[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 117 (Friday, July 15, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H6647-H6660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                ENSURING ACCESS TO ABORTION ACT OF 2022

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1224, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 8297) to prohibit the interference, under color of 
State law, with the provision of interstate abortion services, and for 
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the 
amendment printed in part B of House Report 117-405 shall be considered 
as adopted. The bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 8297

       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 ``Ensuring Women's Right to 
     Reproductive Freedom Act''.

     SEC. 2. INTERFERENCE WITH INTERSTATE ABORTION SERVICES 
                   PROHIBITED.

       (a) Interference Prohibited.--No person acting under color 
     of State law, including any person who, by operation of a 
     provision of State law, is permitted to implement or enforce 
     State law, may prevent, restrict, or impede, or retaliate 
     against, in any manner--
       (1) a health care provider's ability to provide, initiate, 
     or otherwise enable an abortion service that is lawful in the 
     State in which the service is to be provided to a patient who 
     does not reside in that State;
       (2) any person or entity's ability to assist a health care 
     provider to provide, initiate, or otherwise enable an 
     abortion service that is lawful in the State in which the 
     service is to be provided to a patient who does not reside in 
     that State, if such assistance does not violate the law of 
     that State;
       (3) any person's ability to travel across a State line for 
     the purpose of obtaining an abortion service that is lawful 
     in the State in which the service is to be provided;
       (4) any person's or entity's ability to assist another 
     person traveling across a State line for the purpose of 
     obtaining an abortion service that is lawful in the State in 
     which the service is to be provided; or
       (5) the movement in interstate commerce, in accordance with 
     Federal law or regulation, of any drug approved or licensed 
     by the Food and Drug Administration for the termination of a 
     pregnancy.
       (b) Enforcement by Attorney General.--The Attorney General 
     may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States 
     district court against any person who violates subsection (a) 
     for declaratory and injunctive relief.
       (c) Private Right of Action.--Any person who is harmed by a 
     violation of subsection (a) may bring a civil action in the 
     appropriate United States district court against the person 
     who violated such subsection for declaratory and injunctive 
     relief, and for such compensatory damages as the court 
     determines appropriate, including for economic losses and for 
     emotional pain and suffering. The court may, in addition, 
     award reasonable attorney's fees and costs of the action to a 
     prevailing plaintiff.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``abortion service'' means--
       (A) an abortion, including the use of any drug approved or 
     licensed by the Food and Drug Administration for the 
     termination of a pregnancy; and
       (B) any health care service related to or provided in 
     conjunction with an abortion (whether or not provided at the 
     same time or on the same day as the abortion).
       (2) The term ``health care provider'' means any entity or 
     individual (including any physician, certified nurse-midwife, 
     nurse practitioner, physician's assistant, or pharmacist) 
     that is--
       (A) engaged or seeks to engage in the delivery of health 
     care services, including abortion services; and
       (B) licensed or certified to perform such service under 
     applicable State law.
       (3) The term ``drug'' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 321).
       (4) The term ``State'' includes the several States, the 
     District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
     United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, each Indian tribe, and each 
     territory or possession of the United States.
       (e) 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.
       (f) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to limit the fundamental right to travel within the 
     United States, including the District of Columbia, Tribal 
     lands, and the territories of the United States, nor to limit 
     any existing enforcement authority of the Attorney General or 
     any existing remedies available to address a violation of 
     such right.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour 
equally divided 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. 8297, the Ensuring Access to 
Abortion 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. 8297, the 
Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act, introduced by 
Representative Fletcher, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Last month, when the Supreme Court overturned a woman's 
constitutional right to abortion, it also gave license to extreme 
Republican politicians to pass dangerous laws across the Nation. These 
State laws criminalize healthcare and create an environment of fear for 
healthcare providers or anyone else assisting someone who needs an 
abortion.
  Already, abortion bans are in effect in 9 States, and more are 
expected soon. Republican politicians and anti-abortion extremists are 
also actively considering even more actions. They want to prevent 
private citizens from legally crossing State lines to obtain an 
abortion. They also want to deputize private citizens to track down 
anyone who might help a woman legally obtain an abortion in another 
State.
  These actions clearly violate the Constitution and the right to 
travel freely, and this legislation will put those States on notice 
that their actions to limit their citizens from obtaining the 
healthcare they need cannot be enforced.
  H.R. 8297 reaffirms the right to travel across State lines to obtain 
a lawful abortion. It protects healthcare providers who provide lawful 
abortion care to out-of-State residents, and it protects anyone who may 
assist a woman in crossing State lines to obtain a lawful abortion, 
such as a friend, partner, or volunteer.
  Madam Speaker, the bill also prohibits individuals acting under State 
law from restricting or impeding access to medication abortions, which 
States are rushing to restrict despite the clear authority of the 
Federal Government.
  Madam Speaker, while we need the Women's Health Protection Act to 
become law to restore access to abortion in all 50 States, we must also 
mitigate some of the extreme and dangerous laws Republicans are 
enacting now to prevent women from making their own healthcare 
decisions.
  This legislation does that, which is why I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8297, the Ensuring 
Access to Abortion Act.

[[Page H6648]]

  Just like the Democrats' abortion on demand until birth act, this 
bill is part of an extreme agenda to nationalize abortion for all 9 
months of pregnancy. Abortion is a false choice between taking care of 
a woman and taking care of a baby.
  What a woman needs is support. Every life is meaningful, and our 
actions are significant. Seventy-six percent of women seeking an 
abortion say that they would choose life if their circumstances were 
different.
  Instead of promoting ways to support women and children with better 
healthcare, education, financial stability, and changing their 
circumstances, Democrats, including President Biden, are spreading 
fear, anxiety, and misinformation. This is a blatant attempt to spread 
fear and present abortion at any stage of pregnancy as a woman's only 
option.
  So I will be very clear:
  It is already unconstitutional to prevent a woman from traveling 
between States.
  The pro-life movement does not support and has always rejected 
criminalizing and punishing women, period.
  State laws currently in effect have exceptions to save the life of 
the mother.
  And pro-life laws do not prevent women from getting care they need in 
cases of miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies.
  Regarding this legislation, the Ensuring Access to Abortion Act, I 
have many questions and concerns. Its vague language, designed to 
promote more abortions, undermines parental consent for minors, opens 
loopholes for abuse, and eliminates medical supervision for chemical 
abortions.
  This bill does nothing to explicitly prevent an unrelated adult or a 
sexual abuser from taking a minor out of State for an abortion without 
parental consent. It would prevent healthcare professionals, social 
workers, and schools in every State from reporting instances of child 
abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect because they could be seen as delaying 
or hindering access to abortion.

                              {time}  1100

  It also undermines parent rights. Parents can be targeted by the 
Federal Government and sued for wanting to help their child just by 
asking them to delay traveling to get an abortion.
  If their child is 16, for example, the parents lose power to protect 
their teenager from being coerced by an older man to get an abortion.
  The Ensuring Access to Abortion Act undermines the health and safety 
of women by preempting State laws regulating the practice of medicine. 
It overrides the majority of States that have determined it is safest 
for doctors to prescribe pills for chemical abortions. This puts women 
and minors in danger if they experience complications.
  Finally, these same provisions give sexual abusers and human 
traffickers more direct access to chemical abortions in all 50 States 
and ensures that doctors in States like California, where there is no 
parental consent, can effectively become pill mills by prescribing and 
mailing abortion drugs to children and minors and end lives all over 
the country.
  This is extreme.
  Again, I ask my colleagues to abandon this agenda for unlimited 
abortions with no restrictions. It only promotes more fear, pain, and 
dehumanization of the most vulnerable, the helpless among us.
  Instead, let's come together. Let's come together around human rights 
of every person in this country, the born and unborn. Let's celebrate 
the dignity, the value, and the potential of every person. This is our 
chance to lead a new era of hope and healing in our country for every 
person, for moms and babies at every stage of life.
  Every life is worth living.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Mrs. Fletcher), the sponsor of this legislation.
  Mrs. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, in my beloved home State of Texas, we 
are in a crisis, a healthcare crisis, a humanitarian crisis.
  Since last September, access to abortion has been severely limited. 
Since last month, it has been eliminated.
  In response, Texans who can do so have been traveling out of State to 
obtain abortion care, first to Oklahoma, Louisiana, and New Mexico. As 
some of these States have banned abortion, they are now traveling even 
farther.
  Now, in response to this exercise of their constitutional right to 
travel between the States, lawmakers in Texas and in other States 
across the country are threatening to take away that right, too.
  This is not hypothetical, it is not hyperbole, and it is nothing like 
what we just heard from the minority in response to this bill.
  Just last week, a group of lawmakers in Texas publicized a letter 
that they sent to at least one law firm in Texas threatening the firm 
and each of its partners with felony criminal prosecution and 
disbarment because of the firm's policy to reimburse employees for 
travel costs associated with out-of-State travel for abortion care.
  It is not just Texas. Lawmakers in Missouri have already considered 
legislation to prohibit its residents from traveling outside of the 
State for abortion care to States where it is legal, and groups are 
working on model legislation to introduce in States across the country 
as we speak.
  Not only do these threats fail to reflect the will of the majority of 
people in this country who favor a legislative framework that takes 
into account the complex circumstances of pregnancy that we have 
discussed this morning, these threats fail to reflect the fundamental 
rights guaranteed in our Constitution.
  Congress has the authority and the responsibility to protect people 
from these unconstitutional efforts to prevent, restrict, impede, or 
otherwise punish a person traveling to another State to obtain a legal 
abortion and to protect those providers and others who are helping 
them.
  This morning, we are doing exactly that in passing the Ensuring 
Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act.
  I thank the chairman, the Speaker, original cosponsors Representative 
Strickland and Representative Raskin, and all of our cosponsors for, 
once again, responding with urgency to the cruel efforts to deprive my 
fellow Texans and our fellow Americans of their constitutional right to 
travel by bringing this bill to the floor today, and I urge everyone in 
this body to vote ``yes.''
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Flores), a new Member just elected from 
the great State of Texas, the first Member who was born in Mexico, and 
a great member of our Republican Conference.
  Mrs. FLORES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to address my strong 
opposition to H.R. 8297, the Ensuring Access to Abortion Act.
  Protecting the voiceless ought to be a top priority in this House and 
in every corner of this land.
  As a mother of four beautiful and strong children, I find it hard to 
believe there are those who think defending life is optional, even to 
the last month of pregnancy.
  H.R. 8297 is the opposite of what brought me to Congress, and it is 
the opposite of the values of the people of my district, Texas 34.
  Let's be clear what this bill does: Undermines the ability of States 
to hold sexual abusers accountable, stops States from preventing 
abortion pill mills, and it gives human traffickers and abusers more 
direct access to chemical abortions in all 50 States.
  Protecting life shouldn't be political.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 8297.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo), the chairwoman of our Subcommittee on Health.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman of our committee for 
his leadership.
  I rise in strong support of this legislation. It is aptly named, 
Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act.
  I have listened to the debate so far on this bill, and I really find 
it hard to believe what I am hearing. I think the people of this 
country need to know, before we get to the reproductive freedoms, that 
the Republicans are opposed to contraception. That is a fact around 
here.

[[Page H6649]]

  Now, because of what the Supreme Court has unleashed with the Dobbs 
decision, we have a patchwork of States with different laws. Some 
States provide full healthcare for women; others don't.
  Now, those living, as the author of this legislation stated, in 
Texas, they are fleeing Texas to go to other States; but those States 
want to stop women from traveling. That is what this is about. Stop 
women from traveling. What are they going to do? Put their Highway 
Patrol on the border to interview people to find out where they are 
going and why? This is extreme in terms of what these States want to 
do.
  Today, the House, in its votes, makes it crystal clear to those 
States that they cannot take this freedom away. This bill establishes 
protections for women who travel for care and for healthcare 
professionals who provide that care.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, just to clarify, not a 
single legislature or Congress is debating making contraception 
illegal. Contraception is not abortion. It prevents conception. The 
scare tactic about making contraception illegal is another scare tactic 
by the Democrats to advance a radical abortion agenda to end life up 
until 9 months.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester), a member of our committee.
  Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Ensuring 
Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act. In the wake of the 
overturning of Roe v. Wade, this legislation is necessary to ensure 
that those in States that have restricted abortion care can travel 
across State lines to seek the care they need and not be criminalized 
for doing so.
  I am proud that women in my home State of Delaware still have access 
to abortion care and that we can serve as a safe haven for those from 
other States.
  But the reality for far too many people across the country is that 
they live in States where access to reproductive care has been so 
severely restricted that it is unavailable. While the bills we are 
voting on today are necessary, we must also confront the realities of 
what overturning Roe means.
  Now, my middle name is Blunt, so let me be clear about who is going 
to be hit the hardest: poor women, young women, women in rural areas, 
and women of color, people who may not have the ability to travel 
hundreds of miles to get the care they need.
  Madam Speaker, I was 10 years old when the landmark case of Roe was 
decided. Half a century later, I am standing on the floor of the House 
of Representatives, standing in the gap for doctors and healthcare 
providers, so that they don't have to consult with a lawyer before they 
decide to give good care to their patients, standing for those who 
stood before us and fought for us to have this right for reproductive 
rights in the first place. I am standing for our young people so that 
our daughters and granddaughters don't need a health passport to travel 
from State to State or need to worry about being criminalized for 
seeking care.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all Members of the House to support both the 
Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act and the Women's 
Health Protection Act. The bottom line: There is no room for 
politicians in our wombs.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger), a strong defender of the 
right to life.
  Mrs. HARSHBARGER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share my concern for 
the extraordinary lengths that my colleagues across the aisle will go 
in order to rip away a chance at life from unborn children.
  H.R. 8297, the Ensuring Access to Abortion Act, is a deceptive ploy 
to circumvent the authority of States to set their own laws about 
abortion procedures or, more plainly, the procedures that violently end 
an unborn child's life.
  On June 24, the Nation received historical news from the highest 
court in the land that Roe v. Wade had been overturned. This decision 
was an answer to nearly 50 years of prayer and a decision that rights a 
wrong that was committed in the very same court almost half a century 
ago.
  The Supreme Court ruling verified that our Constitution gives no 
protections for abortion procedures. Abortion was never a 
constitutional right, and that has been the big lie to millions of 
women for the past 50 years. It was determined that this decision 
should not be mandated by Washington but chosen by the people through 
their State legislatures.
  The Ensuring Access to Abortion Act is not only a blatant attempt to 
undermine State sovereignty; it also opens the door to incredibly 
dangerous consequences.
  For one, the bill would restrict enforcement of State laws that 
require physicians to be present when chemical abortions are 
administered. This supervision is a safety measure to ensure that a 
patient does not have an ectopic pregnancy, which could lead to fatal 
consequences.
  The primary pillar of the pro-life movement is that all life is 
precious. We must consider the health implications of women who receive 
an abortion or partial procedure across State lines and return to their 
home State in need of dire medical attention.
  Women who have abortion procedures face a myriad of increased risks 
that can occur later. Sterilization, miscarriage, and tubal pregnancies 
are not uncommon.
  Are we to assume that the responsibility for treatment of these 
subsequent health risks falls on the State whose laws were 
circumvented? Because that is what would ultimately happen.
  And as a woman in Congress, I urge my colleagues to look at how this 
legislation puts at-risk minors and women in vulnerable positions. The 
language in this bill is so vague that it makes no consideration for 
abusers, those abusers that transport minors across State lines to 
receive abortions after their abuse.
  We can't afford to be vague and allow blanket protection for anyone 
assisting in an abortion. We cannot be that naive, especially when 
these procedures have life and death consequences.

                              {time}  1115

  To be clear, not a single State has banned interstate travel for 
women seeking abortion. This bill isn't about protecting women from the 
State; it is about dramatically restricting States from protecting 
their citizens and forcing pro-life States to absorb the burden of 
safety complications that follow the superseding of their protective 
measures.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to think about the damaging 
consequences.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Underwood). The time of the gentlewoman 
has expired.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mrs. HARSHBARGER. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to think 
about the damaging consequences of taking power from the States. Not 
only does it set a dangerous precedent of Federal overreach and taking 
power from the people, but it also has terrifying health implications 
for expectant mothers and at-risk youth, and the protection of bad 
actors.
  I will always be a steadfast defender of an unborn child's right to 
live, and I will never back down from a fight to protect women and 
those unborn children. We cannot put both at risk with this damaging 
legislation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who chairs our Consumer Protection and 
Commerce Subcommittee.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I lived the days before abortion was 
safe and legal in the United States of America, and I remember the 
desperation of women, some of them my friends, some of whom had to make 
really dangerous decisions about how they were going to be able to 
exercise control over their own bodies and make this most personal 
decision on their own. Some women died because they sought these 
dangerous methods on their own to end a pregnancy.

[[Page H6650]]

  Let's be clear: Roe v. Wade wasn't the beginning of women having 
abortions; it was the end of women dying from abortions.
  Abortion is healthcare. When Roe v. Wade finally became the law of 
the land, women were able finally to control their own bodies.
  This bill is about freedom, and one of the most precious freedoms 
that we have is the freedom to travel from State to State in the United 
States of America.
  What happens to the woman who is happily pregnant and who may be 
going to visit her family in Illinois, where, thank God, abortion is 
still legal? Are you going to check her out? Is she going to have to 
prove somehow that she is not going for an abortion? How are you going 
to enforce this without going into all the personal history of women 
who are traveling across State lines?
  Enough is enough. In the United States of America, the right to 
travel is sacred. It is protected under the Commerce Clause, and we 
will not go back. Women will not go back.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), our whip and a strong defender 
of life.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, the ranking 
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, for 
leading on this issue.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this radical movement 
by our colleagues on the left to go way further than Roe, under the 
guise of codifying Roe, to push some of the most extreme packages of 
pro-abortion legislation that we have seen.
  Where would this push us if they got their way? Under this package of 
bills that the House is taking up today, the United States would end up 
among just a handful of countries, including China and North Korea, in 
radical abortion on demand up until birth policy.
  Now, there has been a lot of misinformation presented since the 
Supreme Court made their decision, a decision that I applaud because, 
Madam Speaker, it is a decision that finally said Roe was a flawed 
decision and that, in fact, elected leaders should be the ones debating 
this.
  How much can we debate how to protect life? States have been having 
this debate. Roe didn't end the debate. It started a movement, a 
movement for almost 50 years. The March for Life. You see young people, 
tens and hundreds of thousands, coming up to Washington, just praying 
and marching for the opportunity to protect life. Now, those States and 
Congress can have that debate about how much more we can do to protect 
life.
  In fact, we brought an amendment because whether it was before the 
Dobbs decision or even today, a State like New York has such a radical 
law that a baby can be born alive outside the womb, and they can murder 
that baby and call it abortion. That is still legal today in States 
like New York. It should not be. It is murder. If a baby is born alive 
outside the womb, how in America can that baby be murdered under the 
guise of abortion? Yet, that is what is allowed.
  We had the motion to recommit we brought forward--we will have a vote 
on that shortly--to say that barbaric act can no longer happen again in 
America, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Everybody 
should vote for that. People pro-choice have said they think it is 
radical that a baby can be born alive outside the womb and still be 
murdered under the name of abortion.
  We will have the opportunity to right that wrong today on the House 
floor. I hope everybody votes for it. Unfortunately, so far, we haven't 
gotten any support from my Democratic colleagues.
  I will end with this, Madam Speaker: Our Founding Fathers empowered 
us with three unalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness. The first among those is life. Let's do all we can to 
protect life, not have this radical, extreme agenda pushed forward 
today.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Schrier).
  Ms. SCHRIER. Madam Speaker, this new post-Roe reality that we are 
living with is still sinking in for most of us, but if you are a woman 
who is pregnant now and needs to end that pregnancy, and you are in one 
of the States that has outlawed abortion, every day is filled with 
panic and horror, trying to figure out how to get the care you need. 
This is a crisis.

  Now, politicians in some of those States are threatening to 
criminalize travel to another State for abortion care and to 
criminalize doctors and anyone else who might help, for example, with 
transportation. This is outrageous.
  Such extreme laws are nothing less than an attack on women--on our 
autonomy, on our freedom, on our health, and on our privacy. These are 
backward positions. They are extreme and draconian.
  The decision to have an abortion is one for a woman to make in 
consultation with her doctor--no one else, definitely not politicians.
  As a doctor, I have been in the room with women making the extremely 
difficult and personal decision about whether to end a pregnancy. 
Politics has no place there. I have been in the room with a woman with 
an ectopic pregnancy for whom abortion is the standard of care.
  Let's be clear, State laws that criminalize abortion and also 
criminalize travel across State lines for abortion put doctors in an 
impossible situation and put women at risk.
  As a doctor, I took the Hippocratic Oath to ``first, do no harm,'' 
and I want you to think for a moment about the harm of a delayed or 
more complicated abortion, or that ectopic pregnancy, or the harm of 
having a rape victim carry a pregnancy to term, or the rates of 
maternal mortality in this country.
  Make no mistake. These bans are draconian. Banning travel is extreme, 
controlling, and dangerous. Women will die because a bunch of 
politicians decided that they should be in charge of women's bodies. 
This is reprehensible.
  I will keep doing everything I can to protect women's access to 
abortion no matter where they live, and I implore my House and Senate 
colleagues to pass these bills.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube) to continue our fight for human 
rights for all.
  Mr. STEUBE. Madam Speaker, let me address the complete 
misrepresentations of fact that we have been hearing from Democrats 
since Roe has been overturned.
  There has never been a constitutional right to end the life of an 
innocent, unborn child--never. It doesn't exist in the Constitution, 
and Congress has never passed a law allowing for the murder of the 
unborn. In fact, the opposite exists.
  In the Fifth and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, there is a 
constitutional right for any person to not be deprived of life, 
liberty, or property.
  Certainly, an unborn child is a person. What else could it be? 
Therefore, that person shall not be deprived of life pursuant to the 
Constitution, period.
  Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court got it right and made it clear that 
``the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.''
  Over 63 million children have been murdered since Roe was decided. 
That is not freedom. That is genocide.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him for his extraordinary leadership on this subject not only as 
we face the Court decision but, over time, his chairmanship of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee in terms of health in general, women's 
health in particular, reproductive health as we gather today. I thank 
members of the committee, and I thank the authors of this legislation 
as I proceed.
  I rise on this momentous day as our pro-choice, pro-women Democratic 
majority proudly takes further action to defend the fundamental right 
of health freedom.
  As extremist Republicans continue their assault on reproductive 
rights, our Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act will 
ensure that the fundamental right to travel and obtain needed 
healthcare remains in the hands of the American people.

[[Page H6651]]

  Our Women's Health Protection Act will once again make the 
protections of Roe v. Wade the law of the land.
  Let us salute the patriotic and persistent leadership not only of our 
distinguished chairman, Mr. Pallone, but also Congresswoman Lizzie 
Fletcher and Congresswoman Marilyn Strickland, who are leading the 
charge on the right-to-travel bill, working with Jamie Raskin, who is a 
member of the Judiciary Committee and who has been part of this.
  I also salute Congresswoman Judy Chu, who will have now twice secured 
House passage of the Women's Health Protection Act; Pro-Choice Caucus 
co-chairs Diana DeGette and Barbara Lee; and Energy and Commerce 
Chairman Frank Pallone.
  Three weeks ago, the Republican Party finally achieved its dark, 
dangerous, long-held goal to rip away a woman's freedom over her most 
fundamental decisions about her body, her health, and her life.
  Since the Republican-captured Supreme Court eviscerated Roe v. Wade, 
at least nine Republican-controlled States have already banned 
abortion. More have enacted draconian restrictions so that exercising 
this fundamental right is practically impossible.
  In doing so, these extreme measures have forced countless women to 
seek reproductive care in nearby States. But now, Republican lawmakers 
across the country are advancing proposals to block women from crossing 
State lines to get the care they need and punish those who, in their 
words, ``aid or abet'' them.
  Is this the United States of America, where Republicans in these 
States can say to women, ``You cannot cross State lines for your own 
good health?''
  This has been especially devastating for women who do not have the 
means to access care, often women of color and women from low-income 
communities.
  This reality is sickening. It is despicable. It demands action.
  With our Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act, we will 
prevent Republicans from punishing women for exercising their right to 
travel and receive the healthcare they need, and it will protect 
healthcare providers who deliver reproductive services and all those 
who help women make the journey to receive those services. This means 
no criminal charges, no lawsuits, no fees or fines, no threats of 
retaliation.

  Importantly, this legislation also reaffirms the right to travel, a 
freedom we often take for granted but is fundamental to liberty and 
privacy.
  Republicans supposedly once stood for these values, but today, they 
are seeking to restrict where you can go and who you can see and to 
stand between you, your family, your doctor, and your God in making 
intimate health decisions.
  This is not only anti-women; it is anti-American. House Democrats are 
fighting back.
  Madam Speaker, today, our majority will also pass the Women's Health 
Protection Act, which protects the right to an abortion found in Roe v. 
Wade, ensuring the Federal right of healthcare providers to provide 
reproductive care and the Federal right for patients to receive that 
care.
  By passing this legislation, we will preempt and prevent State-level 
bans and restrictions put forth by extremist, anti-women State 
legislators.

                              {time}  1130

  We will ensure that all Americans enjoy the same fundamental rights 
to reproductive care--regardless of background or ZIP Code.
  We offer help to the American people who treasure our freedoms and 
who are overwhelmingly with us in our mission to defend them.
  What do Republicans have in store next?
  You can't travel to buy a book?
  You can't travel to see a concert or a play--if it doesn't meet 
their, shall we say--I wouldn't use the word standards--their what?
  Today, we must pass this legislation for a second time. We first 
passed this bill last September after Texas severely restricted the 
ability of women to access reproductive care with SB8, an outrageous 
bounty hunter bill. We do so again today, in the wake of the outrageous 
Supreme Court ruling that erased the vital protections of Roe v. Wade.
  The Court's disgraceful decision has already unleashed catastrophe: 
women denied care after experiencing the heartbreak of miscarriage; 
survivors of sexual assault facing the possibility of forced birth; 
doctors under threat of persecution for offering reproductive services.
  Many of these situations are well-known and are publicized--they are 
in the public domain. There are many more than are just in the public 
domain. Make no mistake, eviscerating the protections of Roe was only 
the opening act of the cruel Republican crusade to criminalize women.
  In recent days, we have heard again of the tragic story of a young 
girl who was a survivor of sexual assault and had to travel to a 
neighboring State to receive the reproductive healthcare she needed. 
Now, the State attorney general--a Republican who served here in the 
House--is now investigating the doctor who legally provided her 
services. She is 10 years old. This move is intended to intimidate 
healthcare providers and produce a chilling effect on access to 
reproductive care.
  The Republican agenda is not just a threat to families in red States. 
House Republicans' overwhelming opposition to our legislation make 
clear that they do not want anyone to access reproductive care 
anywhere. Indeed, their endgame is a barbaric ban on abortion in all 50 
States.
  As the Associate Justice Clarence Thomas said, they have only just 
begun in terms of their restrictions in terms of contraception and the 
rest. They will not stop there. These extremists are even threatening 
to criminalize birth control, in vitro fertilization, and post-
miscarriage care.
  Democrats will never stop fighting back against this extreme assault 
because we know that every woman everywhere has the basic right to 
reproductive healthcare.
  Right now, the rights of women and every American are on the line, 
Madam Speaker.
  House Democrats are ferociously defending freedom with these two 
important bills. We need two more Democratic pro-choice Senators so 
that we can eliminate the filibuster and make this legislation the law 
of the land.
  Madam Speaker, as the radical Republican Party seeks to wind back the 
clock of 50 years of hard-fought progress, I am reminded of an 
extemporaneous debate in which I participated as a high school student.
  A young woman, a friend of mine, drew a question from a bowl on a 
slip of paper that read: Do women think?
  Today, it seems that some wish to debate that same question: the 
extremist Republican assault on women's rights harkens back to this 
darker time.
  Do women think?
  Indeed, because of Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, and a radical 
rightwing Republican Party, and their supermajority in the Supreme 
Court, right now American women have less freedom than their mothers.
  By passing this legislation, the Democratic House is standing on the 
side of freedom for women and for every American.
  The young lady who drew the insulting question answered that question 
with grace and strength, and she won the debate.
  Just as Democrats intend to win on the question of women's health and 
freedom, not only here in the Halls of Congress, but with the American 
people in November.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a very strong vote for the Women's Health 
Protection Act and the Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom 
Act. I hope we have a strong vote and I hope a bipartisan vote.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, as we celebrate a record 
number of pro-life women serving in the United States House of 
Representatives today and an army of pro-life women all across this 
country from every corner, we are fighting for the human rights of all, 
especially the unborn.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Cammack), one of those mighty warriors.
  Mrs. CAMMACK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle to stop lying. Stop lying. Roe did not make 
abortion illegal, it returned the issue to the

[[Page H6652]]

States. Now we see that you all want to take those rights away from the 
States--strip them, in fact.
  Under this bill that we are considering here today, you want to take 
this issue further than Roe ever did and take away the rights of 
children, those most vulnerable. The notion that women will somehow be 
stopped at checkpoints, in some 1984 scenario, this is insane and 
political fear-mongering at its best. You know that. You know that.
  I hear constantly about these ``extreme positions'' that 
conservatives and those in the pro-life movement are taking, but what 
is extreme is not taking a stand for the child that survives an 
abortion attempt. That is extreme. Denying medical care for that child, 
that is the extreme.
  Madam Speaker, I always say--and bless your heart, 36 years of 
service, that is incredible, 2 years longer than I have been alive.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 
minute to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Mrs. CAMMACK. Madam Speaker, in that 36 years of service, Madam 
Speaker, 60 million children have been murdered, with over 30 percent 
of them being minorities, African Americans and Hispanics.
  It is curious logic that we murder these children to empower them.
  Where were the rights of those young, little girls that were 
murdered? They didn't have a voice.
  Yet here we are debating the fact that this is a right. A right?
  No, no, no. This is an issue that has gone back to the States. Not an 
issue for us here in this Chamber to be deciding, when we know that 
this Nation is based on life: life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness. It starts at life.
  The extreme positions, they are being held on that side of the aisle. 
We are a Nation of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. We know that 
abortion is equal outcome. Give those children the opportunity to live.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this ridiculous 
bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Ms. Strickland), who is the chief cosponsor of this 
bill.
  Ms. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act, which my colleagues 
and I wrote to support reproductive choice.
  Simply put, this bill codifies the constitutional right to travel, 
which includes the ability to cross State lines to get safe and legal 
access to abortion.
  The reality is that an increasing number of women are now forced to 
either carry an unwanted pregnancy against their will, even in cases of 
rape and incest, or travel hundreds of miles just to safely receive 
reproductive healthcare.
  This is especially dangerous for indigenous women, who are 2\1/2\ 
times more at risk for rape and sexual assault. We cannot force women 
to give birth. Worse, those forced to carry out an unwanted pregnancy 
are giving birth in a Nation with one of the worst maternal mortality 
rates in the developed world.
  When compared to Canada, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Norway, 
Sweden, France, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, and New Zealand, the 
United States' maternal death rate is more than twice the rate of these 
countries.
  What is more, Black and indigenous women will be among the most at 
risk because they are more likely to die from pregnancy or childbirth. 
They are also two to three times more likely to experience a pregnancy 
death than their White counterparts.
  If access to safe and legal abortion becomes more restricted and 
inaccessible, the Black maternal mortality rates are expected to jump 
by a whopping 30 percent or more.
  All told, taking away Federal protections for abortion hits Black 
women, indigenous women, women of color, low-income women, LGBTQ+ 
women, and women with disabilities the hardest.
  This is about healthcare justice. This is about social justice. This 
is about economic justice. Taking away our right to safe and legal 
abortion is yet another way to try and control us.
  Please listen carefully. Black women will not be stopped. Indigenous 
women will not be stopped. Women of color will not be stopped. LGBTQ+ 
will not be stopped. Women will not be stopped.
  This bill ensures our right to reproductive freedom by reaffirming 
the constitutional right to travel. Those who hold the literal words of 
the Constitution and so-called States' rights as the absolute standard, 
you must do one thing: you must recognize the constitutional right to 
travel guaranteed by the 14th Amendment and vote ``yes'' on this bill.
  We know you won't because for you this isn't about the Constitution 
or States' rights, it is about control. It is about controlling women's 
bodies and forcing people to give birth against their will.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), another defender of the 
right to life.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for the 
opportunity to come and talk about this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition. It has been noted this 
morning, the legislation that we are considering today doesn't just 
reverse the Supreme Court's recent ruling of Roe v. Wade, it goes much 
further.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have assembled this 
bundle of policies in an effort to undermine the enforcement of pro-
life State laws.
  As the Republican whip just pointed out a little earlier, in 
combination with what is called the so-called Women's Health Protection 
Act, it seeks to undermine the will of the people, and places the U.S. 
on a short list with North Korea and China as countries with the most 
extreme abortion policies in the world. We don't want to be on a list 
with those two countries.
  Instead of undermining State law, we should be enabling States that 
have chosen to extend the responsibility of protecting its citizens to 
also include the unborn.
  The Alabama legislature enacted the Human Life Protection Act in 
2019, reflecting the will of the citizens of the State. I cannot allow 
those voices to be silenced by radical Federal abortion bills.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure that we 
are voting on this morning, and all of the extreme measures yet to come 
attacking the most vulnerable among us.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I would ask how much time is remaining on 
both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 14 minutes 
remaining and the gentlewoman from Washington has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8297, the 
Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act.
  The Supreme Court's disastrous decision in Dobbs to overturn Roe v. 
Wade has exacerbated what was an already dire crisis in abortion care 
access--one that threatens to undermine women's equality and health.
  In the wake of the Dobbs decision, State legislatures across the 
country are moving to ban abortion outright. As if that wasn't 
draconian enough, some States are also passing laws targeting people 
who help others obtain an abortion. This includes the notorious Texas 
law, SB8, which permits any person to collect a $10,000 bounty by suing 
someone who ``aids or abets an abortion.''
  Not content to strip women of their bodily autonomy and equality in 
their own States, some State legislatures are now contemplating efforts 
to inhibit the ability of women to travel out-of-state to obtain lawful 
healthcare, including by threatening their friends, families, or even 
employers with legal action.
  H.R. 8297 would put State legislatures considering such laws on 
notice by providing additional Federal legal protections that reaffirm 
and enhance enforcement of the constitutional right to interstate 
travel, which includes travel to obtain legal healthcare services like 
an abortion.
  This legislation is not enough. Many people, a disproportionate 
number from

[[Page H6653]]

communities of color, do not have the option of traveling across State 
lines because they lack the resources to bear the costs of out-of-state 
travel, which include the related costs of childcare, lodging, or time 
off from work.

                              {time}  1145

  That is why it is essential that we also pass H.R. 8296, the Women's 
Health Protection Act of 2022, which would protect the right to 
abortion nationwide. The House has already passed this bill, but the 
Senate Republicans have twice blocked its passage. This is 
unacceptable. We must do everything we can to ensure protection of 
abortion access in a post-Roe world.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on both H.R. 8297 
and H.R. 8296.
  But this is not enough either. We face a radical Supreme Court 
deliberately packed with extremists by a plot by the Federalist 
Society, by Mitch McConnell, and by Donald Trump to pack the Supreme 
Court with extremists who have no regard for our liberties and who will 
destroy every liberty we have if we don't do something about it. That 
is why Congressman Johnson, Congressman Jones, Senator Markey, and I 
have introduced legislation to unpack the Supreme Court by increasing 
the number of Justices by four.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), who is a member of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee. Dr.   John Joyce is continuing our fight for 
the right to life.
  Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  When I was in medical school, I learned about the development and the 
journey of a child in the womb of the mother.
  Madam Speaker, let me review that journey with you today. At 6 weeks, 
a child is developing a mouth, nose, ears, and--most important--a 
heartbeat of their own. At 12 weeks, a baby has fingers and toes.
  Continue on this journey with me. At 15 weeks, a baby can sense light 
and even has taste buds. At 19 weeks, a child can hear and knows the 
voice of their mother.
  These lives are precious, and they must be protected.
  By 22 weeks, many babies can survive outside the womb if they are 
born prematurely.
  Clearly, these are human lives. Clearly, we in Congress have an 
obligation to protect these human lives.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and support 
all human life. It is time for us to stand up for the American people 
and to stand up for all human life.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Chu).
  Ms. CHU. Madam Speaker, I was horrified when I heard about the plight 
of a desperate Houston woman. She was 1 week pregnant beyond Texas' 6-
week abortion ban, and with four children already, she knew she was not 
in a position to have another. So she packed her husband and four 
children in a car and drove over 22 hours and over 1,500 miles to my 
district in Pasadena, California, for her abortion.
  Texas' law forced her into a situation no family should ever have to 
face, and the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe has made conditions 
far worse.
  H.R. 8297, the Ensuring Access to Abortion Act of 2022, will ensure 
that every American has the right to travel to seek abortion care.
  Madam Speaker, we will not give up in this fight. We will not go 
back.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), who is a great member of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding 
time.
  In the 1970s it was misleading, but pregnancy was described as a 
clump of cells and a lump of tissues.
  How many people listened to that and didn't ascribe the agency to the 
young life that was developing?
  Then medical sonography was just coming into its own at the same time 
that Roe was decided; and for two generations of Americans since then, 
the first picture in their baby book is their sonogram picture.
  Is it any surprise that two generations of Americans now ascribe 
agency to the unborn child because they see from whence they came?
  Having an abortion is not a simple fix to a problem; it is not a 
simple procedure; and it is not birth control. An abortion is highly 
complex, and it is a deeply emotional procedure. Obviously, it is going 
to affect the baby, and obviously, it is going to affect the woman.
  Do you know what, Madam Speaker?
  It even affects the provider.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, as the doctor has just said, this is an 
extraordinarily complex and difficult issue for all.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and the Women's 
Health Protection Act that we are also considering today.
  Three weeks ago today, the United States Supreme Court's 
unprecedented decision reversed nearly 50 years of established 
precedent overturning Roe v. Wade and paving the way for trigger laws 
across the country to criminalize access to abortion instantly. With 
this ruling, women in 2022 will now have fewer rights than their 
mothers or grandmothers and less control over their own bodies and 
their own healthcare.
  Today, the House of Representatives is responding to protect the 
women of our country. Today, this House will vote to stand with women 
and affirm their freedom to make their own healthcare decisions.
  It is not an easy decision, and it is not made lightly, but it ought 
to be free from interference from politicians. We must do everything, 
in my view, in our power to ensure that women are free to travel 
wherever they need in order to access reproductive care safely, 
legally, and without fear of punishment.
  That is why I brought to the floor this bill, the Ensuring Women's 
Right to Reproductive Freedom Act. This legislation would prohibit 
States from preventing, impeding, or obstructing women from traveling 
to other States for reproductive care or retaliating against them for 
doing so.

  Over a century and one-half ago it was legal to own people because of 
the color of their skin. They could escape, as Harriet Tubman did and 
as Frederick Douglass did, from their slavery on the Eastern Shore of 
our State and go to a so-called free State. But then, tragically, the 
Congress enacted a bill which allowed people to go and reimpose slavery 
on those folks. Let's none of us do the same.
  This legislation would prohibit States from preventing, impeding, or 
obstructing women from traveling to other States for reproductive care 
where it is legal or retaliating against them for doing so. These 
draconian and authoritarian laws that States are talking about are 
going to criminalize behavior no matter whether it is legal in the 
State to which you went.
  One of the first bills I voted on in 1967 when I first went to the 
State senate--at that point in time I was about 8 months out of law 
school--was to repeal the miscegenation statutes which said that a 
Black person could not marry a White person or a person of Japanese 
extraction or Chinese extraction. The Supreme Court held that 
unconstitutional.
  It would be like saying: You can go to a State where that certainly 
is legal for an African American and a Caucasian to marry, but if you 
come back here, you are going to be a criminal.
  That is draconian, authoritarian, and almost Communist-like. It is 
dictatorship that China tried to pursue and did.
  This bill would also extend the same protections to healthcare 
providers who perform abortions for out-of-state patients and to anyone 
who helps them with transportation. Let us not set up a society where 
people are watching their neighbor, reporting on their neighbor, and 
criminalizing behavior which has, for one-half century, been the 
decision of a woman. Yes, she could consult her doctor and she could 
consult others, but it was her body that was at stake. It is her 
decision.
  Additionally, this bill would protect the movement in interstate 
commerce of prescription drugs approved by the FDA to end pregnancies 
safely at home.

[[Page H6654]]

  I am grateful to Representatives Lizzie Fletcher, Marilyn Strickland, 
and Jamie Raskin for introducing this legislation and to Chairman 
Pallone for advancing it through the Energy and Commerce Committee so 
speedily. I also want to thank Diana DeGette and Barbara Lee for their 
leadership on this issue as co-chairs of the Congressional Pro-Choice 
Caucus.
  While protecting interstate travel is an important step, Congress 
must do much more to ensure that every woman in our country can access 
healthcare and reproductive choice safely, legally, and affordably. 
That is why we are also considering an updated version of the Women's 
Health Protection Act today.
  I thank Judy Chu, again, for her leadership on this effort.
  Make no mistake, Madam Speaker, until we codify Roe v. Wade's 49-year 
precedent in Federal statute, women in many parts of our country will 
not be safe or have access to the healthcare they need. I am old enough 
to remember when it wasn't legal and when people died in back alleys 
going to charlatans and did not have proper medical care. Let's not 
return to those dark and tragic days.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, to 
support freedom, and to support the women of our country. That is the 
right thing to do.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cloud), who is a great defender of the human 
right to life.
  Mr. CLOUD. Madam Speaker, the pro-life issue used to be a bipartisan 
issue in this Chamber even as we recognized that our essential 
liberties of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were 
inalienable rights given to us not by government but by God, and the 
claim that the left is making that our attempts to protect life are 
somehow criminalizing women could be nothing further from the truth.
  Setting aside the fact that the left can't even define for the moment 
what a woman is, 50 years of scientific evidence have unveiled to us 
the mystery and the amazing thing that is happening in the development 
of a child. We know so much more--even the fact that a child feels the 
pain of abortion. We will always stand with life.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Peters), who is a member of our committee.
  Mr. PETERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the Ensuring 
Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act.
  After the Supreme Court eliminated the Federal right to abortion, 
only 20 States continue to protect a woman's right to choose. Even 
before Roe fell, States across the country were working to pass laws 
banning abortion even in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of 
the mother is at stake. That is not pro-family, and that is not pro-
life. That is barbaric.
  Republican efforts to criminalize abortion will pit neighbors against 
neighbors, punish women for exercising their bodily autonomy, and 
imprison doctors who took an oath to protect their patients. That is 
happening right here in what is supposed to be the freest country in 
the world. That is why I am standing here, today, to protect a woman's 
right to travel in search of legal healthcare.
  Madam Speaker, if the Supreme Court won't protect Americans, then we 
in Congress must do everything in our power to stand up for our basic 
freedoms. That starts with this bill, and I urge my colleagues to pass 
it.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), who is continuing our fight for 
life.
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington 
State.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle's efforts to create a 
national policy that allows for terminating a pregnancy at any stage, 
for any reason is not only extreme and outside of the mainstream of 
America, it is wholly inconsistent with our values and the founding 
principles of our great Nation.
  This abortion on demand legislation taken together will put us in the 
dubious company of the likes of China, North Korea, and only five other 
countries that I guarantee you, Madam Speaker, do not have America's 
values.
  I commend the Supreme Court for restoring the integrity of the 
Constitution and returning power back to the States and We the People.
  God bless America, and God bless our fellow Americans both born and 
unborn.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who co-chairs the Pro-Choice 
Caucus.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 8297.
  Yes, as co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus, along with my colleague, 
Congresswoman Diana DeGette, I thank our colleagues, Representatives 
Fletcher, Strickland, and Raskin, for introducing this very important 
bill, and also Chairman Pallone and Speaker Pelosi for bringing it to 
the floor.
  Everyone deserves the freedom to make personal decisions about their 
health, their bodies, their futures, as well as the right to travel. 
Yet, the Supreme Court's decision has stripped this fundamental right 
to reproductive freedom from millions of people in this country.
  Now, I remember the days before Roe, and we aren't going back.
  Not only are some States moving to enact extreme abortion bans, but 
some anti-abortion State legislators are working to prohibit people 
from traveling across State lines to access care and are targeting 
people who assist those in need.
  What in the world is happening to our democracy?
  First of all, you are trying to take away our own healthcare 
decisions, the ability to make our reproductive healthcare decisions. 
You are trying to criminalize people for making their own reproductive 
healthcare decisions.
  You are trying to set up an environment for people to spy on each 
other when they are trying to exercise their reproductive healthcare 
decisions and freedoms.
  You are trying to take away people's right to travel.
  What in the world is this? Is this America?
  You all talk about other countries. I don't even recognize what you 
are trying to do in this country.
  Please, just know that this is a slippery slope. They come for me 
today; they are coming for you tomorrow.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and to reaffirm 
the right to travel and seek care, not further erode our reproductive 
freedoms and personal liberties.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, we are working on a 
privacy bill, but that is a separate bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. 
Fulcher), a great defender of life.
  Mr. FULCHER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the proposed 
Federal authorization of what amounts to be abortion on demand.
  There are reasons the life issue is so polarizing. How we prioritize 
life, from before birth to the end of life, often defines our value 
systems. I believe life is the very character of God, that, indeed, we 
all have inalienable rights, the most important of which is the right 
to live.
  I will close my comments by pointing out three relevant position 
statements my friends on the other side of the aisle struggle with.
  All too often, they will support taking of life of the pre-born by 
abortion, but not taking of life of convicted murderers by capital 
punishment.
  All too often, they will support the statement ``my body, my 
choice,'' but not when it comes to vaccines.
  And all too often, they will support so-called reproductive health, 
but not if it is reproductive or healthy.
  Debates and decisions like these belong to the people, not the 
Federal Government.
  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, a Supreme Court, out of 
touch with the American people,

[[Page H6655]]

says that State legislatures can ban abortions and give our most 
important personal decisions to politicians, and Republicans are on a 
mission to do just that.
  Madam Speaker, my, my, my, their plans are getting crazier and more 
extreme by the minute. Listen to this: National anti-abortion groups 
and their allies, Republican allies in State legislatures, are scheming 
to stop people in States where abortions are banned from seeking the 
procedure elsewhere.
  As we speak, there is a proposal in Missouri, a State that bans 
abortion, that would allow private citizens to sue anyone that helps a 
Missouri resident have an abortion in another State.
  They are going to punish doctors, Uber drivers, spouses, and the rest 
just for helping a woman who is getting the healthcare that she needs. 
We stop that today.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast), a leader defending life.
  Mr. MAST. As all remarks are supposed to be directed to the Chair, 
Madam Speaker, when is a life a life?
  Madam Speaker, when is a life a life?
  I will open it up for the rest of my colleagues over there. I would 
wager none of my colleagues on the other side will tell us when life 
begins. I have a $20 bill here. It is not worth as much as it used to 
be worth. I will put it down here on the table. Any one of you or your 
colleagues wants to speak up and tell us when life begins, it is 
sitting here for you.
  Madam Speaker, when is a life a life? When does it begin?
  That is the most extreme idea to come out of this body, that you 
won't acknowledge when a life is a life.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. MAST. Madam Speaker, point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his point of order.
  Mr. MAST. Madam Speaker, did I address my remarks to you?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a point of 
order.
  Ms. SCHRIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Garcia).
  Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support 
of H.R. 8297 by my colleague and friend from Houston, Congresswoman 
Fletcher.
  First, let me be clear. There seems to be some fixation from the 
other side that this decision should be left up to the States because 
the Supreme Court said that. They need to re-read the opinion. It 
simply says that it is returned to the people and their elected 
Representatives. Last time I looked, I was an elected Representative, 
and we all are elected Representatives.
  So, we can pass these two bills today and put them in statute and 
make it the law of the land because, I can tell you, if we leave it to 
the States, things will be more extreme.
  In my home State of Texas, extremist Republicans have created a 
patchwork that is scary, discriminatory, and oppressive, and they are 
doing that to limit our right to make our own deeply personal, private 
healthcare decisions about our own bodies together with our families 
and our providers.
  This bill would restore women's rights in Texas and across the 
country. It would stop Republicans from criminalizing, fining, or suing 
women who exercise their constitutional right to travel across State 
lines to obtain an abortion.
  This is important since many companies have announced policies that 
cover travel expenses for employees seeking abortion care who are not 
able to get them in their own home State. They are threatening 
businesses in Texas that they will throw them out of Texas.
  This bill is necessary. We are the elected Representatives. We get to 
decide.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), a defender of life fighting for 
the right to life.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 8297.
  I heard my Democrat colleagues passionately state that women will not 
be stopped and that we should support freedom. Yet, sadly, these same 
people fail to realize that their own radical abortion legislation 
will, indeed, stop women's rights because their radical agenda stops a 
future woman's right and freedom forever by ending her life.
  If this bill were to become law, healthcare professionals would be 
seen as obstructing victims' access to abortion if they delay the 
abortion to report this case of child abuse. That is not protecting 
women and girls.
  To make this bill even worse, this legislation eliminates medical 
supervision requirements for chemical abortion pills. The FDA deems 
these pills as high-risk drugs that can cause intense pain, excessive 
bleeding, infections, and, in some cases, death. This means a woman or 
a little girl could literally bleed out without a doctor even knowing 
or being there to help.
  Abortion is not healthcare. This is a lie from the abortion industry 
that has, time and time again, placed its agenda over the health and 
safety of women and girls.
  Healthcare is meant to help patients. Yet, a successful abortion 
results in the death of a baby 100 percent of the time, except, of 
course, for those born alive, which my Democrat colleagues don't even 
want to save them.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.
  Ms. SCHRIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Speier), a real champion for women, for health, 
and for families.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, it gets more painful every single day. 
When you think about it, you have an AG in Indiana who has smeared a 
healthcare professional in that State who did exactly what she was 
supposed to do in providing an abortion to a 10-year-old. But he was 
going to bring charges against her.
  We have a colleague on the other side of the aisle who is now putting 
down $20 bills as if we are going to race over there to get that $20 
bill to answer his question.
  I mean, what are we doing here? Have we lost it?
  This bill simply codifies what is interpreted in the Constitution in 
the Fifth Amendment.
  Now, we have a Justice, Kavanaugh, who was asked the question: May a 
State bar a resident of the State from traveling to another State? The 
answer is no. But, interestingly enough, the right to travel, those 
words, are not in the Fifth Amendment.
  So, if we have an originalist Court, we do have to pass this bill, 
which has been introduced by Congresswomen Fletcher and Strickland and 
other Members, because women should be able to travel. Right now, we 
cannot even guarantee that to a woman who wants to get an abortion.
  I have had an abortion. I have had miscarriages. I have had to live 
with a dead fetus in my body. I know what that experience is like. Not 
everyone over there does. I would say most Members over there don't.
  But it is my personal right. It is every woman's personal right.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), who is on the leadership team 
in the House and a great defender for life.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
leading and for all of her courageous leadership on this important 
issue.
  Madam Speaker, I have to say, we have been stunned here in the last 
hour of this debate by a lot of what we have heard, not the least of 
which is when one of our Democrat colleagues actually exclaimed on this 
floor in the last hour: ``Thank God abortion is still legal.''
  I just sat here and said wow. Thank God? Thank God for what? That 
innocent, unborn children can still be killed in many States? Thank 
God?
  The other side in this debate has not only abandoned reverence, all 
reverence, all morality, all reason, but they defied medical 
technology.

  They have also completely abandoned the first self-evident truth 
boldly proclaimed in our Nation's birth certificate, the Declaration of 
Independence, that all men are created equal--not born equal--created 
equal by God, and it is He who gives our inalienable rights, beginning, 
obviously, with the right to life.
  I mean, seriously, please don't come on this floor and thank our 
creator for

[[Page H6656]]

your zeal to terminate the innocent lives that He has created. God have 
mercy on us.
  Madam Speaker, today, the Democrats have brought two bills to this 
floor. The first is a complete overhaul of all pro-life protections, 
which will allow for taxpayer-funded abortion on demand through all 
three trimesters of pregnancy.
  The second bill, the so-called Ensuring Access to Abortion Act, 
creates an open door for women to be preyed upon by traffickers and 
does nothing to protect minors who are transported by predators across 
State lines to obtain abortions.
  In order to prohibit these heinous acts, I introduced the Child 
Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which, by the way, I should note, 
passed this House by a wide margin in 2005 in the 109th Congress. How 
far the other side has devolved since then. Because of that, now more 
than ever, we have to highlight why this bill is so important in 
protecting the lives of minors and their unborn children.
  The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act will help cut down on 
predators and traffickers taking advantage of minors by making it a 
crime to knowingly transport a minor across State lines to obtain an 
abortion without first satisfying State-level parental involvement 
laws.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, it is simple. A parent 
should be involved in the life of their child, and State laws should 
never be circumvented to benefit those seeking to take advantage of 
minors.
  When a State says a guardian or parent should be notified that their 
minor is seeking an abortion, that law ought to be respected and 
followed. Our States' parental involvement laws are well-written and 
reasonable, and there are exceptions built into the statutes for 
extreme circumstances.
  We also know that forced coercion to abort an unborn child is real, 
and it must be addressed. Predators, traffickers, and their accomplices 
must be held accountable for the damage they have done to minors.
  I am so glad that our side is offering tangible solutions to real 
problems; but it is unfortunate that it is in response to such terrible 
pieces of legislation that only further endanger the lives of minors 
and their unborn children.
  I urge opposition to the other side's callous and barbaric agenda and 
their bill, and I support our motion to recommit.
  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 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SCHRIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), where this is top of mind.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friends, Lizzie 
Fletcher and Marilyn Strickland and Jamie Raskin, for understanding the 
Constitution.
  Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Donahue threw a Molotov cocktail in a 
clinic, an abortion clinic, in Shreveport, Louisiana. David McMenemy of 
Rochester crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center. A 
package left at a woman's health center in Austin, Texas, contained an 
explosive device. It goes on and on and on.
  A Texas woman has been charged with murder after a so-called, self-
induced abortion. It is clear that our friends are trying to 
criminalize the right to reproductive freedom.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article from NPR and a 
document entitled ``Violence Against Abortion Providers.''

      Violence Against Abortion Providers, Clinics, and Activists

       December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw 
     a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The 
     device missed the building and no damage was caused. In 
     August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and 
     Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a ``memorial 
     lamp'' for an abortion she had had there.
       September 11, 2006: David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, 
     Michigan, crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care 
     Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in 
     gasoline and started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in 
     the belief that the center was performing abortions; however, 
     Edgerton is not an abortion clinic. Time magazine listed the 
     incident in a ``Top 10 Inept Terrorist Plots'' list.
       April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic 
     in Austin, Texas, contained an explosive device capable of 
     inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated 
     the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans 
     (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was 
     found guilty of the crime.
       May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire 
     to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
       December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested 
     for the arson of Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Baca's 
     girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at 
     the clinic.
       January 22, 2009: Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported 
     to have had a history of mental illness, rammed an SUV into 
     the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Saint 
     Paul, Minnesota, causing between $2,500 and $5,000 in damage. 
     Derosia, who told police that Jesus told him to ``stop the 
     murderers,'' was ruled competent to stand trial. He pleaded 
     guilty in March 2009 to one count of criminal damage to 
     property.
       August 29, 2009: Two days after a nearby anti-abortion 
     protest, an unknown arsonist threw a molotov cocktail at a 
     Planned Parenthood in Lincoln, Nebraska. The bomb fell short 
     of the building, leaving no property damage or casualties.
       January 1, 2012: Bobby Joe Rogers, 41, firebombed the 
     American Family Planning Clinic in Pensacola, Florida, with a 
     Molotov cocktail; the fire gutted the building. Rogers told 
     investigators that he was motivated to commit the crime by 
     his opposition to abortion, and that what more directly 
     prompted the act was seeing a patient enter the clinic during 
     one of the frequent antiabortion protests there. The clinic 
     had previously been bombed at Christmas in 1984 and was the 
     site of the murder of John Britton and James Barrett in 1994.
       April 1, 2012: A bomb exploded on the windowsill of a 
     Planned Parenthood clinic in Grand Chute, Wisconsin, 
     resulting in a fire that caused minimal damage.
       April 11, 2013: Benjamin David Curell, 27, caused extensive 
     damage to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Bloomington, 
     Indiana, vandalizing it with an axe: Curell was convicted in 
     state court of felony burglary, and pleaded guilty in federal 
     court to one count of violating the Freedom of Access to 
     Clinic Entrances Act. In the federal case, he was sentenced 
     to three years of probation and ordered to pay restitution.
       October 3-4, 2013: 32-year-old Jebediah Stout attempted to 
     set a Planned Parenthood clinic in Joplin, Missouri on fire 
     two days in a row. Stout previously set a fire at a Joplin 
     mosque.
       September 4, 2015: A Planned Parenthood clinic in Pullman, 
     Washington was intentionally set on fire. No injuries were 
     reported due to the time of day, but the FBI was involved 
     because of a history of domestic terrorism against the 
     clinic. The crime was never solved. The clinic reopened six 
     months later.
       October 22, 2015: A Planned Parenthood clinic in Claremont, 
     New Hampshire was vandalized by a juvenile intruder. Damaged 
     in the attack were computers, furniture, plumbing fixtures, 
     office equipment, medical equipment, phone lines, windows, 
     and walls. The flooding that resulted from the vandalism also 
     damaged an adjacent business)
       February 24-25, 2016: Travis Reynolds, 21, vandalized a 
     Baltimore-area women's health care clinic with antiabortion 
     graffiti. After being arrested, Reynolds ``admitted to police 
     that he defaced the clinic's doors, walls and windows because 
     he thought that it would deter women from using the clinic.'' 
     Reynolds pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of 
     violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act in 
     October 2016.
       March 7, 2016: Rachel Ann Jackson, 71, vandalized a Planned 
     Parenthood clinic in Columbus, Ohio, with the message ``Satan 
     den of baby killers . . .'' She pleaded guilty to felony 
     counts of breaking and entering and vandalism and a 
     misdemeanor count of aggravated trespass. Jackson was 
     sentenced to probation, with the judge citing her struggle 
     with serious mental illness as a mitigating factor.
       February 10, 2019: Wesley Brian Kaster, 43, threw a Molotov 
     cocktail at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Columbia, 
     Missouri. Kaster admitted to setting the fire because Planned 
     Parenthood provided abortions, although Planned Parenthood 
     stated that the clinic was not providing abortions at the 
     time due to a state law. Kaster was sentenced to five years 
     in prison.
       January 3, 2020: A high school student, Samuel Gulick, 
     spray-painted ``Deus Vult'' on a clinic in Newark, Delaware 
     before throwing a Molotov Cocktail at the front window. 
     Gulick was sentenced to 26 months in prison by a federal 
     judge.
       October 10, 2020: A man threw multiple Molotovs at a 
     Planned Parenthood clinic in Fort Myers, Florida.
       January 23, 2021: An unknown individual fired a shotgun at 
     a Tennessee Planned Parenthood clinic; no one was injured. 
     News outlets noted that the attack took place on the 
     anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision and at a time when 
     Tennessee's governor, Bill Lee, was involved in a heated 
     online debate regarding abortion and health care.

[[Page H6657]]

       December 31, 2021: On New Year's Eve, a fire destroyed a 
     Planned Parenthood in Knoxville, Tennessee. The building was 
     closed at the time for renovations. The Knoxville Fire 
     Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 
     Explosives ruled the fire arson. The clinic had previously 
     been shot at in January of the same year.
       May 25, 2022: A masked woman set a fire at a planned 
     abortion clinic in Casper, Wyoming. The ATF offered a $5,000 
     reward for information leading to her arrest.
                                  ____


                       [From NPR, April 10, 2022]

  A Texas Woman Has Been Charged With Murder After a So-Called `Self-
                           Induced Abortion'

                         (By Carolina Cuellar)

       A Texas woman has been charged with murder for a what 
     authorities are calling a self-induced abortion.
       Ayesha Rascoe, Host:
       In South Texas, 26-year-old Lizelle Herrera is being 
     charged with murder because of a, quote, ``self-induced 
     abortion.'' She's been arrested and will be arraigned 
     Wednesday. The Starr County District Attorney's Office has 
     yet to comment on the case. Here's Texas Public Radio's 
     Carolina Cuellar with what we know.
       Unidentified Person: (Chanting in Spanish).
       Unidentified People: (Chanting in Spanish).
       Carolina Cuellar, Byline: On Saturday, across the street 
     from the Starr County Jail, a sparse crowd of pro-abortion 
     rights activists chanted for Herrera's release.
       Unidentified Person: (Chanting in Spanish).
       Unidentified People: (Chanting in Spanish).
       Cuellar: At the protest, Cathy Torres, the organizing 
     manager for Frontera Fund, said based on what she knows about 
     Herrera's case, it isn't likely to be unique.
       Cathy Torres: This is only setting a precedent for other 
     cases. She's not the first. She won't be the last.
       Cuellar: She said many women in Texas are having to choose 
     self-administered abortions because of the state's 
     restrictive abortion legislation, like Senate Bill 8. While 
     SB8 explicitly exempts pregnant women who get an abortion 
     from criminal repercussions, it makes it nearly impossible to 
     access abortion services in Texas, and many people are left 
     with little to no legal options to terminate their pregnancy.
       Steve Vladeck, who is a law professor at the University of 
     Texas School of Law, said that based on current information, 
     the murder charge doesn't make sense.
       Steve Vladeck: The Texas murder statute does apply to the 
     killing of an unborn fetus, but it specifically exempts cases 
     where the person who terminated the fetus is the pregnant 
     woman.
       Cuellar: It's unclear whether Herrera induced her own 
     abortion or assisted someone else's self-induced abortion. He 
     said details like which statutes were used to charge her will 
     help paint a clear picture of how prosecutors avoided the 
     exemption if Herrera performed her own abortion. But right 
     now, this information is unavailable. Nonetheless, Vladeck 
     said Herrera's situation shows what will happen as legal 
     protections around abortion crumble.
       Vladeck: You know, I think what this case really is is an 
     ominous portent of what things are going to look like on the 
     ground in states that have aggressive abortion restrictions.
       Cuellar: Jessica Brand agrees. She's a former prosecutor 
     and founder of The Wren Collective, a criminal justice 
     nonprofit organization.
       Jessica Brand: We've had a lot of wake-up calls in Texas 
     for how far people are willing to go to prosecute women, to 
     strip women of their rights.
       Cuellar: According to Brand, while legal ground for the 
     case is shaky, it shows how legislation like SB8 emboldens 
     people to push legal boundaries around abortion. She adds 
     that as restrictions continue to grow, they will 
     disproportionately affect marginalized communities, like 
     those along the Texas-Mexico border. This is because they 
     often lack the resources that would allow them to travel out 
     of state and obtain safe medical abortion services.
       Brand: It's very, very dangerous. If they decide that a 
     self-induced and termination of pregnancy is, in fact--
     qualifies as murder, you can imagine the horrific precedent 
     that sets.
       Cuellar: Shortly after the protest, a legal defense fund 
     covered Herrera's $500,000 bail. I'm Carolina Cuellar in Rio 
     Grande City.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I stand, as I said earlier, with a 
10-year-old victim who had to run to be able to secure an abortion 
after being raped.
  I stand on the Constitution where the Fifth Amendment says that we 
are due life and liberty. I stand in front of ``In God We Trust,'' and 
I tell my friend from Louisiana that the Constitution says that we have 
a right to freedom of religion.
  We speak what we believe. That is what this legislation does, and 
that is what reproductive freedom is. It is to ensure that the GOP does 
not criminalize abortion in all 50 States.
  It is to ensure that Republicans are not plotting a nationwide ban to 
criminalize. This Constitutional expose, and explanation, indicates 
that we have the right to travel and the right to be constitutionally 
secure in that.
  Further, we need to go a step further and criminalize anyone who is a 
bounty hunter and hold them accountable and put them in jail.
  Specifically, this bill provides and makes sure that we prohibit any 
person or healthcare providers who provide legal abortion or services, 
that we don't stop that, that we don't stop any person or any entity 
for helping healthcare providers. Let me thank you and ask support of 
this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in strong support of H.R. 8297, the 
Ensuring Access to Abortion Act of 2022.
  H.R. 8297, the ``Ensuring Access to Abortion Act of 2022'' will 
protect women and girls from others preventing or interfering with a 
person's ability to access abortion care across state lines.
  H.R. 8297 prohibits anyone acting under state law from interfering 
with a person's ability to access abortifacient drugs, abortion 
counseling, or abortion services out-of-state.
  When I cosponsored this bill, I was specifically thinking of the 
women in my hometown of Houston, who now must travel 12 hours to reach 
the nearest abortion clinic in New Mexico.
  I fear that Texas women and girls will because of the state's 
antiabortion laws will be living behind a new ``Iron Curtain.''
  The harrowing stories of people escaping across the Berlin Wall to 
freedom will be replaced by women escaping Texas to save their own or a 
loved one's life.
  I am concerned that there will be a new Underground Railroad with 
conductors ferrying women to New Mexico where they well have the 
freedom to make their own medical decisions.
  It is the landmass of the state of Texas that makes this bill 
desperately needed.
  Texas is the second-largest state in the US with an area of 268,597 
square miles or 171,902,080 acres which is more than 7.4 percent of the 
United States total land mass.
  In comparison, Texas is about 1.65 times larger than California, at 
163,696 square miles.
  Texas is not the largest state, however. Alaska, the largest state in 
the US is nearly 2.5 times larger than Texas at 663,300 square miles.
  Texas has 29 million residents and the 13th highest GDP in the world 
at 1.78 trillion as of 2019.
  If Texas were its own country, it would be the 40th largest out of 
193 countries in the world, bigger than every country in Europe.
  It is the quantitative, logistical, and legal challenge of driving to 
gain abortion services.
  To the South is the country of Mexico with passport requirements 
which costs hundreds and often many weeks to obtain.
  Those women living in regions of the state that border other states 
with prohibitions on reproduction options for women will make travel to 
New Mexico the only option.
  To give some perspective on the size of Texas.
  Austin is closer to New Orleans than it is to El Paso.
  San Diego is closer to El Paso than it is to Houston.
  The distance from Washington, D.C. to New York City is about 228 
miles, or four hours driving.
  The distance from Dallas to Houston, which is roughly 230 miles, or a 
little over four hours in a car.
  To the north and northeast are Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma all 
of which have and made add to the hurdles of reaching a service 
provider by car.
  It takes around 13 hours to drive the 805 miles from the northernmost 
point to southernmost Texas. You would start in Texhoma, a small town 
that sits on the border of Texas and Oklahoma then drive south through 
Lubbock, San Antonio, and all the way down to Brownsville, the 
southernmost city on the tip of Texas.
  It takes 11 hours to drive 773 miles from easternmost to westernmost 
points across Texas.
  Any drive of just a few hours may place women in the jurisdiction of 
unincorporated areas, rural towns, and counties where aggressive 
enforcement of a state law may be a priority.
  Republican Texas lawmakers have already passed SB 8, one of the most 
barbaric and archaic anti-abortion laws in the country, that denies 
women the right to bodily autonomy after carrying a fetus for more than 
6 weeks.
  If left to their own devices, those lawmakers hope to prevent Texan 
women from seeking abortions not only in Texas, but elsewhere as well.
  That is why I wholeheartedly support H.R. 8297, the ``Ensure Access 
to Abortion Act of 2022.''

[[Page H6658]]

  This bill would prohibit any person acting under state law from 
preventing, restricting, impeding, or retaliating against:
  health care providers who provide legal abortion services to out-of-
state residents;
  any person or entity who helps health care providers provide such 
services;
  any person who travels to another state to obtain such services;
  any person or entity who helps another person travel to another state 
to obtain such services; or
  the movement in interstate commerce of drugs that are approved to 
terminate pregnancies.
  Women in Texas and in other states with anti-abortion laws are 
already in crisis. They are already forced to flee their communities, 
incur undue financial costs, and combat social stigma to seek abortion 
care beyond their state boundaries.
  We cannot allow these women to then be additionally prosecuted for 
exercising their right to abortion care in states where that right is 
still upheld.
  The ``Ensuring Access to Abortion Act of 2022'' would protect women 
in need of abortions from litigation.
  But it goes admirably beyond that by protecting those who support 
women in exercising their reproductive rights.
  Many organizations and community networks have rallied around women 
since the Supreme Courts Dobbs decision.
  Churches, non-profits, and private companies have all stepped up to 
the plate to support women carrying unwanted pregnancies whether it be 
through financial contributions, transportation assistance, housing 
options, or access to abortion drugs.
  The ``Ensuring Access to Abortion Act of 2022'' would shield them 
from those who wish to make personal gains off the private medical 
decisions of women.
  Just last week, a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio was denied an 
abortion in her home state because she was six weeks and three days 
pregnant.
  I will say it again: A 10-year-old girl. Six weeks and three days 
pregnant.
  The anti-abortion trigger laws in her state forced this little girl 
to travel 175 miles to Indianapolis in order to have her rapists' fetus 
removed from her young body.
  This little girl had to leave the comfort of her community, leave her 
state, and drive for hours in order to get the necessary medical care 
she undeniably needed.
  Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have 
preferred it if she could not have done even this.
  Many conservative lawmakers would have preferred to see lawsuits 
filed against the family member who made her abortion appointment, the 
nurse who greeted her at the clinic, the parent who drove her home.
  Maybe they would have even preferred to see lawsuits against the 
owner of the gas station where the family refueled their car, or the 
search engine that helped them locate the abortion clinic that saved 
their child from becoming a 10-year-old mother.
  Imagine if lawmakers had decided that this little girl had to see a 
physician 24 hours in advance of her appointment. Imagine if they had 
mandated that she see an ultrasound of her fetus. Imagine if they had 
required the physician who cared for her to counsel this child on the 
benefits of adoption.
  That is the reality many Republican lawmakers would like to see.
  That is why these two bills are so important.
  I stand in proud support of both H.R. 8296, the ``Women's Health 
Protection Act of 2022,'' and H.R. 8297, the ``Ensuring Access to 
Abortion 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, may I inquire as to how 
much time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. 
Rodgers) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Washington 
(Ms. Schrier) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. SCHRIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Wilson).
  Ms. WILSON of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding. This is just annoying to me that everyone on the Republican 
side is so concerned about the children before they are born, and once 
they are born, they want nothing to do with them.
  So these children land in the hands of grandmama who is trying to 
raise them alone. The only time I see them is when they are on the 
floor fussing about grandmama's Social Security and her Medicare, 
trying to take away her food stamps while she is trying to take care of 
Nina's children, Jose's children, and all of these children. Shame on 
you. You have never carried a baby for 9 months. Shame, shame, shame.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, in the United States of 
America, we continue our search for a more perfect Union. We all get to 
be a part of that.
  In our history, the Supreme Court has overruled 300 of its own cases, 
cases such as the Dred Scott decision, and now, Roe v. Wade.
  Abortion is a false choice between taking care of a woman and taking 
care of a baby. What a woman needs is support.
  Every life is meaningful, and our actions significant. Ending 
abortion is the human rights issue of our generation. Every life has 
value and dignity.
  And to every person all across this country, may each one of us open 
our eyes and see one another. May each one of us open our ears and hear 
one another. May each one of us open our hearts to one another.
  We are a Nation founded on the inalienable, God-given rights to life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As has been noted by others, 
life comes first. You can't have liberty without life. You can't have 
the pursuit of happiness without life.
  That should guide us and be the bedrock for our moral authority so 
that abortion would become unthinkable in America.
  Today before this House is a radical agenda. The Democrats' abortion 
agenda is much more radical than anything that was in Roe. This is 
extreme.
  It nationalizes abortion for all 9 months, making America just as 
radical as China, North Korea. It legitimizes discriminatory abortions 
at any stage based upon baby's sex, race, or disability, including Down 
syndrome. It overrides State laws that protect women from coercion.
  There is no part of this that celebrates the dignity, the value, or 
the potential of human life. Pew Research reports that in Washington, 
D.C., in the 29 States that provide racial and ethnic data on abortion 
to the CDC, 38 percent of women who underwent an abortion in 2019 were 
non-Hispanic or Black, though U.S. Census numbers indicate that Black 
people comprise 13.4 percent of the population.
  CDC data from 2019 also indicates that Black women are five times 
more likely to have an abortion than White women.
  Madam Speaker, we stand on the side of life. Let's defend life. It is 
the human rights issue of our generation. Reject this bill. I yield 
back the balance of the time.
  Ms. SCHRIER. Madam Speaker, once again, I speak as a woman, a mom, a 
doctor, and a pediatrician who has rescued many babies in the neonatal 
intensive care unit.
  I tell you that we have heard a lot of statistics on the other side 
of the aisle, but one statistic that has not been said is that 100 
percent of women who choose abortion make that decision on their own 
and for themselves, and that is the way that it needs to stay.
  This is a healthcare decision that only a woman can make in 
consultation with her doctor. That is why we are here today, to protect 
women's autonomy over their own healthcare, over their own lives, over 
their own destinies, and that is a fundamental right.
  When we talk about freedom, we want to talk and we need to talk about 
the freedom of a woman to control her destiny, to make her own 
decisions; and that is why these bills are so important, to protect a 
woman's right to choose and to make sure that if her State does not 
allow it, she can choose, freely, to travel to another State and get 
the care she needs.
  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, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit 
at the desk.

[[Page H6659]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Mr. Johnson of Louisiana moves to recommit the bill H.R. 8297 to the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Johnson of Louisiana is as 
follows:
       Add at the end of the bill the following:

     SEC. 3. TRANSPORTATION OF MINORS IN CIRCUMVENTION OF CERTAIN 
                   LAWS RELATING TO ABORTION.

       Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     chapter 117 the following:

 ``CHAPTER 117A--TRANSPORTATION OF MINORS IN CIRCUMVENTION OF CERTAIN 
                       LAWS RELATING TO ABORTION

``Sec.
``2431. Transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws 
              relating to abortion.
``2432. Transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws 
              relating to abortion.

     ``Sec. 2431. Transportation of minors in circumvention of 
       certain laws relating to abortion

       ``(a) Offense.--
       ``(1) Generally.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     whoever knowingly transports a minor across a State line, 
     with the intent that such minor obtain an abortion, and 
     thereby in fact abridges the right of a parent under a law 
     requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion 
     decision, in force in the State where the minor resides, 
     shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 
     one year, or both.
       ``(2) Definition.--For the purposes of this subsection, an 
     abridgement of the right of a parent occurs if an abortion is 
     performed or induced on the minor, in a State or a foreign 
     nation other than the State where the minor resides, without 
     the parental consent or notification, or the judicial 
     authorization, that would have been required by that law had 
     the abortion been performed in the State where the minor 
     resides.
       ``(b) Exceptions.--
       ``(1) The prohibition of subsection (a) does not apply if 
     the abortion was necessary to save the life of the minor 
     because her life was endangered by a physical disorder, 
     physical injury, or physical illness, including a life 
     endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the 
     pregnancy itself.
       ``(2) A minor transported in violation of this section, and 
     any parent of that minor, may not be prosecuted or sued for a 
     violation of this section, a conspiracy to violate this 
     section, or an offense under section 2 or 3 of this title 
     based on a violation of this section.
       ``(c) Affirmative Defense.--It is an affirmative defense to 
     a prosecution for an offense, or to a civil action, based on 
     a violation of this section that the defendant--
       ``(1) reasonably believed, based on information the 
     defendant obtained directly from a parent of the minor, that 
     before the minor obtained the abortion, the parental consent 
     or notification took place that would have been required by 
     the law requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion 
     decision, had the abortion been performed in the State where 
     the minor resides; or
       ``(2) was presented with documentation showing with a 
     reasonable degree of certainty that a court in the minor's 
     State of residence waived any parental notification required 
     by the laws of that State, or otherwise authorized that the 
     minor be allowed to procure an abortion.
       ``(d) Civil Action.--Any parent who suffers harm from a 
     violation of subsection (a) may obtain appropriate relief in 
     a civil action unless the parent has committed an act of 
     incest with the minor subject to subsection (a).
       ``(e) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section--
       ``(1) 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 prematurely terminate the pregnancy 
     of a woman known to be pregnant, with an intention other than 
     to increase the probability of a live birth or of preserving 
     the life or health of the child after live birth, or to 
     remove a dead unborn child;
       ``(2) the term `law requiring parental involvement in a 
     minor's abortion decision' means a law--
       ``(A) requiring, before an abortion is performed on a 
     minor, either--
       ``(i) the notification to, or consent of, a parent of that 
     minor; or
       ``(ii) proceedings in a State court; and
       ``(B) that does not provide as an alternative to the 
     requirements described in subparagraph (A) notification to or 
     consent of any person or entity who is not described in that 
     subparagraph;
       ``(3) the term `minor' means an individual who is not older 
     than the maximum age requiring parental notification or 
     consent, or proceedings in a State court, under the law 
     requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion 
     decision;
       ``(4) the term `parent' means--
       ``(A) a parent or guardian;
       ``(B) a legal custodian; or
       ``(C) a person standing in loco parentis who has care and 
     control of the minor, and with whom the minor regularly 
     resides, who is designated by the law requiring parental 
     involvement in the minor's abortion decision as a person to 
     whom notification, or from whom consent, is required; and
       ``(5) the term `State' includes the District of Columbia 
     and any commonwealth, possession, or other territory of the 
     United States, and any Indian tribe or reservation.

     ``Sec. 2432. Transportation of minors in circumvention of 
       certain laws relating to abortion

       ``Notwithstanding section 2431(b)(2), whoever has committed 
     an act of incest with a minor and knowingly transports the 
     minor across a State line with the intent that such minor 
     obtain an abortion, shall be fined under this title or 
     imprisoned not more than one year, or both. For the purposes 
     of this section, the terms `State', `minor', and `abortion' 
     have, respectively, the definitions given those terms in 
     section 2435.''.

     SEC. 4. CHILD INTERSTATE ABORTION NOTIFICATION.

       Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     chapter 117A the following:

         ``CHAPTER 117B--CHILD INTERSTATE ABORTION NOTIFICATION

``Sec.
``2435. Child interstate abortion notification.

     ``Sec. 2435. Child interstate abortion notification

       ``(a) Offense.--
       ``(1) Generally.--A physician who knowingly performs or 
     induces an abortion on a minor in violation of the 
     requirements of this section shall be fined under this title 
     or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
       ``(2) Parental notification.--A physician who performs or 
     induces an abortion on a minor who is a resident of a State 
     other than the State in which the abortion is performed must 
     provide, or cause his or her agent to provide, at least 24 
     hours actual notice to a parent of the minor before 
     performing the abortion. If actual notice to such parent is 
     not accomplished after a reasonable effort has been made, at 
     least 24 hours constructive notice must be given to a parent 
     before the abortion is performed.
       ``(b) Exceptions.--The notification requirement of 
     subsection (a)(2) does not apply if--
       ``(1) the abortion is performed or induced in a State that 
     has, in force, a law requiring parental involvement in a 
     minor's abortion decision and the physician complies with the 
     requirements of that law;
       ``(2) the physician is presented with documentation showing 
     with a reasonable degree of certainty that a court in the 
     minor's State of residence has waived any parental 
     notification required by the laws of that State, or has 
     otherwise authorized that the minor be allowed to procure an 
     abortion;
       ``(3) the minor declares in a signed written statement that 
     she is the victim of sexual abuse, neglect, or physical abuse 
     by a parent, and, before an abortion is performed on the 
     minor, the physician notifies the authorities specified to 
     receive reports of child abuse or neglect by the law of the 
     State in which the minor resides of the known or suspected 
     abuse or neglect;
       ``(4) the abortion is necessary to save the life of the 
     minor because her life was endangered by a physical disorder, 
     physical injury, or physical illness, including a life 
     endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the 
     pregnancy itself, but an exception under this paragraph does 
     not apply unless the attending physician or an agent of such 
     physician, within 24 hours after completion of the abortion, 
     notifies a parent in writing that an abortion was performed 
     on the minor and of the circumstances that warranted 
     invocation of this paragraph; or
       ``(5) the minor is physically accompanied by a person who 
     presents the physician or his agent with documentation 
     showing with a reasonable degree of certainty that he or she 
     is in fact the parent of that minor.
       ``(c) Civil Action.--Any parent who suffers harm from a 
     violation of subsection (a) may obtain appropriate relief in 
     a civil action unless the parent has committed an act of 
     incest with the minor subject to subsection (a).
       ``(d) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section--
       ``(1) 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 prematurely terminate the pregnancy 
     of a woman known to be pregnant, with an intention other than 
     to increase the probability of a live birth or of preserving 
     the life or health of the child after live birth, or to 
     remove a dead unborn child;
       ``(2) the term `actual notice' means the giving of written 
     notice directly, in person, by the physician or any agent of 
     the physician;
       ``(3) the term `constructive notice' means notice that is 
     given by certified mail, return receipt requested, restricted 
     delivery to the last known address of the person being 
     notified, with delivery deemed to have occurred 48 hours 
     following noon on the next day subsequent to mailing on which 
     regular mail delivery takes place, days on which mail is not 
     delivered excluded;
       ``(4) the term `law requiring parental involvement in a 
     minor's abortion decision' means a law--
       ``(A) requiring, before an abortion is performed on a 
     minor, either--
       ``(i) the notification to, or consent of, a parent of that 
     minor; or
       ``(ii) proceedings in a State court; and
       ``(B) that does not provide as an alternative to the 
     requirements described in subparagraph (A) notification to or 
     consent of

[[Page H6660]]

     any person or entity who is not described in that 
     subparagraph;
       ``(5) the term `minor' means an individual who has not 
     attained the age of 18 years and who is not emancipated under 
     the law of the State in which the minor resides;
       ``(6) the term `parent' means--
       ``(A) a parent or guardian;
       ``(B) a legal custodian; or
       ``(C) a person standing in loco parentis who has care and 
     control of the minor, and with whom the minor regularly 
     resides,
     as determined by State law;
       ``(7) the term `physician' means a doctor of medicine 
     legally authorized to practice medicine by the State in which 
     such doctor practices medicine, or any other person legally 
     empowered under State law to perform an abortion; and
       ``(8) the term `State' includes the District of Columbia 
     and any commonwealth, possession, or other territory of the 
     United States, and any Indian tribe or reservation.''.

     SEC. 5. CLERICAL AMENDMENT.

       The table of chapters at the beginning of part I of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to chapter 117 the following new items:

``117A. Transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws 
    relating to abortion......................................2431 ....

``117B. Child interstate abortion notification..............2435''.....

     SEC. 6. SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) The provisions of this Act shall be severable. If any 
     provision of this Act, or any application thereof, is found 
     unconstitutional, that finding shall not affect any provision 
     or application of the Act not so adjudicated.
       (b) This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
  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.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. 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.

                          ____________________