In Opposition to the Protect Life Act

Floor Speech

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to state my strident opposition to H.R. 358, proposed by our colleague, Representative Pitts, which we will be considering later on today.

H.R. 358 includes several truly unprecedented restrictions on abortion coverages--coverages which, by the way, our Supreme Court has determined are rights of women. And it would limit access to abortion services for all women, regardless of their health status, economic circumstances, age, or any other considerations.

This bill would also impose sweeping refusal provisions that not only undermine women's health care and women's rights, but actually endanger women's lives. It's not hyperbole to say that the provisions of the Pitts bill represent an extreme and callous attack on women's health.

First, H.R. 358 would effectively end abortion coverage for women in State insurance exchanges, both for those who receive subsidies to buy coverage and for those who use their own private money to buy coverage. This would mean that millions of women--contrary to what we have promised them through the Affordable Care Act, that they would be able to keep coverage they currently have--would actually lose the coverage that they currently have. The Pitts bill represents an unparalleled restriction on the use of private funds and an insurmountable impediment for women who simply want to be able to choose a health plan that will cover all of their potential health needs.

Second, H.R. 358 would codify and expand the vast refusal clause currently in law, the Weldon amendment, granting people with only a tangential connection to abortion services--such as receptionists who make appointments or claims adjustors at insurance companies--the right to refuse services to women who seek abortions. Not only that, but the Pitts bill would make it possible for States to pass a whole new slate of refusal laws that could allow insurers to opt out of covering not just abortion care, but birth control, screening, counseling for sexually transmitted diseases, mammograms, and much more.

But the most shocking expansion of our refusal laws is the provision in H.R. 358 that would exempt hospitals from treating or referring women, in case of emergency abortion care, even if women will die without it. Hospitals would no longer be forbidden from abandoning patients on the doorstep of emergency rooms and providing treatment to at least stabilize the medical condition of such patients. This provision heartlessly puts the preferences of hospitals above the lives of women.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 358 even establishes restrictions on people's ability to get information about their coverage options. The Pitts bill would prevent the Federal Government, States, or any other entity implementing the Affordable Care Act from requiring access to abortion services. This means, for example, that people may not get impartial or even accurate information from the patient navigators who are designated to help them choose coverage.

The advocates of Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin sent me a story that truly encapsulates the emotion, the real-life consequences of what we're talking about today. This is Judy's story, not a woman who wanted an abortion so that her bikini line would not be ruined, but a woman whose mother had died when she was 4 years old. She and her husband agonized about their decision, but her health was in jeopardy, and they knew that preserving her health and her life was the best choice for her family.

And she painfully, painfully, agonizingly decided to terminate her pregnancy to save her life and to preserve the quality of the life of the one child that she has so that she could rear him.

To protect the right to safe, legal abortion care takes a serious commitment to Wisconsin's health, and it takes courage, Mr. Speaker. Politicians who want to end private health insurance coverage of abortion have neither of these qualities.

Source