Mental and Physical Health Care Comorbidities Act of 2022

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 President, since 2010, I have sponsored a State of the Union essay contest for Vermont high school students. This contest gives students in my State the opportunity to articulate what issues they would prioritize if they were President of the United States.

This is the contest's 12th year, and I would like to congratulate the 409 students who participated. It is truly heartening to see so many young people engaged in finding solutions for the problems that face our country. To my mind, this is what democracy is all about.

I am very proud to enter into the Congressional Record the essays submitted by these Vermont high school students.

The material follows:

Winner, Sasha Lann, Brattleboro Union High School, Sophomore

Citizens' rights to vote may be the most fundamental aspect

of our democracy, but there is a growing effort to limit it.

Increasing voter suppression and restrictive voting laws is

an issue that must be addressed, as it has grown from a

gradual build to a rush of constant new legislation that

could do permanent damage if ignored. Voter suppression is

one of the United States' biggest threats to democracy, and

the way to address it may be to enact legislation that

ensures all Americans have equal access to voting and have

their votes counted.

Recently, the United States has seen a massive uptick in

legislation restricting voting in large sections of the

country. In 2021 alone, 99 bills were introduced in 31 states

to restrict voting. 34 were passed into law. The laws

strengthen ID requirements, limit drop boxes and mail voting,

increase opportunities for voter purges, and introduce

criminal penalties for election officers who help voters

return mail ballots. These laws excessively target BIPOC

communities. Young voters are also made vulnerable by this

legislation. This attack on our voting system, though

disproportionately affecting communities of color, will harm

the entire country and make us vulnerable to authoritarianism

and the collapse of our democracy altogether.

Enacting effective voting rights legislation can be a

lengthy and difficult process. There are already bills in

progress that have passed the House, but are being blocked by

Republicans via the filibuster. As soon as the filibuster can

be changed, we can continue to make progress. In the

meantime, the best solution may be to do what we can to

prevent lawmakers from signing more restrictive legislation

into law. Part of this solution relies on companies ending

support and campaign contributions for lawmakers responsible

for this legislation. Companies and businesses could play an

essential role in standing up to these efforts. However,

community and business support will not be enough to prevent

suppressive legislation for long.

There are several solutions that could stop the onslaught

of voter restriction laws long term, starting with federal

legislation to protect voting rights and remove obstacles for

those facing difficulty casting votes. There should be laws

to enforce automatic registration, restore voter rights for

former prisoners, and increase resources for election boards

to ensure security. Election Day could also be made a holiday

so citizens have free time to vote, and each state should set

up independent redistricting commissions to avoid

gerrymandering. If used together, these methods will greatly

improve access to voting. Voter suppression and restrictive

voting laws are threatening the integrity of our democracy,

and we can counteract them by passing legislation that

protects citizens' say in the course of the country through

their votes. If nothing is done, we may see the fall of our

democracy as we know it. These are the steps needed to be

taken to preserve this cornerstone of our country.

Second Place, Eva Frazier, Champlain Valley Union High School, Senior

In the past few months, millions of people have lost rights

over their bodies, their health, and their futures. As

countless states across the country move to almost totally

limit abortion, I fear for all people who may become pregnant

in these affected areas. I fear for those without money to

travel to obtain a safe abortion, for those expectant mothers

experiencing a medical condition forced to choose between

their life or their child's, and for the youth without proper

education, suddenly finding themselves with no choice over

their lives.

Two things happen when politicians ban or block abortions:

unsafe abortions or children being born to people who can't

take care of them. Many will die, and it is almost always

poor, BIPOC, and marginalized people. The state of

reproductive rights in this country is an aggressive

violation of human rights.

To combat the alarming issues affecting reproductive rights

locally, nationally, and internationally, I would propose a

three-tiered approach to provide reproductive services to all

who need them. First, at the state level, Vermont needs to

amend our state Constitution, and protect the right to

abortion, without barrier, forever. If Vermont state

legislators succeed in passing this amendment, currently

known as Prop 5, Vermont will become the first state to

protect the right to reproductive health care access. In

addition to legally protecting the right to abortion, Vermont

state legislators must increase the budget for health care

centers that perform abortions.

Nationally, Congress must pass two pieces of legislation.

First, Congress must repeal the Hyde Amendment. As the ACLU

states, ``Passed by Congress in 1976, the Hyde Amendment

excludes abortion from the comprehensive health care services

provided to low-income people by the Federal Government

through Medicaid.'' Low-income people are the least likely to

have transportation and funds to obtain an abortion, and the

Hyde amendment keeps low income people from having equal

access to determine their futures.

Reproductive rights are not only at stake nationally, but

internationally. Currently, the U.S. will not fund any

international health care centers that provide abortions,

which often then prohibits them from providing lifesaving

treatments for malaria, HIV/AIDS, and other medical care.

This draconian policy, known as the Global Gag Rule, was

first introduced by President Reagan, and recently reinstated

by President Trump. U.S. congressional representatives have a

duty to pass legislation, known as the Global HER Act, that

would overturn the Global Gag Rule, and cement the U.S. as a

country that provides necessary foreign aid, instead of

risking millions of lives.

As people turn to illegal abortions, it is crucial that

lawmakers work to protect their citizens by passing federal

law and upholding the International Human Rights declaration,

giving humans freedom over their bodies and health care

choices.

Third Place, Samuel Leggett, Woodstock Union High School, Junior

Throughout history, America has been plagued with the

complex issue of food insecurity. Moreover, the children of

our nation--the ambassadors to our future--seem to experience

it more severely. According to Feeding America, one in every

eight adults

currently faces hunger, and the same can be said for one in

six children. Furthermore, hunger in our youth has only

festered with the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Compared

to 10 million previously, the number of food-insecure

children in America has increased to approximately 12

million. Notwithstanding our nation's immense prosperity and

value for education, our students experience inaccessibility

to affordable, nutritious food, and are seldom provided with

the assistance they need.

Though the discussion of universal free meals has long

existed, the pandemic proved to be the catalyst for its

execution. Through action on behalf of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, our government will provide free breakfast and

lunch to schools nationwide throughout the 2021-2022 school

year. Students now have the opportunity to be created equal

in their education and wellbeing. Recent studies from the

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation have concluded that the

initiative has even improved both student behavior and

performance. Though abundant are the benefits of this Covid-

mitigation strategy, the implementation of universal school

meals is still seen as a temporary measure. Even long after

these challenging times, however, the pandemic's

repercussions will persist, if not worsen, if not addressed.

Though they may initially seem like a significant financial

hurdle, universal school meals are a progressive, bipartisan,

and necessary first effort in resolving the issue of food

insecurity.

One significant advantage to implementing universal free

meals is that it would permanently eliminate the nation's

preexisting free and reduced lunch system--an inequitable,

stigma-inducing program designed to assist students facing

hunger. With strict eligibility requirements, free and

reduced meals were rarely provided to all those who needed

them, and the income-based aid system couldn't accurately

account for criteria-meeting households that were

nevertheless food insecure for other reasons. Additionally,

applications for the program were not required, which

excluded many more who potentially qualified, yet didn't

apply. The program offered no way to adequately gauge whether

or not one needed assistance.

Nonetheless, there remains one primary barrier to the

support of universal free meals: their funding. Taxpayers

fear they would wholly assume the burden of a potentially

expensive feat. However, only 0.3 percent of the federal

budget is currently reserved for child nutrition programs,

and this cost is distributed nationwide among taxpayers.

Evidently, reapportionment of the budget to increase this

expenditure would neither reduce spending allocated to other

departments nor increase local tax rates greatly.

We must allow ourselves to imagine an America where a free

meal, despite the traditional adage, is indeed possible; an

America that ensures our youth's prosperity, during and

following times of crisis. We must consider the future, and

pass sustainable, logical legislation; legislation providing

every student with the baseline liberty of a satisfied

stomach in their daily pursuit of knowledge.

Finalists

jackson bennett, vergennes union high school, junior

We have all seen the images; sea turtles with straws jammed

in their noses, fish entrapped within plastic six-pack yokes,

even whales with bellies full of plastic trash. There is no

doubt that our plastic pollution is not just a problem, it is

a calamity. According to USA Today, ``Different kinds of

plastic take anywhere between 400 and 1,000 years to degrade

in a landfill . . . So much plastic is thrown away every year

that it's enough to circle the Earth four times.'' That means

at least 6.3 billion metric tons of plastic waste is being

added by the day. Something must be done, but what? I believe

that there should be a national ban on plastic, or some other

government-controlled incentive to switch to plastic

alternatives.

There are many existing plastic alternatives already

available, but extensive use of and investment in them has

not yet been seen. On Eartheasy, a site that lists plastic

alternatives, they note that, ``finding alternatives to

common items like plastic bottles and plastic packaging is

becoming increasingly easier--and not a moment too soon for

our plastic-choked planet.'' Examples of these plastic

alternatives include, but are not limited to, bamboo,

seaweed, wood, cloth for bags, and for multi-use but non-

biodegradable substances, glass and stainless steel for

replacing one-use items. The possibilities are limitless on

what ways we can replace plastic, and our technology and

innovation provide us with new, sustainable options, but how

do we convince the world to use these alternatives?

If we really want to make progress against our plastic

pandemonium, we cannot leave it up to individual people to

consider plastic alternatives. This is a collective issue we

need to address first as a nation, and then the world. Many

solutions to this problem have been given, including taxation

on plastic products, and even total bans, but no clear

decision has been reached. Taxes would mean a smoother

transition, and the money made off of plastic usage would go

towards discouraging that same occurrence, as well as

cleaning up plastic pollution. A ban would outright prevent

companies and individuals from consuming plastic, which may

negatively impact people's lives. I believe that a nationwide

ban is the best solution. Taxation would slow the problem,

and raise money for the government, but the problem would

still exist. Banning plastic, though tough, would force

ourselves to use alternatives, and without the incoming

waste, we could focus on cleaning the ocean.

Though plastic bans would offer one solution, there is no

one right answer to this issue. As long as we continue the

conversation and look for ways to prevail and take action, we

still have the devotion to overcome this problem. With our

advances in science and technology, and the combined help of

our government and fellow citizens, we can conquer our

carelessness and restore this beautiful planet we inhabit to

its former glory.

penelope derosset, burlington high school, freshman

Some people in this country see no need for feminism. They

say: ``Men and women are equal. They have the same rights

under law.'' But that isn't true. The only right the

Constitution explicitly grants to both men and women is the

right to vote. And the few rights women have, the right to

abortion for one, are constantly called into question. The

solution? An amendment introduced in 1923. Ratifying the

Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which explicitly grants all

rights equally to all genders, would grant a layer of legal

protection to women's rights which are so often under threat.

Laws protecting women's rights are constantly limited in

their ability to protect women at all. By mid-2021, a record

amount of anti-abortion legislation had already been enacted

by states. Limitations requiring parental consent or banning

abortion past a certain point in pregnancy make it impossible

for many women to get an abortion. This may endanger the

pregnant person's life. If a woman chooses to stay pregnant,

she may face challenges such as pay discrimination, employers

refusing to accommodate her temporary disability, or being

fired. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), the only

federal law against workplace pregnancy discrimination, is

consistently interpreted too narrowly to be adequate

protection. A report by the Center for Employment Equity at

UMass Amherst says: ``Activists and politicians have argued

that by only providing a comparative, rather than absolute,

right to accommodation, current laws stop short of

guaranteeing protection for all pregnant workers.'' While

women may appear to be protected by law against workplace

pregnancy discrimination the truth is many are not. This

leaves large numbers of people vulnerable. We must work to

defend these rights or risk them disappearing.

The ERA would solve this issue by explicitly stating a

constitutional position against gender discrimination. Some

states have already passed equal rights amendments or have

ERA-like language in their state constitutions, and using

these, Connecticut and New Mexico have found laws restricting

Medicaid coverage of abortion unconstitutional. With regards

to pregnancy discrimination, an article by Robin Bleuweiss

published by the Center for American Progress states: ``The

ERA could provide additional reasoning, grounded in

constitutional protections, to challenge policies that

effectively exclude individuals seeking pregnancy

accommodations from the protection of the law, as well as to

ensure equitable treatment and better conditions for pregnant

workers.'' With the added support of constitutional

protection, policies currently legal under the PDA could

change and finally grant pregnant women equality.

There is no doubt adding the ERA to the Constitution would

have a big impact on the essential rights of women.

Implementing this solution would be simple. All the states

required to ratify this amendment have. The only obstacle is

the time limit. Congress has already exercised its power to

extend the time limit once before, so why couldn't it do so

again? To quote Alice Paul, revolutionary suffragist and the

first to propose the ERA, ``To me, there is nothing

complicated about ordinary equality.''

jocelyn dunn, essex high school, junior

On September 1, 2021, a law banning abortion from as early

as six weeks into pregnancy went into effect in Texas. The

Supreme Court's failure to stop Texas Senate Bill 8 has paved

the way for other states to mimic actions with similar bills

that directly challenge Roe v. Wade. In December, the state

of Mississippi asked the Supreme Court to uphold its outlaw

on abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy in the case of Dobbs v.

Jackson Women's Health Organization. The new reality of

abortion access is a terrifyingly imperative issue, and the

nation's highest court has never been so close to upholding a

ban that so blatantly ignores the precedent set by Roe v.

Wade. Political shifts that threaten to undermine Roe v. Wade

will harm many, and simply should be unacceptable to anyone

who cares about the health of women.

Since 1973, Roe v. Wade has provided safe, accessible

abortion services to women throughout the country. The

precedent set by Roe v. Wade affirms that it is a woman's

right to have an abortion under the Fourteenth Amendment

without excessive government restriction. Since the case

decision, the Supreme Court has been continuously called upon

to decide whether specific abortion statutes violate a

woman's right to privacy. However, under the current process

of examination, many abortion restrictions have been upheld

and the lasting constraints

of these harmful laws have opened the door to limits on the

ability of women to make the personal decision of ending a

pregnancy. The Supreme Court's upcoming decision in Dobbs v.

Jackson Women's Health Organization has left the future of

Roe v. Wade at risk. According to Planned Parenthood, if Roe

v. Wade is overturned, 26 states in the country could

immediately act on banning abortion through existing

policies. This means that 36 million women could soon live in

a state that criminalizes almost all abortion services.

With the increasingly likely overturning of Roe v. Wade on

the horizon, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced that the

Senate will soon hold a vote on legislation that would ensure

a nationwide right to abortion. In September 2021, the House

of Representatives passed the Women's Health Protection Act

(WHPA). If the WHPA becomes a federal law, abortion access

would be protected from not only bans but also medically

unnecessary restrictions such as mandatory ultrasounds,

biased counseling, and waiting periods. The WHPA would create

a statutory right for health care providers to perform

abortion services, and a corresponding right for their

patients to receive those services, free from invasive

restrictions.

The United States is on the brink of an unprecedented

crisis regarding women's health. Restrictions on Roe v. Wade

have plagued American women for decades and the right to make

private decisions free from barriers is more crucial than

ever to the personal dignity and autonomy of women.

Eliminating health care restrictions is imperative to

reproductive justice and passing the WHPA is an essential

step toward safeguarding access to abortion.

samantha haselman, bellows free academy fairfax, senior

The opioid crisis and incarceration for nonviolent

offenders isn't the solution for these addicts. It has an

emotional, physical, and economical struggle many are facing

and have been facing. People need to have compassion and

understand that addiction is a disease, not a choice.

Children, youth, and families are affected by opioid use. No

one chooses drugs over their own children, no one chooses to

steal from their loved ones, no one chooses to physically

harm themselves, no one chooses to have their children taken

from them.

There are many issues and concerns that exist within this

topic. I can relate to this very well. In 2009 my mother

developed her relationship with heroin, what most call the

``devil''. My mother was a kind, hardworking, funny,

determined, confident woman. But since this disease has taken

over her, she's not as present. Watching my mother struggling

on a daily basis from being sick to running out of the home

scrounging for the next ``fix''. It affected not only her,

but it affected her family who were a witness to this. Many

legal systems knew about her addiction but didn't support her

nor did they provide her with the necessary resources. They

focused more on removing things from her life and punishing

her for something that was controlling every part of her.

There is a story that stands out to me called ``Hooked''.

It was about a vulnerable woman who was prescribed opioids,

she instantly became an addict. She was clean for a while,

but relapsed multiple times. She was incarcerated, denied

medical attention, and then died. Incarceration for these

addicts is not helping them. Incarceration does not prepare

them for sobriety when released. They need affordable

treatment and support from a substance abuse counselor, and

resources that will set them up for success.

There needs to be more resources and affordable treatment

for individuals struggling to beat opioid addiction. I will

continue to speak on this until there's a significant change

our government takes far beyond what's been done. I know that

Senator Sanders introduced amendments to strengthen the

opioid crisis response in 2018. In addition to your

amendments to the opioid bill, I believe Congress should also

continue to provide additional funding like the Comprehensive

Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016. The law focuses on

treating people rather than incarcerating people. Congress

passed the bill giving only $181 million in funds for opioid

programs. The federal government was expecting $920 million

to help expand their treatment capacity with each state

receiving money depending on the severity of the epidemic.

Having funding would strengthen and support prevention,

treatment, and medication access. We must continue to help

those who are like my mom and we must honor these families

who are waking up daily facing the nightmare of opioid

addiction. This disease does not discriminate, it can be the

lawyer, the doctor, the son, the daughter, the mother, and/or

the father. This is all the more reason to stay focused on

this and make a change.

anna pringle, essex high school, junior

Not only is America experiencing a Covid pandemic, but

America is also experiencing a loneliness epidemic. While

loneliness is not diagnoseable medically or psychologically,

it's associated with a variety of disorders and health issues

such as depression, anxiety, and concurrently, increased

suicide rates. As said in the Harvard Graduate School of

Education Report, 61 percent of young adults feel serious

loneliness after the pandemic.

As Covid continues, people all over the U.S. are accepting

isolation. There are simple solutions to this loneliness

epidemic, for example, a simple phone call or Facetime to a

friend. There are also more complex solutions; an example

being in the grocery store. According to Vice, the

Netherlands is introducing chat registers; registers where

employees will be trained to create small talk with customers

who aren't in a rush. This is an effort sponsored by the

Netherland government in hopes to help battle loneliness. The

Netherland government also created a 24/7 loneliness hotline,

both the registers and hotline are a part of the ``one

against loneliness'' program. This is a great example of a

country doing more to help people in need.

In America, mental health is not a top priority, but the

impacts of mental health are astronomical. American citizens

are suffering at an increasing rate because they are so

isolated due to Covid. Since being lonely can be chronic, the

U.S. needs to do more to help. It is not possible for one

solution to single-handedly end the epidemic of loneliness;

instead many solutions will have to come together. Some

examples of solutions are following what the Netherlands did,

creating a hotline or chat registers. Another solution is

bringing awareness to this topic of how quarantining from

Covid has impacted mental health. This could inspire people

to call a loved one; especially the ones that live alone.

Simple actions like calling a loved one could have a huge

impact, this could remind a lonely person that they have

people to talk to and therefore it can make someone feel less

secluded. Social media is a huge part of everyone's life,

putting information out there on the impact that loneliness

has on people could one hundred percent make a difference.

Mental health issues are substantial in America today.

There are many ways that America can do more for the

loneliness crisis, creating a healthier, happier country.

isabelle tupper, brattleboro union high school, sophomore

As James Earl Jones reveals, ``One of the hardest things in

life is having words in your heart that you can't utter''.

Nowadays, black Americans (nationwide) are suffering from

declining mental health; one in every three black people seek

assistance when struggling, and roughly 1.4 million black

people are experiencing crises. As a result, suicide rates

are increasing and citizens are silently suffering.

Therefore, black mental health must become a priority.

In predominantly black communities, mental health is

overlooked--despite its damaging impacts. Injustices are

amplified by unforeseen circumstances that deplete one's

quality of life. For instance, ``Anxiety and depression

symptoms have more than tripled since 2019, [ . . . ]'' and

pandemic-related homelessness and unemployment left ``[ . . .

] black Americans shouldering the heaviest burden'' (Fowers

and Wan). Additionally, the murder of George Floyd resurfaced

trauma for countless black Americans and caused mental health

issues to spike five percent. Lastly, black people with

mental health issues struggle to gain relief due to stigma

and insufficient BIPOC medical professionals. Consequently,

this urgent matter generates despondency, leading black

individuals to isolate themselves.

Provisionally, this country must fulfill black individuals'

needs whilst identifying propitious resources. Through

survey, the public shall expunge injurious practices and

distribute assets alongside governmental advisors. Parties

must consider privileges of non-black people and prioritize

equality. Schools must incorporate free courses--run by

qualified educators--to help young people identify mental

illness. Classes must be accessible and non-discriminatory,

and identity must not prevent admittance. School-based

clinicians will best ensure students' access to counseling;

psychiatrist David Henderson, reports ``about 25 percent of

African Americans seek mental health care, compared to 40

percent of whites'' because of impediments regarding

accessibility (McLean Harvard Medical School Affiliate).

Progressively, the government must accommodate affordable

healthcare. Mental health must be covered by insurance and

funds shall be supplied by the one percent of taxpayers. All

remaining funds must go towards mental health facilities in

need. Assuming that demands are met, progress will ensue.

Over time, it will be crucial to break the stigma

surrounding black mental health. Once honest conversations

commence, politically-correct terminology must be applied and

blatant irreverence shall be condemned. Publicly, black

mental health advocates shall assemble and enlighten

uninformed individuals, and mental health care providers must

advertise openly. Simultaneously, the mental health field

must employ more people of color. BIPOC positions will be

filled when salaries are livable, staff is receptive, and job

openings have renowned availability. Hired professionals must

have ample training, prior to or upon their employment.

Finally, if employees of color exit, all businesses must hire

new BIPOC staff to diversify America's perspectives.

Black mental health is a nationwide concern and all people

must fight to restore it. Due to Covid losses and natural

disasters, this country is facing a level of despair that

only multiplies when considering mental health. In black

communities, conditions are abysmal and there is dire need

for improvement. If circumstances do not ameliorate, tragedy

will only continue. Nevertheless, this country shall work

diligently together and utilize its power to create immense

change.

luna wood, champlain valley union high school, senior

The single most threatening issue our world must deal with

today is climate change. It is crucial that our government

doesn't ignore climate change and its impacts that will

affect everybody. Climate change is going to become much

worse in the upcoming years and we have already started to

face devastating effects. Extreme weather has destroyed

communities and will not stop any time soon. Tropical storms

and sea levels rising on the coasts will soon make towns and

cities uninhabitable. Health risks will become worse and

worse such as deaths from extreme weather storms, air

pollution, water and food supply impacts. The downfall of

countless communities will affect economic prosperity.

Extreme weather such as hurricanes and flooding will wipe out

entire communities, leaving them in poverty. Droughts have a

negative impact on harvests and will increase food

insecurity. As migration increases due to the adaptation of

sea levels rising, resources will become more and more

limited. As a nation, we cannot ignore climate change

anymore.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' Green New Deal would give

our nation the step in the right direction of taking an

action that will sustain our planet for generations to come.

Our federal government has not allowed the passage of this

deal despite its immense benefits for our country. It is

stated to create 20 million jobs, which would improve our

country's unemployment issue greatly.

The deal suggests using solutions such as only renewable

energy will catapult our progress. We need to stop sending

our nation's tax dollars to fossil fuel companies in the form

of subsidies. Instead, we can invest that money into clean

forms of energy such as solar. Fossil fuels are the reason

why our earth has been increasingly warming up. The carbon in

the air needs to be taken out of our atmosphere and put back

into the ground where it came from.

We can help this process in our own state of Vermont by

stopping the overuse of chemical fertilizers and pesticides

on our farmland. This use of chemicals is killing habitats in

our soils and causing pollution. If we adopt more organic

methods of farming and take care of our soil, the crops,

plants and organisms living in the soil can help sequester

carbon from the air. Another simple solution to drawing

carbon from the air is planting many, many trees. Other

countries have already implemented this solution and there is

no reason why we can't as well.

Yes, applying these solutions will take time, money, and

resources. But the positive outcomes from this deal are

necessary and worth it. This should be the main focus of our

government right now because it is a global emergency and

soon it will be too late.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to give all members 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Madam Speaker, this night, and this Women's History Month, together with my colleagues in the Pro-Choice Caucus, I rise in support of the women of the reproductive rights movement. Women who stood up, spoke out, and reached out to protect the rights of women in this country to determine whether and when to become parents. Of course, this work required and requires to this day, a broad, bold coalition of people, people whose work has necessitated tremendous sacrifice and has resulted in tremendous progress.

Some of them were denied access to contraception, abortion care, and healthcare, and agreed to become the face of legal challenges. Some of them were strategists who shaped the arguments that became the fabric of legal protections for reproductive rights.

Some of them were healthcare providers who saw the tragic consequences of the denial of those rights. As a lawyer, I have known some of their names through the landmark cases that bear them--Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, and more.

Tonight, we celebrate them, we celebrate their courage, their commitment, and their purpose in articulating, advocating, and ensuring the rights to equality, privacy, and dignity that their work represents.

Before yielding to my colleagues who are here this evening in person and in spirit, I will start with one of them who holds a special place in this work and in my own life. As a woman from Texas, it has always been a source of great pride that some fearless Texas women have been leaders in this fight.

In the late 1960s, a group of Texas women came together to challenge our State's ban on abortion. They found as their lawyer and lifelong advocate, a young woman named Sarah Weddington, who is pictured here behind me. A recent law school graduate, Sarah Weddington was working for the University of Texas at that time. Perhaps not surprisingly, although she had good grades and a law degree, she had a hard time finding a job in a law firm. But she was working to help people solve their problems in Austin, and this group knew she would be a good advocate.

I heard her tell the story once that when the group came to see her, they told her that they thought the best way to deal with the law was to challenge the law itself. She said that she had a law degree, but she really hadn't practiced in Federal court before. She wasn't a courtroom lawyer, and she hadn't handled a case like this one. So she told them she thought they should get someone with more experience.

She recalled to us they asked her, Well, what would you charge us to do this lawsuit?

And she said, Oh, I will do it for free.

And they said, You are our lawyer.

And that is how she got the case.

Sarah called her law school classmate, Linda Coffee, and they agreed to work on the case together. Many UT law students and professors helped Sarah and Linda with the case. They heard from women, of course, and from doctors who treated women who had had complications from illegal abortions and women who had died from illegal abortions.

Through their work, the strategizing, the organizing, the lawyering, these trailblazing Texas women brought us the framework to protect the health, privacy, dignity, equality, and freedom of women and families across this country in the case of Roe v. Wade. And 26-year-old Sarah Weddington and this team of Texas women took that case all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

On January 22, 1973, the Court ruled in one of the most consequential decisions in American history, the Texas State law banning abortions, except to save a woman's life, was unconstitutional.

Sarah carried this fight with her for the rest of her life. She was elected to the Texas legislature. She served in the Carter administration where she helped get more women on the Federal bench. She worked for many years as a lecturer and professor teaching at schools, including the University of Texas.

This year, 2022, was the first one that we marked the anniversary of Roe without Sarah Weddington. She left a legacy for us through her life's work, the rights and protections for the health, privacy, dignity, equality, and freedom of women and families enshrined in that decision that has shaped our country and our opportunities as women for the last 50 years.

She was part of a generation of trailblazing Texas women who made it their life's work to make our world one of equality, opportunity, and possibility for women. It is fitting to remember, honor, and celebrate her tonight.

Madam Speaker, several of my colleagues are here to remember and honor other women pioneers, trailblazers, and heroes of the reproductive rights movement.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey).

Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Veasey and I join him in his remarks that we are so grateful to our State legislators and the Members of our Texas delegation as we face these challenges at home.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Manning).

Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Manning for the important points that she made, talking about the importance of access to safe abortions.

Even today, the World Health Organization estimates that 47,000 women die from unsafe abortions each year. That is 13 percent of maternal deaths worldwide.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster).

Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Kuster for her leadership and for her impactful story here tonight, one of the many women of this reproductive rights movement.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Frankel for sharing her stories from Florida.

At this time, it is a pleasure to yield to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Green).

Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Green.

Madam Speaker, I have worked closely with my colleagues in the Pro- Choice Caucus to identify stories that need to be told during this Special Order hour this evening. I am grateful to my colleagues who have taken to the floor this evening to share with us the stories of their constituents, to share with us the stories of those who they know have been fighters for reproductive rights, for reproductive justice, for choice.

One of our Pro-Choice Caucus leaders could not be with us tonight but has submitted a statement for the record that I would like to read now. From Representative Judy Chu:

``I rise today to honor the women of the abortion rights movement who

have come before us. I remember what it was like before the days of Roe. So today, I am helping to remember and honor those who gave their lives, who put their own bodies in harm's way so that we might have the ability to decide what to do with ours.

``Women like Pam, who lives in my district in Pasadena, California-- Pam is in her seventies, retired, and spends her time volunteering in her community. But Pam told me about a time when she was 22 years old. It was 1969, and even though she and her partner had been using birth control, Pam found out she was pregnant.

``This happened in the days before Roe v. Wade, which meant that her options were limited. That is how Pam found herself standing on the curb of an airport in Mexico City, waiting for someone to pick her up. Finally, a large black car came up and rolled down the window. `Are you Pam?' the driver asked. `Yes,' she replied, and got in the car, forced to trust and hope for the best. Thankfully, Pam wasn't hurt during this experience, but she told me she has never forgotten the fear and uncertainty of putting her life in the hands of a stranger who could have hurt her and abused her, especially when we know that this is a procedure that is safe and can be done in a doctor's office, not someplace unknown and unsafe.

``That is why, now, Pam is determined to ensure that no one ever feels as scared and alone as she did that day. Pam volunteers at the Planned Parenthood Pasadena and San Gabriel Valley, serving as a support system to women who need a hand to hold or a shoulder to lean on. Pam is an abortion advocate in her community because she believes, like I do, that everyone, no matter where they grew up, what language they speak, or how much money they make, deserves to have a say in what happens to their bodies.

``I rise today, as part of Women's History Month, to honor Pam and so many others like her who were forced to make history so that others could have the choices that they were denied. The fight for reproductive rights would not be where it is today without advocates like Pam who stand up, time and time again, and demand that women have the right to decide.''

Madam Speaker, this evening, the Pro-Choice Caucus and I also want to recognize the women who launched and built the groundbreaking reproductive justice movement. While women of color have long fought for these principles, ``reproductive justice'' as a term was coined in 1994 when a group of Black women gathered in Chicago ahead of the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo.

Loretta Ross is one of a number of women who built the reproductive justice movement. She was part of the 1994 meeting and went on to co- found the organization SisterSong, which defines ``reproductive justice'' as the human right to maintain personal bodily autonomy; to have children, not have children; and to parent the children we have in safe and sustainable communities.

A scholar who teaches both at Smith College and who has published extensively on reproductive justice, she recently testified at the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in this legislative session.

Dorothy Roberts is another pioneer of the reproductive justice movement. From Pennsylvania, she is also considered one of the leaders.

There have been many leaders in our government and in our communities who we celebrate tonight. We, in the Pro-Choice Caucus, have identified a few women who we want to highlight this evening.

I will start with some of the lawmakers and legislators who helped pave the way, including Shirley Chisholm, the first Black woman elected to Congress in 1968. She was also the first Black woman to run for President. Throughout her trailblazing career, she was a strong supporter of reproductive rights.

In 1969, she was named honorary president of the National Abortion Rights Action League, NARAL. In 1970, she supported legalized abortion in her home State of New York. In 1970, she described abortion as an issue of economic and racial justice.

Louise Slaughter, a longtime Member from New York and chairwoman of the Rules Committee, during her long tenure in Congress, served as a founder and co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus.

In addition to championing legislation to protect and expand access to abortion and contraception, Representative Slaughter condemned efforts to expand the so-called conscience protections at the expense of healthcare access and was an early leader on marriage equality.

First elected in 1972, Pat Schroeder was one of only 14 women in the House at the time of the January 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. When a male colleague asked her how she could be a mother of two small children and a Member of Congress at the same time, she famously replied: ``I have a brain and a uterus, and I use both.''

Other figures who are large in the women's reproductive rights movement, of course, must include Ellen Malcolm, who, in 1985, led a group of friends in creating an organization dedicated to electing pro- choice Democratic women, giving them the credibility and resources that they needed through her organization, EMILY's List.

We began this evening talking about Sarah Weddington, and there are many lawyers and judges who have been a part of this movement at some time in their careers, including, famously, of course, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Kathryn Kolbert, Priscilla Smith, and Linda Coffee.

Of course, we heard from several people tonight, several of our Members, about the work done in their local communities at Planned Parenthood health centers across the country. As we touch on some of these important women leaders in our community and our country, we certainly recognize the leadership that we have seen at Planned Parenthood health centers, including Faye Wattleton, who was the first Black woman to serve as the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, as well as the youngest; Cecile Richards, who was president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, and she is the daughter of the late Texas Governor, another champion for reproductive rights, women's rights, and women's equality, Ann Richards.

Alexis McGill Johnson, the current president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, is in charge of and oversees Planned Parenthood's vital health services to 2.4 million people each year through more than 600 health centers across the country. She is a champion for social and racial justice, a respected political and cultural organizer, and a tireless advocate for reproductive freedom.

The National Abortion Rights Action League, which I mentioned earlier, has always had an incredible role to play in the fight for reproductive rights. Its leaders--Karen Mulhauser, Nanette Falkenberg, Kate Michelman, Nancy Keenan, Ilyse Hogue, and, today, Mini Timmaraju-- have left an incredible mark.

The Guttmacher Institute and its current leadership under Dr. Herminia Palacio--the Guttmacher Institute's mission is to advance sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States and across the globe.

There are so many people, so many women, who have come together around these issues, who have come together to protect the health, the equality, the autonomy, and the dignity of women across this country. Whether named or not this evening on the floor, those are the people who we celebrate tonight.

Madam Speaker, we began this hour with a celebration of trailblazing, fearless women from my home State of Texas. I am so grateful to my colleagues from Texas who joined me this evening and to my colleagues from across the country who spoke out tonight.

Today in Texas, and across the country, reproductive rights are under attack. The passage of the draconian Senate Bill 8 in Texas, which Representative Stevens discussed, which Representative Veasey discussed, has created a healthcare crisis for women and healthcare providers across our State. Sadly, but not surprisingly, other States are quickly following suit.

As we have seen, and as we have heard from some of our colleagues this evening, it is not merely abortion. Advocates with cases pending before the

United States Supreme Court today, including Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, are arguing that the protections recognized in Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut, which gave married couples the right to use birth control, that those principles should be rejected.

This is alarming. This is terrifying. This is not what the majority of Americans want. It is not what people have fought so hard for so long to achieve.

That is why it is so important that this evening we remember and honor the work that people have done to ensure reproductive rights, reproductive health, and reproductive justice. It is also important that we recommit ourselves to continuing that work.

As my colleagues noted, in September, thanks to the leadership of Representative Judy Chu and the Pro-Choice Caucus, the House passed the Women's Health Protection Act to protect the right to access abortion care against restrictions and bans in every State in our Union.

Passing this legislation is a critical step toward creating a world where every person, whoever they are, wherever they live, whatever their circumstances, is free to make the best healthcare and personal decisions for themselves, their families, and their futures.

We must continue to defend and protect the fundamental rights essential to our autonomy, our dignity, and our equality that are represented in the case of Roe v. Wade and the Women's Health Protection Act.

In times like these, it is important to me to remember, and it is important for all of us to remember, that Texas gave us S.B. 8, but it also gave us Sarah Weddington, Loretta Ross, Cecile Richards, and so many other people who we talked about this evening and who we know have been champions for women's health, women's reproductive rights, and reproductive justice.

Like women across the country, from New Hampshire to North Carolina to Florida to Michigan to California, all of whom spoke this evening, Texas women have fought and will continue to fight for the right to safe, legal, accessible abortion care, to reproductive healthcare, and to reproductive justice. I am proud to be one of them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

White: 27 percent

African American: 27 percent

Hispanic: 39 percent

Other: 7 percent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I 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.