[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2248-2252]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1830
                    WOMEN'S RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
to include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, next Tuesday the Supreme Court will 
take up Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, which is a case that 
challenges Texas' outright offensive effort to strip women of their 
right to choose.
  Last night the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed a similar law 
to move forward in Louisiana, all but guaranteeing the closure of three 
of four abortion clinics in that State unless the Supreme Court 
intervenes there as well.
  The men who have passed these laws--to be very clear, the Texas State 
Legislature is 80 percent male, and Louisiana has just made it up from 
dead last this year at 85 percent--claimed that it would increase the 
medical accountability and safety of facilities that provide abortion.
  That is the new message, the new veil, that covers these laws with 
the air of legitimacy: We want to make your abortion safer. So every 
doctor needs to have admitting privileges at a local hospital and every 
clinic needs to function like an emergency center.
  It sounds logical until you hear what the folks behind these laws 
have to say after the laws have passed.
  In Texas, then-Governor Rick Perry said: ``The ideal world is one 
without abortion. Until then, we will continue to pass laws to ensure 
that they are as rare as possible.''
  One of the authors of the bill said that she was especially proud 
that ``Texas always takes the lead in trying to turn back what started 
with Roe v. Wade.''
  The first problem here is the same one we have dealt with over and 
over and over and over again, because Roe v. Wade isn't something you 
turn back. It wasn't an executive order. It wasn't even a law passed by 
Congress.
  It was a legal challenge 40 years ago that required the Supreme Court 
to consider whether or not women had the right to make decisions about 
their bodies. They decided and set a precedent that every woman in this 
Nation had the constitutional right to an abortion.
  What is more, the Court made it clear that States cannot use laws to 
create an undue burden for women who are seeking to exercise that 
right. The Court affirmed that decision once more in 1992.
  Women in Texas now have firsthand experience of what happens when 
States ignore the Supreme Court. From what I can see, there is no way 
that the Texas law can be considered anything other than an undue 
burden, which brings us to the second problem: There is absolutely no 
logical, medical reason to suddenly require these clinics to meet the 
standards of a hospital.
  These laws are opposed by a host of leading medical groups, including 
the

[[Page 2249]]

American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians 
and Gynecologists, professionals who know better than anyone what kinds 
of skills and resources should be necessary for an abortion, which is 
one of the safest medical procedures out there.
  I find it incredibly hard to believe that whole organizations of 
physicians would oppose any of these laws if they really did make 
clinics safer, Mr. Speaker, but I digress.
  In Texas, the full implementation of the bill that is being 
challenged next week would force more than 75 percent of abortion 
clinics in that State to close.
  In fact, with the limited implementation they have had to date, the 
number of clinics has been cut in half. If it is allowed to go into 
effect, only 10 clinics will remain to serve the 5.4 million Texas 
women of reproductive age.
  What is even worse is that, while these laws are being masqueraded as 
efforts to make abortions safer, they are forcing more women down the 
dangerous path of attempting to end their pregnancies on their own.
  A study by the Texas Policy Evaluation Project found that women who 
report barriers to abortion are more likely to self-induce an abortion, 
putting their lives at risk in the process. This sounds like 1955, not 
2016.
  Mr. Speaker, these laws are an absolute farce, and it is time to stop 
the sham. Women deserve to make the choices that work for them. If that 
means having an abortion, they should be able to do it safely, without 
traveling hundreds of miles or without waiting weeks to be seen.
  My colleagues and I are here on the floor tonight because we stand 
with the women in Texas, with the women in Louisiana, and with the 
women across this country, women who want to make their own decisions 
about when, where, and how to make decisions that will change their 
lives, women whose voices are seldom represented in the legislative 
bodies, which are filled with men who are ready to take away their 
rights.
  It is now my pleasure to yield to the illustrious Member from the 
State of Texas, someone who has been a constant fighter for everyone's 
rights, including women's rights, Congresswoman Jackson Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from New 
Jersey, and I thank her for her leadership. As well, I thank my 
colleagues who are here on the floor of the House who have joined us.
  Mr. Speaker, let me associate myself with the comments by the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey as they relate to Louisiana.
  Let me be clear. As I stand here as a constituent of the State of 
Texas, as a Representative of the State of Texas, and as a woman who 
lives in Texas, that Texas State Law HB2 has led to the closure of more 
than 20 abortion facilities in the State, taking the total number of 
providers down from 40 to 19, its true purpose being to take away 
women's rights to make their own healthcare decisions.
  It could not be more blatant, again, to take away every woman's right 
to choose. No one stands on this floor tonight to promote and coddle 
abortion, but we do stand on the floor to protect a woman's right to 
choose her health and to protect her sacred right of making such 
decisions with her God, her family, and her physician.
  How do HB2 and other bills have the right to interfere with that?
  Let me also cite for you that a U.N. working group concluded that 
women in the United States inexplicably lag behind international human 
rights.
  Pointing to data and research on public and political representation, 
economic and social rights, and health and safety protections, experts 
in the U.N. working group boldly acknowledged that there is a myth that 
women in the United States already enjoy all of the expected standards 
of rights and protections afforded under America.
  Isn't that shameful? Under America, we are still denied our rights.
  The reality is women in the United States are experiencing continued 
discrimination and daunting disparities that prevent the true ability 
for them to fully participate as equal members of society.
  We stand here this evening to acknowledge one striking issue that 
will be argued at the Supreme Court next week, and that is this case--
HB2--that has shut down clinics and has denied to women that any other 
access be open to them with this particular legislation. So we are 
advocating, as it goes to the Supreme Court, that this is an issue of 
human rights equals women's rights.
  In America, we face a real problem of hypocrisy. Isn't it interesting 
that we say that we believe in the rights of families and in the 
sacredness of one's religion and in one's choice between one's family, 
doctor, and God, yet, Danielle Deaver was denied an abortion even as 
the uterus crushed the fetus.
  This family wanted children. This family wanted to be able to have 
this child. Unfortunately, due to medical reasons, this young lady 
needed to have this baby taken. She was 22 weeks pregnant.
  The real crime is that this was not allowed to take place in a legal 
manner because just 1 month earlier Nebraska had enacted the Nation's 
first fetal pain legislation that banned abortions after 20 weeks. It 
is not one that she wanted. It is not one that she desired.
  It was because of health care and need and the fact that a tragedy 
had happened to her and her family; yet, she was denied. Women's rights 
equal human rights.
  With respect to the Texas case, the Supreme Court is scheduled next 
Tuesday to hear the case of Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, which 
will challenge the Texas law that has stripped thousands of women of 
access to their constitutional right.
  Whole Woman's Health is the most consequential reproductive case in 
the last two decades that challenges the longstanding precedent of 
upholding a woman's constitutional right to access to safe and legal 
abortion services.
  It is not a supporting of abortion, but a supporting of the right to 
choose. It is protective of women's health, of the life of the mother, 
and of the fact that you engage with your family, with your God, and 
with your physician.
  Ever since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, which was affirmed 
again in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the U.S. Supreme Court 
has made clear that women have a constitutional right to safe, legal 
abortion care and that States do not have a right to unduly interfere.
  The Casey decision explained these matters involving the most 
intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices 
that are central to personal dignity and autonomy and that are central 
to the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment.
  The so-called experts who testified in favor of HB2 have been 
discredited by multiple Federal courts and have been exposed for 
submitting testimony written by an anti-abortion activist with no 
medical training.
  Texas' HB2 has led to the closure of more than 20 abortion facilities 
in the State, taking the total number of providers down from 40 to 19.
  Mr. Speaker, as I close, let me give an additional personal anecdote 
that has taken place in the State of Texas. That is, of course, the 
masquerading of going into the Planned Parenthood offices that have 
provided these clinics and that have provided health care to college 
students and to those in rural communities where there are no doctors, 
OB/GYNs, or facilities to handle the medical needs of these women.
  Remember what I said. Women's rights are human rights, and human 
rights are women's rights, so said by then-First Lady Hillary Rodham 
Clinton. It is true today.
  As I have shown in documents, the United Nations working group has 
challenged whether or not we are providing women the same rights in 
America as men. That is a daunting question and an unfortunate answer 
because the U.N. working group has said no.
  In the backdrop of this great discussion and of the Texas HB2, we had 
the circumstances of people falsifying who they were, stealing the ID 
of this person's high school classmates and imitating that he was 
looking for fetuses for research.
  Interestingly enough, all of them were calling for the indictment of 
the

[[Page 2250]]

Planned Parenthood personnel. Yet, an unbiased grand jury in Texas did 
not indict those innocent persons who were having a discussion about 
what was legal, but they indicted those who falsified their documents 
and tried to mislead people.
  Again, this case will be argued in the backdrop of so many who are 
trying to undermine women's rights. I will continue to work with my 
colleagues to find ways to address the illogical, unfair, and unjust 
disparity by reviewing and responding to unwarranted restrictions that 
result in the disparate access to these constitutionally protected 
rights.
  One day I hope that we will learn and have as our constitutional 
premise that the Constitution works and that women's rights are human 
rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I commend the 
Progressive Caucus for standing firm in defense of our hard-fought 
women's rights, which in truth, are constitutionally protected American 
rights.
  We face a real problem in America with hypocrisy.
  As a country founded on principles of liberty, justice, and equality, 
and a global leader in formulating international human rights 
standards, the United States fails to meet these basic standards for 
women who are denied equal access to legal rights and protections.
  The United Nations Working Group on Discrimination against Women in 
Law and Practice (U.N. Working Group) recently issued a sobering 
statement and assessment detailing a picture of women's missing rights 
in America.
  Upon visiting several states throughout the country, including my 
home state of Texas, the U.N. Working Group concluded that women in the 
United States inexplicably lag behind international human rights 
standards.
  Pointing to data and research on public and political representation, 
economic and social rights, and health and safety protections, experts 
in the U.N. Working Group boldly acknowledged that there is a myth that 
women in the United States already enjoy all of the expected standards 
of rights and protections afforded under America.
  The reality is women in the United States are experiencing continued 
discrimination and daunting disparities that prevent the true ability 
for them to fully participate as equal members of society.
  One of the most alarming deficiencies for women in America is the 
inability to access basic health care and the imposition of devastating 
barriers to reproductive health and rights.
  Too many women are suffering dire and deadly consequences.
  Between 1990 and 2013, the maternal mortality rate for women in the 
U.S. has increased by 136%.
  Black women are nearly 4 times more likely to die in childbirth, and 
states with high poverty rates have a 77% higher maternal mortality 
rate.
  Our global experts and allies acknowledge that even though women's 
reproductive rights in America are constitutionally protected, access 
to reproductive health services are severely abridged by states 
imposition of sweeping barriers and restrictions.
  For instance, in many states, women must undergo unjustified and 
invasive medical procedures; endure groundless waiting periods; be 
subjected to harassment, violence, or other threatening conditions that 
remain constant throughout all reproductive health care clinics; and 
forced to forgo treatment or engage in lengthy and costly travel due to 
closure of clinics faced with burdensome licensing conditions.
  These restrictions disproportionately discriminate against poor 
women.
  The United States can and should do better!
  It is unacceptable that women in America are facing a health care 
crisis so dire that the global community is denouncing it as a human 
rights violation.
  Sadly, the direction States are taking will only further dismantle 
women's access to affordable and trustworthy reproductive healthcare.
  While clinics are shutting down at drastic rates throughout the 
country, devastating restrictions and barriers imposed throughout Texas 
strike at the core of this abomination.
  A Texas statute known as HB2 (House Bill 2), was enacted several 
years ago under false claims to promote women's health, when in fact it 
only set in motion dangerous restrictions on women's access to 
reproductive health care.
  In addition to constant attacks on funding for reproductive health 
care clinics, abortion providers in Texas were forced to undergo 
impossible million dollar renovations and upgrades.
  Denying hundreds of thousands of women health care services in Texas, 
nearly half of all reproductive health care clinics were forced to shut 
down, and now only 10 remain in the second largest state in the 
country.
  Taking an important step toward restoring the constitutional rights 
of millions of women, the Supreme Court recently granted certiorari of 
Whole Woman's Health v. Cole to decide the fate of these remaining 
clinics and the lives of women in Texas, and throughout the nation.
  I am proud to say that I, and a number of my colleagues, signed on to 
a number of amicus briefs submitted to the Supreme Court, detailing the 
hardship and injustice Whole Woman's Health v. Cole presents.
  While we await the decision of the Supreme Court, in Whole Woman's 
Health v. Cole, we can only hope that the court will help turn the tide 
of attacks and diminution on women's rights.
  No woman in America should be denied the dignity of being ability to 
make choices about her body and healthcare.
  Access to safe, legal, and unhindered healthcare must be realized by 
all women.
  These simple facts can no longer be denied, and hypocrisy can no 
longer be tolerated.
  A woman's right to choose to have an abortion is a constitutionally 
protected fundamental right.
  More than 40 years ago in the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 
U.S. 113, (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the right to 
privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extends to a 
woman's decision to have an abortion.
  More recently, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), 
the Supreme Court upheld Roe v. Wade and further explained that states 
could not enact medically unnecessary regulations meant to create 
substantial obstacles for women seeking abortion services.
  Yet, fairness and access to exercise constitutionally protected 
fundamental rights is trampled on and denied to millions of women.
  We cannot ignore the hypocrisy of imbalanced protection and access to 
fundamentally protected rights for women in America when it is easier 
to purchase and lawfully possess a firearm--even for a person on the 
terrorist watch list--than it is for a woman to exercise her 
constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.
  Mr. Speaker, this is neither fair nor right and it should not be 
rewarded.
  As our nation continues to push back against horrific acts of 
violence at the hands of dangerous and irresponsible gun owners and gun 
dealers, and our nation's number one provider of women's healthcare 
continues to experience violent and devastating attacks on its services 
and facilities, it is time we find common ground as we look to resolve 
these polarizing issues that have all too often collided.
  A woman's right to choose to have an abortion and an individual's 
right to possess a firearm are both constitutionally protected 
fundamental rights.
  I will be working with my colleagues to find ways to address this 
illogical, unfair, and unjust disparity by reviewing and responding to 
unwarranted restrictions that result in disparate access to these 
constitutionally protected rights.
  Namely, if a woman is required to wait several days, undergo a 
physical examination, receive counseling and education about 
alternative options before making the decision to terminate a 
pregnancy, an individual purchasing a deadly weapon should be required 
to jump through the same restrictive hoops and apparent safety 
measures.
  I hope one day we can come to an agreement in America that it should 
not be harder for a woman to exercise her fundamental right to choose 
than it is for a person on the terrorist watch list to lawfully 
purchase and possess firearms.
  At a minimum, I urge my colleagues to take a hard look at our 
constitutional protections and founding principles to resolve the 
growing crisis and unacceptable conditions of inferiority in America.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I thank the Congresswoman.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Congresswoman Watson Coleman 
and my pro-choice colleagues for inviting me to participate in this 
very timely and important conversation.
  As we await to hear the Supreme Court's oral arguments next week in 
the case of Whole Woman's Health, we must reflect on not only the 
serious implications of this particular case, but on the attacks on 
choice that have

[[Page 2251]]

happened across the country this past year.
  The case against Whole Woman's Health threatens to take the number of 
clinics in Texas down from 19 to just 10 for the 5.4 million women of 
reproductive age in Texas.
  It will also set a legal precedent for years to come--perhaps 
decades--and it will shape the continued debate on a woman's right to 
choose.

                              {time}  1845

  Clearly, this unacceptable assault on women's health places an undue 
burden on the women of Texas when accessing abortion and family 
planning services.
  I was proud to sign onto the Amicus brief with 162 congressional 
colleagues in support of Whole Woman's Health. This case, in 
particular, is a high profile and extreme example of the attacks that 
are becoming all too common across the United States.
  While abortion still remains legal in the years since Roe v. Wade, 
opponents of choice have attempted with varying degrees of success to 
chip away at a woman's right to choose, this despite the fact that 
abortions are at their lowest rates since Roe.
  Last year, we saw ideological attacks against Planned Parenthood from 
anti-choice activists attempting to mire the organization in scandal 
and force its closing. Those attacks stemmed from the illegally 
obtained and questionably edited so-called sting videos filmed by these 
same anti-choice activists.
  Unsurprisingly, Planned Parenthood has been cleared of any wrongdoing 
in every State that has conducted an investigation. And to top it off, 
a grand jury in Missouri has indicted those responsible for filming the 
videos. It goes to show this campaign against Planned Parenthood has 
been nothing less than a fraud.
  While I fundamentally support a woman's right to choose, it is 
important to point out that the clinics forced to close in Texas and 
across the U.S. serve women in ways far beyond providing safe 
abortions. In many cases, especially for low income and minority 
communities, these clinics serve as a primary healthcare provider. The 
services they provide include birth control, STD testing, cervical 
screenings, mammograms, counseling, and health education.
  It is crucial that we understand reproductive rights and choice is 
not a women's issue. It is a civil rights issue, and it is an American 
issue.
  In the City of Chicago, which I represent, women have widespread 
access to reproductive health services. But women in neighboring States 
like Indiana are often forced to cross State lines to find a clinic 
where she can have a safe abortion. This reality is unacceptable. Civil 
rights should not be dependent upon your ZIP Code.
  The decision in Whole Woman's Health will ultimately hold national 
implications. As a man, I am proud to stand up for choice. As a male 
Member of Congress, I take my responsibility to protect choice for 
women very seriously.
  Statistics show women's economic output is dramatically impacted for 
the better when they determine the timing and spacing of their 
pregnancies. When she is able to plan pregnancy, a woman is more likely 
to advance in education and the workforce. Conversely, unplanned 
pregnancies too often force women to leave school and to delay or 
abandon career ambitions outright in order to care for children before 
they are ready and with limited support and resources.
  In order for our society to ever truly be equal, women must have 
control of their bodies and determine with their partner if and when 
they want to have children. Here in Congress, most of us were afforded 
the right to plan our families. Should we deny this right to the 
constituents we serve?
  The future of millions of young women depend on the decision to be 
handed down in cases like Whole Woman's Health, and it is my sincere 
hope that the Court remains consistent in recognizing a woman's right 
to privacy and protects her right to make her own choices about her 
health.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. DelBene), who is a member of the select panel that will 
undoubtedly be examining some of these issues.
  Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, 43 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that women have a 
constitutional right to decide whether and when to have a child. 
Americans overwhelmingly think that was the right decision, and I 
agree.
  But according to Bloomberg, at no time since 1973 has a woman's 
access to reproductive health care been more dependent on her income or 
ZIP Code. Politicians across the country are passing dangerous laws to 
block women from exercising their constitutionally protected right to 
choose, and their efforts are working.
  That is why the case before the Supreme Court is so important. As the 
Justices weigh the Whole Woman's Health case, I hope they recognize 
that these shameful attacks undermine Roe v. Wade, put women's health 
at risk, and must be struck down. A woman's right to make her own 
healthcare decisions means nothing without the ability to exercise that 
right.
  If the Court upholds these harmful laws, it could pave the way for 
similar restrictions at the Federal level, and Republicans are already 
trying. We cannot let that happen.
  Women deserve better. They deserve the freedom to make their own 
healthcare choices.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
for leading this Special Order hour on this very important issue.
  As my colleagues have mentioned, the Supreme Court is scheduled to 
hear Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt next Tuesday, challenging HB2, 
a Texas law that has already led to the closing of more than 20 
abortion providers in the State.
  Now, this is just the most recent example of the attack which is 
underway all across this country on women's health, not just in the 
State of Texas, but in many other places around our country. As was 
just mentioned, politicians are passing laws and enacting regulations 
to deny women full reproductive health care.
  In fact, just last Sunday, Ohio Governor John Kasich signed a law 
defunding Planned Parenthood. During his time in office, half of Ohio's 
abortion clinics have closed.
  One in three women will have to make a decision in their lifetime if 
an abortion is the right decision for them. I am very proud to be a 
member of the Pro-Choice Caucus in the Congress. I know this is an 
extremely personal decision for women, a decision that should be made 
between a woman and her physician, and a decision the government has no 
right to intrude upon, a constitutionally protected right as 
established in our law. It is absolutely critical that women in every 
part of this country have access to full reproductive health care, 
including safe abortion services.
  If the Court upholds Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, there will 
be only ten clinics available to the women in the State of Texas. Some 
would have to travel 7\1/2\ hours roundtrip to get the health care that 
they need.
  This is settled law in our country. The Court addressed this issue in 
Roe v. Wade and again in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It reminds us of 
the importance of the decision that our Supreme Court will make in 
connection with this case that they will hear on Tuesday.
  Doctors are being required, under Texas provisions, to affiliate with 
nearby hospitals, and it also limits abortions to ambulatory surgical 
centers. These measures are designed to reduce or even eliminate, in 
some circumstances, access to abortion services. Although there are 
arguments made that these are medically necessary or they are, in fact, 
intended to improve women's health, Nancy Northup, who is the president 
of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said it best when she said, the 
``laws . . . pretend to be about women's health but actually are 
designed to close clinics.'' And that is exactly what they intend to 
do.

[[Page 2252]]

  These regulations and requirements are very disputed medical value. 
There are things like limits on nonsurgical drug-induced abortions, 
mandated building standards for clinics, or 2- or 3-day waiting 
periods. All of these things are intended to infringe upon a woman's 
right to choose and to make it more difficult for women to access full 
reproductive health care.
  We all have responsibility in the Congress to stand up against this. 
I am proud to join my colleagues tonight to say that we will continue 
to fight to ensure that women have access to all of the reproductive 
health care they need and that we will resist any effort to infringe 
upon this important constitutional protection.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Adams).
  Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey for 
her leadership.
  It frightens me that in 2016, we are still fighting the same 
politically motivated battles to roll back women's rights. It has been 
43 years since the landmark Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade made 
abortion a constitutional right.
  Year after year, GOP lawmakers and anti-choice extremists have tried 
to tear it down. States like Texas have passed egregious laws to 
disenfranchise women and infringe on their ability to access safe and 
legal abortions.
  Their State law has cut the number of abortion providers in Texas in 
half, increasing delays and severely limiting access and, frankly, 
punishing women for exercising their civil liberties.
  This obvious war on women has got to stop. No law should control a 
woman's right to make decisions about her own body--no government, no 
legislature, no Congress. A woman's personal decision should be between 
her and her doctor and nobody else. Every woman deserves equal access 
to all forms of safe and affordable reproductive health.
  As the Supreme Court prepares to hear this case, I will continue to 
stand with women in North Carolina and women across the country in the 
fight to protect a woman's right to choose.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, we thank you for this opportunity 
to raise what is a very important issue in 2016. Women are being 
attacked on several fronts, whether it is on cases that are being 
brought before courts or whether it is in this House. We have got to 
recognize that this decision, the decision for a woman to make with 
regard to her reproductive rights, have already been established. And 
we as Congress and we as a society of lawmakers and policymakers need 
to do all that we can to facilitate those rights to ensure that we do 
not discriminate against people. To discriminate against women in this 
regard is illegal, and it is unacceptable.
  It is time for us to recognize our responsibility to be stewards of 
the laws which have been put before us and to uphold the Constitution 
that we have pledged to support and to uphold and to recognize that the 
abridgement of a woman's right is the abridgement of a civil right, and 
that is unacceptable.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________