Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1224 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1224, for five measures.

First, it provides for consideration of H.R. 7900 under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, makes in order a record 650 amendments, and provides en bloc authority and one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 8296 and H.R. 8297 under closed rules. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate for each bill equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, provides one motion to recommit for each bill, and self-executes a manager's amendment on H.R. 8297.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 6538 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of S. 3373 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and provides one motion to commit.

Finally, the rule extends recess instructions, suspension authority, and same-day authority through July 19, 2022, and provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested votes on suspension bills this week.

Madam Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of meaningful legislation that I look forward to discussing with my colleagues today. I would like to start by sharing a few words on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023.

Our Nation faces real and serious global challenges to our security every day, and safeguarding our national defense is vital and necessary. The Russian Federation has launched an unprovoked invasion of the free and democratic Nation of Ukraine, while an emboldened Chinese military threatens our allies in the Pacific.

America must be prepared to face these threats by promoting political stability and diplomatic engagement and ensuring our military is prepared to meet increased threats to global stability.

I am a proud member of the House Armed Services Committee, and this year, for the 62nd consecutive year in a row, the committee has marked up and reported a National Defense Authorization Act to address our national defense needs.

The fiscal year 2023 NDAA includes critical investments in our servicemembers, bolsters our position as a leader in technological innovation to compete with countries like China, and ensures we are prepared to face the coercions of adversaries who already threaten global peace and stability.

I thank the leadership of Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Rogers for delivering a bipartisan bill that prioritizes the needs of our servicemembers and provides the resources to protect global security and peace.

Today, we are also considering the rule for the Honoring our PACT Act. It has been a long road to get here, and I thank Chairman Takano and Ranking Member Bost for their efforts to get this done.

Back home, I have had the opportunity to meet with toxic-exposed veterans and their families, and I have heard loud and clear just how necessary this legislation is for our veterans.

When we send our servicemembers into harm's way, we make a promise that when they come home, we will take care of them.

Sadly, over 3.5 million veterans were exposed to toxic fumes and carcinogens while serving our Nation, resulting in life-threatening lung diseases and cancers. Right now, they are not getting the care they need due to a disability benefits claims process that is cumbersome and places the burden to prove toxic exposure on veterans themselves.

By creating a presumption for disability, this legislation will help cut through the red tape and ensure nothing stands in the way of servicemembers receiving their care.

It is time we make good on our promise to ensure all veterans exposed to toxic substances during their service can access the essential care and benefits they have earned.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to support this bill and look forward to its passage.

Madam Speaker, the rule today also provides for consideration of the Active Shooter Alert Act, which, frankly, should have passed under suspension in June. This commonsense legislation would create a communications network to alert people when an active shooter is in their community.

It is tragic to think we even need such a system, but sadly, the fear of a mass shooting has become a persistent dark cloud shrouding our Nation.

Let's take a moment to reflect on the horrific scene on July 4 when the Highland Park community was attacked. What should have been a joyous occasion for families, friends, and community members instead became a nightmare when a dangerous person wielding a dangerous weapon fired into the crowd, killing seven and injuring dozens more.

There are those who, yet again, offered their thoughts and prayers in response to the Highland Park shooting, yet provided no real solutions. But there are solutions--in fact, this body has passed countless measures that could have helped prevent such a tragic event.

I have made my position clear--meaningful, commonsense gun reform is an absolute necessity. To my colleagues who regularly oppose solutions to gun violence, I ask: What are you willing to do to help protect our communities?

Let's at least come together on legislation that creates a warning system for communities when an active shooter is present so more innocent lives can be saved. We are talking about an alert system, just like those already in place for disasters like tornados, earthquakes, and AMBER Alerts. I can't imagine who would be opposed to such a commonsense step.

I thank the more than 40 Republicans who evaluated the merits of this straightforward bill and voted in favor this June, and I hope we can count on your vote again this week.

Any action is better than no action, which is why I am proud to support this legislation--but we also know it barely scratches the surface of the many other reforms that are needed, which is why I will continue fighting for measures to ban assault weapons, limit high- capacity magazines, and enact universal background checks on every gun sale.

Madam Speaker, I would like to end my opening remarks with comments on two fundamental healthcare bills included in this rule: The Women's Health Protection Act and the Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act.

These bills will empower women and reaffirm their right to make independent and informed healthcare decisions.

Over the past year we have seen an all-out assault on women's bodily autonomy. The appalling Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was just the beginning. We have seen States undertake efforts to criminalize a woman's right to make basic family planning decisions.

We have seen a 10-year-old child, a victim of rape, forced out of her State for the healthcare she desperately needs. We have seen increased Federal efforts to restrict access to women's healthcare, contraception, and the fundamental right to privacy.

These astounding restrictions on women are exactly why we need the Women's Health Protection Act.

The Federal law will codify the provisions of Roe v. Wade and establish a statutory right to access the healthcare all women need and deserve.

We also need to pass the Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act, legislation I proudly cosponsor.

It is a sad state of affairs that we need to codify the fundamental right to interstate travel in this country, protecting women from civil and criminal liability, even when seeking an abortion in a State where it is lawful.

The fact that we have already seen efforts in State legislatures to prevent women from seeking lawful abortions across State lines completely contradicts the claim that overturning Roe v. Wade was about returning the decision to the States.

The radical right has and always will be about restricting women's rights. It is hard to believe we are living in 2022, not 1722. By passing this legislation, we are making it clear that this assault on women's rights cannot stand.

I urge my colleagues to show this country and the world that we respect women, we trust women, and we support women and their right to make informed and independent healthcare decisions.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will make a couple of points on what I think is one of the most important issues that we will face in this Congress and in the future years.

Abortion access in America changed overnight after the Supreme Court took away a woman's constitutional right to make her own reproductive health decisions. Nearly 34 million people of reproductive age now live in a State where abortion is banned or severely restricted--one of the only times that I know of that the Supreme Court of the United States in our history took away a fundamental constitutional right to more than half of America. My 86-year-old mother who is a grandmother and great-grandmother will have had more right over her body and more decision-making under this decision than her granddaughters and great- granddaughters.

It is unconscionable, and the impact of this decision will have horrific consequences for millions of people, particularly people with the greatest burden: low-income individuals, people of color, and victims of incest and abuse. I am genuinely concerned, as are millions of people, for women's rights in this country. We refuse to be complacent, and we refuse to stand silent. We will keep fighting every single day however I can and however we can. Today that means supporting the advancement of the Women's Health Protection Act.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), who is a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

While this is not on the agenda, and I will remind people that we have a rule that stipulates which bills are in front of us, I note with alarm the suggestion that we ought to change the Constitution when it comes to the Supreme Court, and for fear that we are undermining the confidence of the Court, frankly, I am astonished.

How about following the current Constitution?

Forget about amending it.

How about following the one that we have?

I just note that when Merrick Garland was nominated by President Obama in March of 2016, 293 days his nomination went without any action in the United States Senate. Amy Coney Barrett was nominated September 26, a mere 6 weeks, 5 weeks before election day. Senator McConnell and the Senate didn't follow the Constitution which says advise and consent on nominations sent by the President. They did absolutely nothing with the nominee Garland. They didn't seek to do anything. In fact, Mitch McConnell talked about the politics of it.

Talk about undermining the confidence of the American public in the Supreme Court?

How about that?

Yet when President Trump just 5 weeks before a Presidential election made a nomination, it was swiftly pushed through.

Undermining confidence in the Supreme Court?

How about confirmation proceedings where Brett Kavanaugh or Neil Gorsuch both said that Roe is settled law; a precedent for 50 years?

They said it in confirmation hearings. They have said it as Senator Collins has indicated her vote hung on those words. Yet they had no intention of following those words. They misled the American public.

Undermining confidence in the Supreme Court?

I am astonished that anyone would even say it.

Frankly, when we talk about this, we know what the agenda here is. Justice Thomas gave us a clear roadmap of where this is all headed.

Undermining confidence in the Supreme Court?

Justice Thomas urged the Court to reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedence, including the right to contraception, the right to private consensual acts, and the right to same-sex marriage, characterizing the entire legal doctrine as particularly dangerous.

Undermining the confidence of the Supreme Court of the United States?

Now, Justice Kavanaugh, I will say to his credit in his concurrence, said that the Court won't go that far. But we have heard these same assurances from Justice Kavanaugh before, and I think they aren't worth the words on the paper that this is printed.

We should be very, very concerned. We should be concerned that the American public has lost confidence in the Supreme Court, but not because of the actions of anyone here or the suggestions here.

How about because of the actions of the United States Senate and the actions of the Supreme Court itself?

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Allred).

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

I appreciate the distinguished gentleman and his comments. I note, just in passing, that Article I authority given to us by the Framers actually gave us the authority to identify the size of the Supreme Court.

Constitutional amendments are not Article I. They are an extensive process that involves ratification. Article I authority, actually--I think he would make my argument--Article I authority would be the Congress making the decision on the size of the Supreme Court, which has been changed many times, from as few as six to as many as nine judges.

But having said that, and just making that point, let's talk about some of the real issues that need addressing that, frankly, are before us, because the size of the Supreme Court is not before us, as interesting as that conversation might be. Let's talk, instead, about issues that real Americans face.

While bravely serving our country, many veterans were exposed to hazards, from burn pits, PFAS, and radiation, toxic exposures that have caused cancers, infertility, respiratory conditions, and unexplained chronic illnesses. As many as 3.5 million servicemembers have been exposed to dangerous toxic fumes.

The cost of war goes far beyond the battlefield, and we have a duty to uphold our promises to toxic-exposed veterans by investing in the healthcare they need and so richly deserve.

In their time of need, veterans should be receiving high-quality care. Instead, they are being burdened with proving that their illness is connected to their service.

I have had the privilege of meeting with many veterans in my community, and the families of veterans who have been lost because of exposure, while they continue the work of having to prove that their illness is a result of exposure to toxic chemicals, to carcinogens, to burn pits.

The Honoring our PACT Act is included in this rule, and this legislation will address the wide range of issues impacting toxic- exposed veterans and their access to earned benefits and care. You can bet I am voting ``yes.''

That is one of the bills being discussed before us today, and I think people watching us on television, people watching this later, seeing clips, would be curious as to why suddenly we are talking about an issue not on the floor, not before us. But this is, the Honoring our PACT Act, before us today.

We can all do something to safeguard those who have served in our Armed Forces and their families by doing the right thing, passing this rule, and passing the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the comments from my distinguished colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Burgess. But what he points out, in my mind, reminds me how deeply personal this decision is for women involving their body and their healthcare.

I would certainly never question his credentials as a doctor or as a professional, but I have heard from a number of obstetricians and gynecologists who raise, I think, what are really important questions.

For instance, in some States, the health of the mother is the only consideration to be given when it comes to an abortion or reproductive services. Some have raised the question: How long do you wait before you can make the judgment that that is the only determination that can be made? If you wait too long, do you actually jeopardize the health of the mother by waiting so long for fear of violating a State law that restricts the right of a woman to an abortion?

Then there is the question of miscarriages. Many, many women have miscarriages. And concerns have been expressed by their doctors of when we provide care after the fact or during a miscarriage, will there be questions raised about whether or not that was actually an abortion instead of a miscarriage? Will we be jeopardizing our careers? Will we be putting our professional license into question?

These are very difficult questions to answer. I am certainly no expert in them, but they raise, to me, significant questions.

As many have pointed out, there will be abortions in the United States. There will be abortions in Texas. There will be abortions in Mississippi. There will be abortions in every State in this country.

The question is: Are they going to be safe? Are women going to suffer unduly? Are there going to be deaths of women because they weren't given access to safe, reproductive care that is ultimately, as I said, so deeply personal, so deeply involved in their autonomy?

Those are the questions before us. They are deep-seated questions. They are important questions. But, ultimately, we side with the right of a woman to make the decision for herself.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about another important piece embodied in the rule, and it is related to the question of alerts and the Active Shooter Alert Act.

It is no secret our country is plagued by gun violence. This year alone, the Gun Violence Archive counted at least 323 mass shootings. It is hard to even process that--323 mass shootings in the United States. We are just halfway through the year.

On May 14, ten Black Americans were targeted in a racially motivated mass shooting at a local Tops grocery store 60 minutes from my home in Buffalo, New York.

Ten days later, the deadliest shooting since Sandy Hook took place in Uvalde, Texas, where 19 kids and 2 teachers were gunned down at Robb Elementary School.

Just a week ago, on July 4 in Highland Park, Illinois, seven people at a 4th of July parade were killed by a gunman during a mass shooting incident. Hard to imagine. So many of us were at parades and activities just like that in our hometowns. Seven people dead.

I have made my position and others have made their position very clear on gun reform, that meaningful, commonsense reform is an absolute necessity. I am committed to fighting for the change that will provide real change and save real lives, big changes.

But, in the meantime, I think this demonstrates our willingness to find common ground on solutions. Again, the Active Shooter Alert Act is bipartisan. It is something we should all be able to get behind on voting ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I begin by thanking the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma. We have the great privilege of serving together on the Rules Committee. We spend many hours together, and I almost always--almost always--find myself in agreement with him.

He is thoughtful. He is dedicated to this institution, committed to the important principles of our democracy and the Constitution, and I consider it a privilege to be able to serve with him and to learn from him, and I appreciate his thoughtfulness in this debate as well.

I also thank my colleagues for their words in support of the rule before us today. A vote in favor of the rule today, in my view, says volumes about what we value. Support for this rule shows we value our servicemembers who put their lives on the line for this country each and every day. When they come home, we will be here to take care of them.

A ``yes'' vote shows we value our defense preparedness and ensures our Nation is ready to face the very real and serious global challenges threatening our security. It also demonstrates a willingness to do the bare minimum to address gun violence by ensuring our communities can effectively be able to alert people when an active shooter is in the area.

Last, but certainly not least, a vote in favor tells women in this country that we value and respect them. We support their right to manage their own healthcare.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle can attempt to misdirect and confuse the issues at hand all they want, but the reality is we are presenting concrete proposals to address real issues facing our Nation when it comes to national defense, and I appreciate the bipartisan support for that, the NDAA, gun reform, women's rights, support for veterans. I choose to be on the right side of history on these issues. I am voting ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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 thank my very good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today's rule covers several major items. The first that I will discuss, H.R. 7900, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2023, is of the greatest importance to the Nation and to the world.

For 61 years in a row the NDAA has become law. As I reminded my colleagues in the Rules Committee yesterday, this record of achievement has only been possible because of the immense cooperation from both sides of the aisle and is a testament to what we can accomplish when we focus on our shared goals as a Nation.

Working together, Democrats and Republicans on the Armed Services Committee produced a bipartisan product. I applaud Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Rogers, and all the members of the Armed Services Committee for their efforts.

Madam Speaker, it is no secret that the world has become a more dangerous place in recent years. Last year saw the Taliban--a corrupt and militant organization known for supporting and providing sanctuary to terrorists--complete its takeover of Afghanistan.

Earlier this year, the world was shocked by Vladimir Putin's brazen, unprovoked, and indeed outright criminal invasion of Ukraine, Russia's democratic neighbor to the west.

Communist China continues its history of aggression in Asia and the Pacific Rim, including increasingly aggressive acts toward Taiwan.

North Korea has continued an aggressive posturing toward the United States and our democratic allies in Asia.

Iran continues its long march toward becoming a nuclear state.

It is more important than ever that Congress speaks with one voice when it comes to setting our national defense policy and funding priorities each year so that we can ensure we counter aggressive actors and offer our allies the support they need to protect themselves.

One of the most important things accomplished in this year's NDAA is actually what it did not do. For the second year in a row, the Armed Services Committee rejected President Biden's proposed defense budget number and authorized a better, higher number to ensure that our national defense is properly funded.

Indeed, President Biden's first two budget proposals looked set to continue the chronic underfunding of the Obama-Biden years, during which time our military readiness declined and our rivals on the international stage were empowered.

The increased funding in this bill will go a long way toward ensuring that America's military is ready to confront any challenge. It will ensure that our armed services personnel receive a 4.6 percent pay raise, the largest in history, with additional pay bonuses to personnel who make the least to offset the inflation caused by this administration's policies.

On the whole, I am proud to support this legislation and I encourage the entire House to support this measure and send it on to the Senate.

Madam Speaker, our second item in the House is S. 3373, the Honoring our PACT Act. While this bill has gone through a frustratingly long process to get to this point, I believe we have failed to provide our Nation's toxic-exposed veterans with the care that they need for far too long.

I will be the first to admit that this bill is not perfect. I share the concerns of many about the use of mandatory spending in this bill. Given the importance of this issue to veterans nationwide, and to those in my district, I cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Imperfect though it is, this bill does take important strides forward, and I plan to support it on final passage.

Unfortunately, two other bills contained in this rule are partisan and stand no chance of becoming law. The Democratic majority is attempting to insert a right to an abortion into Federal law, preempting every State law that seeks to protect life.

They want to require all States to permit abortion on demand at any time up to the point of birth. They want to outlaw commonsense restrictions, like

preventing late-term abortions, preventing sex-selective abortions, and preventing abortions targeting fetuses with Down syndrome.

They want to prevent States from adopting commonsense protections for the unborn, such as banning mail-order and telemedicine abortion services. They want to limit the rights of parents by creating a cause of action for outsiders to interfere with the parent-child relationship. That would be an unconscionable state of affairs, Madam Speaker.

I remind my colleagues of the words of the Declaration of Independence: that the right to life is one of those inalienable rights endowed upon us all, including unborn children, by our Creator.

I will always stand strongly in favor of defending life, and I proudly stand in opposition to these bills today.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H. Res. 11 for immediate consideration. This resolution proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine Justices.

Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court has been set at nine Justices for 153 years. Fundamentally changing the composition of the Court to satisfy the demands of one political party would permanently erode the independence of the judicial branch and forever alter the separation of powers, which is the very foundation our Constitution and our Nation were built upon.

The independence of the judicial branch is too sacred to subject it to the political issue of the day. The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is not a popularity contest, and the Court's decisions should not be based on polls. The Supreme Court's duty is to the Constitution and ensuring that adherence to the laws of the land.

To further explain the amendment, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), who is my very good friend and the author of the resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, as has become all too common with the Democratic majority, when the status quo doesn't lead to the outcome they want, they simply change the rules to suit their needs.

You need to only look at the last 2 years for evidence: fundamentally changing the way the House operates through the use of proxy voting; a complete lockdown of alternative ideas; fewer and fewer committees doing the work to make the law rather than score political points--all aimed at protecting their razor-thin majority at the expense of the institution and the Nation.

Democrats' current obsession with the Supreme Court is no different, but instead of accepting the independence of the judiciary, the majority is, instead, intent on fixing the rules of the game to ensure their own victory. This amendment to the Constitution would prevent that from happening and would ensure, once and for all, that the Supreme Court will be independent and free of meddling based on the political ideas of the day.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with the extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong), my very good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my very good friend and a distinguished member of the Rules Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice), my very good friend and a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for the time, and frankly, for the thoughtful and wide-ranging debate. It is not a surprise that a rule that covers five very different pieces of legislation would provoke that kind of discussion.

I want to begin in the areas we agree. There are actually three areas in this bill that I will be voting for. Most importantly, quite frankly, is the National Defense Authorization Act.

There is going to be some opposition to that. It was a give-and-take bill, but I remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that it actually came out of committee on a 57 to 1 vote; 57 to 1. That says a lot of wonderful things about the leadership of Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Rogers on that committee and its ability, after considering over 600 or 700 amendments itself, to find common ground and move forward.

For my colleagues that vote no, that is fine. Again, there is always something in a bill this size you can find to disagree with, but I will remind my friends on my side of the aisle that every single Republican on the committee voted for the bill. So I think it is going to pass and pass quite easily.

I also want to associate myself with my friend's support of the toxic burn pit bill. It is a bill that I have some serious problems with, such as the manner in which it was funded and some of the procedures by which it moved, but it is a much better bill than we have seen before. It is a step in the right direction.

There is no question my friend is correct when he talks about our obligation as a Congress to look after the men and women who have put their lives on the line for us and suffered egregious harm.

I hope we can do better in the future. I hope we can even revisit some of the financing measures here, but it is important that it get done and that it passes, and I look forward to working with my friend to do that.

I agree with him on the AMBER Alert bill as well, and I will be supporting it. There are some concerns on my side of the aisle about that, and I understand those concerns. Again, I think this is a commonsense measure.

The area that I will not be able to join my friend on does deal with the fundamental protection of human life and the effort of this body to pass legislation that it knows will go nowhere in the Senate simply to make a point.

We ought to be working to find common ground, not to dig down the divisions that we have even more deeply. So I will oppose the rule partly because I oppose some of the measures in the rule; also, because I certainly would like the previous question to be considered.

I thought both of my friends from North and South Dakota made some excellent points on the need to codify the number nine or at least have a discussion about that in this body, and obviously, if we defeat the previous question, we intend to do that.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his extraordinary leadership on this subject not only as we face the Court decision but, over time, his chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee in terms of health in general, women's health in particular, reproductive health as we gather today. I thank members of the committee, and I thank the authors of this legislation as I proceed.

I rise on this momentous day as our pro-choice, pro-women Democratic majority proudly takes further action to defend the fundamental right of health freedom.

As extremist Republicans continue their assault on reproductive rights, our Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act will ensure that the fundamental right to travel and obtain needed healthcare remains in the hands of the American people.

Our Women's Health Protection Act will once again make the protections of Roe v. Wade the law of the land.

Let us salute the patriotic and persistent leadership not only of our distinguished chairman, Mr. Pallone, but also Congresswoman Lizzie Fletcher and Congresswoman Marilyn Strickland, who are leading the charge on the right-to-travel bill, working with Jamie Raskin, who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and who has been part of this.

I also salute Congresswoman Judy Chu, who will have now twice secured House passage of the Women's Health Protection Act; Pro-Choice Caucus co-chairs Diana DeGette and Barbara Lee; and Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone.

Three weeks ago, the Republican Party finally achieved its dark, dangerous, long-held goal to rip away a woman's freedom over her most fundamental decisions about her body, her health, and her life.

Since the Republican-captured Supreme Court eviscerated Roe v. Wade, at least nine Republican-controlled States have already banned abortion. More have enacted draconian restrictions so that exercising this fundamental right is practically impossible.

In doing so, these extreme measures have forced countless women to seek reproductive care in nearby States. But now, Republican lawmakers across the country are advancing proposals to block women from crossing State lines to get the care they need and punish those who, in their words, ``aid or abet'' them.

Is this the United States of America, where Republicans in these States can say to women, ``You cannot cross State lines for your own good health?''

This has been especially devastating for women who do not have the means to access care, often women of color and women from low-income communities.

This reality is sickening. It is despicable. It demands action.

With our Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act, we will prevent Republicans from punishing women for exercising their right to travel and receive the healthcare they need, and it will protect healthcare providers who deliver reproductive services and all those who help women make the journey to receive those services. This means no criminal charges, no lawsuits, no fees or fines, no threats of retaliation.

Importantly, this legislation also reaffirms the right to travel, a freedom we often take for granted but is fundamental to liberty and privacy.

Republicans supposedly once stood for these values, but today, they are seeking to restrict where you can go and who you can see and to stand between you, your family, your doctor, and your God in making intimate health decisions.

This is not only anti-women; it is anti-American. House Democrats are fighting back.

Madam Speaker, today, our majority will also pass the Women's Health Protection Act, which protects the right to an abortion found in Roe v. Wade, ensuring the Federal right of healthcare providers to provide reproductive care and the Federal right for patients to receive that care.

By passing this legislation, we will preempt and prevent State-level bans and restrictions put forth by extremist, anti-women State legislators.

We will ensure that all Americans enjoy the same fundamental rights to reproductive care--regardless of background or ZIP Code.

We offer help to the American people who treasure our freedoms and who are overwhelmingly with us in our mission to defend them.

What do Republicans have in store next?

You can't travel to buy a book?

You can't travel to see a concert or a play--if it doesn't meet their, shall we say--I wouldn't use the word standards--their what?

Today, we must pass this legislation for a second time. We first passed this bill last September after Texas severely restricted the ability of women to access reproductive care with SB8, an outrageous bounty hunter bill. We do so again today, in the wake of the outrageous Supreme Court ruling that erased the vital protections of Roe v. Wade.

The Court's disgraceful decision has already unleashed catastrophe: women denied care after experiencing the heartbreak of miscarriage; survivors of sexual assault facing the possibility of forced birth; doctors under threat of persecution for offering reproductive services.

Many of these situations are well-known and are publicized--they are in the public domain. There are many more than are just in the public domain. Make no mistake, eviscerating the protections of Roe was only the opening act of the cruel Republican crusade to criminalize women.

In recent days, we have heard again of the tragic story of a young girl who was a survivor of sexual assault and had to travel to a neighboring State to receive the reproductive healthcare she needed. Now, the State attorney general--a Republican who served here in the House--is now investigating the doctor who legally provided her services. She is 10 years old. This move is intended to intimidate healthcare providers and produce a chilling effect on access to reproductive care.

The Republican agenda is not just a threat to families in red States. House Republicans' overwhelming opposition to our legislation make clear that they do not want anyone to access reproductive care anywhere. Indeed, their endgame is a barbaric ban on abortion in all 50 States.

As the Associate Justice Clarence Thomas said, they have only just begun in terms of their restrictions in terms of contraception and the rest. They will not stop there. These extremists are even threatening to criminalize birth control, in vitro fertilization, and post- miscarriage care.

Democrats will never stop fighting back against this extreme assault because we know that every woman everywhere has the basic right to reproductive healthcare.

Right now, the rights of women and every American are on the line, Madam Speaker.

House Democrats are ferociously defending freedom with these two important bills. We need two more Democratic pro-choice Senators so that we can eliminate the filibuster and make this legislation the law of the land.

Madam Speaker, as the radical Republican Party seeks to wind back the clock of 50 years of hard-fought progress, I am reminded of an extemporaneous debate in which I participated as a high school student.

A young woman, a friend of mine, drew a question from a bowl on a slip of paper that read: Do women think?

Today, it seems that some wish to debate that same question: the extremist Republican assault on women's rights harkens back to this darker time.

Do women think?

Indeed, because of Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, and a radical rightwing Republican Party, and their supermajority in the Supreme Court, right now American women have less freedom than their mothers.

By passing this legislation, the Democratic House is standing on the side of freedom for women and for every American.

The young lady who drew the insulting question answered that question with grace and strength, and she won the debate.

Just as Democrats intend to win on the question of women's health and freedom, not only here in the Halls of Congress, but with the American people in November.

Madam Speaker, I urge a very strong vote for the Women's Health Protection Act and the Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act. I hope we have a strong vote and I hope a bipartisan vote.