Providing for Consideration of H.R. Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. American Dream and Promise Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. Farm Workforce Modernization Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. Preventing Paygo Sequestration; Providing for Consideration of H.J. Res. Removing the Deadline for the Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment; and for Other Purposes

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, the most recent Marist poll found that 7 in 10 Americans, including nearly half who identify as pro-choice, want significant restrictions on abortion. Yet, the ERA as written will be used in an aggressive litigation strategy to nullify those restrictions, including the Hyde amendment, waiting periods, parental involvement, women's right-to-know laws, conscience rights, and the late-term abortion bans like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

NARAL Pro-Choice America has said: ``The ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion'' and ``require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws.''

The National Organization for Women said: ``An ERA--properly interpreted--could negate the hundreds of laws that have passed restricting access to abortion.''

Abortion activists, Madam Speaker, successfully litigated using State ERAs in both New Mexico and Connecticut to compel taxpayers to pay for abortion on demand.

Last year, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke on the legal impermissibility of extending the deadline for ratification and said she ``would like it to start over.'' I couldn't agree more.

Madam Speaker, two leaders of the National Organization for Women (NOW) wrote: ``During the 1972 ERA ratification campaign, several prominent women's leaders denied that an ERA would apply to abortion . . .''.

Ever since, pro-abortion leaders have largely ignored, trivialized, or denied the fact that activists plan to aggressively use the federal ERA as currently written in a litigation strategy to overturn all pro-life laws and policies including restrictions supported by huge majorities of Americans. According to the most recent Marist poll (January 2021):

7 in 10 Americans including nearly half who identify as pro-choice want significant restrictions on abortion,

58 percent of all Americans oppose using tax dollars for abortion,

55 percent want to ban abortion after 20 weeks,

70 percent of Americans oppose abortion if the child will be born with Down Syndrome,

80 percent of Americans believe that laws can protect both a pregnant woman and the life of her unborn child.

While I fundamentally disagree with abortion activists who refuse to recognize an unborn child's inherent dignity, worth, and value, at least both sides now agree that the ERA as written will be used in court to promote abortion.

NARAL--Pro-Choice America said: ``The ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion . . . (and) require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws . . .''.

The National Right to Life Committee states that ``the proposed federal ERA would invalidate the federal Hyde Amendment and a state restrictions on tax-funded abortions.''

As director of reproductive-justice initiatives and National Women's Law Center senior counsel Kelli Garcia said, the ERA would help create a basis to challenge abortion restrictions.''

And NOW said: ``An ERA--properly interpreted--could negate the hundreds of laws that have passed restricting access to abortion . . .''.

Those laws restricting abortion include the Hyde Amendment, waiting periods, parental involvement, women's right to know laws, conscience rights including the Weldon Amendment and any late term abortion ban like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

Should the ERA be ratified without clarifying abortion-neutral language--to wit: ``Nothing in this Article shall be construed to grant or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof''--it is absolutely clear that abortion activists will use the ERA as they have successfully used state ERAs in both New Mexico and Connecticut-- to force taxpayers to pay for abortion on demand.

By now, my colleagues know that:

The Supreme Court of New Mexico ruled in 1998 that the state was required to fund abortion based solely on the state ERA and said the law ``undoubtedly singles out . . . a gender-linked condition that is unique to women'' and, therefore, ``violates the Equal Rights Amendment.''

In like manner, the Supreme Court of Connecticut invalidated its state ban on abortion funding and wrote in 1986: ``it is therefore clear, under the Connecticut ERA, that the regulation excepting . . . abortions from the Medicaid program discriminates against women.''

Today in Pennsylvania, activists are suing to eviscerate the abortion funding restriction in that state claiming that the Hyde-type restriction violates the Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment.

I believe that all human beings--especially the weakest and most vulnerable including unborn baby girls and boys--deserve respect, empathy, compassion, and protection from violence.

Madam Speaker, last year, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke on the legal impermissibility of extending the deadline for ratification and that she ``would like it to start over''.

According to Vox, Justice Ginsburg said, There's too much controversy about latecomers, plus, a number of states have withdrawn their ratification. So, if you count a latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard states that said 'we've changed our minds?' ''

Five states--Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, and South Dakota-- voted to ratify the ERA but later rescinded that ratification.

I strongly believe in equal rights for women. I've introduced the ERA with the abortion-neutral language I mentioned a moment ago.

Over the course of many years, I have consistently sponsored and promoted women's rights legislation to ensure equal pay for equal work including most recently, the Paycheck Fairness Act.

In the struggle against wage discrimination, I voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

To help ensure that women are not disadvantaged in their careers because of time taken to attend to their families, I was an early and strong advocate of multiple legislative initiatives to provide family medical leave--including the groundbreaking bill that became law, the Family and Medical Leave Act.

I voted to ensure that women's rights are protected in higher education by strongly supporting Title IX.

I have supported legislation to amend pension and tax policies that negatively impact women, and I supported numerous bills to establish certain rights for sexual assault survivors including the Survivors' Bill of Rights which is now law.

Since the mid-1990s, I have led the effort to end the barbaric practice of human trafficking, a human rights abuse that is an unimaginable exploitation of women and girls that thrives on greed, disrespect, and secrecy.

Twenty years ago, the U.S. Congress approved and the President signed legislation that I authored--the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000--a comprehensive whole-of-government initiative to combat sex and labor trafficking in the United States and around the world.

The Violence Against Women Act (See Division B) was reauthorized and significantly expanded by my law. Last Congress, I cosponsored the Violence Against Women Extension Act of 2019.

In 2019, I authored another bill that was signed into law-my fifth major law on human trafficking--The Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Act.

After a young college student from my district, Samantha Josephson, was brutally murdered by the driver of what she thought was her Uber ride, I introduced Sami's Law which passed the House--but never got a vote in the Senate--to make the ride share industry safer for all. In recent months, it has been shocking to learn that thousands of women who use Lyft or Uber have been sexually assaulted and some have been murdered. I reintroduced Sami's Law in February.

Yesterday, it was reported that another woman was sexually assaulted in Ft. Lauderdale by an ``off-duty'' Uber driver.

Ensuring equal rights for women and serious protections against violence requires laws, policies, and spending priorities to achieve those noble and necessary goals--without putting unborn baby girls and boys at risk of death.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source