revenge'' in 
     graffiti.
       Police arrested 10 pro-abortion protesters for allegedly 
     throwing smoke bombs at an Oregon pregnancy center on June 
     27. The activist group Jane's Revenge allegedly firebombed 
     crisis pregnancy center in Amherst, New York, overnight on 
     June 7, while arsonists attacked Wisconsin Family Action in 
     Madison. The Oregon Right to Life offices in Keizer, Oregon, 
     were also firebombed with Molotov cocktails.
       The centers offer free or low-cost pregnancy testing, 
     education on adoption services, ultrasounds, STD testing and 
     treatment, prenatal and parenting lessons, after abortion 
     recovery counseling and sexual risk avoidance education, 
     according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute.
       The Massachusetts senator has repeatedly called for the 
     construction of abortion clinics on federal lands and 
     national parks since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. 
     Wade, handing states the right to regulate abortion. She 
     suggested that tents and trained medical personnel be set up 
     on federally funded property to allow women to access 
     abortion.
       In a New York Times op-ed, she and Democratic Minnesota 
     Sen. Tina Smith advocated the use of ``federal property and 
     resources to protect people seeking abortion services 
     locally.''
       Warren and several prominent Democratic lawmakers signed a 
     letter urging President Joe Biden increase access to 
     medication abortion and establish a medical ombudsman at the 
     Department of Human Health and Services and Department of 
     Justice to analyze data on the types of reproductive services 
     needed and provide that on federal lands.
       ``The Department of Justice and all relevant agencies could 
     analyze the types of reproductive health services that could 
     be provided on federal property, especially in states where 
     such services are limited by state law or regulation,'' the 
     letter stated.
       The senator's push for clinics on federal lands is 
     currently prevented by the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits 
     federal funding toward abortions except in cases endangering 
     the mother's life. Many activists estimate that the Hyde 
     Amendment prevents at least 60,000 abortion per year.

  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the 
unconscionable abortion on demand until birth act.
  This bill creates a national standard to allow for abortions of 
unborn children for any reason and at any stage of pregnancy up until 
birth. As a father and grandfather of six precious grandchildren, I am 
sickened by the attempt to allow abortion on demand until birth.
  Now, Madam Speaker, I will speak for just a second about something 
that was brought up by one of my colleagues across the aisle about 
pharmacists dispensing prescriptions for abortion.
  Also, Madam Speaker, if you could, do me a favor and get a message to 
the President who is trying to sign an executive order to force 
pharmacists to fill prescriptions against their will for abortion. Let 
me assure you, you can pass all the legislation you want, and you can 
sign every executive order that you want to sign, but if you think you 
are going to force a pharmacist to go against their moral obligation to 
take care of patients and to take care of babies and dispense a 
prescription that is going to be used for abortion, good luck with 
that.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Clarke), who is a member of our committee.
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise today to stand against 
the vile war for reproductive rights of the women in America.

[[Page H6639]]

  Just under 50 years ago, Roe v. Wade established that every woman 
holds autonomy over her own body and her reproductive choices. To 
reject this critical ruling one-half century later at a time when 
America's maternal healthcare standards are so disgracefully abysmal, 
particularly for Black and Brown women, is as hateful as it is cruel.
  We will not stand for this blatant and brazen attempt to control 
women. We will not stand for yet another assault that diminishes women 
by taking away their autonomy of their bodies. We will not stand by and 
watch extremists erase us from our Constitutional protections.
  No. We will not stand for it today. I and my Democratic colleagues 
will pass the Women's Health Protection Act of 2022 and the Ensuring 
Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act of 2022.
  Madam Speaker, I urge our Senators to find the compassion, courage, 
and their humanity for the women of America by doing the same.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I would ask what about the 
marginalized Black and Hispanic babies who are more likely to be 
aborted?
  Abortion has had a disproportionate impact on minorities and 
individuals with disabilities.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cardenas), who is also a member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mr. CARDENAS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Women's 
Health Protection Act and lend my voice to the chorus of calls across 
the country for urgent action on abortion rights.
  When I first heard the news of the Dobbs decision, I felt as if I 
were thrown into another country--a country without our Constitution.
  How is it that such a fundamental right to our autonomy over one's 
body, over one's life, and over one's future can be stripped away so 
callously?
  We are talking about far-right Justices telling women that they 
cannot get the care that they need and telling doctors that they cannot 
treat their patients to the best of their ability. Yes, these five 
Justices with no medical expertise stole the fundamental freedom of 
controlling the health of one's own body and opened the floodgates to 
criminalize doctors for doing their job.
  Make no mistake, Madam Speaker: this is a stain on our healthcare 
system and a flat-out assault on health equity, and it is a self-
inflicted wound.
  This resolution will leave women--especially women of color and low-
income women, including White women--in the lurch. So in the absence of 
any respect or compassion for reproductive health in this country, we, 
as a body, must show our leadership. It is incumbent upon us elected 
officials to ensure that the basic right is restored and finally 
written into law.
  The Women's Health Protection Act will do that. It would restore 50 
years of precedent and right a deeply invasive wrong. History has its 
eyes on us.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks), who is another healthcare 
provider. Dr. Mariannette Miller-Meeks has worked hard to improve the 
lives of many throughout her career.
  Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Honorable 
Representative Rodgers, for yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 8296. The Supreme 
Court recently took the important and correct step to return the power 
to regulate abortion back to State legislators and voters within the 
individual States while recognizing the sanctity of life.
  This concept is so novel and repugnant to the Democrats that they 
would put forward a radical and extreme abortion bill that would permit 
abortion even up until birth for any reason. Only seven countries, 
including China and North Korea, are this extreme.
  As a doctor, I am knowledgeable that mid- to late-term abortion is a 
barbaric procedure which can include dismemberment of the baby and 
crushing of the skull. This is far more cruel than many of the laws of 
States that define prisoner abuse of convicted felons and what 
constitutes animal cruelty. It is a procedure done when the mother is 
given anesthesia, but the baby can feel pain. Madam Speaker, even 
though you cannot hear it scream, it can respond to music and respond 
to touch and the voice of its mother.
  We wouldn't allow animals to be treated this cruelly.
  Do Democrats think that this elevates women and is compassionate?
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article from the Charlotte 
Lozier Institute.

            [From the Charlotte Lozier Institute, Feb. 2014]

    Gestational Limits on Abortion in the United States Compared to 
                          International Norms

                      (By Angelina Baglini, J.D.)

       Abstract: The United States is one of only seven countries 
     in the world that permit elective abortion past 20 weeks. 
     Upholding laws restricting abortion on demand after 20 weeks 
     would situate the United States closer to the international 
     mainstream, instead of leaving it as an outlying country with 
     ultra-permissive abortion policies.
       This report compares gestational limits in United States 
     abortion law with gestational limits in the abortion law of 
     the international community. The goal is to determine where 
     the United States stands in comparison to international 
     norms, with its federal policy enshrined in Roe v. Wade, 
     which allows abortion past 20 weeks and without restriction 
     until fetal viability.
       The sample group for this project included a total of 198 
     countries, independent states, and semi-autonomous regions 
     with populations exceeding 1 million. Of these 198 countries, 
     independent states, and regions worldwide, 59 allow abortion 
     without restriction as to reason, otherwise known as elective 
     abortion or abortion on demand. The remaining 139 countries 
     require some reason to obtain an abortion ranging from most 
     restrictive (to save the life of the mother or completely 
     prohibited) to least restrictive (socioeconomic grounds) with 
     various reasons in between (e.g., physical health, mental 
     health).
       Currently, the United States permits abortion on demand 
     through viability, which is usually marked around 24 weeks. 
     For this report, it is appropriate to compare the United 
     States with the other 58 countries that allow abortion on 
     demand up to some point in pregnancy. The remaining 139 
     countries require some reason to obtain an abortion (that is 
     to say, they do not permit abortion on demand) and are, by 
     definition, more restrictive than the United States on the 
     issue of gestational limits. To require some reason before 
     obtaining an abortion is inherently more restrictive than not 
     requiring any reason at all.
       This report finds that the United States is one of only 
     seven countries in the world that permit elective abortion 
     past 20 weeks. This finding suggests that current proposals 
     in the United States to restrict elective abortions past 20 
     weeks would move the United States from the fringe, ultra-
     permissive end of the spectrum to a position closer to 
     international norms.


                  Terminology and Method of Comparison

       Not all countries or statutes use the same terminology when 
     drafting restrictions on late-term elective abortion. When 
     drafting a restriction on elective abortion past 20 weeks of 
     pregnancy, the most common measurement of ``weeks of 
     pregnancy'' is gestational age, or in short form 
     ``gestation.'' Gestational age marks the duration of 
     pregnancy, which is most commonly and medically measured from 
     the date of the woman's last menstrual period. The woman's 
     last menstrual period is the most identifiable date by which 
     to measure the duration of pregnancy, and occurs 
     approximately two weeks before conception or fertilization.
       The vast majority of countries in this international survey 
     of abortion laws use gestational age to measure duration of 
     pregnancy. Over 80 percent of countries maintaining some 
     restriction on elective abortion use gestational age as the 
     method of calculating duration of pregnancy. However, a 
     minority of countries measures duration of pregnancy from 
     ``conception'' or ``fertilization.'' One country measures 
     from the time of ``implantation,'' which occurs approximately 
     one week after conception or fertilization. Some statutes do 
     not even specify a method of measurement, simply using the 
     vague term ``weeks of pregnancy'' without indicating a 
     precise method measuring the duration of pregnancy.
       Conception or fertilization is the moment when an ovum and 
     sperm unite, which creates a unique human organism. The date 
     of conception or fertilization is often difficult to 
     determine, as few women know the exact date they conceived. 
     Because the last menstrual period is a more ascertainable 
     date, in many cases doctors add two weeks to the woman's last 
     menstrual period to approximate the date of conception or 
     fertilization.
       This report uses gestation to compare restrictions based on 
     duration of pregnancy. More than 80 percent of countries 
     already use gestation in establishing duration of pregnancy 
     restrictions on elective abortion

[[Page H6640]]

     and measuring the age of the unborn child using gestation is 
     in line with common medical practice.
       For those countries that use a different measurement of 
     age, such as conception or fertilization or pregnancy, this 
     study converts the measurement of age into gestation by 
     adding two weeks to date back to the woman's last menstrual 
     period. Using gestation as a common method of measuring 
     duration of pregnancy restrictions on elective abortion 
     produces a more meaningful comparison.


       International Gestational Limitations on Elective Abortion

       The sample group of countries for this project included a 
     total of 198 countries, independent states, and semi-
     autonomous regions with populations exceeding 1 million.
       Of these 198 countries, independent states, and regions 
     worldwide, 59 allow abortion without restriction as to 
     reason, otherwise known as elective abortion or abortion on 
     demand.
       The remaining 139 countries require some reason to obtain 
     an abortion ranging from most restrictive (to save the life 
     of the mother or completely prohibited) to least restrictive 
     (socioeconomic grounds) with various reasons in between 
     (e.g., physical health, mental health).
       Of the 59 countries permitting elective abortion:
       9 countries limit elective abortion before the 12th week of 
     gestation,
       36 countries limit elective abortion at 12 weeks gestation,
       6 countries limit elective abortion between 12 and 20 weeks 
     gestation,
       7 countries permit elective abortion past 20 weeks or have 
     no gestational limit.
       1 country maintains a federal system where abortion policy 
     is determined at the state/territory level, and at least two 
     of those states permit elective abortion past 20 weeks
       Australia is the one country where a federal system is in 
     place, but abortion policy is determined on the state or 
     territory level. Three states or territories within Australia 
     permit elective abortion, and two allow elective abortion 
     past 20 weeks. However, other states and territories of 
     Australia maintain more restrictive abortion policies and 
     some do not permit elective abortion at all. Due to the 
     diverse range of abortion policy in Australia, from 
     restrictive to ultra-permissive, this study does not include 
     Australia, as a whole, as a country that permits elective 
     abortion past 20 weeks.
       More than 75 percent of the countries permitting abortion 
     without restriction as to reason do not permit elective 
     abortions past l2 weeks gestation.
       Only 12 percent (7 out of 59) of the countries permitting 
     abortion without restriction as to reason permit elective 
     abortion past 20 weeks gestation.
       The U.S. is among these 7 countries that permit elective 
     abortion past 20 weeks. This is true whether 20 weeks is 
     measured from the last menstrual period (gestational age), 
     conception, or implantation. No matter how duration of 
     pregnancy is measured, whether by gestational age or 
     conception or fertilization, or implantation, all countries 
     in this category pass the 20-week threshold. These countries/
     territories are:
       Canada (no restriction in law)
       China (no restriction in law)
       Netherlands (24 weeks)
       North Korea (no restriction in law)
       Singapore (24 weeks)
       United States (viability)
       Vietnam (no restriction in law)
       The United States is within the top 4 of most permissive 
     abortion policies in the world (7 out of 198) when analyzing 
     restrictions on elective abortion based on duration of 
     pregnancy.


          Implications for Current Policy in the United States

       Under U.S. law, abortion on demand is permitted without 
     restriction through viability. Viability can vary, and is 
     decreasing in terms of weeks of gestation as perinatal 
     medicine advances, but normally occurs no earlier than 24 
     weeks.
       Recently, in the United States there has been great 
     interest in restricting abortion on demand after 20 weeks. 
     Two states have had 20-week laws on the books since before 
     Roe v. Wade. Eleven more states have enacted 20-week laws in 
     recent years. A proposed 20-week law in Albuquerque, New 
     Mexico failed to gain majority support in 2013 but was 
     notable for the engaged citizen activism that resulted in the 
     proposal being put on a municipal ballot for a direct vote.
       There is also interest at the federal level in restricting 
     elective abortion after 20 weeks. In 2013, the U.S. House of 
     Representatives passed a 20-week law. A similar law has been 
     introduced in the U.S. Senate.
       Permitting abortion on demand past 20 weeks places the 
     United States among the top 4 percent of most-permissive 
     countries in the world based on duration of pregnancy 
     restrictions on abortion. If the United States adopts a 
     federal policy restricting elective abortion past 20 weeks, 
     or if more states adopt such policies, the U.S. will more 
     closely align itself with the international norm that limits 
     elective abortion past 12 weeks. Policies imposing 
     gestational limits on elective abortion have been 
     overwhelmingly adopted by countries permitting abortion on 
     demand, indicating policies that encourage woman's safety in 
     limiting abortion to early pregnancy and policies that 
     protect unborn children from pain and prolonged exposure to 
     the risk of-abortion.


                              Conclusions

       In terms of gestational limits, the United States ranks 
     among 7 countries with the most permissive abortion policies. 
     The clear norm among countries that permit elective abortion 
     is to limit abortion to before 20 weeks gestation, and 
     elective abortion is more commonly limited to 12 weeks (the 
     first trimester).
       Twenty-week abortion laws in the United States are neither 
     extreme nor unreasonable. Rather, they move the United States 
     closer to international norms of legislating what is safe and 
     healthy for the mother and what grants unborn children more 
     protection in the womb.

  Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues on every 
seat in every aisle of this Chamber to vote against this extreme, 
radical, and cruel abortion bill, H.R. 8296.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Minnesota (Ms. Craig), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Ms. CRAIG. Madam Speaker, exactly 3 weeks ago, five Justices on an 
activist, extremist Supreme Court handed down a decision that upended 
nearly 50 years of precedent and rolled back fundamental rights for 
millions of Americans.
  In the weeks since, I have watched in horror as State after State has 
triggered laws that now prevent a woman or a girl from accessing an 
abortion even in the case of rape and incest. These events have been 
shocking to Americans, not only for millions of women across the 
country but for the country as a whole.
  You call yourselves conservative. We are talking about 50 years of 
precedent in our Nation.
  Because no Government has a place interfering in the decisions 
between a woman and her doctor, criminalizing abortion, or restricting 
women's healthcare options.
  This is not a controversial position to the American people. A strong 
majority of my constituents believe that the right to an abortion 
should be protected by law. This is a freedom and a privacy issue, and 
the government--not politicians in this room and not politicians in any 
State in our Nation--should not have any part in this conversation at 
all. This is a very personal decision between a woman, her family, her 
doctor, and her faith.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in voting 
``yes'' to protect Roe today.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from the State of Washington (Ms. Schrier). Dr. Schrier is also a 
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Ms. SCHRIER. Madam Speaker, I will tell you, my constituents are up 
in arms. They are emailing me, and they are calling my office outraged 
that the freedoms that they have had for 50 years are being stripped 
away from women in one-half of the States in this country. They are 
furious when they hear about victims of rape not being able to end a 
pregnancy and when they see a 10-year-old girl who has to flee to a 
neighboring State so she won't be forced to carry a pregnancy to term--
a 10-year old.
  This is barbaric. My constituents are worried about what might come 
next in our home State of Washington.
  I am the only pro-choice woman doctor in all of Congress. In fact, I 
am a pediatrician. And I have been in the exam room with teens facing 
unplanned pregnancies and with mothers who find out that the pregnancy 
they are so excited about is not a viable one. These are deeply 
personal circumstances. Frankly, when, whether, and under what 
circumstances to become a mother is the single most important decision 
a woman will ever make, and that must be hers to make. The government 
has no place in the exam room.
  Today I am voting to make sure that every woman--no matter where she 
lives--can access abortion, to plan their pregnancies, protect their 
health, and chart the course of their lives. I want my constituents to 
know I will fight every day to protect their rights.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) who spent his life defending the 
voiceless.

[[Page H6641]]

  

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, Cathy 
McMorris Rodgers, the ranking member, for her eloquent defense of the 
unborn child and their mothers because there are two co-victims in 
every abortion: mother and baby. I thank her for her leadership. It is 
extraordinary.
  Madam Speaker, according to the January 2022 Marist Poll, only 17 
percent of Americans believe that ``abortion should be available to a 
woman any time she wants one during her entire pregnancy.''
  When Americans were asked in late June--June 28 to 29--in a Harvard/
Harris Poll, a nationwide poll supervised by Mark Penn--and many of us 
know him; he is a very effective pollster--and the question was put: 
``Do you think your State should allow abortions up to 9 months'' only 
10 percent said ``yes.''
  H.R. 8296 would legally authorize and enable the violent death of 
unborn baby girls and boys by dismemberment, beheading, forced 
expulsion from the womb, deadly poisons, or other methods at any time 
and for any reason until birth.
  Don't believe it?
  Read section 4 of the bill. It couldn't be clearer.
  This bill is far outside the American mainstream and goes far beyond 
Roe v. Wade.

  As a matter of fact, when the Harvard/Harris Poll asked whether or 
not we should be doing what we are doing today in Congress, they 
found--and I was a little bit astonished by this--that less than one-
third of voters--31 percent--say that abortion laws should be federally 
set by a congressional vote.
  Let me point out to my colleagues because mention was made of this 
earlier in the debate. Let me be clear, abortion is not healthcare 
unless one construes the precious life of an unborn child to be 
analogous to a tumor to be excised or a disease to be vanquished.
  This legislation constitutes an existential threat to unborn 
children. Since Roe v. Wade, approximately 63\1/2\ million babies have 
been killed by dismemberment, chemical poisoning, and beheading--a 
number that equates with the entire population of everyone living in 
the country of Italy.
  If enacted, this bill would nullify almost every pro-life restriction 
ever enacted by the States, including parental involvement laws in 37 
States and pain-capable unborn child protection laws in 19 States.
  I remember when a woman from Virginia formed a group called Mothers 
Against Minors' Abortion. That mom found out about her daughter's 
abortion when she was hemorrhaging in her bed. She came and testified 
before Congress and said: Please, we need to know. We love our 
daughters. Parental notification laws do work.
  Sadly, these will be nullified by this bill.
  For decades abortion advocates have gone through extraordinary 
lengths to ignore, trivialize, or cover up the battered baby victim. 
But today, thanks to ultrasound, unborn babies are more visible than 
ever before. Today science informs us that birth is an event--albeit, 
an important one--but only an event in the life of a child. Life is a 
continuum.
  Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill. The youngest 
patients and their mothers need protection.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster), who is a member of our committee.
  Ms. KUSTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Women's 
Health Protection Act and to speak for the generation of women who have 
lost their freedom to make healthcare decisions for themselves. The 
government has no place inserting itself into people's personal 
healthcare decisions.
  I never expected to be on the floor of the House talking about 
miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, or fertility treatments, but here we 
are.
  For many, pregnancy is not an easy path. One in eight pregnancies end 
in miscarriage, and 1 in 50 women experience ectopic pregnancies--an 
outcome that always leads to pregnancy loss and poses serious risk of 
life to the mother.

                              {time}  1015

  For countless others, getting pregnant requires costly, exhausting, 
and complex procedures such as IVF.
  Regardless of the circumstances, reproductive health is private.
  Pregnancy can be unpredictable. The government has no place in 
deciding what care patients can receive and doctors can administer. 
Like all healthcare, decisions surrounding reproductive health should 
be between a patient and their doctor.
  As an adoption attorney, I worked with hundreds of birth mothers 
making the most personal, consequential decisions of their lives, and 
not one of those women looked to the government to make that decision 
for them.
  I support the Women's Health Protection Act, and I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``yes.''
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on 
both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 13 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from Washington has 16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Eshoo), the chairwoman of our Health Subcommittee.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise in the strongest support possible of 
the Women's Health Protection Act.
  In February 2020, I held the first legislative hearing in two decades 
to protect access to reproductive health. Since then, we have seen the 
steady rollback of abortion rights in Republican-controlled States. 
This means that low-income women and minorities have been living in a 
post-Roe reality for years now.
  Now, the Supreme Court has fully revoked the constitutional right to 
abortion, leaving States to outlaw and criminalize abortion if they 
choose to. This devastating decision has created a patchwork of States 
with differing laws and restrictions, causing societal chaos and 
confusion across our country.
  It is a huntdown of women. It is a huntdown of women.
  The Women's Health Protection Act makes sure that every American has 
equal access to reproductive healthcare, no matter where they live. I 
am eager to vote for this legislation, once again, and I call on my 
Senate counterparts to codify these vital protections into law.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), a member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee and another medical provider.
  Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  I rise today in opposition to this legislation that would legalize 
abortion on demand up until the moment of birth.
  As a physician, I first swore an oath to do no harm. As legislators, 
we cannot, in good conscience, vote to pass legislation that would 
claim the lives of unborn children in late-term abortions.
  This poorly written legislation would put our Nation alongside 
countries like China and North Korea by allowing discriminatory 
abortions based on sex, based on race, even based on disability. This 
is unacceptable, and it is gut-wrenching that Congress would even 
consider passing such legislation.
  This abortion on demand act would override pro-life laws passed in 
our States and prohibit State-level elected officials from passing 
legislation to protect unborn children in our communities.
  It is time for all Members of Congress to vote against this poorly 
written bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 
seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. It is time for all Members of Congress to 
vote against this poorly written bill. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record two articles, ``Democrats 
Launch Ads in Lifestyle Mags in All Out Push for Abortion'' from the 
Daily Caller and ``Ohio Right to Life Says Offices Targeted Twice by 
Pro-Abortion Vandals with Rocks, Spray Paint'' from FOX News.

[[Page H6642]]

  


                 [From the Daily Caller, July 13, 2022]

  Democrats Launch Ads In Lifestyle Mags In All Out Push For Abortion

                            (By Mary Rooke)

       The Democratic National Committee (DNC) launched a digital 
     ad campaign Tuesday in several lifestyle magazines telling 
     readers that Republicans want to outlaw abortion nationwide.
       The DNC purchased at least $10,000 in digital ads in over 
     20 lifestyle publications to focus on abortion rights issues 
     as the midterms approach, the Associated Press reported.
       Magazines like Teen Vouge, Elle, Refinery29, Essence, GQ, 
     Esquire, Men's Health, Cosmopolitan and Glamour, hosted the 
     DNC's ads, reported the AP.
       The ad showed Republican Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell next 
     to blue, pink, and white lettering that read: ``Republicans 
     are pushing to ban abortion nationally. Join us in fighting 
     back,'' according to the report.
       The DNC is looking to launch a separate abortion-centered 
     ad campaign with plans to spend six figures, reported the AP.
       The DNC's ads promoting a ``week of action'' to defend 
     abortion are in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision 
     to overturn Roe v. Wade, sending abortion law-making back to 
     the state legislatures.
       ``With this Defend Choice Week of Action, we're giving 
     people across the country a chance to turn their anger into 
     action by holding anti-choice Republicans accountable and 
     helping to elect Democrats,'' DNC chair Jaime Harrison said, 
     according to the AP.
       The DNC held a virtual launch for its ``all-hands-on-deck 
     effort to defend choice'' on Tuesday night, according to the 
     DNC website.
       ``This fight isn't over and we need all hands on deck. This 
     event will serve as the kickoff for our Week of Action, which 
     we'll highlight how to get involved with on the call,'' The 
     DNC event description stated.
       The latest Associated Press-NORC poll released Friday 
     showed that only 16% of Americans feel abortion is the 
     biggest issue facing the U.S. In comparison, 40% of U.S. 
     adults said they were more worried about inflation and 33% 
     said gas prices, according to the poll.
       The survey polled, 1,053 adults nationwide from June 23-27 
     with a margin of error of 
     +/-4.0%.
                                  ____


                     [From Fox News, July 13, 2022]

Ohio Right to Life Says Offices Targeted Twice by Pro-Abortion Vandals 
                        With Rocks, Spray Paint

                            (By Emma Colton)

       Dozens of pro-life centers have been targeted across the 
     country since a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion signaled 
     Roe V. Wade would be overturned In May, followed by the 
     nation's highest court ultimately ruling as such in June.
       For one pro-life organization in Ohio, it has been targeted 
     twice since last month.
       ``As pro-lifers, we know that our work might cost us 
     something and that very well could be our physical safety,'' 
     the executive director of the Right to Life of Northeast Ohio 
     Allie Frazier told Fox News Digital. ``I think that it's 
     important in moments like this for the pro-life movement to 
     be really clear that we're not going to be intimidated. We 
     will save babies. We will protect women. And we're not going 
     to let threats of violence stop us from doing that.''
       Offices for the Right to Life of Northeast Ohio were most 
     recently targeted on July 8, Frazier said, when al least one 
     suspect was caught on camera lobbing rocks at the building, 
     breaking windows and spray-painting menacing messages.
       ``If abortion isn't safe, neither are you,'' the suspect, 
     who was seen wearing a face mask, scrawled on the sidewalk of 
     the offices. The phrase has been spray-painted at similar 
     offices across the country, often by members of pro-abortion 
     extremist group Jane's Revenge.
       Frazier said it's likely that Jane's Revenge is behind this 
     attack, noting that among other spray-painted messages, the 
     name ``Jane'' was written on the ground.
       ``I think It would be easy for a situation like this to be 
     a copycat scenario. But as far as I'm concerned, if any pro-
     abortion individual decides to take that next step, to take 
     that bad step, and use violence against pro-lifers, that is 
     something that I am going to work hard to protect my staff 
     against,'' she said.
       The incident was reported to the Akron Police Department, 
     Frazier said. The Akron Police Department has not responded 
     to multiple Fox News inquiry requests on the matter.
       Frazier said that the damage caused by the vandalism was 
     ``significant,'' but ``undoable,'' noting that repairs were 
     being made to the broken windows as she spoke to Fox News 
     Digital.
       ``I know that the intention of this attack was to stop us. 
     It was to stop our peaceful activism. It was to stop the ways 
     that we are impacting women and babies in this community for 
     a positive. And they didn't even stop that. I was already 
     back to work in my office within a few hours,'' she said.
       It was the second time the offices were targeted, Frazier 
     said. Activists posted pro-abortion posters at the office on 
     June 24, the day Roe was officially overturned, hung a coat 
     hanger on an office door knob, and rang a Ring security 
     camera before flashing a middle finger to the camera, 
     according to Frazier.
       She said that the attacks pro-life centers have recently 
     faced should ``100%'' be investigated as hate crimes.
       ``(Pro-abortion vandals] are not afraid of using violence 
     to get what they want. This is absolutely a threat against 
     the peaceful pro-life movement. And we do ask that law 
     enforcement and local, state, and federal leaders continue to 
     lead the way and say, `Hey, violence is never okay,' '' she 
     said.
       Pro-life activists have repeatedly called on Presiden1 
     Biden to forcefully condemn the attacks on pregnancy centers 
     and churches, including Frazier who called on the president 
     to not ``be complicit in this violence.''
       ``Regardless of how people feel on the issue of abortion, 
     everybody should be able to condemn acts of violence against 
     peaceful nonprofits. Whether that's an advocacy organization 
     like Right to Life of Northeast Ohio, or a pro-life pregnancy 
     center that are literally meeting the needs of women and 
     babies in crisis,'' she told Fox News Digital.
       The White House has previously condemned the violence at 
     pro-life centers but has come under scrutiny for not doing 
     more.
       ``Instead of supporting and defending more pro-life 
     pregnancy centers that provide health care and support to 
     women at every stage of life, President Joe Biden and the 
     Left are working to dismantle the work of these amazing 
     centers. They won't strongly condemn the violence and threats 
     pregnancy centers are facing,'' the Republican House Energy 
     and Commerce Committee posted on Tuesday, demanding Biden 
     ``MUST condemn the violence and threats.''
       Dozens of pro-life centers have faced attack since May, 
     including a pro-life Christian pregnancy center in Buffalo, 
     New York, that was allegedly ``firebombed,'' and a pregnancy 
     center in Dearborn, Michigan, that saw every ``window and 
     door along the front face of our building'' smashed.
       Jane's Revenge has taken responsibility for a handful of 
     the attacks and declared ``open season'' on pro-life 
     pregnancy crisis centers in a letter published last month.
       ``We offered an honourable way out,'' the letter read. 
     ``You could have walked away. Now the leash is off. And we 
     will make it as hard as possible for your campaign of 
     oppression to continue.''
       But to Frazier, the pro-life movement will remain unchanged 
     and committed to protecting women and babies.
       ``We must be willing to do what it takes to protect women 
     and babies and be ready to take any backlash from that . . . 
     Don't be afraid. We got this,'' she said of her message to 
     pro-life Americans, adding that pro-lifers can also reach out 
     to their local pregnancy centers to check in on staff and see 
     if they need any additional resources.

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee), who is co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding, for his work, and for bringing this bill to the floor.
  Let me also take a moment to thank our good friend, a great leader, 
Congresswoman Judy Chu, for her vision and her persistent leadership, 
and Chairman Pallone for bringing this to the floor, once again.
  Last month's Supreme Court decision is having devastating impacts 
across the country. Now, I remember the days before Roe, and now that 
the Court has ended Roe, we are truly in a state of a national health 
emergency.
  Abortion bans affect everyone, but their impact falls hardest on 
folks who face serious barriers to care and already have these barriers 
presented because of the lack of equity in our healthcare system--women 
of color, people working to make ends meet, rural people, young people.
  It is terrifying now that people could be criminalized for exercising 
their own personal healthcare decisions. That is wrong. It is morally 
wrong.
  Already, across this country, people are unable to get care and are 
denied the freedom to make their own decisions about their health and 
about their futures. Our personal liberties and our freedoms are being 
taken away. This is just another step in the erosion of our democracy.
  It has never been more critical than now that we pass legislation to 
protect the right to access abortion and ensure that abortion and 
comprehensive reproductive healthcare are accessible and available for 
all.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).
  Ms. DEAN. Madam Speaker, Roe became law when I was 13. For my entire 
adult life, the right to abortion care--to privacy and the freedom to 
make my own family planning and healthcare decisions--was guaranteed in 
all 50 States. It sickens me that it is not the case today. My 
daughters-in-law, my

[[Page H6643]]

granddaughters, and all women and girls have been stripped of human 
rights and relegated to second-class citizens.
  After a decades-long effort, Republicans have fixed the Supreme Court 
with a few Justices corruptly seated by an autocratic President, and 
they now behave not as constitutional lawyers but as theocrats.
  In overturning Roe and sending a woman's reproductive freedom to 
State politicians--largely White, male--these Justices have decided 
their faith should determine everyone else's rights, not the 
Constitution.
  This is a call to the Chamber, to this Chamber, to the Senate, to the 
administration. We must restore, expand, and protect rights. We must 
pass laws that combat this regressive, shrinking Court. No excuses.
  That is why we are here, yet again, with legislation to codify the 
right to abortion care.
  Last September, the House passed the Women's Health Protection Act, 
and the Senate sat on its hands. Today, we must pass it again.
  I will return to the floor every session, with Representative Chu and 
many others, until we protect and expand rights. I ask my colleagues to 
do the same.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a doctor who understands what 
amazing technology is doing to save lives.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 8296.
  First, I would like to say, as a physician, my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle need to focus on what their bill really does. 
Stop talking about ectopic pregnancies, which are a surgical emergency; 
fetal demise, where, for unknown reasons, the fetus has passed away; 
and miscarriages, which, clearly, in many cases, are surgical 
emergencies and are tragic. That is not what this bill is about.
  I have heard claims the bill only codifies provisions of the now-
overturned Roe v. Wade decision. That is simply not true. H.R. 8296 
would create a national standard to allow abortions at any time up 
until birth.
  As a practicing heart surgeon for 15 years prior to coming to 
Congress, I operated on children in the neonatal intensive care unit as 
young as 23 weeks gestation. Even at 650 grams, or 1.4 pounds, and 
about 6 inches long, I saw life in my tiny patients' little bodies.
  This abortion on demand until birth act bill doesn't only allow 
abortions at any point in the pregnancy. It would also preempt and 
repeal State laws that require informed consent, ultrasounds, or other 
testing and counseling before undertaking an elective abortion.
  The American people deserve to know the facts about what is really in 
this bill. I find it troubling the supporters of this bill, most of 
whom have never taken care of a patient, continue to mislead the 
American people about what constitutes healthcare.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I want to begin to acknowledge the 
pain that people have experienced in the wake of being stripped of 
their rights and being thrust into legal limbo.
  We have already seen the impact this horrific decision has had on 
increased wait times in clinics, and doctors forced to consult with 
lawyers because of State restrictions, while patients may be dying on 
operating tables.
  The barbaric treatment of the 10-year-old child, a victim of rape, 
made into a media circus, and the prospect of the doctor who provided 
her care being subjected to legal action.
  We know the Supreme Court has put us all on the wrong side of 
history. These appalling stories reinforce the fact that denying 
fundamental healthcare has dire and unforeseen circumstances far beyond 
the slogans that have been bandied around.
  I believe it is our duty to take responsibility to make progress in 
even these difficult circumstances to provide a path forward. This 
legislation does that.
  We owe it to American families to make progress, to protect them and 
improve access to this right, and spare them government intrusion into 
the most sensitive and personal matters. Our rage must be productive.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), another defender of life.
  Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, my heart breaks today. I say that 
sincerely. My heart breaks to hear the words of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, who I respect highly for many reasons, who 
disregard the fact that we are talking about life.
  On this floor, we have talked about the need for formula this morning 
for the same babies we are talking about. We have heard our Speaker 
many times imploring us to do it for the children. Who are we talking 
about today?
  It breaks my heart to think that my colleagues don't trust women to 
make decisions about life before life is conceived. It breaks my heart 
to think that we don't hold men accountable to make decisions to love 
our girls and women.
  It breaks my heart that we would say this is a human right to take 
life when our Declaration of Independence brought us into being with 
unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  We are better than this. We have had 50 years of death. Think about 
the over 100 years before that we applauded life.
  Madam Speaker, it is time for us to stand for individuals taking 
responsibilities that God has made us capable of, to decide for the 
best interests of others, including those little children.
  Why is the safest place on Earth today the maternity ward nursery in 
a hospital, but not the womb?
  We must change. H.R. 8296 is a bill of death, and it is a bill that 
takes away responsibility for us, as adults, to do what we must do.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the chairman of our Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman, 
Chairman Pallone, for his leadership in this critically important area, 
as well as Representative Fletcher for leading the charge in an area 
that is significantly important and consistent with the values of this 
great country; a country that embraces life, liberty, and the pursuit 
of happiness, land of the free, and home of the brave, liberty and 
justice for all.
  But liberty, justice, and freedom are under assault right now because 
of a radical, rightwing, illegitimate Supreme Court majority and their 
extreme co-conspirators here in the House of Representatives attacking 
freedom.
  But this legislation and House Democrats are going to do everything 
in our power to defend a woman's freedom to make her own reproductive 
healthcare decisions, a woman's freedom to make a deeply personal 
decision that should be between a woman and her doctor, not extremists 
trying to intervene, and her freedom to make the decision to travel to 
seek abortion care whenever and wherever is necessary.
  Those are the stakes. That is why this legislation is so important, 
and we will always defend these freedoms.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern), a defender of 
freedom, a defender of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for 
all.
  Mr. HERN. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding the time.
  Last month, our Constitution was upheld at the Supreme Court, and 
States like Oklahoma took immediate action to protect the lives of the 
unborn.
  This shouldn't be a hard vote. It is the right for children, fully 
formed in the womb, to be born.
  Our allies and like-minded nations around the world do not allow 
abortions up to the moment of birth, as this bill would do. It is 
simply barbaric. My colleagues know it is an unpopular position, which 
is why they have resorted to lies and deceptions about lifesaving care 
for pregnant women.
  Madam Speaker, I urge every Member of this Chamber to vote ``no'' on 
H.R. 8296 and protect the right of our future generations to be born.

[[Page H6644]]

  

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).
  Ms. ADAMS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his extraordinary support.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today because I am pretty damn angry. You know 
the Supreme Court's decision overturning the right to abortion care is 
fundamentally wrong. The Supreme Court green-lit forced pregnancy, 
taking away the right to bodily autonomy for women.
  Abortion is still healthcare. People will still need to access it, 
and that is why I am supporting the Women's Health Protection Act.
  In the wake of the Dobbs decision, we have a State-by-State patchwork 
that denies women equal protection under the law.
  While abortion is still legal in my home State of North Carolina, the 
State of Texas is suing the government to compel women to carry 
pregnancies to term, even if it kills the mother.
  The attorney general of Indiana wants to force rape victims--even 10-
year-old girls--to carry pregnancies to term.
  We have a responsibility to stop this draconian overreach by State 
governments, and we have got to make reproductive freedom--reproductive 
freedom--the law of the land.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how 
much time is remaining in this debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Washington has 10\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a defender of life.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding 
time.
  You know, as we hold this debate, I remember back to a morning as a 
young resident at Parkland Hospital starting out in a residency in OB/
GYN and our major professor, our department chairman, Jack Pritchard, 
addressing us and telling us that starting into a career in OB/GYN, we 
were in a unique position in medicine.
  Every time we took a case, either as a primary doctor or consultant, 
we would have the unique opportunity to be taking care of two patients 
who had a combined life expectancy of over 100 years.
  He said nowhere else in medicine are you going to be able to affect 
the future to the degree that you can as an OB/GYN.
  In nearly 30 years of practice back in Texas, I have taken care of 
women with ectopic pregnancies. We did it before. We will continue to 
do it. It is a surgical emergency, and you don't shy away from it.
  Unfortunately, some pregnancies do conclude in a miscarriage, and 
some of those do require the attention of a physician. I would not 
hesitate to do that, then or now.
  But what I would not do and could not do was disrupt a viable 
pregnancy where a child could issue from that care. None of that 
changes, either before or after the Supreme Court decision.
  Look, there have been times when I have had to step in when someone 
had care at another facility and sought refuge in my emergency room 
because of severe complications they were having from an abortion done 
elsewhere.
  I would have to step in and correct the problems from the 
abortionist. I didn't hesitate to do that and will continue to do it in 
the future, but what I will not do is end a life in a pregnancy.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Women's Health Protection Act which will provide--in law--the right for 
people to make their own reproductive healthcare decisions.

  The Supreme Court's Dobbs opinion overturning abortion rights is 
infuriating, it is heartbreaking, and it is dangerous.
  For almost 50 years, the intensely personal decision about whether to 
bear a child or have an abortion was where it belongs--with the person 
who is pregnant.
  I remember the days before Roe v. Wade when abortions done without 
medical care could, and often did, have tragic consequences.
  Colleagues, make no mistake: Overturning Roe will not end abortions.
  Make no mistake: Taking away the right to abortion care will 
disproportionately hurt families and individuals who are already 
struggling, and disproportionately hurt people in rural areas who will 
struggle to get the care they need.
  My colleagues, if you believe life begins at conception, don't get an 
abortion. But that is a belief, it is not science, and others do not 
share it.
  I don't think anyone over here would ever force someone with your 
beliefs to get an abortion, but you are forcing your beliefs on others, 
and that is wrong.
  We need to restore personal freedom and put the decision about 
whether or when to bear a child back where it belongs.
  Today, I will enthusiastically vote for the Women's Health Protection 
Act.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline), another defender of 
life.
  Mr. CLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.
  ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created 
equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable 
rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness.'' Life.
  Abortion is a termination of that life and a grave human rights 
abuse, and it must end. No one has the right to end the life of an 
innocent human being. The government has a duty to protect that right 
to life.
  Since 1973, more than 63 million unborn babies have had their lives 
cut short. That is a tragedy and simply unacceptable, and I stand here 
for the sake of millions of children, for the sake of the integrity of 
our Nation.
  Let's follow the science. Preborn humans are, in fact, humans and 
deserving of life. But, unfortunately, the pro-abortion left has 
decided that ``human'' doesn't automatically grant that right and that 
humans should only be accorded human rights depending on their 
location, level of dependency, or size.
  That mindset is a travesty, and the practice of abortion will go down 
in history as a great stain on this Nation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), a defender of life.
  Mr. PFLUGER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington 
for yielding time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Democrats' extreme pro-
abortion agenda.
  Today, I am voting against two bills that go far beyond Roe v. Wade, 
which is the decision to move these types of unenumerated decisions to 
the State level, as the Constitution clearly says, backed up by the 
Supreme Court.
  But what my Democrat colleagues are pushing would permit elective 
abortions, up to and including a baby's due date, an extreme position 
legalizing abortion based on the child's race, sex, or disability. 
Tragic.
  Another of their initiatives opens up dangerous loopholes for child 
traffickers to cover up their crimes by forcing victims to receive 
abortions across State lines, and it criminalizes those who might 
encourage delaying an abortion, including parents or healthcare 
providers. Parents.
  Since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, Democrats at all levels, including 
the White House, have spread misinformation and fear surrounding the 
decision. Presenting the killing of a child as a woman's only avenue to 
success in her career or life is inhumane and wrong.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote against these 
bills.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank all of the leaders who 
recognize that reproductive freedom is a constitutional right.
  I rise today, and I stand in the name of a 10-year-old rape victim 
who was denied an abortion and had to run to another State.

[[Page H6645]]

  I stand in the name of the young woman who induced an abortion and 
became criminalized.
  I stand in the name of rape victims.
  I stand in the name of incest victims.
  I stand for reproductive freedom.
  And I stand in the name of the Constitution and the Ninth Amendment 
and the right of women with their faith leaders, their families, their 
extended knowledge, to be able to make their own decision about 
reproductive freedom.
  I stand for the Women's Health Protection Act because it prohibits a 
State, local, or Tribal Government from telling abortion providers that 
they should perform medically unnecessary procedures like ultrasounds 
and provide patients with medically inaccurate information. This would 
be prohibited by this particular legislation and, as well, to ensure 
that they would comply with credentialing or other conditions that do 
not apply to providers who offer medically comparable services.
  I stand in order for the Women's Health Protection Act to cover this 
United States and to ensure that the Constitution and Ninth Amendment 
prevails.
  I stand because the Supreme Court Justices who swore that they 
believe in precedent for 50 years of Roe v. Wade did, under oath, 
misrepresent to those who they were speaking to that they would adhere 
to stare decisis and the precedent.
  I stand because in Texas, the bounty hunters are seeking to 
criminalize and arrest persons. I stand for H.R. 5710 that will 
criminalize that activity.
  Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in strong support of H.R. 8296, the 
Women's Health Protection Act of 2022.
  H.R. 8296, the ``Women's Health Protection Act of 2022'' of which I 
have been a long-time supporter, would prohibit certain government 
restrictions on access to abortion.
  The bill would ensure physicians' ability to prescribe certain drugs, 
offer abortion services via telemedicine, and provide immediate 
abortion services when the mother's health is at risk.
  Furthermore, the ``Women's Health Protection Act of 2022'' would put 
an end to the hurdles some states have placed in the way of women 
accessing abortion care.
  This bill would prohibit state, local, or tribal governments from 
requiring abortion providers to:
  Perform medically unnecessary procedures like ultrasounds;
  Provide patients with medically inaccurate information or;
  Comply with credentialing or other conditions that do not apply to 
providers who offer medically comparable services.
  It would also safeguard all abortions before fetal viability, and 
after fetal viability when a physician determines the continuation of 
pregnancy puts the mother's life at risk.
  Under this bill, patients would not be required to disclose the 
reasoning behind their decision to receive an abortion, nor would they 
be forced to attend medically unnecessary health visits before their 
procedure appointment.
  In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to revoke the 
reproductive rights that women have enjoyed for half a century, 
Congress must act now to enshrine what is left of women's liberties 
into law.
  I stand in proud support of both H.R. 8296, the ``Women's Health 
Protection Act of 2022.''
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for women and girls and the 
providers who meet their medical needs every day.
  We cannot let those who wish to relegate women to second-class 
citizens turn back the clock any further.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), a strong defender 
of life, who is on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 8296 because 
Republicans care about women and babies.
  My colleagues across the aisle are unfortunately, once again, 
attempting to push their abortion on demand agenda, which most 
Americans find appalling.
  This bill is beyond extreme. It permits abortions on demand for any--
any reason, up until the moment of birth.
  Eighty percent of Americans say that abortion should be illegal in 
the third trimester, and for good reason. The methods used in late-term 
abortions to end the life of the preborn baby are truly reprehensible.

                              {time}  1045

  The bill before us today almost completely undermines the numerous 
pro-life laws that States have enacted since the U.S. Supreme Court 
overturned Roe v. Wade by imposing a national standard for abortion on 
demand.
  As a mother and grandmother, I can tell you that preborn babies are 
unquestionably human lives, and they are lives worth defending.
  I find it ironic that the party that tells us to follow the science 
denies basic science that says life begins at conception, that the 
first signs of a heartbeat can be detected after just 22 days, and that 
preborn babies can feel pain as early as 12 weeks inside the womb.
  Passing this legislation would be a stain on Congress. Women deserve 
better than this, and so do their preborn babies. Preborn babies are 
truly the most vulnerable and defenseless amongst us. We were elected 
to defend Americans' rights, and yet this Congress seeks to deny 
vulnerable persons', babies, the most basic right, the right to life.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers, so I 
continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), another defender of life.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, a great defender 
of life, for yielding me this time, and I stand for life today.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 8296, the so-called Women's Health Protection 
Act, is proof that the left wants to ensure limitless, taxpayer-funded 
abortion. This is truly outrageous, and the vast majority of Americans 
do not support abortion without limits.
  It is stunning that Congress is wasting its time on legislation that 
is so out of touch with the people it represents. What we should be 
focusing on is helping women and protecting the innocent lives of 
babies.
  For that reason, I rise today to offer a motion to recommit to 
instead consider H.R. 619, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection 
Act.
  Across the country, abortion providers are denying care to infants 
born alive after attempted abortions. We are talking about children who 
have already been born. We are talking about infanticide.
  Congress must act to protect innocent, defenseless babies who cannot 
protect themselves. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is 
compassionate legislation that does just that. This bill simply ensures 
that babies who survive attempted abortions receive the same standard 
of care that any newborn should receive.
  It would require healthcare providers to exercise skill, care, and 
diligence to preserve the life and health of these children and then 
immediately transport and admit them to the hospital.
  It would impose penalties on providers who purposefully fail to give 
medical care to these babies.
  It would bar criminal prosecution of the mother.
  But most importantly, it would save lives.
  Coming to Congress, I knew there would be a lot of difficult 
conversations about the life of the unborn, but I am truly shocked and 
heartbroken that I have to stand here and defend lifesaving care for 
babies who have already been born.
  Madam Speaker, we can, and we should make every effort to protect the 
lives of newborn babies.
  To my colleagues, this is the simplest vote you will ever have to 
take. Either you support babies being denied lifesaving healthcare 
after they are born, or you do not.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of the 
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I continue to 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how 
much time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Washington has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.

[[Page H6646]]

  

  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time to close.
  Madam Speaker, abortion is the sharpest, most soul-searching question 
before us as a Nation. It pierces every heart. People have strongly 
held beliefs and stories, and both sides are guilty of dismissing one 
another.
  For those of us who stand for the right to life, we must do a better 
job of listening and loving. Fear and despair lead to more arguments, 
anger, discord, and insecurity.

  The abortion on demand bill, this bill before us today, though, is 
extreme. It is abortion for any reason, at any stage of pregnancy until 
birth. It is not the will of the American people.
  I recently spoke with a doctor who shared with me what is possible 
today. It is American technology and medical technology that allows us 
now to do surgeries inside the womb.
  I am a mom of three young kids, and anyone who has given birth knows 
that to be able, because of technology, to see the baby develop day by 
day is just amazing.
  Doctors are performing prenatal surgeries and treatments to save 
lives. This doctor was telling me they can perform a prenatal surgery 
on 20 different organs. That wasn't possible in 1973 when Roe v. Wade 
was decided. In fact, the first successful fetal surgery wasn't until 
1982.
  Many decades later, look how far we have come. Science has evolved. 
It is my hope that we learn from this and that we reject abortion 
because it is unthinkable. It is not following the science. It doesn't 
reflect the latest research or modern medicine. Reject this 
legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court's extreme and dangerous decision in 
Dobbs turns back the clock and jeopardizes the health, well-being, and 
autonomy of women across the Nation. Access to comprehensive healthcare 
must include access to abortion, and the ability to access care should 
not depend on where you live.
  The bill before us, the Women's Health Protection Act, restores a 
right to an abortion nationwide, ensuring that all Americans, 
regardless of where they live, can make their own decisions about their 
lives and their futures.
  I urge my colleagues across the aisle to support this bill. While 
Republicans seek to punish and control women by criminalizing abortion 
nationwide, House Democrats will continue our fight to restore the 
right to abortion as the law of the land.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, 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

  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Michelle Fischback of Minnesota moves to recommit the 
     bill H.R. 8296 to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  The material previously referred to by Mrs. Fischbach is as follows:

       Strike all that follows the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. BORN-ALIVE ABORTION SURVIVORS PROTECTION.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Born-
     Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act''.
       (b) Findings; Constitutional Authority.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds as follows:
       (A) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, 
     the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws 
     of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of 
     such laws.
       (B) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a 
     hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the 
     protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or 
     for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other 
     facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a 
     patient within its care.
       (2) Constitutional authority.--In accordance with the above 
     findings, Congress enacts the following pursuant to Congress' 
     power under--
       (A) section 5 of the 14th Amendment, including the power to 
     enforce the prohibition on government action denying equal 
     protection of the laws; and
       (B) section 8 of article I to make all laws necessary and 
     proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the 
     Constitution of the United States, including the power to 
     regulate commerce under clause 3 of such section.
       (c) Born-alive Infants Protection.--
       (1) Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion 
     survivors.--Chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after section 1531 the following:

     ``Sec. 1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion 
       survivors

       ``(a) Requirements for Health Care Practitioners.--In the 
     case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a 
     child born alive (as defined in section 8 of title 1, United 
     States Code (commonly known as the `Born-Alive Infants 
     Protection Act')):
       ``(1) Degree of care required; immediate admission to a 
     hospital.--Any health care practitioner present at the time 
     the child is born alive shall--
       ``(A) exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, 
     and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as 
     a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care 
     practitioner would render to any other child born alive at 
     the same gestational age; and
       ``(B) following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence 
     required under subparagraph (A), ensure that the child born 
     alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.
       ``(2) Mandatory reporting of violations.--A health care 
     practitioner or any employee of a hospital, a physician's 
     office, or an abortion clinic who has knowledge of a failure 
     to comply with the requirements of paragraph (1) shall 
     immediately report the failure to an appropriate State or 
     Federal law enforcement agency, or to both.
       ``(b) Penalties.--
       ``(1) In general.--Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be 
     fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5 
     years, or both.
       ``(2) Intentional killing of child born alive.--Whoever 
     intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act 
     that kills a child born alive described under subsection (a), 
     shall be punished as under section 1111 of this title for 
     intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
       ``(c) Bar to Prosecution.--The mother of a child born alive 
     described under subsection (a) may not be prosecuted under 
     this section, for conspiracy to violate this section, or for 
     an offense under section 3 or 4 of this title based on such a 
     violation.
       ``(d) Civil Remedies.--
       ``(1) Civil action by a woman on whom an abortion is 
     performed.--If a child is born alive and there is a violation 
     of subsection (a), the woman upon whom the abortion was 
     performed or attempted may, in a civil action against any 
     person who committed the violation, obtain appropriate 
     relief.
       ``(2) Appropriate relief.--Appropriate relief in a civil 
     action under this subsection includes--
       ``(A) objectively verifiable money damage for all injuries, 
     psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of 
     subsection (a);
       ``(B) statutory damages equal to 3 times the cost of the 
     abortion or attempted abortion; and
       ``(C) punitive damages.
       ``(3) Attorney's fee for plaintiff.--The court shall award 
     a reasonable attorney's fee to a prevailing plaintiff in a 
     civil action under this subsection.
       ``(4) Attorney's fee for defendant.--If a defendant in a 
     civil action under this subsection prevails and the court 
     finds that the plaintiff's suit was frivolous, the court 
     shall award a reasonable attorney's fee in favor of the 
     defendant against the plaintiff.
       ``(e) Definitions.--In this section the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Abortion.--The term `abortion' means the use or 
     prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other 
     substance or device--
       ``(A) to intentionally kill the unborn child of a woman 
     known to be pregnant; or
       ``(B) to intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a woman 
     known to be pregnant, with an intention other than--
       ``(i) after viability, to produce a live birth and preserve 
     the life and health of the child born alive; or
       ``(ii) to remove a dead unborn child.
       ``(2) Attempt.--The term `attempt', with respect to an 
     abortion, means conduct that, under the circumstances as the 
     actor believes them to be, constitutes a substantial step in 
     a course of conduct planned to culminate in performing an 
     abortion.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item pertaining to section 1531 the following:
``1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion survivors.''.
       (3) Chapter heading amendments.--
       (A) Chapter heading in chapter.--The chapter heading for 
     chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``Partial-Birth Abortions'' and inserting 
     ``Abortions''.
       (B) Table of chapters for part i.--The item relating to 
     chapter 74 in the table of

[[Page H6647]]

     chapters at the beginning of part I of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``Partial-Birth 
     Abortions'' and inserting ``Abortions''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to section 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this 
question are postponed.

                          ____________________