SIGN Act

Madam Speaker, these are the faces of innocent and wonderful women like Dakota and Chenoa, who indicate that, if they did not have Planned Parenthood, they would not be able to be where they are today, or Chenoa, who indicated, without Planned Parenthood and the Affordable Care Act, they wouldn't have access to health care.

That is what H.R. 7 intends to do, to deny these young, beautiful women an opportunity. But more importantly, my colleagues on the other side want to suggest they only--they only--have religion and faith. But as a mother, let me say that every child I have loved and every woman who has had a decision to make I have loved and respected for her choice of a faith, her God, and her doctor.

Rather than having this war on women by Republicans, we need to be dealing with the voting rights law. Rather than prohibiting individuals from receiving a refundable tax credit on cost-sharing reductions for purchasing a qualified health plan that encourages coverage for abortions or denying the District of Columbia their rights, we should be standing for rights. This is a constitutional right. It is also a choice by a woman of her God, her doctor, and her family.

Vote against H.R. 7. It is violence against women. It is not helping women or the unborn child.

Madam Speaker, I rise again in strong opposition to H.R. 7, the so- called ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.''

I oppose this bill because it is unnecessary, puts the lives of women at risk, interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, and diverts our attention from the real problems facing the American people.

A more accurate short title for this bill would be the ``Violating the Rights of Women Act of 2017.''

Instead of resuming their annual War on Women, our colleagues across the aisle should be working with Democrats to build upon the ``Middle- Class Economics'' championed by the Obama Administration that have succeeded in ending the economic meltdown it inherited in 2009 and revived the economy to the point where today we have the highest rate of growth and lowest rate of unemployment since the boom years of the Clinton Administration.

We could and should instead be voting to raise the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour so that people who work hard and play by the rules do not have to raise their families in poverty.

A far better use of our time would be to provide help to unemployed job-hunters by making access to community college affordable to every person looking to make a new start in life.

Instead of voting to abridge the constitutional rights of women for the umpteenth time, we should bring to the floor for a first vote comprehensive immigration reform legislation or legislations repairing the harm to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder.

Madam Speaker, the one thing we should not be doing is debating irresponsible ``messaging bills'' that abridge the rights of women and have absolutely no chance of overriding a presidential veto.

The version of H.R. 7 before us now is as bad today as it was when the House Republican leadership insisted on bringing it to a vote a year ago.

The other draconian provisions of that terrible bill are retained in H.R. 7, which would:

1. Prohibit federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Thus making permanent existing federal policies.)

2. Prohibit the inclusion of abortion in any health care service furnished by a federal or District of Columbia health care facility or by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government or the District.

3. Apply such prohibitions to District of Columbia funds.

4. Prohibit individuals from receiving a refundable federal tax credit, or any cost-sharing reductions, for purchasing a qualified health plan that includes coverage for abortions.

5. Prohibit small employers from receiving the small-employer health insurance credit provided by the health care law if the health plans or benefits that are purchased provide abortion coverage.

If H.R. 7 were enacted, millions of families and small businesses with private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage would be faced with tax increases, making the cost of health care insurance even more expensive.

Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are able to offer abortion coverage and receive

federal offsets for premiums as long as enrollees pay for the abortion coverage from separate, private funds.

If enacted, H.R. 7 would deny federal subsidies or credits to private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage even if that coverage is paid for from private funds.

This would inevitably lead to private health insurance companies dropping abortion coverage leaving millions of women without access to affordable, comprehensive health care.

Currently, 87% of private insurance health care plans offered through employers cover abortion.

If H.R. 7 were to become law, consumer options for private health insurance plans would be unnecessarily restricted and the tax burden on these policy holders would increase significantly.

H.R. 7 would also deny tax credits to small businesses that offer their employees insurance plans that cover abortion, which would have a significant impact on millions of families across the nation who would no longer be able to take advantage of existing tax credits and deductions for the cost of their health care.

For example, small businesses that offer health plans that cover abortions would no longer be eligible for the Small Business Health Tax Credit--potentially worth 35%-50% of the cost of their premiums-- threatening 4 million small businesses.

Self-employed Americans who are able to deduct the cost of their comprehensive health insurance from their taxable income will also be denied similar tax credits and face higher taxes.

H R. 7 would also undermine the District of Columbia's home rule by restricting its use of funds for abortion care to low-income women.

The Hyde Amendment stipulates that no taxpayer dollars are to be used for abortion care, and has narrow exceptions for rape, incest, and health complications that arise from pregnancy which put the mother's life in danger.

H.R. 7 would restrict women's access to reproductive health care even further by narrowing the already stringent requirements set forth in the Hyde Amendment.

When the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the President issued an Executive Order to ``ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services.''

This version of H.R. 7 goes far beyond the safeguards established under the Affordable Care Act, and sets a dangerous precedent for the future of women's reproductive health in this country because it includes two new provisions that were added at the 11th hour but have never received a hearing or a mark-up.

These new provisions would (1) ban abortion coverage in multi-state health plans available under the ACA; and (2) mandate that health plans mislead consumers about abortion coverage by requiring all plans in the health-insurance exchanges that include abortion coverage to display that fact prominently in all advertising, marketing materials, or information from the insurer but interestingly, does not require the same disclosure from plans that do not cover abortion.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 would also force health plans to mislead consumers about the law's treatment of abortion.

As a concession to anti-choice lawmakers, the ACA requires insurance plans participating in the new health system to segregate monies used for abortion services from all other funds.

In order to aid in identifying these funds and simplify the process of segregating general premium dollars from those used to cover abortion services, the ACA requires that health plans estimate the cost of abortion coverage at no less than $1 per enrollee per month.

H.R. 7 would require plans covering abortion to misrepresent this practice as an ``abortion surcharge,'' which is to be disclosed and identified as a portion of the consumer's premium.

By describing abortion coverage in this way, H.R. 7 makes it look as though it is an added, extra cost, available only at an additional fee, when in fact it is not.

Taken together, the provisions in H.R. 7 have the effect, and possibly the intent, of arbitrarily infringing women's reproductive freedoms and pose a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.

Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of this bill is that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of circumstances.

Women like Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water broke. Tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved viability.

This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move limbs. In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to the face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to develop beyond the 22-week point.

There was less than a 10% chance that, if born, Danielle's baby would be able to breathe on its own and only a 2% chance the baby would be able to eat on its own.

H.R. 7 hurts women like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from several major anomalies and had no chance of survival. Because of Vikki's diabetes, her doctor determined that induced labor and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an abortion.

Every pregnancy is different. No politician knows, or has the right to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her family.

These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in consultation with their partners, doctors, and their God.

H.R. 7 lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother.

H.R. 7 is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases going back to Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade decided in 1973.

In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could not prohibit a woman from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to protect her health prior to viability.

While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation.

Supreme Court precedents make it clear that neither Congress nor a state legislature can declare any one element--``be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor--as the determinant'' of viability. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89 (1979).

The constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even later where continuing to term poses a threat to her health and safety.

This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate.

The bill before us threatens this hard won right for women and must be defeated.

I urge all members to join me in opposing the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, our constituents are looking to this Congress to address the economy, jobs, our crumbling infrastructure, and so many other issues. But despite these pressing needs, the only substantive bill this House is considering this week is a bill restricting a woman's ability to get a full range of healthcare services and a bill, which passed before in this House and that we know is going nowhere in the other body.

Its title alone must be part of the majority's new plan to redefine facts. As we heard the other day, we now apparently have in our discourse ``alternative facts.''

This bill takes that to a whole new level, and let me tell you why. The bill is called the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act. But under current law, under the Hyde amendment--which I hate, which I will do everything to repeal--we have no taxpayer funding for abortion. Taxpayer funds are currently prohibited from use for abortions. Instead, what this bill does is it takes that concept and it uses it to far expand a restriction on a woman's ability to get the full health care that she needs.

Let me talk about what this bill does exactly. First of all, it codifies the Hyde amendment into statute, which has never been done in this Nation's history.

Secondly, it codifies a ban on abortions in D.C., even when they are done with D.C.'s taxpayer money and not with Federal money.

Number three, it codifies the Helms amendment, which denies women abroad access to safe abortion care by severely restricting the use of U.S. funds to pay for healthcare services in developing countries.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

It severely restricts abortion coverage in the ACA's exchanges by forbidding people who have plans where they get subsidies from paying for plans with their own money. This is a far expansion of a restriction on a woman's right to get her own health insurance with her own money.

It denies insurance-related tax credits to small businesses that choose plans that offer abortion services. It permanently bans abortion services for Federal employees and it codifies a ban on abortion coverage for women in military services overseas.

The fact that we are debating this today, just 1 day after President Trump issued an executive order reinstating the global gag rule, is a slap in the face to the over 3 million women who marched last weekend.

Let's vote ``no'' on this bill and let's go to the business that the American public really cares about.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), one of our new Members.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman from Tennessee has attempted to imply that several of our speakers today support the Hyde amendment because they voted for very large omnibus spending bills that included the Hyde amendment. I would like to be really clear that none of the speakers on this side today do support the Hyde amendment, and, in fact, in the last Congress we had a bill, the EACH Woman Act, sponsored by a number of us, 129 cosponsors, which would repeal the Hyde amendment. Sometimes people vote for large pieces of legislation because they do things like keep our government open and build highways and roads. But we will do everything in our power to repeal this poorly thought-out and regressive amendment, and we will do everything we can to defeat this bill today.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentlewoman from Tennessee keeps saying over and over that different people voted for H.R. 2029 and, therefore, they must be for the Hyde amendment. I would like to point out that she herself voted against H.R. 2029. I guess maybe that means she is against the Hyde amendment since she voted against that bill.

The point I am making is that all of us oppose the Hyde amendment. We are all cosponsoring the EACH Woman Act. Simply because you vote for or against a large omnibus bill does not mean you are necessarily in favor of or against the Hyde amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side?

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), another one of our excellent new Members.

Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), an activist on this issue.

(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan), another one of our new, wonderful Members.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, the fad, apparently, this week, is the idea of alternative facts. In other words, if politicians don't like the facts that they have been given or the reality of the situation, then what we should do is we should just come up with new facts; and apparently, the facts in this bill are that, apparently, the other side is worried about taxpayer funding for abortions.

As we have said repeatedly, we don't like this on this side of the aisle, but right now, because of the annual Hyde amendment, there is no taxpayer funding for abortion. We aim to change that because it is probably the most regressive legislation that we have for women's health.

It says that rich women can get the full range of healthcare services they need, including abortion; but poor women, the women least equipped to be able to raise unwanted children, and certainly not with help from this Congress, are the ones who cannot get those services that they needed.

So I just want to say one more time because I keep hearing the alternative facts over and over, there are right now no taxpayer funding for abortions, something that we need to fix. But this bill takes us the opposite direction. What this bill does is it codifies the Hyde amendment in statute once and for all, and that would bar low- income women from receiving these much-needed services. It codifies the D.C. abortion ban, which would rob the D.C. City Council of giving the healthcare services D.C. women need, even with D.C. tax revenues. It codifies the Helms amendment, which is the same thing as the Hyde amendment for international programs. And perhaps the biggest ban here is it restricts people's ability to buy insurance policies on the healthcare exchanges with their own money that will cover abortion.

I heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle over and over again that there are a thousand policies. The lady from South Dakota said that government dollars were supporting abortive procedures. That is just simply not the case. There is no Federal money in the exchanges paying for abortive procedures.

What this bill does is it greatly expands restrictions on women's ability with their own money to buy insurance policies with legal healthcare coverage that they feel that they need. And it says that if you get a subsidy, then you can't get a policy with your own money. That is a vast expansion, and it is well beyond the pale.

It is also, by the way, beyond what the American public says. Because the American public, by 86 percent, says that if you are poor, then politicians should not put their personal views on you and you should be able to get the healthcare coverage that you need. We saw this with the millions of American women and men in Washington and around the country who marched this last weekend. But we see it in the polling. People say, if you are poor, you should be able to get the healthcare coverage you need, not what some politician in Washington tells you.

I have an idea. Every year, around the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and the time that the protestors come to Washington, I don't think that we should debate this futile exercise year after year. I think we should come together across the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, to figure out how we can prevent unwanted pregnancies.

I am getting ready to introduce a bill. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the Republican side, to cosponsor this bill. This bill will expand contraception and family planning services and long-range contraception for all American women so that we can prevent unwanted pregnancies.

In Colorado, we have a program that is called LARC. And what it is is a program where the State helps teen and young women get long-acting contraception so they can prevent unwanted pregnancies. And here is what happened in Colorado when we enacted this very robust and helpful program. According to the data from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, both the birth rate and abortion rate for women ages 15 to 19 fell 48 percent from 2009 to 2014 because of long-acting contraception, and the same was true for women of the next age group up.

We can do this. We can do this together. Let's start talking about a way to improve women's health instead of to restrict their choices. Vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 55, I call up the bill (H.R. 7) to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous material on H.R. 7, currently under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in strong support of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his unflinching leadership on this issue.

It was just a week ago that groups of women marched in the streets of D.C. and other cities across the country apparently ready to write off this Presidency as it just began.

There were millions of pro-life women who were explicitly told that they were unwelcome at this event. So today, the people's House is giving them and the more than 60 percent of Americans from all political persuasions who oppose taxpayer funding of abortions a voice.

The legislation before us will protect Americans' conscience rights by ensuring that their hard-earned tax dollars are not used to fund the destruction of innocent life. That is a principle that Members of both parties have supported in this Chamber before.

Every year, Democrats and Republicans alike have come together to support funding bills that maintain the law called the Hyde amendment, which prohibits the direct Federal funding of abortion, with limited exceptions. This 40-year-old law has saved an estimated 2 million lives, but it is not permanent, meaning that this time-honored protection could be taken away on a whim. What is more, the law, in its current form, has clear loopholes.

A 2014 GAO study found that taxpayer-funded insurance subsidies could be used to pay for abortions on over 1,000 ObamaCare plans nationwide. That is why today we have the opportunity to make this life-affirming law permanent and governmentwide.

As a mother, a grandmother, and a nurse for more than 40 years, this measure is especially meaningful to me. During my years in the healthcare industry, I saw the joy in young parents' eyes when they met their newborn for the very first time. I held the hands of grieving spouses and children as they said good-bye to their loved ones. And, sadly, I witnessed a young woman lose her life due to the effects of a botched abortion.

These experiences informed my view that all life is a precious gift from God. I pray that in time this truth will be reflected in our Nation's laws. Until then, can't we at least do this much.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is the chair of the Judiciary Committee and a longstanding supporter of pro-life.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I referenced in my opening remarks that there has been bipartisan support for this measure, the Hyde amendment, on a yearly basis. I just want to make mention that the former gentlewoman from California who just spoke did vote for this measure in the fiscal year 2016 omnibus bill.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is the sponsor of the bill and is a champion for the unborn. It is really an honor for me to have served with him on this particular issue.

Madam Chair, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), one of my Ways and Means colleagues and a long-time supporter of pro-life.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), who has been a longstanding supporter of life.

Madam Speaker, I want to once again mention that there has been longstanding bipartisan support for the support of the Hyde amendment.

As a matter of fact, the gentlewoman from California who just spoke voted for this on three different occasions;

most recently in the MACRA that was passed in 2015; the omnibus, which was passed in December of 2015 and also in December of 2016; and in the fiscal year 2017 CR.

It is now my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), a member of the Appropriations Committee and a strong supporter of pro-life.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), who is the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, once again, I want to talk about the longstanding bipartisan support for the Hyde amendment. The gentlewoman from Florida has supported this measure in the omnibus bill and also the CR of 2017.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), who is a member of the Financial Services Committee. She and her family have been fighting for pro-life issues for many, many, many years.

Madam Speaker, once again, I want to say that there has been longstanding bipartisan support for the Hyde amendment, and the gentlewoman from Florida supported this measure back in 2015 on the H.R. 2 MACRA bill and the 2015 omnibus bill, H.R. 2029.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love).

Madam Speaker I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Madam Speaker, I want to remind everyone of the longstanding bipartisan support for the Hyde amendment. The gentlewoman from New York voted for this measure in the omnibus bill, H.R. 2029, in 2015, and then on the MACRA bill, also in 2015.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell) one of our newest Members.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), a gentleman who has been a champion of life.

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, today I am simply asking my colleagues across the aisle not to flip-flop on this issue. This legislation isn't just the right thing to do; it also has broad support.

Polling shows that 6 in 10 Americans agree that taxpayer dollars should not fund abortions. Despite this fact, a nonpartisan government study found that abortions could be funded with taxpayer dollars through ObamaCare, and this demands a response.

Today we have an opportunity to invest in women's health over abortion by passing H.R. 7 and making the Hyde amendment permanent and governmentwide.

I urge my colleagues to reject this motion to recommit and to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 7.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, there is obviously a difference of opinion in this country on the morality of abortion. I am appalled by the moral arrogance of the Republicans who would use political power to impose their views on the millions of women who disagree with them and want to make their own decisions.

Though the Supreme Court has determined that neither Congress nor a State may place an undue burden on a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, the Hyde amendment makes abortion access virtually impossible for low-income women.

As unjust and despicable as the Hyde amendment is, this bill goes beyond it. For the first time, Republicans are attempting to restrict the right of women to use their own money to pay for abortions by denying normal tax deductions for medical expenses if those medical expenses include an abortion, by denying normal tax credits for health insurance if that insurance covers abortion, and by denying use of tax- free money from an FSA or an HSA for an abortion.

The intent of this bill is obvious: to end insurance coverage for all abortions, thereby making it nearly impossible for women to exercise their constitutional rights.

Republicans should pay heed to the millions of women who marched to protect their rights this weekend and are watching how we vote today.

Madam Speaker, there is obviously a difference of opinion in this country on the morality of abortion. I am appalled at the moral arrogance of the Republicans who would use political power to impose their views on the millions of women who disagree with them and want to make their own decisions.

If Saturday's protests are any indication, the women of America and the world are watching us. They are not going to stand silently by while Republicans in Congress and the White House take away their rights, their health care, their families, and their livelihoods. They sent this message loud and clear, but it seems my Republican colleagues have not heard it. Yesterday morning, President Trump signed an executive order reinstating the Global Gag Rule, which will deny thousands of women around the world access to reproductive health care, which will lead to a dramatic decline in maternal and infant health around the world.

Today, Republicans are bringing up a bill that will deny women the right to access comprehensive reproductive health care, a right protected by the Constitution.

The right of a woman to decide whether to become pregnant, to decide to continue her pregnancy, or to make the decision to terminate her pregnancy is protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has determined that neither Congress nor a state may place an ``undue burden'' on that right. Denial of Medicaid or other government funding that would be available for other medical procedures should be considered an ``undue burden.'' For decades, Congress has imposed the Hyde Amendment on every appropriations bill. This language disproportionately impacts poor women and women of color, effectively denying them their constitutional right to access abortion. Yet today, Republicans want to make that language permanent.

As unjust and despicable as the Hyde Amendment is, this bill goes beyond it. For the first time, Republicans are restricting the right of women to use their own money to pay for abortions. This bill will deny normal tax deductions for medical expenses if those expenses include abortion, normal tax credits for health insurance if that insurance includes abortion, and denying the ability to use tax-free money from an FSA or HSA for an abortion.

The bill does include an exception in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. You may ask, how the IRS will know a woman's reason for getting an abortion. Well, under this bill, women will have to prove they are a victim of rape or incest or will have to provide detailed medical records to determine just how at risk their life was. Women will not only have to suffer the trauma of a sexual assault or the loss of a pregnancy because of life-threatening complications, they will now also have to face an IRS inquisition to get their own money back. So much for Republicans' pledge to get ``big government'' out of people's lives.

The intent of this bill is obvious: to end insurance coverage for all abortions thereby making it nearly impossible for women to exercise their constitutional rights. Republicans are clearly out of step with the millions of women who marched to protect their rights this weekend. Those women, and the millions more who stand with them, are watching and ready to fight back. I am proud to vote against this bill and to join their fight.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7.

We are only 10 days into this 115th Congress, and already Republicans are bringing legislation to the floor to harm women's health. It is clear that House Republicans do not respect women and our ability to make our own decisions.

Millions of women peacefully marched in cities around the country and around the world, yet here we are, once again, voting legislation to give politicians more control over women's bodies than they have of their own.

Let's be clear: the ultimate goal of this bill is to effectively eliminate access to abortions, even when women pay for it themselves. Seven in ten Americans believe that abortions should be safe and legal. And just as we have seen in Texas, when women lose access to abortion, they will take drastic action to seek back-alley abortions or to self- abort.

Let's remember that Roe v. Wade was not the beginning of women having abortions. It was the end of women dying from abortions.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, I am opposed to the bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise to offer the motion to recommit on H.R. 7, the so-called No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act.

The motion to recommit is very simple. It would amend H.R. 7 to say that nothing in this legislation would allow an insurance company to charge women higher premiums than men just because they are women.

In the first few days of the Trump Presidency, we have seen one action after another to discriminate against women, restrict access to health services, and make their care more expensive. We also know that Republicans are determined to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would, once again, allow insurance companies to discriminate against women.

Repealing the ACA would be a triple whammy for women. Not only would they have to pay more for their insurance, but their insurance would be less likely to cover the services they need. And these higher costs will take a bigger chunk out of their budget.

Before the ACA, insurers were able to exclude services critical to women's health. And we are not just talking about preexisting conditions, which, by the way, often included having a baby or being the victim of domestic violence.

The benefit package itself left out medical care critical to women. Only 12 percent of plans in the individual market offered maternity coverage. And some insurance plans that offered that coverage imposed waiting periods of a year or charges of up to $10,000 just for maternity care. And even when maternity care was excluded from any insurance plan, insurers still used gender rating to discriminate against women, charging women more just because they were women, regardless of their benefits. Being a woman was a preexisting condition.

Thankfully, the ACA prohibits gender rating. Before the ACA, women were forced to pay between 10 to 57 percent more than men for essentially the same insurance. In my home State of Illinois, women were charged 55 percent more than men for the same coverage. In fact, a 2012 National Women's Law Center study found that 92 percent of best- selling insurance plans were gender rated.

A 25-year-old woman in Arkansas was charged 81 percent more than a man for similar coverage. A 40-year-old woman in South Dakota was charged over $1,200 more a year than a 40-year-old man for the same coverage. In Kentucky, women were charged 57 percent more than men for the same coverage. In Texas, they were charged 56 percent more. In Indiana, they were charged 54 percent more. And the list goes on.

This study even found that over half of all insurance plans charged women who didn't smoke significantly higher premiums than men of the same age who did smoke. Overall, gender rating cost American women about $1 billion a year. It also harmed businesses with predominantly female employees who were routinely charged more for their insurance coverage.

Finally, charging women more for health care is even more devastating when you take into account that women still make only 77 cents to the dollar compared to men. We cannot go back to the days when insurance companies were free to discriminate against women. But that is exactly what Republicans want to do. They want women to pay more for insurance coverage that doesn't include the services they need.

So I am asking my colleagues to support the motion to recommit and protect women from discrimination by insurance companies.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.