Preventing Vigilante Stalking that Stops Women’s Access to Healthcare and Abortion Rights Act of 2021

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Jayapal and Congresswoman Maloney, for leading today's special order on the threat to reproductive rights and the devastating impact that the loss of our rights would have on communities and families.

Reproductive rights have constantly been at risk since Roe vs. Wade became the law of the land almost 50 years ago. But never have they been in jeopardy as much as they are today.

The recent disclosure of the U.S. Supreme Court's draft opinion in the Dobbs case shows just how precarious reproductive rights are in the United States.

By imposing their personal views and impetuous whim, the five justices who support that opinion could eliminate essential rights that are Constitutionally protected, relied upon by American society, and supported overwhelmingly by the American people.

Yet, these five Supreme Court Justices--who embody antiquated, regressive views--could turn the clock back to days when women did not have the right to control their bodies or their reproductive health.

In fact, by basing the draft opinion on a strict textualist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, the five renegades would be issuing an opinion that reverses a whole roster of Constitutionally protected rights, even beyond reversing Roe vs. Wade.

If the draft opinion is issued, these five jurists would be doing exactly what they testified under oath at their confirmation hearings that they would not do. It seems clear to me that they were not forthcoming--even worse, they were not truthful--when they testified to the U.S. Senate under penalty of perjury.

The myopic rationale on which the draft opinion is based reveals a lack of fidelity to the principle of stare decisis, despite the claims to the contrary that each of the five made when asked about the Roe case at their confirmation hearings.

Equally tragically, if the draft opinion in the Dobbs case becomes law without major changes, it will open the floodgates for states to curtail women's reproductive rights in myriad nefarious ways. Many states have already enacted laws which severely restrict access to abortions and other reproductive rights, and many more have accelerated the process to follow that path.

These are tragically just the latest in a long history of conservative efforts to marginalize women by eliminating our reproductive rights. These draconian efforts have an impact that disrupts every aspect of women's lives, extending to their educational plans, economic status, career paths, family choices, and role in society.

Restrictions on reproductive rights have a disproportionate effect on low-income individuals and women of color.

Low-income individuals and people of color face a range of worse health outcomes than higher income individuals and white people.

These worse outcomes are the result of higher barriers to quality health care, higher rates of stress, poorer living and working conditions, and, for people of color, racial discrimination.

People of color and low-income individuals, experience the highest rates of unintended pregnancy, partially because of barriers to accessing quality family planning services and contraception, lack of insurance coverage, and, for racial minorities, discrimination in health care.

Because of this, low-income people and people of color have higher rates of abortion, as abortion rates mirror rates of unintended pregnancy.

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2018 the reported legal abortions in Texas broken down by race were:

White: 27 percent

African American: 27 percent

Hispanic: 39 percent

Other: 7 percent

Because people of color are disproportionately low income, they are also disproportionately impacted by abortion restrictions: policies such as early abortion bans, and mandatory waiting periods disproportionately hurt people of color, who are less likely to be able to miss work to travel to far-away clinics. Abortion restrictions put the health of people of color at risk.

According to the CDC, Black, American Indian, and Alaska Native pregnant people are nearly two to three times as likely to die from pregnancy-related complications than white people.

A new study by Dr. David Eisenberg, a board-certified obstetrician- gynecologist, estimates that Texas SB 8's new restrictions on women's health could cause increases in maternal mortality of up to 15 percent overall, and up to 33 percent for Black women next year.

Texas Senate Bill 8, or the ``Texas Heartbeat Act'' which has recently been passed in my home state restricts access to abortion and is one of the harshest laws regarding abortion access in the Nation.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, before the ban, the average woman of childbearing age in Texas lived 17 miles from the nearest abortion provider, now, the average driving distance is 247 miles.

This ban is a clear violation of the right to abortion established by the Supreme Court's landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

The Roe Court rooted its decision in the right to personal privacy, connecting it to other fundamental rights of self-determination such as the freedom to marry, the freedom to procreate or use contraception, and the right to make one's own decisions about child rearing and education.

The Roe Court also rejected the argument that an embryo or fetus constitutes a ``person'' for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Nearly two decades later, in 1992, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the basic right to terminate a pregnancy but weakened Constitutional safeguards surrounding abortion in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.

However, the Casey Court concluded that states could enact certain types of pre-viability regulations to protect fetal life, holding that abortion, ``the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,'' is only protected ``where state regulation imposes an undue burden on a woman's ability to make this decision.''

In the decades following Casey, many states sought to reduce or eliminate abortions: Texas, for example, passed a law requiring abortion clinics to meet ambulatory surgical center standards even though other providers of procedures such as colonoscopies and liposuction--which have far higher mortality rates--were subject to none of the same regulations .

In 2016, the Supreme Court in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt held by a margin of 5-4 that this Texas law was unconstitutional, and also struck down a provision of the same law that required physicians performing abortions in Texas to have active admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their facilities.

Today, we see the state of Texas once again attempting to curtail women's constitutional right to terminate pregnancy through SB 8.

SB 8 bans abortions at around six weeks into the gestation period, when fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which falls before many people even know that they are pregnant.

The bill doesn't stop there, as the enforcement of the law by private citizens is incentivized.

This law places a bounty on people seeking healthcare--a minimum of $10,000 plus costs and attorneys' fees--to the individual who successfully brings a suit under the law's private right of action.

Not since the Fugitive Slave Act has a law been enacted that turns people into bounty hunters to hunt people for profit in the pursuit of enforcement of an unjust immoral law.

This empowers any private citizen--including but not limited to, antichoice extremists, ex-partners, assaulters, and strangers--to sue any person or organization that helps someone access abortion care after about six weeks of pregnancy.

SB 8 promotes, encourages, and will lead to vigilante justice, which many anti-choice organizations and activists actively try to deny. The law, and how it is enforced, is purposefully designed to have a chilling effect on a deeply private decision.

The private right of action also provides a tool for harassing abortion providers with costly lawsuits, discouraging them from providing services, and limiting access to reproductive healthcare.

As anti-choice activists continue to face questions and criticism, they will continue to

distort the reality of the law and deflect attention from its enforcement mechanism.

However, the effect of the enforcement mechanism is already in the making, as anti-abortion groups in Texas have already set up anonymous tip lines to allow individuals to act on their vigilante desires to punish people for making a personal decision.

This is why, in October 2021, I introduced H.R. 5710, the ``Preventing Vigilante Stalking that Stops Women's Access to Healthcare and Abortion Rights Act of 2021''; my Senate companion bill S.3057 .

This bicameral bill will enhance criminal penalties under the federal stalking statute if the stalking is done with the intent to prevent or report on a woman's health decisions. This bill does not include any mandatory minimums.

The ``Preventing Vigilante Stalking that Stops Women's Access to Healthcare and Abortion Rights Act of 2021'' will save lives--not only for women seeking essential healthcare services; it would also stop the threats poised by abusive partners who may feel emboldened by this heinous Texas law.

Thus far, SB 8 has accomplished exactly what it was meant to: the law's in terrorem effect has forced women to flee the state in order to obtain a safe and legal abortion.

For example, at 21 years old, Texas college student Madi was a senior in college when she discovered that she was pregnant. Madi was in a committed relationship and on birth control, and did not experience any early pregnancy signs until the nine-week mark, which she initially chalked up to the typical stress of being a senior and starting a new semester.

Madi immediately began to research nearby clinics across state lines, because SB8 prevented her from obtaining an abortion in Texas.

Madi called more than 30 clinics in Louisiana, Alabama, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Nevada--they were all booked for weeks.

Eventually, Madi was able to obtain an appointment at Jackson Women's Health in Mississippi, more than 400 miles away.

Another example is Ianthe Davis, who at just over six weeks pregnant ended her bartending shift at 4 a.m. one morning in Dallas in order to drive three three hours up Interstate 35 to Trust Women clinic in Oklahoma City.

She was treated by Dr. Rebecca Taub, an obstetrician and gynecologist who travels once a month from California to perform abortions for women.

After the procedure, Davis drove home; according to Davis on the need for the procedure, ``If I don't work, I don't make money.''

A Texas woman, an Oklahoma clinic, a California doctor: this scene offers a snapshot of the landscape under this horrific Texas law that bans nearly all abortions after an embryonic heartbeat is detected.

And there is Dr. Alan Braid, who was sued in Arkansas and Illinois for carrying out an abortion on a woman who was in the early stages of her pregnancy but beyond the six-week limit set by the law.

Dr. Braid, who has been practicing medicine for nearly 50 years, wrote in a September 18 opinion column in the Washington post that: ``I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care.''

As Dr. Braid demonstrates, this law places doctors in the impossible position of either obeying an unjust law or upholding their Hippocratic oath.

In addition to this heinous privatization of vigilante bounty hunters, the law has an enforcement mechanism that is uniquely crafted to be difficult to challenge in court.

Unlike other laws that restrict abortion access, SB 8 does not allow for any state officials to enforce the statute.

Rather, the lone enforcement mechanism is a private right of action that allows any individual who knowingly engages in or intends to engage in ``conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion'' in violation of the six-week ban.

SB 8's enforcement structure represents a deliberate and disturbing effort by the State of Texas to evade judicial scrutiny long enough for a clearly unconstitutional law to take effect. Through this enforcement mechanism, a deeply troubling precedent is set.

This precedent could be followed by other states aiming to undermine the constitutional right to abortion, but for any state efforts to undermine any other of our rights protected by the constitution.

If this enforcement mechanism found in SB 8 is to stay, the similar measures can be utilized by any state in order to slowly chip away at constitutional rights.

This bill also willfully ignores the fact that many women will not know they are pregnant at the six-week mark, and this will disproportionately effect women who are struggling to make ends meet, and women of color.

Even if a woman did know that she was pregnant within the narrow six- week period allowed by SB 8, it is not always possible for someone to get an abortion as soon as they have made that decision.

Many things can stand in their way, from not being able to afford it, travel distance to a clinic, not being able to get off work, or barriers put in place by politicians, such as bans on abortion coverage; or they may get new information about their health or their pregnancy.

Ensuring that everyone can get reproductive health care, including abortion is part of addressing racial and economic injustice.

Our Nation is amid a racial reckoning and transformation and we must unite against racism and discrimination and this will always include ending policies that deny people equitable access to healthcare, including abortion.

Forcing someone to continue a pregnancy against their will is simply a violation of their rights and their basic humanity.

The deeply private decision-making process of accessing abortion care is essential to women's bodily autonomy, and SB 8 greatly infringes on that of the people in my home state.

One of the most important and consequential decisions we as people ever make is whether we become parents, and these restrictions were designed to control, dehumanize, and criminalize women and their doctors.

We need to ensure that all people have access to the reproductive health care that they need, including access to abortion.

Once someone has decided to seek abortion care, I want them to be able to have access to safe and affordable medical care. I want them to be supported, not restricted by laws that dictate their decision or place unnecessary barriers on the process.

The decision to have an abortion should happen between those seeking abortions, and their doctors--there is no place for the Governor of Texas, the Texas Legislation, or any other individual to control this private decision.

The Texan government needs to trust people to make decisions for their own lives, their own bodies, and their own futures, and I trust Texans to always do what is right for themselves and those they love.

Those seeking abortion should not be punished or shamed for having an abortion but supported and treated with compassion.

SB 8 and other laws like it are the antithesis to what this country is supposed to be about, which is having the freedom to make your own life.

I have heard some say that this bill is popular in Texas, and that is not the case.

A poll done by NPR found that a clear majority of Americans, specifically 59 percent of Republicans, 61 of Democrats and 53 percent of independents, oppose a ban on abortions at the 6-8 week mark.

Furthermore, the poll found that 74 percent of those polled opposed legal action by private citizens--which broken down was 57 percent of Republicans, 90 percent of Democrats, and 74 percent of Independents.

To say this legislation is popular or is at the wishes of the constituents is a lie.

It's egregious to be focused on outlawing something that most Americans believe should be a personal decision, as a pandemic ravages our communities and basic health care needs go unmet.

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

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

Abortion Laws Around the World

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on abortion quickly led to

bans in at least eight states, a shift toward criminalization

that runs counter to recent easings in countries that had

longstanding bans.

The Supreme Court's elimination of the constitutional right

to abortion, after nearly a half-century, has made the United

States one of the few countries actively strengthening

abortion restrictions.

Abortion is now banned in at least eight states, a shift

toward criminalization that runs counter to the longstanding

policies of some close allies, like Canada, and to recent

easings in several nations that had long imposed bans, like

Ireland, Mexico and South Korea.

But no nations share the same history regarding abortion,

nor does any part of the world have uniform laws: Women

seeking abortions everywhere must navigate distinct rules, in

a variety of health care systems, if access is available at

all. The following examples, while not comprehensive,

illustrate the diversity of those laws--and how they're

changing.

Canada

No laws restrict abortion in Canada, where it is covered by

provincial and territorial public health care systems as an

essential medical procedure within 20 weeks of conception

and, under some circumstances, after that point, such as when

a pregnancy threatens the mother's life. Access and

exceptions vary by province, and sometimes by hospital.

Until 1988, criminal laws allowed abortions only if

approved by committees of physicians. That year, the Supreme

Court struck down the laws in a landmark case. Most legal

scholars agree that if the issue were to reach the court

again, it would make the right to abortion explicit.--Ian

Austen

Mexico

Before a court ruling last year, abortion was largely

restricted, with Mexico City and only three of 31 states

permitting the procedure up to 12 weeks of fetal gestation.

But the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the fall that

penalizing women who undergo abortions was unconstitutional,

and in the months since, five more states have moved to

legalize abortions.

The justices did not specify how far into a pregnancy

abortion was permitted, leaving the details to the states.

For the states that still ban abortion, legislatures will

need to change laws to permit the procedure.--Maria Abi-Habib

nicaragua

Abortion is completely illegal and punishable by jail for

the woman and the doctors.

The Legislature eliminated all exceptions in 2006, ending a

century of law that allowed abortions in cases of life-

threatening complications or pregnancies caused by rape.

President Daniel Ortega, a strong supporter of criminalizing

abortion, has received support from Evangelical leaders in

Nicaragua and the United States.--Yubelka Mendoza and Maria

Abi-Habib

Britain

Abortions have been legal in England, Scotland and Wales

for more than 50 years, protected by the Abortion Act of

1967. Abortions can be legally performed up to the 24th week

of pregnancy and must be medically approved by two doctors.

The 1967 law allows some exceptions for later-term

abortions, including when the pregnancy endangers the woman's

health or if a prenatal scan reveals a fetus abnormality. A

provision of the law allowing abortion if the fetus carries

significant risk of serious disability was at the center of a

court case last year.

In rare circumstances, such as when a woman, without

doctors' consent, takes medicine intended to terminate a

pregnancy, an abortion could be prosecuted as a criminal act.

The 1967 law did not cover Northern Ireland, which for

decades prohibited almost all abortions.

British lawmakers overturned that ban in 2019, legalizing

``unconditional termination'' of pregnancy within the first

12 weeks. But with resistance coming from anti-abortion and

church groups, abortion services remain limited.--Saskia

Solomon

Ireland

A 1983 constitutional amendment banned nearly all abortion,

reflecting the Roman Catholic Church's deep influence in the

country. That influence had waned by 2018, when a referendum

to end the ban was approved by 66 percent of voters.

Lawmakers then legalized abortion in the Health Act of

2018, allowing abortion for any reason up to the end of the

first trimester. The law provides exceptions beyond 12 weeks

in cases of fetal abnormalities considered fatal after birth

or a potential risk to the woman's health.--Saskia Solomon

Poland

Soviet-era Poland offered some of Europe's broadest

abortion access, and it became a destination for women

seeking abortions. But after the Soviet Union's collapse, and

under the influence of the Catholic Church, the Polish

Parliament in 1993 passed one of Europe's strictest bans,

asserting that ``every human being shall have an inherent

right to life from the moment of conception.''

It allowed three categories of exception: danger to the

mother's health or life; rape or incest; severe fetal

abnormalities.

Despite mass protests, the ban was tightened last year by

the nationalist Law and Justice Party, eliminating the most-

used exception--fetal abnormalities--which accounted for

almost all of the roughly 1,000 legal abortions a year. An

estimated 100,000 to 150,000 illegal abortions take place

very year in the country, activists say.

The remaining exceptions are problematic for abortion

seekers. Rape victims face a deadline of the 12th week of

pregnancy, and they require a certificate from a prosecutor,

which takes a long time to acquire. And the definition of

what constitutes a ``serious'' risk to a woman's health is

too vague for doctors to always act decisively. In a small

number of cases, women have died of sepsis after doctors

refused to intervene while the fetus's heart was still

beating.

Women cannot be punished for taking an abortion pill or

undergoing an abortion abroad.

Anyone deemed to have aided or abetted an illegal abortion

faces up to eight years in prison.--Katrin Bennhold

India

A total ban was eased in 1971 with the Medical Termination

of Pregnancy Act, which made some abortions legal.

But activists continued to seek further easing, to include

abortion in cases of fetal anomaly or pregnancy caused by

rape. In 2021, the federal government amended the law,

expanding the criteria for legal abortions and adding a

privacy clause to protect women who went to clinics.

The law allows women to terminate pregnancies until 20

weeks. Between 20 and 24 weeks, a woman needs two doctors to

approve an abortion, and after 24 weeks, abortions are

allowed only when the woman's health is at risk. Women can

now terminate unwanted pregnancies caused by contraceptive

failure regardless of marital status; before the amendment,

only a married couple could do that.

Still, abortions done in violation of the law are

punishable by up to seven years in prison for the woman and

medical personnel.--Sameer Yasir

China

Abortion has been legal in some form since 1953. By the

1970s, as the ruling Chinese Communist Party grew

increasingly worried about overpopulation, abortion became

more widely accessible, and the one-child policy led to some

forced abortions.

Sex-selective abortions are illegal, meant to counter the

widespread preference for boys over girls. In response to

recent concerns over declining birthrates and an aging

population, families may now have three children without

penalty. Given the government's invasive family planning

policies, some women fear it will restrict abortion access.

The authorities last year said they intended to reduce

``medically unnecessary abortions,'' without explaining how.

Access to abortion services varies by region, with some

requiring women to produce certificates of medical necessity.

In Jiangxi Province, women who are more than 14 weeks

pregnant need three signatures from medical personnel.

Scholars, activists and some foreign governments have

accused the authorities of using family planning policies to

suppress ethnic minorities, which the government denies.--

Vivian Wang

Kenya

Under the 2010 Constitution, abortion is permitted if a

trained health professional determines a need for emergency

treatment, or if the pregnancy endangers the life or health

of the mother. In other circumstances, abortion providers can

face up to 14 years in prison under Kenya's penal code.

In practice, many women who could obtain a legal abortion

cannot because of poverty, lack of access to health services

or a lack of information about their rights.--Matthew Mpoke

Bigg

Benin

Last fall, Benin joined South Africa and Mozambique as one

of the few African countries to broadly legalize abortion

within 12 weeks.

Under the new law, abortion will be allowed ``when the

pregnancy is likely to aggravate or cause a situation of

material, educational, professional or moral distress

incompatible with the interest of the woman and/or the unborn

child.'' In doing so, Benin became the third country in

Africa, along with Ethiopia and Zambia, to allow abortion

based on the social or economic needs of the woman.

The previous law authorized abortion only if the pregnancy

endangered the woman's life or was the result of rape or

incest, or if the fetus was malformed. The new law will take

effect after the authorities detail how it will be applied,

which could take months.--Elian Peltier

Egypt

A strict anti-abortion law has been on the books for 85

years, derived from the French Penal Code of the colonial era

that bans the procedure under nearly any circumstances. The

woman and doctor face imprisonment if convicted.

It does have one loophole, which is based on the medical

code of ethics: Doctors are allowed--but not legally

obligated--to terminate a pregnancy if it puts the woman's

life

at risk and she signs a document saying the procedure was

lifesaving.

Though convictions are uncommon, the law and social stigma

have pushed abortion practices out of public sight, where the

woman's safety cannot be protected and the procedure can be

prohibitively expensive.--Nada Rashwan

Turkey

Since 1983, abortion has been legal up to 10 weeks after

conception. Married women need spousal consent. The law

allows exceptions after 10 weeks when the pregnancy threatens

the life of the woman, if the doctor concludes the fetus has

a grave disability, and in cases of rape.

Violators face prosecution and prison--for both the woman

and the doctor.

Abortion remains a divisive issue. In 2012, Recep Tayyip

Erdogan, now the president and then prime minister, called

abortion murder and urged more restrictions. After popular

outrage, the law was never amended, but in practice, abortion

services are unavailable in many state hospitals--Safak Timur

Madam Speaker, I rise today to fight for life and in strong opposition to H.R. 8296, the abortion on demand until birth act. You know, I never thought that I would have to stand here on the House floor and debate the fact that killing someone for their gender, their sex, their race--but here we are.

We are debating a bill that is being pushed by my colleagues on the other side that would legalize abortions based on a baby's sex, race, or potential disability. I am going to say that again because I think that is perhaps the most outrageous, horrific, regressive, sexist, and racist part of this legislation.

This bill allows for abortions up until the day of natural delivery because the child maybe isn't the right sex or the right race, according to the mother, who is a woman, by the way. We need to stop this lie that suddenly abortion is healthcare--it is not.

I have heard repeatedly talk about this 10-year-old girl who was brutally raped--this is a heartbreaking situation--yet, not a single peep about the man who did this. He was an illegal who crossed our border, who never should have been in our country in the first place, who committed this crime. Not one peep.

In our country, we are based really, quite frankly, on a simple notion that we are of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Abortion, that is equal outcome. We know the outcome.

All I am asking today is that my colleagues think a little bit critically about what they are doing and what they are saying, the message that they are sending--that they believe in equal outcome, not opportunity because they are, quite frankly, denying the right for every single one of these children the opportunity to live.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Honorable Representative Rodgers, for yielding me time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 8296. The Supreme Court recently took the important and correct step to return the power to regulate abortion back to State legislators and voters within the individual States while recognizing the sanctity of life.

This concept is so novel and repugnant to the Democrats that they would put forward a radical and extreme abortion bill that would permit abortion even up until birth for any reason. Only seven countries, including China and North Korea, are this extreme.

As a doctor, I am knowledgeable that mid- to late-term abortion is a barbaric procedure which can include dismemberment of the baby and crushing of the skull. This is far more cruel than many of the laws of States that define prisoner abuse of convicted felons and what constitutes animal cruelty. It is a procedure done when the mother is given anesthesia, but the baby can feel pain. Madam Speaker, even though you cannot hear it scream, it can respond to music and respond to touch and the voice of its mother.

We wouldn't allow animals to be treated this cruelly.

Do Democrats think that this elevates women and is compassionate?

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article from the Charlotte Lozier Institute.

[From the Charlotte Lozier Institute, Feb. 2014]

Gestational Limits on Abortion in the United States Compared to

International Norms

(By Angelina Baglini, J.D.)

Abstract: The United States is one of only seven countries

in the world that permit elective abortion past 20 weeks.

Upholding laws restricting abortion on demand after 20 weeks

would situate the United States closer to the international

mainstream, instead of leaving it as an outlying country with

ultra-permissive abortion policies.

This report compares gestational limits in United States

abortion law with gestational limits in the abortion law of

the international community. The goal is to determine where

the United States stands in comparison to international

norms, with its federal policy enshrined in Roe v. Wade,

which allows abortion past 20 weeks and without restriction

until fetal viability.

The sample group for this project included a total of 198

countries, independent states, and semi-autonomous regions

with populations exceeding 1 million. Of these 198 countries,

independent states, and regions worldwide, 59 allow abortion

without restriction as to reason, otherwise known as elective

abortion or abortion on demand. The remaining 139 countries

require some reason to obtain an abortion ranging from most

restrictive (to save the life of the mother or completely

prohibited) to least restrictive (socioeconomic grounds) with

various reasons in between (e.g., physical health, mental

health).

Currently, the United States permits abortion on demand

through viability, which is usually marked around 24 weeks.

For this report, it is appropriate to compare the United

States with the other 58 countries that allow abortion on

demand up to some point in pregnancy. The remaining 139

countries require some reason to obtain an abortion (that is

to say, they do not permit abortion on demand) and are, by

definition, more restrictive than the United States on the

issue of gestational limits. To require some reason before

obtaining an abortion is inherently more restrictive than not

requiring any reason at all.

This report finds that the United States is one of only

seven countries in the world that permit elective abortion

past 20 weeks. This finding suggests that current proposals

in the United States to restrict elective abortions past 20

weeks would move the United States from the fringe, ultra-

permissive end of the spectrum to a position closer to

international norms.

Terminology and Method of Comparison

Not all countries or statutes use the same terminology when

drafting restrictions on late-term elective abortion. When

drafting a restriction on elective abortion past 20 weeks of

pregnancy, the most common measurement of ``weeks of

pregnancy'' is gestational age, or in short form

``gestation.'' Gestational age marks the duration of

pregnancy, which is most commonly and medically measured from

the date of the woman's last menstrual period. The woman's

last menstrual period is the most identifiable date by which

to measure the duration of pregnancy, and occurs

approximately two weeks before conception or fertilization.

The vast majority of countries in this international survey

of abortion laws use gestational age to measure duration of

pregnancy. Over 80 percent of countries maintaining some

restriction on elective abortion use gestational age as the

method of calculating duration of pregnancy. However, a

minority of countries measures duration of pregnancy from

``conception'' or ``fertilization.'' One country measures

from the time of ``implantation,'' which occurs approximately

one week after conception or fertilization. Some statutes do

not even specify a method of measurement, simply using the

vague term ``weeks of pregnancy'' without indicating a

precise method measuring the duration of pregnancy.

Conception or fertilization is the moment when an ovum and

sperm unite, which creates a unique human organism. The date

of conception or fertilization is often difficult to

determine, as few women know the exact date they conceived.

Because the last menstrual period is a more ascertainable

date, in many cases doctors add two weeks to the woman's last

menstrual period to approximate the date of conception or

fertilization.

This report uses gestation to compare restrictions based on

duration of pregnancy. More than 80 percent of countries

already use gestation in establishing duration of pregnancy

restrictions on elective abortion

and measuring the age of the unborn child using gestation is

in line with common medical practice.

For those countries that use a different measurement of

age, such as conception or fertilization or pregnancy, this

study converts the measurement of age into gestation by

adding two weeks to date back to the woman's last menstrual

period. Using gestation as a common method of measuring

duration of pregnancy restrictions on elective abortion

produces a more meaningful comparison.

International Gestational Limitations on Elective Abortion

The sample group of countries for this project included a

total of 198 countries, independent states, and semi-

autonomous regions with populations exceeding 1 million.

Of these 198 countries, independent states, and regions

worldwide, 59 allow abortion without restriction as to

reason, otherwise known as elective abortion or abortion on

demand.

The remaining 139 countries require some reason to obtain

an abortion ranging from most restrictive (to save the life

of the mother or completely prohibited) to least restrictive

(socioeconomic grounds) with various reasons in between

(e.g., physical health, mental health).

Of the 59 countries permitting elective abortion:

9 countries limit elective abortion before the 12th week of

gestation,

36 countries limit elective abortion at 12 weeks gestation,

6 countries limit elective abortion between 12 and 20 weeks

gestation,

7 countries permit elective abortion past 20 weeks or have

no gestational limit.

1 country maintains a federal system where abortion policy

is determined at the state/territory level, and at least two

of those states permit elective abortion past 20 weeks

Australia is the one country where a federal system is in

place, but abortion policy is determined on the state or

territory level. Three states or territories within Australia

permit elective abortion, and two allow elective abortion

past 20 weeks. However, other states and territories of

Australia maintain more restrictive abortion policies and

some do not permit elective abortion at all. Due to the

diverse range of abortion policy in Australia, from

restrictive to ultra-permissive, this study does not include

Australia, as a whole, as a country that permits elective

abortion past 20 weeks.

More than 75 percent of the countries permitting abortion

without restriction as to reason do not permit elective

abortions past l2 weeks gestation.

Only 12 percent (7 out of 59) of the countries permitting

abortion without restriction as to reason permit elective

abortion past 20 weeks gestation.

The U.S. is among these 7 countries that permit elective

abortion past 20 weeks. This is true whether 20 weeks is

measured from the last menstrual period (gestational age),

conception, or implantation. No matter how duration of

pregnancy is measured, whether by gestational age or

conception or fertilization, or implantation, all countries

in this category pass the 20-week threshold. These countries/

territories are:

Canada (no restriction in law)

China (no restriction in law)

Netherlands (24 weeks)

North Korea (no restriction in law)

Singapore (24 weeks)

United States (viability)

Vietnam (no restriction in law)

The United States is within the top 4 of most permissive

abortion policies in the world (7 out of 198) when analyzing

restrictions on elective abortion based on duration of

pregnancy.

Implications for Current Policy in the United States

Under U.S. law, abortion on demand is permitted without

restriction through viability. Viability can vary, and is

decreasing in terms of weeks of gestation as perinatal

medicine advances, but normally occurs no earlier than 24

weeks.

Recently, in the United States there has been great

interest in restricting abortion on demand after 20 weeks.

Two states have had 20-week laws on the books since before

Roe v. Wade. Eleven more states have enacted 20-week laws in

recent years. A proposed 20-week law in Albuquerque, New

Mexico failed to gain majority support in 2013 but was

notable for the engaged citizen activism that resulted in the

proposal being put on a municipal ballot for a direct vote.

There is also interest at the federal level in restricting

elective abortion after 20 weeks. In 2013, the U.S. House of

Representatives passed a 20-week law. A similar law has been

introduced in the U.S. Senate.

Permitting abortion on demand past 20 weeks places the

United States among the top 4 percent of most-permissive

countries in the world based on duration of pregnancy

restrictions on abortion. If the United States adopts a

federal policy restricting elective abortion past 20 weeks,

or if more states adopt such policies, the U.S. will more

closely align itself with the international norm that limits

elective abortion past 12 weeks. Policies imposing

gestational limits on elective abortion have been

overwhelmingly adopted by countries permitting abortion on

demand, indicating policies that encourage woman's safety in

limiting abortion to early pregnancy and policies that

protect unborn children from pain and prolonged exposure to

the risk of-abortion.

Conclusions

In terms of gestational limits, the United States ranks

among 7 countries with the most permissive abortion policies.

The clear norm among countries that permit elective abortion

is to limit abortion to before 20 weeks gestation, and

elective abortion is more commonly limited to 12 weeks (the

first trimester).

Twenty-week abortion laws in the United States are neither

extreme nor unreasonable. Rather, they move the United States

closer to international norms of legislating what is safe and

healthy for the mother and what grants unborn children more

protection in the womb.

Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues on every seat in every aisle of this Chamber to vote against this extreme, radical, and cruel abortion bill, H.R. 8296.

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

Madam Speaker, to protect the helpless, most powerless, most innocent among us, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8296, the abortion on demand until birth act.

This is not about codifying Roe v. Wade. Why? Because it nationalizes abortion for all 9 months of pregnancy--all 9 months. This would make America as radical as China and North Korea.

The abortion on demand until birth act would legalize discriminatory abortion based upon sex, race, and disability, including Down syndrome. It overrides State laws that protect women from coercion. It would weaken conscience protections to force pro-life doctors to perform abortions and end a life.

This is especially frightening for pregnancy centers, faith-based providers, and medical professionals who are using amazing medical achievements in treating both mothers and their babies in the wombs as patients. We are doing prenatal heart surgery today in the United States of America.

The abortion on demand until birth act has nothing to do with protecting the health of women. It has everything to do with forcing an extreme agenda on the American people.

Rather than prey on women's vulnerabilities and fears and nationalize abortion for all 9 months, we should be coming together to support women and their families at every stage of pregnancy and beyond.

Every mother matters. Seventy-six percent of women seeking abortions say they would choose life if their circumstances were different. The focus should be on how to change their circumstances, help them access the care and support that they need, and improve their lives.

Presenting abortion up until birth as a woman's only option is a false choice. There are nearly 3,000 pregnancy centers in all 50 States. They outnumber Planned Parenthood by more than 2,000 facilities. These pregnancy centers, which are right now under violent attack by pro-abortion groups, provide medical care, resources, education, and mentoring to women. They must be protected, not undermined and threatened by an extreme abortion agenda.

The Supreme Court has affirmed the American people's rights to speak through their elected officials and enact laws that protect unborn children. The question upon us today is: How are we going to respond? How is this body going to respond to the greatest human rights issue of our generation? That is the question. This is the human rights issue of our generation.

Do not close your ears. Do not close your eyes. Do not close your heart.

Is it by dehumanizing life and promoting a culture that destroys the weakest among us? Is that how we are going to do it? Or is it by making abortion unthinkable by leading a new era where every person's God- given, unalienable human right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all be the way we will define ourselves?

Let's come together. Let's protect the human rights of the unborn. We cannot deny life to the most disadvantaged and marginalized among us. They have no voice to defend themselves.

Madam Speaker, abortion for all 9 months is not the will of the American people.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to H.R. 8296, the abortion on demand until birth act because all lives are worth living, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack), a dynamic example of life in her own testimony.

Madam Speaker, I don't know of any State laws that prevent birth control. Miscarriages are obviously a tragedy.

The question before us today is on the legislation that would allow for abortion up until birth, 9 months. It is not the will of the American people; it is the extreme agenda of those that are promoting abortion.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the leader on the Health Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), a health provider saving lives every day and a champion for life.

Madam Speaker, I would ask what about the marginalized Black and Hispanic babies who are more likely to be aborted?

Abortion has had a disproportionate impact on minorities and individuals with disabilities.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks), who is another healthcare provider. Dr. Mariannette Miller-Meeks has worked hard to improve the lives of many throughout her career.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) who spent his life defending the voiceless.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and another medical provider.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a doctor who understands what amazing technology is doing to save lives.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), another defender of life.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern), a defender of freedom, a defender of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining in this debate.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a defender of life.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline), another defender of life.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), a defender of life.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), a strong defender of life, who is on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), another defender of life.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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

Madam Speaker, abortion is the sharpest, most soul-searching question before us as a Nation. It pierces every heart. People have strongly held beliefs and stories, and both sides are guilty of dismissing one another.

For those of us who stand for the right to life, we must do a better job of listening and loving. Fear and despair lead to more arguments, anger, discord, and insecurity.

The abortion on demand bill, this bill before us today, though, is extreme. It is abortion for any reason, at any stage of pregnancy until birth. It is not the will of the American people.

I recently spoke with a doctor who shared with me what is possible today. It is American technology and medical technology that allows us now to do surgeries inside the womb.

I am a mom of three young kids, and anyone who has given birth knows that to be able, because of technology, to see the baby develop day by day is just amazing.

Doctors are performing prenatal surgeries and treatments to save lives. This doctor was telling me they can perform a prenatal surgery on 20 different organs. That wasn't possible in 1973 when Roe v. Wade was decided. In fact, the first successful fetal surgery wasn't until 1982.

Many decades later, look how far we have come. Science has evolved. It is my hope that we learn from this and that we reject abortion because it is unthinkable. It is not following the science. It doesn't reflect the latest research or modern medicine. Reject this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1224, I call up the bill (H.R. 8296) to protect a person's ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide abortion services, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and add extraneous material on H.R. 8296, the Women's Health Protection Act of 2022.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 8296, the Women's Health Protection Act.

This bill is necessary now more than ever following the Republican- controlled Supreme Court's extreme decision ripping away a woman's right to abortion. The Court's ideological decision ignored nearly 50 years of precedent and is the culmination of decades of unrelenting efforts by Republican politicians to control women and their bodies.

The consequences of last month's decision have been swift and severe. Already, abortion bans are in effect in nine States, and more than a dozen more are expected to either ban or severely limit abortion soon.

As a result, women are being forced to travel long distances to States where abortion remains lawful or, for those who lack logistical or financial support to travel, continue pregnancies against their wishes. There have been devastating stories of patients being denied care and doctors hesitating to provide lifesaving healthcare services out of fear of criminalization.

States have enacted dangerous laws banning abortion without any exceptions, inciting citizens to track and report women in need of an abortion and criminalizing providers or those assisting someone in obtaining care.

These laws turn back the clock on the health, well-being, and equality of women across the Nation. Republicans have made it clear: This is just the beginning. Congressional Republicans are

already pushing a nationwide abortion ban that would criminalize abortion in all 50 States.

That is why this House is acting today on the Women's Health Protection Act to restore the right to abortion nationwide. This legislation ensures that no matter where you live, you have a right to comprehensive healthcare that is free from unnecessary restrictions that are intended only to impede access.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to protect the right to abortion and ensure that all Americans are entitled to make their own healthcare decisions.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), the sponsor of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the chairwoman of Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who chairs our Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke), who is a member of our committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas), who is also a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Ms. Schrier). Dr. Schrier is also a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster), who is a member of our committee.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the chairwoman of our Health Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who is co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the chairman of our Democratic Caucus.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers, so I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court's extreme and dangerous decision in Dobbs turns back the clock and jeopardizes the health, well-being, and autonomy of women across the Nation. Access to comprehensive healthcare must include access to abortion, and the ability to access care should not depend on where you live.

The bill before us, the Women's Health Protection Act, restores a right to an abortion nationwide, ensuring that all Americans, regardless of where they live, can make their own decisions about their lives and their futures.

I urge my colleagues across the aisle to support this bill. While Republicans seek to punish and control women by criminalizing abortion nationwide, House Democrats will continue our fight to restore the right to abortion as the law of the land.

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