Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. for Hearing on “The Ultimate Civil Right: Examining the Hyde Amendment and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act” Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court recognized a woman’s constitutional right to make what is perhaps the most profoundly personal of healthcare decisions –when to start a family – free from undue government interference.

Unfortunately, since 1976, Congress has sought to undermine this important constitutional right by attaching the so-called “Hyde Amendment” to annual appropriations measures funding the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Hyde Amendment – named for its original sponsor, former Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde – prohibits the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for an abortion except to protect the mother’s life or in cases of rape or incest.

There are many reasons why this restriction should be rescinded. 

To begin with, the Hyde Amendment is a blatant example of politicians inappropriately interfering in women’s health care decisions.

For more than 40 years, Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land.  Yet, it is clear that the Hyde Amendment’s purpose is to undermine the Roe’s constitutional guarantee of a right to choose to terminate a pregnancy by limiting low-income women’s access to safe, legal medical care.  

           

Politicians, most of whom are not doctors, have no business interfering in a woman’s constitutionally protected private healthcare decisions in order to impose their own moral views about women’s rights and healthcare. 

In addition, the Hyde Amendment has a disproportionately detrimental impact on the health of low-income women and the wellbeing of their families.

According to research by the Guttmacher Institute, many low-income women lacking medical coverage are forced to delay paying utility bills, rent, or grocery bills for themselves or their children; to seek out financial assistance from relatives or friends; or to sell personal belongings in order to pay for an abortion.

  

Moreover, women who cannot afford an abortion procedure may, in desperation, resort to self-inducing an abortion or turn to unsafe, untrained, or unlicensed practitioners – heightening the risk of injury or death from what is supposed to be a safe, legal medical procedure. 

           

Finally, the Hyde Amendment disproportionately affects women of color

Medicaid provides medical coverage to 20% of women of reproductive age. 

But, as a result of social and economic inequality tied to the persistence of racism in our society, 30% of African American women and 24% of Hispanic women of reproductive age are enrolled in Medicaid, compared to just 14% of white women of reproductive age.

           

Clearly, the consequences of the Hyde Amendment disproportionately fall on women of color.

While 15 states permit the use of their own funds to provide abortion coverage for Medicaid enrollees, 60% of women of reproductive age enrolled in Medicare live in states that only cover abortion in limited circumstances.

Rather than undermine the constitutional rights of low-income women and women of color, Congress should look to these states as an example and act to ensure that women -- regardless of their financial situation -- have access to quality, comprehensive reproductive health services.    

I thank the witnesses for participating in this hearing and I look forward to hearing their testimony. 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS & COHEN Laud Supreme Court Pro-Choice Decision

Washington, D.C. - House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice Ranking Member Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) today released the following joint statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt decision, which ruled that Texas’ abortion law was unconstitutional: 

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“We are deeply heartened that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the fundamental constitutional right of women to make their own decisions about their health, their bodies, their families, and their lives. This right, a pillar of women’s equality and a key to ensuring women’s health, has been well-established since 1973 when the Court held in Roe v. Wade that a woman had a constitutional right to choose whether to have a pre-viability abortion. 

“The Court correctly saw the Texas law for what it was, which was an attempt to severely restrict abortion rights and not one to protect women’s health.  The Texas law required abortion providers at clinics to obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital without also requiring the hospitals to grant or even consider granting such privilege, and would have required abortion clinics to comply with completely unnecessary and cost-prohibitive requirements applicable to ambulatory surgical centers.  The Court rightly held that these requirements placed such substantial obstacles to a woman’s choice to have an abortion that its provisions were an “undue burden” on women’s constitutional right to choose. 

“While today’s decision was a victory for all Americans who care about the Constitution’s guarantees of freedom and equality, we must remain vigilant against continuing attempts by states and anti-choice politicians to block women’s access to safe and legal abortions that threaten to undermine women’s health and their constitutional rights.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers & Cohen: Planned Parenthood Allegations Are Unsubstantiated by Deceptive Video

Washington, D.C. – Today, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) released the following joint statement in response to the decision to open an investigation into allegations that Planned Parenthood altered procedures to “sell” fetal tissues for profit:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“House Leadership is using a sensationalist and heavily-edited video as an opportunity to attack one of the nation’s leading providers of high-quality health care for women.  Chairman Goodlatte’s suggestion of wrongdoing is wholly unsubstantiated by the video in question.

“The video does not demonstrate that Planned Parenthood is ‘selling’ fetal tissue.  In fact, many portions of the full video—edited out of the nine-minute version that House Republicans have circulated—directly contradict the allegation that Planned Parenthood has violated federal law.

“In the coming days, it is our hope that Chairman Goodlatte will reconsider his position, and that the House Judiciary Committee will turn to more pressing and substantive issues.”

Background

The nine-minute video at the center of these allegations has been significantly edited to deceive audiences.

§  The unedited version of the video is nearly three hours long, and contains several sections that directly contradict the allegations against Planned Parenthood.  For example, the Planned Parenthood official in the video says that “[n]obody should be ‘selling’ tissue.  That’s just not the goal here.”

§  The full video captures a discussion about reimbursing affiliates for “shipping” and other overhead costs associated with the lawful tissue donation process.  The edited video splices out eight minutes of this conversation in an attempt to imply that Planned Parenthood is violating federal law.

§  The unedited transcript shows the Planned Parenthood official referring repeatedly to “tissue donation,” not sale, during the conversation.  Those references are edited out of the nine-minute video.

The video contains no evidence to support allegations of illegal activity at Planned Parenthood.

§  The nine-minute video and accompanying press release claim that Planned Parenthood is in violation of federal law that prohibits the sale fetal tissue (42 U.S.C. § 289g-2).  Neither the edited video nor the unedited footage contain evidence to substantiate that claim.

§  The New York Times reports that the central allegation against Planned Parenthood is contradicted by the full, video. 

§  The Washington Post writes that the full video actually “provides reassuring evidence of how Planned Parenthood affiliates operate.”  The Planned Parenthood official in the video explains how consent for donations is obtained only after a woman has made the decision to have an abortion, how many women are motivated to donate tissue because of the good that can come from medical research, and how there is no difference in treatment between women who choose to donate tissue and those who do not.           

Planned Parenthood remains one of the nation’s leading providers of quality, affordable health care.

§  In the United States, 2.7 million men and women visit Planned Parenthood affiliates for health care services and information every year.

§  Nearly 80 percent of Planned Parenthood clients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy.  The organization provides nearly 400,000 Pap tests and 500,000 breast exams each year.  Only three percent of the health services provided by Planned Parenthood are related to abortion.

§  Planned Parenthood is the only source of family planning for many of the women it serves.

§  One in five women in the United States has visited a Planned Parenthood health center at least once in her life.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

FLOOR STATEMENT: HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER JOHN CONYERS, JR. URGES NO VOTE ON H.R. 36, the PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT

 WASHINGTON – Today, during debate on the House Floor of H.R. 36, the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act,” House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. urged his colleagues to vote in opposition to the measure.  Rep. Conyers delivered the following remarks, as prepared for delivery:

“Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a dangerous and far reaching attack on a woman's constitutional right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy - a right that the Supreme Court guaranteed 42 years ago in Roe v. Wade.

“One of the most significant problems with this legislation is that it fails to include any exception for a woman’s health.  Many serious health conditions materialize or worsen late in pregnancy, including damage to the heart and kidneys, hypertension, and even some forms of hormone-induced cancer.

“Yet, by failing to include a health exception, H.R. 36 would force a woman to wait until her condition was nearly terminal before she could obtain an abortion to address her health condition. 

“In addition, H.R. 36 is unconstitutional based on longstanding Supreme Court precedent.  Roe v. Wade's basic holding is that a woman has a constitutional right to have an abortion prior to the fetus's viability.  Viability is generally considered to be around 24 weeks from fertilization.  By banning pre-viability abortions, H.R. 36 is a direct challenge to Roe. 

“In addition, Roe made clear that any regulation of abortion - even after viability - must not pose a substantial risk to the woman’s health.  But as I have already noted H.R. 36 lacks any exception to protect a pregnant woman's health.

“It is therefore not surprising that the nation's leading civil rights organizations, medical professionals, and women’s groups oppose this bill.  In addition, 15 religious organizations noted in a letter to Members opposing nearly identical legislation last Congress that, ‘the decision to end a pregnancy is best left to a woman in consultation with her family, her doctor, and her faith.’

“Finally, I want to be clear that contrary to assertions made by the bill’s proponents, this legislation still contains a woefully inadequate exception for victims of rape.  The so-called rape exception is still based on a complete lack of understanding of the very real challenges rape survivors face and why a rape may go unreported. 

“It is also grounded in the distrust of women - assuming that women cannot be trusted to tell the truth or to make the best medical decisions for themselves and their families.

“For adult rape survivors, the bill no longer requires that the rape be reported to law enforcement.  However, a woman must still obtain counseling 48 hours prior to the abortion and the fact that she has obtained counseling for a rape must be certified and documented in her medical file. 

“And, this counseling cannot be obtained in the same facility where the abortion is provided.

“For minor victims of rape or incest, an exception from the bill’s onerous and unconstitutional restrictions only applies if the rape has been reported to law enforcement or ‘a government agency legally authorized to act on reports of child abuse.’

“So rape is not rape unless the minor has reported it - even if that means putting her own safety at risk.

“For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous legislation and I reserve the balance of my time.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: IT IS TIME TO STOP ATTACKING WOMEN’S ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE AND START GOVERNING

WASHINGTON – Today, during debate on the House Floor of H.R. 7, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) urged his colleagues to vote against the unnecessary legislation.  Rep. Conyers delivered the following remarks, as prepared for delivery:

“Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7, the so-called “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.” 

“Today, on the 42^nd Anniversary of Roe v Wade, the majority is launching yet another attack on women's health and constitutionally-protected right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term. 

“Most importantly, this bill will make it virtually impossible for a woman to obtain abortion services even when paid for with purely private, non-Federal funds.

“It accomplishes this end by denying tax credits to income-eligible women and small business employers who choose insurance coverage that includes abortion.

“Through its novel tax penalty provisions, H.R. 7 departs radically from existing law, taking away women’s existing health care and placing their health and lives at risk.

“Despite the claims of its sponsors, H.R. 7 does not codify current law and it is notabout the regulation of federal funds.

           

“There is no federal abortion due to the Hyde Amendment, and the Affordable Care Act maintains that policy and law. 

“For more than 30 years, Congress has prohibited federal funding of abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, through provisions in like the Hyde Amendment in annual appropriations bills.

“Nothing in the Affordable Care Act changes this.

“So what is H.R. 7 really about?  Plain and simple, it is an assault on women’s health and freedom.

“Members should understand that a vote for H.R. 7 is not a vote to codify existing law.  It is, instead, a vote to attack women’s health and freedom.  

“H.R. 7 also eradicates the authority of the District of Columbia to make decisions about how appropriated funds are used for the health care of the District’s citizens.

           

“If H.R. 7 should become law, the District’s discretion to make the funding decisions that best serve the needs of its residents will be permanently restricted.

“H.R. 7's permanent restriction on the District’s use of its own local funds should be rejected.  Women and families who live in the District should not be subject to additional harm simply because of where they live.

“The Administration ‘strongly oppose[d]’ a nearly identical bill last Congress, saying the legislation ‘would intrude on women’s reproductive freedom and access to health care; increase the financial burden on many Americans; unnecessarily restrict the private insurance choices that consumers have today; and restrict the District of Columbia’s use of local funds, which undermines home rule.’

“The fact that this bill has been brought to the Floor at the last minute and that Members are foreclosed from offering any amendments today is yet further proof that this legislation is simply intended to be yet another polemic attack on the Constitution’s protections for certain members of

our society, an attack against our deliberative legislative process, and an attack against the citizens of the District of Columbia. 

“Accordingly, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this egregious bill and I reserve the balance of my time.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers & Cohen: “Supreme Court Ruling an Affront to Reproductive Rights, While Opening Door to Employer Discrimination”

(WASHINGTON) – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, ruling that closely-held for-profit companies with religious objections can opt out of providing contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act. After the ruling, Ranking Members John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) and Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice Ranking Member Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) delivered the following statement:

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.): “Today, the Supreme Court delivered yet another blow to women’s reproductive rights, based on the extraordinary conclusion that corporations – as opposed to their individual owners – have their own right to the free exercise of religion. Already, millions of women in America are benefiting from the protections found in the Affordable Care Act, including access to contraceptives. The ruling today could undermine this essential coverage for many women under the guise of ‘religious liberty.’ Alarmingly, the ruling also opens the door to the unnerving possibility that corporations could claim exemptions to various health and safety protections based on their asserted religious beliefs. Regrettably, the Supreme Court’s ruling today allows for bosses to wade into – and potentially discriminate against – the personal healthcare choices of their employees; healthcare decisions must continue to remain between an individual and their doctor.”

Representative Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.): “I am disappointed in today’s Supreme Court ruling that puts women’s reproductive care in a class of its own and strips it as an element of comprehensive healthcare. This ruling means that the Affordable Care Act’s benefit of contraceptive care is no longer guaranteed for the millions of American women who are employed by private businesses helmed by anyone who may object to providing basic, preventive care to its female employees. I am disappointed in this wrong-minded ruling and will continue to work to see that women have access to the care they deserve as prescribed by the Affordable Care Act.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers Assails Republicans’ Fixation on Rolling Back Women’s Rights

(WASHINGTON) – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives debated H.R. 7, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” on the House Floor. Consideration of this bill by the full House of Representatives comes just weeks following a U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on the legislation, and an expedited Full Committee Markup. As debate was underway on the legislation, Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) delivered the following statement:

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr

“The debate today on the House Floor is the latest attack in the Majority’s ongoing campaign to chip away at a woman’s constitutionally protected right to choose. As millions of Americans struggle to find gainful employment, it is a travesty that Congress is again wasting time on a divisive ideological debate instead of working to create jobs and improve the economy,” said Conyers.

“This shameful distraction from the work that the American people elected us to do is only made worse by the fact that the ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act’ is based on a falsehood: there is no federal funding of abortion, due to the Hyde amendment disallowing it. In reality, this legislation places undue restrictions on how women with private health insurance policies can spend their own private money. My conservative colleagues pay a lot of lip-service to limiting the government’s role in American’s affairs, yet I can think of few actions more intrusive than limiting a woman’s access to healthcare options and private insurance.

“Thus far in 2014, the House Judiciary Committee has devoted our first legislative hearing and Markup to turning back the clock on women’s rights, and now one of the first major bills on the House Floor is nothing more than an ideological charade. Meanwhile, bipartisan areas of concern – ranging from immigration to surveillance reform – have languished. Rather than continue to dwell on bitter partisan issues, let us return our attention to the people’s business.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers & Nadler Mark 41st Anniversary of Roe v. Wade with Call to Embolden Women’s Rights

(DETROIT) – On this date 41 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, affirming the constitutional right of women to make their own health care choices. In marking this historic anniversary, U.S. House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) issued the following statement:

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.): “Forty one years ago today, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionally protected right of all women to make their own health care decisions. Yet, as we commemorate this historic anniversary, we are reminded of the uphill battle that remains for women’s equality and reproductive rights. In just the first few weeks of 2014, Republicans are already planning a vote on legislation that would turn back the clock on women’s health. Rather than focusing our energy on undoing four decades of progress, I hope my colleagues can recognize the deeply personal nature of private healthcare choices and move past a divisive issue that the Supreme Court settled long ago.”

Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.): “In 1973, the Supreme Court issued one of the most important decisions of the 20th century – Roe v. Wade. Despite that landmark ruling, the right of a woman to make health care decisions about her body remains under relentless attack. Anti-choice legislators in Washington, DC and in state capitals throughout America continue their assault on a woman's right to choose by writing absurd anti-women laws and ultimately seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade altogether. I remain committed to fighting against these measures and to protecting the rights of women to make their own health care decisions.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers Commends Judiciary Congresswomen for Denouncing Republican Attacks on Women’s Health

(WASHINGTON) – Today, all of the Democratic women on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee – including Representatives Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) and Karen Bass (D-Calif.) – sent a letter to Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) urging him to shift his focus away from denying women their constitutionally guaranteed right to make their own healthcare decisions, and towards critical Committee issues. This letter comes following the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice’s hearing last Thursday on H.R. 7, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” and a day before a full Judiciary Committee Markup of the same legislation. After the letter was transmitted, Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) issued the following statement:

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

“I commend my colleagues for standing up to the Majority’s relentless attack on women. I stand shoulder to shoulder with my female colleagues on the Judiciary Committee in calling for this Congress to begin addressing the challenges facing women and families, rather than pushing a divisive political agenda. The Majority’s focus on undermining women’s constitutional rights has come at the expense of attending to pressing Judiciary Committee issues including: comprehensive immigration reform and a legislative review of our dragnet surveillance programs, amongst other bipartisan concerns. There is no need to squander 2014 on partisan sniping; going forward I urge Chairman Goodlatte to refocus our work towards advancing women’s healthcare not undermining it.”

No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act Letter to Chair Goodlatte from Judiciary Committee Congresswomen

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers Announces $272k in Cancer Detection and Treatment Research Grants for Wayne State

(WASHINGTON) – Today, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) awarded Wayne State University two exploratory/developmental grants totaling more than $272,000 for cancer detection and diagnosis research, as well as cancer treatment research. This funding was awarded through the National Cancer Institute, an organization within the National Institute of Health under HHS. One grant award of $123,976 went towards a Guiding Ca2+ Channel-Based Cancer Treatment Using Mn2+-Enhanced MRI. A second grant award of $148,770 went towards a Differential Network Interrogations of Epithelial to Mesenchymal Transition Program. Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) issued this statement following the announcement:

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

“I am happy to announce that the National Cancer Institute has awarded Wayne State University two grants, worth more than $272,000, to research and combat cancer,” said Conyers.

“In particular, these two grants will go towards funding a Guiding Ca2+ Channel-Based Cancer Treatment Using Mn2+- Enhanced MRI, as well as a Differential Network Interrogations of Epithelial to Mesenchymal Transition Program. Both of these programs will facilitate the groundbreaking cancer research that Wayne State University is conducting.

“As the budgetary sequester begins to take effect this month, grant funding for programs like this serve as a reminder of what is at stake if such steep cuts to vital discretionary programs are allowed to continue.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

House to Vote on Bill Penalizing Abortion Based on Sex of Child

House to Vote on Bill Penalizing Abortion Based on Sex of Child The House will vote this week on legislation imposing criminal penalties on anyone performing an abortion based on the sex of the child, but the measure runs the risk of failing on the floor because of how the GOP is calling it up. Republican leaders have scheduled a vote on H.R. 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), under a suspension of House rules, which will require a two-thirds majority vote for passage. Suspension votes are usually reserved for non-controversial bills, but Republican leaders have occasionally used the process for bills that Democrats oppose, and the PRENDA bill appears to be one of those. Democratic opposition to the bill began with its original name, the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Non-discrimination Act. Democrats argued in February that while the bill was named after these civil rights heroes, it has nothing to do with protecting civil rights. "It is offensive that the sponsors of this bill would invoke the names of two of our nation's historic civil rights pioneers," House Judiciary Committee ranking member John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) said. The original name reflected that the bill also sought to ban abortions based on the race of the child, but took out that language in committee. Republicans agreed to strike that language in the Judiciary committee, and also changed the name of the bill.  Still, the bill was voted out of committee with only Republican support. That partisan vote, and Democrats' ongoing opposition to the bill, could make it difficult for the bill to be approved by a two-thirds vote on the floor. Roughly 50 Democrats would need to join Republicans to pass the bill under suspension of the rules. Democrats point out that the suspension vote violates the Republicans' own rules, which say they will not schedule bills for consideration under a suspension of the rules if they are opposed by more than one-third of committee members. The Judiciary Committee approved the bill 20-13, with all Democrats voting against. Despite the changes in committee, Democrats argue that the bill looks to erect new hurdles to women's right to abortion. The legislation looks to ensure there are no gender-based abortions by authorizing fines and prison terms of up to five years against doctors who perform these abortions, and requires health professionals to report suspected violations of the law. "This legislation violates a woman's right to privacy as affirmed by the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade," Conyers said after the committee approved the legislation. "The bill would require doctors to police their patients, undermining patient-doctor privilege. It limits a woman's right to choose and jeopardizes her access to safe, legal medical care." Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) said when he introduced the bill that his aim is to ensure equal rights for unborn children. In December, his office put out a statement saying, "A minority baby is currently five times more likely to be aborted than a white baby, and nearly half of all black babies are aborted, with over 70 percent of abortion clinics being located in predominantly minority neighborhoods. "Our innate sense of human fairness should make it abundantly clear that aborting a little baby because he or she happens to be black or because he or she has been arbitrarily deemed 'lesser' is fundamentally wrong," Franks said.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©