Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and 60 other civil rights organizations in support of the Women's Health Protection Act. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Washington, DC, September 23, 2021. Support the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 Dear Representative: The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the 60 undersigned organizations dedicated to protecting and advancing the civil rights, health, and economic security of all persons in the United States write in support of the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 (H.R. 3755). We urge all members to vote yes on the bill when it reaches the floor. By protecting abortion access from medically unnecessary restrictions that obstruct the right of all persons to obtain safe, legal abortion services, the Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA) seeks to remedy and prevent the onslaught of state-level abortion bans and restrictions that cause significant and sometimes insurmountable challenges to receiving abortion care. These challenges disproportionately impact the ability of low-income women and women of color to access health care, robs individuals of bodily autonomy, and threatens the economic security of families and individuals, many of whom are already struggling to get by. This issue is one of grave urgency. Just this month, five Supreme Court justices denied an emergency request to block Texas S.B. 8, a radical six-week abortion ban. Immediate Congressional action is imperative for the future of abortion rights in the United States. We are deeply concerned about the threat of copycat bills appearing in states across the country. Indeed, abortion rights and access have been steadily under attack. Despite large public support for access to abortion, state lawmakers enacted more than 90 restrictions on abortion this year, including 11 bans--two of which are near-total abortion bans. States have also continued to enact or introduce legislation that restricts access to medication abortion, imposes medically unnecessary restrictions on abortion clinics, or singles out abortion providers for burdensome restrictions not applied to other healthcare providers. Today, nearly 90 percent of American counties have no abortion provider, forcing people to incur onerous costs to travel long distances for care, or pushing care entirely out of reach. These laws are not only a threat to the constitutional right to abortion recognized in Roe v. Wade, but they are a threat to the economic security, health, and dignity of low- income people, women of color, immigrants, LGBTQ people, and others who--because of a history of structural inequality and discrimination--already have difficulty accessing reproductive healthcare services. Restrictions that force patients to undergo unnecessary tests or procedures, force providers to communicate confusing and medically inaccurate information, or force individuals to make multiple clinic visits drive up individual costs, which can delay abortion access and aggravate economic and health disparities felt by women of color, low-income people, immigrants, LGBTQ people, and other marginalized or multi-marginalized groups. Restrictive abortion laws that contribute to clinic closures and abortion deserts also increase the cost of obtaining abortion, and Black women are impacted by clinic closures to a greater degree than other groups. Systemic inequality brought on by past and present policies that target and oppress Black people--including the legacy of slavery, mass incarceration, segregation, voter suppression, and exploitative financial practices, such as redlining--have led to concentrated and intergenerational poverty within the Black community. As a result, Black women have diminished access to networks and resources to overcome financial obstacles to accessing care. In the context of clinic closures or abortion deserts, this can mean a de facto ban on abortion. Black women are half as likely to be able to travel 25 to 50 miles for abortion care than White women, who tend to have more financial resources, information, and social networks that allow them to travel. Restricting access to abortion also threatens to undermine the ability of poorer people and people of color to achieve economic security. People of color and women are disproportionately represented in low-wage jobs, and women of color continue to endure discriminatory wage gaps. Black women, for example, are typically paid just 63 cents for every dollar paid to a White man. American Indian and Native Alaskan women are paid only 60 cents, Latina women are paid only 55 cents, and some Asian American and Pacific Islander women are paid as low as 50 cents for every dollar paid to a White man. Restrictions on accessing abortion, in addition to public funding bans, mean that low-income people and many women of color have to choose between paying their rent, purchasing food, or paying for other basic necessities, and receiving abortion care. Studies also show that women who are denied abortion care face more economic hardship and risks to their health and safety than women who sought and received abortions. Women denied abortion care are more likely to experience poor health outcomes, including maternal death, as compared to women who received abortions, a trend that is particularly concerning for Black women who are up to four times more likely to experience pregnancy-related death than White women. Women who are denied an abortion and forced to bear a child are also four times more likely to fall into poverty. Conversely, abortion access has been shown to increase women's participation in the workforce, particularly for Black women, and has led to gains in educational attainment. Every person deserves to have the ability to make the healthcare decisions that are right for them, and every person must be able to make their own decisions about having children, free from government interference and discrimination. Laws that restrict access to abortion cause the most harm to those who, because of structural racism and existing inequities, already have limited access to resources, are already struggling to achieve economic security, and who already face sometimes life-threatening health disparities. At the most basic level, restrictive abortion laws are aimed at controlling who can exercise their constitutional rights and who can claim agency over their bodies. As such, these laws are an affront to human dignity that perpetuate systems of oppression that prevent the full enjoyment of civil and human rights. The Women's Health Protection Act is an important step in ending these harmful laws and promoting the health, economic security, and well- being of those whom we have forced through law and policy to live at the margins. Thank you for your consideration of our views. Sincerely, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; ADL (Anti-Defamation League); American Association of University Women (AAUW); American Atheists; American Federation of Teachers; American Humanist Association; Americans for Democratic Action (ADA); Americans United for Separation of Church and State; Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF); Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Black Women's Health Imperative; Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP); Christian Methodist Episcopal Church; Clearinghouse on Women's Issues; Demand Justice; Equal Rights Advocates; Equality California; Feminist Majority Foundation; Fix Our Senate; Freedom From Religion Foundation. Girls Inc.; Global Project Against Hate and Extremism; Hispanic Federation; Human Rights Campaign; Impact Fund; Indivisible; Jacobs Institute of Women's Health; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Justice for Migrant Women; Lake Research Partners; Lambda Legal; LatinoJustice PRLDEF; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Matthew Shepard Foundation; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF); NARAL Pro-Choice America; National Action Network; National Association of Social Workers; NASW Virginia/Metro DC Chapters; National Center for Transgender Equality. National Council of Jewish Women; National Health Law Program; National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund; National Organization for Women; National Partnership for Women & Families; National Urban League; National Women's Law Center; People For the American Way; Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Population Connection Action Fund; Public Citizen; Restaurant Opportunities Centers United; Rise Up America; SEIU; The Workers Circle; Union for Reform Judaism; Voices for Progress; Voto Latino; Women Lawyers On Guard Action Network, Inc., YWCA Berkeley/Oakland; YWCA USA.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, in 1970 I watched the New York State Assembly pass one of the first State laws legalizing abortion. If you had told me then that 51 years later, I would be standing on the House floor still fighting for women to have the right to make their own decisions about their own lives, their own health, and their own families, I would have called you crazy. We must pass this bill today to end this decades-long war on abortion and women's underlying freedom to control their own lives. I urge all my colleagues to stand up for freedom, stand up for abortion, stand up for bodily integrity and vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 601, I call up the bill (H.R. 4) to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to revise the criteria for determining which States and political subdivisions are subject to section 4 of the Act, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 4.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Speaker, H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021, would revitalize and strengthen the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to confront the onslaught of discriminatory voting laws and practices that have emerged in recent years across the country. In 2013, the Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder, gutted the Voting Rights Act's most important enforcement mechanism, the Section 5 preclearance regime, which required jurisdictions with a history of discrimination against racial and ethnic minority voters to seek approval of any changes to their voting laws before they could go into effect. Almost immediately after the decision, many of these jurisdictions unleashed a raft of voter suppression measures, knowing that these laws now could only be challenged after the fact and only through a costly and time-consuming process that made such challenges unlikely and when people's votes had already been improperly invalidated. When the Court struck down the coverage formula that determined which jurisdictions were subject to preclearance, it explicitly invited Congress to devise a new formula to meet the current need to remedy voting discrimination. H.R. 4 answers that call. This legislation would create a new geographic coverage formula that is fine-tuned to capture only those places with longstanding and persistent discrimination. At the same time, it targets only recent discrimination and does not leave jurisdictions frozen in time. The bill also requires preclearance of certain practices that are historically associated with voting discrimination; it responds to the recent Supreme Court decision in Brnovich v. DNC, which severely limited enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; and it provides other important tools to strengthen enforcement of the VRA. H.R. 4 rests on a substantial record that documents the myriad ways that the right to vote, the most fundamental right in a democracy, remains under threat for too many Americans. I want to thank Terri Sewell for introducing this bill, Steve Cohen for the 13 hearings he held on voting rights in the Constitution Subcommittee, as well as our colleagues on the Subcommittee on Elections and the Committee on House Administration for their work. I urge all Members to join me in honoring the legacy of our beloved colleague, the late John Lewis, who shed his blood to secure passage of the Voting Rights Act, by supporting this vital legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

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

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader of the House.

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Bourdeaux).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).