Opposing mandating the registration of women for the Selective Service System.

Madam Speaker, S.B. 8 will kill women. It is a dangerous, dangerous depriving of our constitutional rights, but it will kill women. It is a bill that provides a provision that I have never seen in my lifetime living in the United States of America, a free Nation.

It actually sets a bounty, reminiscent of eras of dastardly life in this country, the slave life; a bounty in order to stalk a woman to ensure that the provider does not give and the woman does not get an abortion.

I support this legislation because it upholds the Constitution, and I look forward to my bill on preventing vigilante stalking being passed.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and the Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security; a member of the Democratic Working Women's Task Force, the representative of 700,000 highly interested and affected persons in the Eighteenth Congressional District of Texas; as a sponsor of the legislation; and as a woman who was born and came of age during a period when the women of America were denied rights that men took for granted, including the basic human right of autonomy over one's own body and to decide for herself the profound and fundamental question of whether to bear or beget a child, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act, which protects 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.

I am extremely pleased that the Biden-Harris Administration strongly endorses this legislation and urges its swift passage by the Congress.

Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 3755 because it states clearly and unequivocally in Section 4 that a ``health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider's patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any burdensome limitations or requirements.

Burdensome and unlawful requirements include:

1. A requirement that a health care provider perform specific tests or medical procedures in connection with the provision of abortion services, unless generally required for the provision of medically comparable procedures.

2. A requirement that the same health care provider who provides abortion services also perform specified tests, services, or procedures prior to or subsequent to the abortion.

3. A requirement that a health care provider offer or provide the patient seeking abortion services medically inaccurate information in advance of or during abortion services.

4. A limitation on a health care provider's ability to prescribe or dispense drugs based on current evidence-based regimens or the provider's good-faith medical judgment, other than a limitation generally applicable to the medical profession.

5. A limitation on a health care provider's ability to provide abortion services via telemedicine.

6. A requirement or limitation concerning the physical plant, equipment, staffing, or hospital transfer arrangements of facilities where abortion services are provided, or the credentials or hospital privileges or status of personnel at such facilities, that is not imposed on facilities or the personnel of facilities where medically comparable procedures are performed.

7. A requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a patient make one or more medically unnecessary in-person visits to the provider of abortion services or to any individual or entity that does not provide abortion services.

8. A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.

9. A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good- faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient's life or health.

10. A limitation on a health care provider's ability to provide immediate abortion services when that health care provider believes, based on the good-faith medical judgment of the provider, that delay would pose a risk to the patient's health.

It is important to note that prior to fetal viability, the law prohibits a health care requiring a patient seeking abortion services to disclose the patient's reason or reasons for seeking abortion services, or a limiting the provision or obtaining of abortion services at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability based on any actual, perceived, or potential reason or reasons the health care provider believes the patient has for obtaining abortion services.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3755 contains another important provision, this one directed toward the judiciary, and it is that all courts are to ``liberally construe'' the provisions of the law to effectuate the congressional intent in enacting the law and that courts are not to construe the act in anyway ``to authorize any government to interfere with a person's ability to terminate a pregnancy, or to diminish or in any way negatively affect a person's constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.''

To enforce the provisions of the legislation, the Attorney General is authorized to commence a civil action for prospective injunctive relief on behalf of the United States against any government official that is charged with implementing or enforcing any limitation or requirement that is challenged as a violation of a statutory right under this Act.

In addition, H.R. 3755 authorizes private rights of action to be brought for injunctive relief against the government official that is charged with implementing or enforcing the challenged limitation or requirement by any individual or entity, including any health care provider, aggrieved by the alleged violation of this Act.

Madam Speaker, swift, clear, and decisive action to codify the rights and protections provided by the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is the clearly required response to the more than 500 state laws restricting abortion access over the past decade.

These regressive restrictions have eliminated access to abortion care in large swaths of the United States; nearly 90 percent of U.S. counties are without a single abortion provider and five states are down to their last clinic.

The people hurt most by abortion restrictions are those who already face barriers to accessing health care-including Black, indigenous and persons of color, women, those working to make ends meet, members of the LGBTQI+ community, immigrants, young people, those living in rural communities, and people with disabilities.

Madam Speaker, right-wing Republican legislators passed, and the Republican governor signed, Texas SB8, an extreme and facially unconstitutional law that contemptuously violates existing Supreme Court precedent.

The Texas law significantly impairs women's access to critical reproductive health care, particularly affecting communities of color, individuals with low incomes, and those who live in rural or underserved communities.

The law also turns private citizens into bounty hunters who are empowered to bring lawsuits against anyone who they believe has helped another person get an abortion, including family members, faith leaders, Uber drivers and others providing transportation, and health care providers.

The new Texas law prohibits abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy and creates the opportunity for almost any private citizen to sue abortion providers and women seeking to terminate their pregnancy past six weeks.

The law effectively bans abortion in Texas, as the six-week cutoff is just two weeks after a missed menstrual cycle.

The ``hotline'' reporting system in the Texas law is particularly malicious.

Since enforcement of the bill lies entirely with private citizens, Texans are incentivized to stalk women as they make vitally important decisions about their own health.

It is anathema to the conscience of the United States of America to have individuals following women to determine whether they have or will receive an abortion.

We saw similar occurrences during the KGB era of the Soviet Union, as neighbor spied on, lied against, and turned against neighbor to hand over their fellow citizens to the state.

We are Americans, and to have a law that so blatantly foments distrust and stalking among our citizenry is a blatant spit in the face of the principles on which this country was founded.

To assist in stopping this law, and to protect women from vigilante bounty hunters, I have introduced H.R. 5226, the ``Preventing Vigilante Stalking that Stops Women's Access to Healthcare and Abortion Rights Act of 2021.''

This bill would 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.

Importantly, this bill does not include any mandatory minimums.

This bill will weaken the incentive to stalk women by bolstering the criminal penalties under the federal stalking statute if the stalking is intended to prevent or report on a woman's health decisions.

Additionally, earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that in December it will hear argument on a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, which represents a direct challenge to the continued vitality of Roe v. Wade.

Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of these continued attacks to undermine a woman's right to reproductive health care is that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of circumstances.

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

This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move limbs.

In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to the face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to develop beyond the 22- week point.

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

Abridging a woman's right to reproductive health care hurts women like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from several major anomalies and had no chance of survival and whose physician determined that because of Vikki's diabetes, induced labor and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an abortion.

SB8 is the most brazen, but not the first, attempt to roll back women's reproductive health care rights in Texas.

In 2013 Texas passed a law that would have cut off access to 75 percent of reproductive healthcare clinics in the state had it not been challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015.

On October 2, 2014, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a Texas law that required that all reproductive healthcare clinics that provided the full range of services would be required to have a hospital-style surgery center building and staffing requirements.

This requirement meant that only 7 clinics in the entire state would be allowed to continue to provide a full spectrum of reproductive healthcare to women.

But because Texas is a vast state comprising 268,580 square miles, (second only in size and population to the state of California), implementation of the law would have ended access to reproductive services for millions of women in my state.

In 2015, the State of Texas once again threatened women's access to reproductive health care when it attempted to shutter all but 10 healthcare providers in the state of Texas.

The Supreme Court once again intervened on behalf of Texas women to block the move to close clinics.

Madam Speaker, since the United States Supreme Court ruled over 40 years ago, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), that a woman's constitutional right to privacy includes her right to abortion, both abortion rates and risks have substantially declined, as have the number of teen and unwanted pregnancies.

If opponents were so concerned about women's health and safety, they would be promoting any one of the number of evidence-based proactive policies that improve women's health and well-being.

Instead, they are continuing their assault on women's constitutional rights and their campaign to outlaw abortion.

That is their number one priority; it is certainly not about protecting women's health; it is about politics.

It is clear women are under attack and must be on perpetual guard against new attacks on women's access to reproductive health care, often couched in those same terms.

Madam Speaker, this is not what the American people want.

Support for abortion access is at an all-time high; nearly 80 percent of Americans do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.

There is no state in the Nation where making abortion illegal is popular.

The American people want more access to health care, not less, and it is more critical than ever to see through this inflammatory misinformation campaign.

Madam Speaker, the right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion, is central to individual equality.

The right enables a person to decide if, when, and how to start and grow their family.

It enables people to pursue and advance in their education and employment, and to be full and equal participants in society.

Laws that restrict reproductive freedom, including restrictions on abortion and birth control, perpetuate harmful stereotypes about gender roles and undermine gender equality.

Courts, federal law, and the public have long connected reproductive freedom with equality.

Reproductive freedom is central to women's equality, for as the Supreme Court said in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992): ``The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.''

Americans understand this connection and it is reflected in a January 2019 national poll showing 71% of voters agree--48% agree strongly-- that equal rights for women includes access to reproductive health care.

State laws like Texas SB8 represent unconstitutional infringements on the right to privacy, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases going back to Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) and, of course, Roe v. Wade.

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, every pregnancy is different, and no politician knows, or has the right to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her family.

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

I urge all Members to join me in voting 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 by voting for H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act.

[From the Intelligencer, Sept. 3, 2021]

Texas Is Already Creating Abortion Refugees

(By Melissa Jeltsen)

Just pause and breathe. We're going to help, but I need you

to take a breath and calm down for a moment.

Kathaleen Pittman, director of the Hope Medical Clinic for

Women in Shreveport, Louisiana, repeated this mantra over and

over to the teary women on the other end of the phone. The

calls were coming from all over Texas, where abortion is

currently banned at about six weeks, before many women know

they are pregnant. They wanted to know if they could get an

abortion in Louisiana instead.

``The phone has been ringing off the wall, patients

attempting to get in,'' Pittman said. But appointments were

scarce. When I spoke with her on Thursday, Hope Medical

Clinic was the only functioning abortion clinic in the state

of Louisiana; the other two remaining clinics were closed due

to power outages caused by Hurricane Ida. ``Right now we are

booked out three, possibly four weeks just to get in for that

first visit,'' Pittman said, noting that a state-mandated

waiting period requires patients to come to the clinic twice.

``We're going to see women who are terminating later in the

pregnancy than desired because they simply can't get in

quickly enough,'' she said. Others, she feared, wouldn't be

able to get an abortion at all. ``Of course it's going to be

the women who have no money,'' she added. ``It's always the

women without the means that suffer the most.''

In the wake of SB 8, which went into effect on Wednesday,

many clinics in Texas are still providing abortions for

patients up to six-weeks pregnant, or before embryonic

cardiac activity can be detected. Everyone else--estimated to

be about 85 percent of all abortion patients--is now being

referred out of state. As a result, clinics in Oklahoma,

Louisiana, New Mexico, Colorado, and Kansas are being

inundated with a surge of pregnant people who are racing

against the clock for care. Yet, in many of these states,

years of constant antiabortion attacks have eroded the

existing reproductive health infrastructure, leaving a

fragile system that is ill-equipped to absorb the additional

demand.

``The second largest state in the country goes dark on a

service and everyone else surrounding is trying to support

and provide care,'' said Emily Wales, interim president and

CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, which covers

Arkansas, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Clinics in all three states

are seeing an increase in Texas patients, she said,

especially in Oklahoma. At the same time, abortion access is

under attack there; five new abortion restrictions are set to

go into effect on November 1. ``It feels a little bit like

it's whack-a-mole right now in trying to beat back what are

medically unnecessary requirements to ensure ongoing

access,'' Wales said.

While other states have passed similar six-week abortion

bans, the Texas law is the only one that has been allowed to

go into effect. That's because of the unique way it was

drafted. The state does not enforce the law. Instead, SB 8

deputizes regular people to file civil lawsuits against

doctors or anyone else who knowingly ``aids or abets'' an

abortion. The law appears to have been intentionally designed

this way to thwart judicial action.

At Trust Women's clinic in Oklahoma City, which is one of

the closest abortion clinics for people in north Texas,

abortion appointments are already being booked three weeks

into September, just like at Hope Medical Clinic in

Louisiana. ``All of our doctors fly in from other states,''

explained Zack Gingrich-Gaylord, communications director for

Trust Women. ``We're currently asking them to consider

working additional days, but of course, our doctors also

practice medicine in their home states as well.'' Trust Women

has another clinic in Wichita, Kansas, with slightly more

availability, but to get there, Texas patients must travel

even further. ``We've already started seeing some of those

Texas patients today, and we've got some scheduled

tomorrow,'' said Ashley Brink, the Wichita clinic director.

``It's been a really emotional time. A lot of these folks,

they're scared, they're confused, they're sad.''

Kristina Tocce, medical director at Planned Parenthood of

the Rocky Mountains, said she was seeing the same uptick in

Colorado and New Mexico. ``I'm very nervous for patients who

need services immediately because this was an immediate hard

stop to abortion services in Texas without a clear path for

those patients as to where they can go,'' she said. ``Texas

is essentially a pre-Roe world now.''

The distance to the nearest clinic is only one of the

problems that Texas patients now face, said Alan Braid, the

owner and medical director of Alamo Women's Reproductive

Services in San Antonio. Many patients are already mothers,

and cannot leave their jobs or their children for the length

of time needed to access care in another state. Some are

undocumented and cannot travel with ease.

``It sounds very easy--oh well, you can't get it in Texas,

just go to Oklahoma, New Mexico. But the people that we see--

that hourly wage patient, the single mom, the people that

don't have the means to travel--it's impossible for them,''

he said. ``That's like saying well, just hop on a plane and,

you know, go to France. It's beautiful there, you can get an

abortion and then take a walk down the Champs-Elysees.''

Braid, who has been providing abortion care in Texas since

he began his OB/GYN internship in 1972, said this was the

worst climate he had ever seen for reproductive rights in

Texas since before Roe v. Wade. The new law, with its

vigilante-enforcement scheme, is spreading fear and distrust.

``You can feel it in the room,'' he said. ``It hangs heavy.''

As a provider, he said, he is usually optimistic that he can

support his patients and meet their needs. ``Now, when I walk

in the room, I have huge doubts about whether I'm going to be

able to help,'' he said. ``I'm not used to that.''

He expressed deep concern about what patients will do to

obtain abortions if they can't get one inside Texas when they

need it. He still has a powerful memory of three teenagers

dying from septic shock and organ failure after obtaining

back-alley abortions back when he was an intern in 1972.

``That's where we're headed,'' he said. ``I promise you

that people are going to cross the border to Mexico. They're

going to self-induce.''

[From the AP News, Sept. 2, 2021]

New Texas Abortion Law Pushes Women to Out-of-State Clinics

Even before a strict abortion ban took effect in Texas this

week, clinics in neighboring states were fielding growing

numbers of calls from women desperate for options.

An Oklahoma clinic had received more than double its number

of typical inquiries, two-thirds of them from Texas. A Kansas

clinic is anticipating a patient increase of up

to 40% based on calls from women in Texas. A Colorado clinic

that already had started seeing more patients from other

states was preparing to ramp up supplies and staffing in

anticipation of the law taking effect.

The Texas law, allowed to stand in a decision Thursday by

the U.S. Supreme Court, bans abortions once medical

professionals can detect cardiac activity, typically around

six weeks. In a highly unusual twist, enforcement will be

done by private citizens who can sue anyone they believe is

violating the law.

``There's real panic about how are they going to get an

abortion within six weeks,'' said Anna Rupani, co-director of

Fund Texas Choice, one of several nonprofits that help pay

for travel and other expenses for patients seeking out-of-

state abortions. ``There's this fear that if I can't get it

done in six weeks, I may not be able to get it done because I

may not be able to leave my job or my family for more than a

day.''

Traveling for an abortion may be impossible for women who

would struggle to find child care or take time off work. And

for those without legal U.S. status along Texas' southern

border, traveling to an abortion clinic also entails the risk

of getting stopped at a checkpoint.

Fund Texas Choice is among the groups seeking to expand a

network that helps women in Texas and other places with

restrictive abortion laws end their pregnancies in other

states. It already has seen more women reaching out. The

organization typically handles 10 new cases per week but

received 10 calls from new clients just Wednesday, when the

law took effect.

The phenomenon is not new. Women have been increasingly

seeking out-of-state abortions as Republican legislatures and

governors have passed ever-tighter abortion laws,

particularly in the South. At least 276,000 women terminated

their pregnancies outside their home state between 2012 and

2017, according to a 2019 Associated Press analysis of state

and federal data.

The trend appears to have accelerated over the past year.

Abortion clinics in neighboring states began seeing an uptick

in calls from Texas after Gov. Greg Abbott banned abortions

in March 2020 for nearly a month under a COVID-19 executive

order.

The number of Texans seeking abortions in Planned

Parenthood clinics in the Rocky Mountain region, which covers

Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming and southern Nevada, was 12

times higher that month. In California, 7,000 patients came

from other states to Planned Parenthood clinics in 2020.

The number of Texans getting abortions in Kansas jumped

from 25 in 2019 to 289 last year. The Trust Women clinic in

Wichita accounted for 203 of those procedures in a three-

month period. Those patients traveled an average of 650 miles

(1,000 kilometers), Trust Women spokesman Zack Gingrich-

Gaylord said.

``Last year was a dress rehearsal,'' he said, predicting

similar numbers under the new Texas law.

One woman discovered she was pregnant just as Abbott's

emergency order banning abortions was lifted. She and her

partner had lost their jobs in San Antonio during the

pandemic.

``We didn't know which way the world was going to go with

everything shut down and no change in sight,'' said Miranda,

who spoke on the condition that only her first name be used

for fear of harassment and intimidation. ``The last thing I

wanted to do was be pregnant.''

She struggled to find an abortion clinic that could help

her. An online search led her to Fund Texas Choice and the

Lilith Fund, another organization that offers financial

assistance to Texans seeking abortions. They offered to pay

for a flight to New Mexico.

``It's so comforting because it's like someone saying, `We

got you. Let's take care of this together,' '' Miranda said.

Eventually, she found an appointment at a clinic in Dallas,

a five-hour drive away. The groups helped with gas and

lodging, aid that will be even more important with the new

law, Miranda said.

``To be able to help me in a time of need when I had

nothing, not even a job--that's something I think a lot of

women would benefit from if they knew those options were

there,'' she said.

Trust Women Wichita clinic director Ashley Brink said the

phones have been busier than normal this week with potential

patients from Texas and beyond. Women also have been calling

from Louisiana and Alabama who would typically get abortion

care in Texas but are having to travel even farther.

The clinic typically sees 40 to 50 abortion patients in a

week and now is expecting an additional 15 to 20.

At Trust Women's clinic in Oklahoma City, 80 appointments

were scheduled over the past two days, more than double the

typical amount, co-executive director Rebecca Tong said. Two-

thirds were from Texas, and the earliest opening was three

weeks out.

``Oklahoma has just barely enough clinics for the amount of

people here,'' Tong said. ``If anyone is thinking, `Oh, they

can just go out of state, it'll be so easy,' a lot of clinics

in the Midwest and South, we don't do abortion care five days

a week.''

Oklahoma providers also face the potential for abortion

restrictions similar to those in Texas in a matter of months.

In recent months, 15% of patients supported by Cobalt, an

abortion access advocacy group in Colorado, were from out of

state, president Karen Middleton said. She expects that

number to keep rising.

The group administers a fund to cover the cost of the

procedure, travel, lodging and meals. It began preparing for

a potential influx of patients from Texas several weeks ago.

``We reached out to everyone who provides abortion care in

the state of Colorado,'' Middleton said. ``We asked them to

be ready and to let us know if they could handle increased

capacity.''

Traveling for the procedure may still be out of reach for

some. Women without legal U.S. status might turn to abortion

medication, said Diana Gomez, advocacy manager with Progress

Texas, though even that option is in question.

Several Republican-led states have passed laws making it

harder to access the pills and banning prescriptions through

virtual health visits. Texas is considering similar

restrictions, which could force women to get pills by mail

for do-it-yourself abortions or other methods.

``They are going to have to go underground and find

alternative means in our state,'' Gomez said.

[From TIME, Sept. 23, 2021]

Florida Lawmaker Proposes Abortion Ban That Mimics Texas SB-8 Law

A Florida legislator has proposed banning most abortions in

the state and allowing lawsuits against doctors who violate

it, mirroring a Texas law that instituted the strictest

abortion restrictions in the U.S.

It wasn't immediately clear how much support the bill would

garner. The Republican-controlled Florida legislature has

shown significant support for tighter abortion policies, but

Governor Ron DeSantis said he hadn't reviewed this specific

proposal and the GOP House speaker was similarly noncommittal

on Wednesday.

The bill, proposed by state Representative Webster Barnaby,

a Republican, would require doctors in Florida to perform

tests to determine if a fetus has a detectable heartbeat

before performing an abortion.

If a physician detects a heartbeat, according to the bill,

abortion would be prohibited. The measure also would allow

doctors to be sued if suspected of performing an abortion

after detecting a heartbeat, matching a powerful provision in

the Texas law, known as Senate Bill Eight, or SB-8.

The bill appeared to be a clear example of a Texas copycat

law in another large, GOP-controlled state. In the days after

the Texas law took effect, abortion clinics turned away

hundreds of patients. It was seen by abortion-rights

supporters as an end-run around Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme

Court decision that has been the foundation of abortion

rights in the U.S. ever since.

Florida's Republican House Speaker Chris Sprowls said

through a spokesman that he supported stricter abortion

restrictions, but said that any bill brought to the floor

would have to withstand judicial scrutiny.

``We look forward to bringing to the Floor a bill that

saves every unborn life possible,'' he said. ``I have asked

House Judiciary Committee Chairwoman Erin Grall and House

Health & Human Services Chairwoman Colleen Burton to review

the various proposals, look at other ideas, and take point on

this issue this Session.''

Still, the Florida proposal sparked immediate condemnation

from abortion rights advocates, who called legislation

unconstitutional and part of a flurry of harsh restrictions

on women's rights.

``We are horrified to see anti-choice politicians in

Florida following in Texas' footsteps, and there's no

question that lawmakers hostile to reproductive freedom in

other states will do the same,'' Adrienne Kimmell, acting

president of Naral Pro-Choice America, said in a statement.

Early this month, a sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court

refused to block the Texas law, which outlaws most abortions

after six weeks of pregnancy. SB-8, bars abortion after a

fetal heartbeat can be detected and puts clinics at risk of

being shut down if they are found to be in violation.

Asked about Barnaby's bill on Wednesday in Kissimmee,

Desantis said he considered his record ``100% pro-life'' but

added that he had not seen it.

Desantis, a Republican seen as a potential presidential

candidate, has rejected coronavirus mask mandates and so-

called vaccine passports, saying his position is largely

about an individual's right to determine their healthcare

choices. He said Wednesday that the abortion question was

different because ``another life is at stake.''

Democratic candidates vying to replace Desantis in the 2022

election firmly opposed the legislation.

``This is a direct attack on a woman's right to choose,''

Charlie Crist, a former governor, said on Twitter. ``We're

going to have to fight tooth and nail to protect reproductive

freedom.''

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Women's Health Protection Act. As an original cosponsor of the bill, I thank Representative Chu for her leadership on this important bill.

As a woman from Texas, I thank this body for responding with urgency to my beloved home State's cruel law, depriving Texans of their constitutional rights, by bringing this bill to the floor today.

In this moment, it is a Texas law, a law quickly being copied across the country, that has brought us here. But let us remember that it was also Texas that brought us the framework for this bill that we will pass today to protect the health, privacy, dignity, and freedom of women and families across this country in the case of Roe v. Wade. It was a 26-year-old Texas woman named Sarah Weddington who took that case all the way to the Supreme Court.

Texas women have fought and will continue to fight for the rights that we protect here today. I am proud to be one of them and to vote in favor of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Statement of NARAL Pro-Choice America

The Women's Health Protection Act (H.R. 3755)--september 24, 2021

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement to the

U.S. House of Representatives on this critical legislation.

NARAL Pro-Choice America (NARAL) is a national advocacy

organization, dedicated to protecting and advancing

reproductive freedom, including access to abortion,

contraception, paid leave, and protection from pregnancy

discrimination, as a fundamental right and value. Through

education, organizing, and influencing public policy, NARAL

and our 2.5 million members from every state and

congressional district in the country work to guarantee every

individual the freedom to make personal decisions about their

lives, bodies, and futures, free from political interference.

For this reason, we are submitting this statement to thank

leadership for holding this vote and to call on Congress to

pass the Women's Health Protection Act in order to safeguard

the federal right to abortion against bans and medically

unnecessary restrictions.

The legal right to abortion faces its greatest threat in

decades. Despite overwhelming public support, 8 in 10

Americans, for the legal right to abortion, we're in the

midst of an all-out assault on reproductive freedom with Roe

v. Wade hanging in the balance. The need to enshrine the

legal right to abortion in federal statute is more urgent

than ever. The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court will soon

hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a direct

challenge to Roe v. Wade, and that it declined to block

Texas's extreme abortion ban, allowing Roe to be rendered

meaningless in the state, represent ominous signs for the

future of abortion rights in this country.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court failed to intervene

and subsequently rejected an emergency request to block Texas

Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), a blatantly unconstitutional ban on

abortion. This law bans abortion at approximately six weeks

before many people even know they are pregnant. It also

grants private citizens the power to sue abortion providers

and anyone else who helps someone access abortion care; this

includes clergy members or counselors, abortion funds that

assist someone in paying for abortion care, and even someone

who drives a patient to their appointment, like family

members, friends, and rideshare drivers. An individual who

successfully sues someone for assisting a pregnant person

seeking abortion care would receive a financial reward of

$10,000. The Supreme Court's decision to allow SB 8 to go

into effect essentially gave Texas the green light to render

Roe v. Wade meaningless in the state and empowered anti-

choice lawmakers to use this law as a blueprint to roll back

reproductive freedom in their own states.

The pending Supreme Court case is set against a backdrop of

increasingly cruel and draconian restrictions and bans as

anti-choice politicians escalate their quest to end legal

abortion.

Even as Roe stands, though it has long not been a reality

for many, the further evisceration of abortion access is

ramping up. In addition to Texas's ban, state lawmakers

seeking to advance their agenda of power and control have

passed hundreds of state-level attacks on abortion access

over the last decade that have made care extremely difficult,

if not impossible, to access for many people across the

country. Systematic attacks on reproductive freedom and

abortion access, including bans on abortion coverage,

intentionally push access out of reach and have rendered

meaningless the protections and rights afforded by Roe v.

Wade for many people across the country.

The unprecedented threat to the right to abortion

underscores the urgent need for Congress to pass the Women's

Health Protection Act. Every day without congressional action

to protect abortion rights and expand abortion access means

that more and more people are denied the right to abortion

and ability to access the care that they need--and we know

that this disproportionately affects women, Black, Indigenous

and People of Color (BIPOC), people working to make ends

meet, immigrants, young people, people with disabilities,

LGBTQ+ individuals, and those living in rural and other

medically underserved areas. Attacks on abortion rights and

access are rooted in racism, white supremacy, and other forms

of discrimination. Ending these barriers and ensuring equal

access to abortion care is central to the pursuit of

reproductive freedom and racial and economic justice.

The looming threat to the future of legal abortion across

the country is the result of a decades-long far-right

strategy to advance a radical and out-of-touch ideological

agenda. In the late 1970s, radical conservatives weaponized

the formerly non-political, back-burner issue of abortion

rights as political cover for their efforts to maintain white

patriarchal control amidst diminishing support for racist

policies like school segregation, which had previously been

the backbone of their movement. In the years immediately

preceding and following Roe v. Wade, Evangelical Christians,

who now form the backbone of the GOP, were overwhelmingly

indifferent on the issue of abortion. But through the

carefully crafted messages of Paul Weyrich, Jerry Falwell,

and other architects of the Radical Right, abortion became

the political tool of choice for a movement determined to

maintain control in a changing world, and the trojan horse

for a far-reaching array of ideologies meant to thwart social

progress.

In the intervening years, opposition to abortion has become

a litmus test in far-right circles for a host of political

and judicial positions. In order to advance their agenda--one

that has always stood in direct opposition to the values of

the majority of Americans--they developed and implemented a

strategy for capturing and maintaining minority rule. This

strategy included pushing regressive boilerplate legislation

chipping away at access to abortion through state

legislatures and Congress, as well as stacking the federal

judiciary with anti-choice ideologues.

Anti-choice activists have spent decades building their

influence over the federal judiciary through well-funded,

secretive networks like the Federalist Society. Conservative

activists have never been shy about the fact that their

takeover of the federal judiciary is part of a broad strategy

to quell the majority and cement minority rule, but the

election of Donald Trump took this tactic to new heights. In

May 2016, Trump pledged to only nominate anti-choice judges,

a promise he doubled down on in 2020. And with the help of

Mitch McConnell, Trump installed anti-choice federal judges

with lifetime appointments at a breakneck pace. More than a

quarter of currently active federal judges are now Trump

appointees, including Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch,

Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett--tipping the balance

of the Court to a supermajority unmistakably hostile to

reproductive freedom. We have already seen this majority use

the so-called ``shadow docket'' to undermine the right to

abortion and abortion access. There is no denying that the

threat to Roe v. Wade is real.

Anti-choice lawmakers, emboldened by the anti-choice

supermajority on the Court, have accelerated their push to

pass blatantly unconstitutional bans and restrictions on

abortion--introducing, advancing, or passing over 330 bills

attacking abortion access this year alone, some going as far

as criminalizing pregnant people and doctors who provide

abortion care. Now, more than ever, the anti-choice movement

is advancing its extremist agenda in plain sight. Already

this year, at least eight states have enacted laws that

criminalize doctors for providing abortion care. When

abortion care is criminalized, lives are on the line. Ending

legal abortion would roll back the clock for our rights, but

it would not eliminate abortion. It would only isolate and

endanger people trying to make the best decisions for their

lives and their futures.

The interrogation and punishment of people who are pregnant

is not far-fetched--it is already happening. People across

the country are already being charged or prosecuted for

pregnancy outcomes including pregnancy loss, self-managing

abortion care, or even the suspicion of it. Criminalizing

people for having an abortion, experiencing a miscarriage or

stillbirth, or any other pregnancy outcome only exacerbates

racial inequities and is just one of the many ways that

Black, Indigenous, and other people of color have been

criminalized.

NARAL Pro-Choice America strongly supports the Women's

Health Protection Act, which was re-introduced this year by

Representatives Judy Chu (D-CA), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Ayanna

Pressley (D-MA), and Veronica Escobar (D-TX), and Senators

Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI). Roe v.

Wade and access to abortion care are on the line like never

before and this moment requires urgent action from Congress.

All people--no matter who they are or where they live--should

have the

freedom to make their own decisions about whether to start or

grow a family, free from political interference. Enacting the

Women's Health Protect Act is a critical step toward creating

a world where every body is free to make the best decisions

for themselves, their families, and their lives.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and 60 other civil rights organizations in support of the Women's Health Protection Act.

The Leadership Conference

on Civil and Human Rights,

Washington, DC, September 23, 2021.

Support the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021

Dear Representative: The Leadership Conference on Civil and

Human Rights, and the 60 undersigned organizations dedicated

to protecting and advancing the civil rights, health, and

economic security of all persons in the United States write

in support of the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 (H.R.

3755). We urge all members to vote yes on the bill when it

reaches the floor.

By protecting abortion access from medically unnecessary

restrictions that obstruct the right of all persons to obtain

safe, legal abortion services, the Women's Health Protection

Act (WHPA) seeks to remedy and prevent the onslaught of

state-level abortion bans and restrictions that cause

significant and sometimes insurmountable challenges to

receiving abortion care. These challenges disproportionately

impact the ability of low-income women and women of color to

access health care, robs individuals of bodily autonomy, and

threatens the economic security of families and individuals,

many of whom are already struggling to get by.

This issue is one of grave urgency. Just this month, five

Supreme Court justices denied an emergency request to block

Texas S.B. 8, a radical six-week abortion ban. Immediate

Congressional action is imperative for the future of abortion

rights in the United States. We are deeply concerned about

the threat of copycat bills appearing in states across the

country.

Indeed, abortion rights and access have been steadily under

attack. Despite large public support for access to abortion,

state lawmakers enacted more than 90 restrictions on abortion

this year, including 11 bans--two of which are near-total

abortion bans. States have also continued to enact or

introduce legislation that restricts access to medication

abortion, imposes medically unnecessary restrictions on

abortion clinics, or singles out abortion providers for

burdensome

restrictions not applied to other healthcare providers.

Today, nearly 90 percent of American counties have no

abortion provider, forcing people to incur onerous costs to

travel long distances for care, or pushing care entirely out

of reach.

These laws are not only a threat to the constitutional

right to abortion recognized in Roe v. Wade, but they are a

threat to the economic security, health, and dignity of low-

income people, women of color, immigrants, LGBTQ people, and

others who--because of a history of structural inequality and

discrimination--already have difficulty accessing

reproductive healthcare services. Restrictions that force

patients to undergo unnecessary tests or procedures, force

providers to communicate confusing and medically inaccurate

information, or force individuals to make multiple clinic

visits drive up individual costs, which can delay abortion

access and aggravate economic and health disparities felt by

women of color, low-income people, immigrants, LGBTQ people,

and other marginalized or multi-marginalized groups.

Restrictive abortion laws that contribute to clinic

closures and abortion deserts also increase the cost of

obtaining abortion, and Black women are impacted by clinic

closures to a greater degree than other groups. Systemic

inequality brought on by past and present policies that

target and oppress Black people--including the legacy of

slavery, mass incarceration, segregation, voter suppression,

and exploitative financial practices, such as redlining--have

led to concentrated and intergenerational poverty within the

Black community. As a result, Black women have diminished

access to networks and resources to overcome financial

obstacles to accessing care. In the context of clinic

closures or abortion deserts, this can mean a de facto ban on

abortion. Black women are half as likely to be able to travel

25 to 50 miles for abortion care than White women, who tend

to have more financial resources, information, and social

networks that allow them to travel.

Restricting access to abortion also threatens to undermine

the ability of poorer people and people of color to achieve

economic security. People of color and women are

disproportionately represented in low-wage jobs, and women of

color continue to endure discriminatory wage gaps. Black

women, for example, are typically paid just 63 cents for

every dollar paid to a White man. American Indian and Native

Alaskan women are paid only 60 cents, Latina women are paid

only 55 cents, and some Asian American and Pacific Islander

women are paid as low as 50 cents for every dollar paid to a

White man. Restrictions on accessing abortion, in addition to

public funding bans, mean that low-income people and many

women of color have to choose between paying their rent,

purchasing food, or paying for other basic necessities, and

receiving abortion care.

Studies also show that women who are denied abortion care

face more economic hardship and risks to their health and

safety than women who sought and received abortions. Women

denied abortion care are more likely to experience poor

health outcomes, including maternal death, as compared to

women who received abortions, a trend that is particularly

concerning for Black women who are up to four times more

likely to experience pregnancy-related death than White

women. Women who are denied an abortion and forced to bear a

child are also four times more likely to fall into poverty.

Conversely, abortion access has been shown to increase

women's participation in the workforce, particularly for

Black women, and has led to gains in educational attainment.

Every person deserves to have the ability to make the

healthcare decisions that are right for them, and every

person must be able to make their own decisions about having

children, free from government interference and

discrimination. Laws that restrict access to abortion cause

the most harm to those who, because of structural racism and

existing inequities, already have limited access to

resources, are already struggling to achieve economic

security, and who already face sometimes life-threatening

health disparities. At the most basic level, restrictive

abortion laws are aimed at controlling who can exercise their

constitutional rights and who can claim agency over their

bodies. As such, these laws are an affront to human dignity

that perpetuate systems of oppression that prevent the full

enjoyment of civil and human rights. The Women's Health

Protection Act is an important step in ending these harmful

laws and promoting the health, economic security, and well-

being of those whom we have forced through law and policy to

live at the margins.

Thank you for your consideration of our views.

Sincerely,

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; ADL

(Anti-Defamation League); American Association of University

Women (AAUW); American Atheists; American Federation of

Teachers; American Humanist Association; Americans for

Democratic Action (ADA); Americans United for Separation of

Church and State; Asian American Legal Defense and Education

Fund (AALDEF); Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Black Women's

Health Imperative; Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP);

Christian Methodist Episcopal Church; Clearinghouse on

Women's Issues; Demand Justice; Equal Rights Advocates;

Equality California; Feminist Majority Foundation; Fix Our

Senate; Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Girls Inc.; Global Project Against Hate and Extremism;

Hispanic Federation; Human Rights Campaign; Impact Fund;

Indivisible; Jacobs Institute of Women's Health; Jewish

Council for Public Affairs; Justice for Migrant Women; Lake

Research Partners; Lambda Legal; LatinoJustice PRLDEF;

Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Matthew

Shepard Foundation; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund,

Inc. (LDF); NARAL Pro-Choice America; National Action

Network; National Association of Social Workers; NASW

Virginia/Metro DC Chapters; National Center for Transgender

Equality.

National Council of Jewish Women; National Health Law

Program; National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund; National

Organization for Women; National Partnership for Women &

Families; National Urban League; National Women's Law Center;

People For the American Way; Planned Parenthood Federation of

America; Population Connection Action Fund; Public Citizen;

Restaurant Opportunities Centers United; Rise Up America;

SEIU; The Workers Circle; Union for Reform Judaism; Voices

for Progress; Voto Latino; Women Lawyers On Guard Action

Network, Inc., YWCA Berkeley/Oakland; YWCA USA.

Madam Speaker, in 1970 I watched the New York State Assembly pass one of the first State laws legalizing abortion. If you had told me then that 51 years later, I would be standing on the House floor still fighting for women to have the right to make their own decisions about their own lives, their own health, and their own families, I would have called you crazy.

We must pass this bill today to end this decades-long war on abortion and women's underlying freedom to control their own lives. I urge all my colleagues to stand up for freedom, stand up for abortion, stand up for bodily integrity and vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the ranking member on the Health Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), ranking member of a subcommittee on Energy and Commerce.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), who has fought for life so long.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today praying that this House will be defenders of truth, humility, and justice.

I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3755. The abortion on demand until birth act is extreme. Abortion for any reason, at any stage of pregnancy, until birth, is not the will of the American people.

I spoke with a pediatric cardiologist just this week who shared with me what is possible today. It is just amazing, because of technology, what is possible.

We all know that we can look into the womb and see the development of the baby day by day, week by week. This cardiologist told me that, today, doctors perform prenatal surgeries and treatments to save lives. He said doctors can perform surgeries 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 will learn from this and come to reject abortion because it is inhumane; it is not following the science; and it doesn't reflect the latest research or modern medicine.

Abortion is the sharpest soul-searching question before us as a Nation. This question 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 life, we must do a better job of listening and loving. Fear and despair are only leading to more arguments, anger, discord, and insecurity.

For me, personally, I have never had an abortion, but I gave thoughts in my younger years as to what I would do if I found myself pregnant and alone. It would have been a desperate situation. I can imagine abortion seeming like an easy solution. It breaks my heart, though, to think that anyone would consider abortion as their only option or the best option.

Growing up, I was not much of a baby person. I was 35 and single when I was elected to Congress, and I didn't even know if being a mom was part of my future. Today, I can testify that bringing a new life into the world is the most amazing thing ever. It is the best part of life.

We have two daughters and a son, Cole, Grace, and Brynn. Cole, now 14, was born with the most common chromosomal abnormality. It is called Down syndrome. When he was born, the doctors gave us a long list of challenges and chances for heartache.

I understand the uncertainty. I understand the fear. But I couldn't imagine my life without Cole. His life is worth living.

Yet, in this debate, Down syndrome has been at the forefront. Just yesterday, a woman named Heidi with Down syndrome lost her court challenge against the British Government over its law allowing abortion up until birth for babies with Down syndrome.

This cannot become America's future, where we cherish life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all.

Like in the U.K., the bill before us is discriminatory. It allows for abortions based on a baby's sex, race, or disability.

It would override counseling requirements that protect women from coercion from people who have abused them. It would prohibit laws designed to protect against sex trafficking and the exploitation of young girls and women. It would weaken protections for medical professionals who have religious objections to abortion.

Despite what the majority says, this bill does not codify Roe v. Wade. This is radical.

Under this bill, viability is whatever the abortionist deems it to be.

I urge all of my colleagues today to stop the abortion on demand until birth act.

Open your minds to science, technology. Look and see the mysteries of the mother's womb. Open your ears to the cries of the unborn.

May hearts break and may we celebrate life. Let's uphold the value, the dignity, and the potential of every life.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a classmate and a champion for life.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger), a champion for life.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a champion for life.

Madam Speaker, such a sad day. It is beautiful outside, the Sun is shining.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), a champion for life.

Madam Speaker, continuing to celebrate life, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the biggest champion of all.

Madam Speaker, as we continue to celebrate life, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. McClain).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), a champion for life.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, standing for life, standing as someone who has carried a baby and lost a baby, standing and continuing to celebrate life, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, continuing to stand, celebrating life, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker,

Open up, O heavens, and pour out your righteousness. Let the

Earth open wide so salvation and righteousness can

sprout up together.

I, the Lord, created them.

What sorrow awaits those who argue with their creator.

Does a clay pot argue with its maker?

Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it, saying,

Stop, you're doing it wrong?

Does the pot exclaim, How clumsy can you be?

How terrible it would be if the newborn baby said to its

father, Why was I born?

Or if it said to its mother, Why did you make me this way?

It is the word of the Lord.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), my classmate and champion for life.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne), who is a champion for life.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Louisiana (Ms. Letlow), who is the 31st pro-life Congresswoman.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to stop this bill. Open your minds to science and technology. Look and see the mysteries of the mother's womb. Open your ears to the cries of the unborn. May hearts break, and may we celebrate life--life in the United States of America--life for the living and the unborn.

Vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, 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 thank him for his leadership on this very important issue and to all of our colleagues in this pro-choice House Democratic Caucus. This is the first time, Madam Speaker, that we have had a pro-choice Democratic Caucus with a Democratic President, and the timing could not be better because of the assault that has been made on the constitutional rights of women in our country.

Madam Speaker, coming to the floor today, I recall an experience from when I was in high school. Now, that was a long time ago. We were in a debate, a contemporaneous debate situation, and you were to pick something out of a hat and then speak to it.

Well, a person, a friend of mine, drew the question, and it said-- now, again, ancient history, a long time ago. It said: ``Do women think?'' That was the question that she had to speak to: ``Do women think?'' It seemed horrible at the time. It seems out of the question, beyond horrible now.

Today, years later, it seems that there are some who want to debate that question because the disrespect for women and their ability to determine the size and timing of their family, and so many other things, is disrespected in the action taken by the State of Texas.

But even worse than that--because what do you expect? Worse than that was the decision of this Court, the Supreme Court of the United States, to embrace the horror of it all, in terms of the legislation and what it did to remove the sanctity of private decisionmaking from women, but also that it gave an imprimatur to vigilantism, something so outrageous, so unpatriotic, so un-American, madly embraced by this shameful Court, with total disregard for stare decisis, the precedent that the Court had already established, that Roe v. Wade was constitutional.

Today, I want to thank Judy Chu for her leadership, Congress in, Congress out, but now we have the majority and a President and a Democratic Senate. I thank her for her leadership in introducing this again and again.

In advocating the Women's Health Protection Act, we are standing on the side of women to defend their freedoms and to uphold this truth: Every woman everywhere has the constitutional right to basic reproductive healthcare, no matter what State you live in. Constitutional rights are not meted out geographically. They are for the country.

Again, I salute Congresswoman Chu, chair of the Contraception and Family Planning Task Force of the Pro-Choice Caucus, who has been introducing this bill over and over again.

Again, we have produced legislation that can become law. For years, radical restrictions on women's reproductive health freedoms have been pushed across the Nation, with 2021 on track to be the worst legislative year for women's health rights.

I come to this as a Catholic and a mother of five, in 6 years and 1 week, and with the joy that all of that meant to us but with the recognition that it was my husband and I--it was our decision. And we should not, in this body or in that Court, be making decisions for the women in America.

As of July, 90 reproductive health restrictions have been enacted, more than in any year since Roe v. Wade was enacted in 1973.

But here is the thing. It is important for the women of America to know that, as this impedes their right to make decisions, the same forces at work don't want in vitro fertilization--actually, even the State of Mississippi rejected that, their prohibition on that--and stand in the way of reproductive health and guidance, in terms of family planning, birth control, and the rest. It is important for American women to know what we are up against when it comes to intrusion into the privacy of a family's life.

You would think that since they are so averse to governance in any way, they wouldn't be so bullish about going

into people's private lives in the way that they do.

What the Supreme Court did was cowardly, a cowardly, dark-of-night decision to allow that bill to go into effect. How could it be? Because it was a decision. The Court made a decision.

But the Republicans in Congress and the then-President made a decision, in a way that was almost shameful, to make sure that so many Justices on the Court--I say shameful because the last one, which they railroaded through, while opposing the review of a Democratic President's suggestion a few years earlier, saying they didn't have enough time, a year. They had enough time, a month.

I just want to say this about Roe. In Roe, the Supreme Court held that personal liberty is protected by the Constitution, which the Court had recognized as extending to decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relations, and childrearing, and it is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

S.B. 8 is an extreme ban on abortion for most women before they even know. Sometimes I wonder if they don't need a lesson in the birds and the bees, but, again, I just want to go to this point. S.B. 8 unleashes one of the most disturbing, unprecedented, far-reaching assaults on healthcare providers and on anyone who helps a woman in any way access an abortion by creating a vigilante bounty system that will have a chilling effect on the provisions of any healthcare services.

What is next? What is next with these vigilantes and their bounty system?

I associate myself with my colleagues' remarks on all of this because they bring so much knowledge of the Constitution, knowledge of the history since 1973 and even studying it before. Diana DeGette, one of the co-chairs of the caucus, fought this issue in the courts and won, fought it in the court of public opinion, and fought it in the Congress of the United States. She, Barbara Lee, and, of course, Judy Chu, so many of our women have taken the lead on this.

But, again, although we are about a third of our Caucus--more than a third of our Caucus are women--our male colleagues have been very strong on this as well. Therefore, we will have today a vote for women, a vote for respect for women, a vote for decency, a vote for pride in our Constitution and in our women.