Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost), for whom I think this is his first speech on the floor.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing. Madam Speaker, if House Republicans were serious about condemning violence surrounding the debate on abortion, the resolution would be clear in condemning all acts of violence, lest we give tacit acquiescence to extremist anti-abortion violence and against abortion providers. This resolution does not do that at all. Undoubtedly, my Republican colleagues will attempt to portray any opposition to this partisan resolution as proof of Democrats' so-called extreme position on abortion, but the American public is not so easily fooled. They will recognize this resolution for what it is, a transparent political exercise intended to lay the groundwork for MAGA Republicans' plans for a total nationwide ban on abortion. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 26, the so-called Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Despite what its supporters would have us believe, this legislation would do nothing to enhance protections or the quality of healthcare if an infant is born after an attempted abortion. What it would do, however, is directly interfere with a doctor's medical judgment and dictate a medical standard of care that may not be appropriate in all circumstances, which could, in fact, put infants' lives at greater risk. Finally, by beginning this new Congress with a bill to restrict women's healthcare nationwide, House Republicans have made clear that they will not stop until they reach their ultimate goal, a nationwide ban on abortion. It has always been the law that healthcare providers cannot deliberately harm newborn infants and that they must exercise reasonable care in their treatment of such infants. The bill's implication that providers who perform abortions routinely act in a callous or a criminal manner that would result in an infant's death, or that a provider who performs an abortion somehow cannot be trusted to take adequate measures to save a living baby's life, is insulting and untrue. In opposing this bill, I do not oppose, in any way, proper medical treatment for newborn infants, whatever the circumstances of their birth, but determining the proper treatment is for medical professionals to decide, not politicians in Congress. When I supported the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002, my reasoning, and the reasoning of my pro-choice colleagues, was simple: Killing an infant who is born alive, either by an act of omission or commission, is infanticide. It was, is, and always should be against the law, and we saw no harm in reaffirming that fact. That law passed Congress with bipartisan support precisely because it was harmless, even if it was also useless since it did not change the preexisting law in any way because, after all, murder is murder in every State. The bill specifically just reiterated existing law in florid language and did nothing to interfere with doctors' medical judgment or to cause needless harm. Unfortunately, the bill before us today puts children's lives and health at risk. It requires doctors to immediately ensure transportation and admission of the infant to a hospital in all cases, with no regard as to whether doing so is actually in the best interest of the child's health and well-being. This mandate effectively overrides the careful case-by-case exercise of professional medical judgment by healthcare providers and replaces it with a blanket rule enforceable with criminal penalties. It may be, after all, in a given case, that it is more beneficial to the infant's health to be treated on the spot and not rushed to a hospital immediately. Such a ham-fisted approach fails to consider the fact that, in many cases, it may be safer and more conducive to the infant's health to care for the infant where it was born rather than transporting it many miles away to a hospital. This bill assumes that Congress knows better, and it imposes a new obligation on providers that, rather than saving lives, puts infants at risk. Perhaps, if this bill had gone through regular order, we could have avoided this unfortunate situation. There has never been a committee markup or a hearing on this bill, not in this Congress or in any previous Congress. I would have welcomed the opportunity to hear from expert witnesses on best practices and standards of care for infants. Members could have offered amendments and perfected the bill to ensure that it achieves our common goal of providing the best, most medically appropriate care to infants and their mothers. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that my colleagues rushed this bill to the floor when there is no evidence at all that doctors currently are failing to provide an appropriate level of care and when a chorus of provider groups oppose this bill. Sadly, rather than protecting infants, my Republican colleagues are putting them at greater risk in the service of politics. Indeed, by bringing this bill straight to the floor as one of the first measures to be considered by the 118th Congress, Republicans and the most extreme elements of the anti-abortion movement have signaled their determination to enact a nationwide ban on abortion. I cannot support H.R. 26 because it mandates a particular course of treatment, the immediate transport to a hospital, which may not be appropriate and may be medically dangerous in certain cases. In doing so, it abandons the practice of considering the best medical interest of infants and their mothers. Republicans have made clear where they stand about a woman's right to control her body. Make no mistake: This bill is another step in their plan to criminalize abortion nationwide. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-conceived legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the distinguished minority leader of the House.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, Mr. Scalise and every other Republican who has spoken on this bill is simply wrong on the facts. It is illegal and always has been illegal in every State and then Federal law to kill an infant born alive. It is illegal and always has been illegal not to provide that infant with appropriate medical care. Just to make sure that no one had any doubts of that, we passed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act with bipartisan support in 2002. The problem with this bill is not that it provides any new protections for infants. The problem with this bill is that it endangers some infants by stating that that infant must immediately be brought to the hospital where, depending on the circumstances, that may be the right thing to do for the health and survival of that infant or it may not. That is the problem with this bill. It directs and mandates a certain medical care which may not be appropriate, and which may even endanger the life of an infant in certain circumstances. That is why we oppose this bill. It is not because we don't think that babies born alive must be saved, but because we do think that babies born alive must be saved. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu.)

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Scholten).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).